Gotta Love Revisionism

[le_bebna_kamni]

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

---

Revisionism is something that occurs to some extent in every generation as values change. For example, indigenous people to the continent were once called "savages" and as a general rule people thought their extermination/forced conversion/reformation was not only desirable but an absolute necessity. Yet today the descendants of these people are given more respectful titles such as "Native Americans" or even the right to refer to themselves as Lakota/Nakota/Dakota as opposed to "Sioux", with a recognition that what our government may have done was reprehensible and perhaps on par with many fascist regimes.

Yet while value judgments about said actions may change (or the respected emphasis that may be placed in our culture on specific events), the facts themselves do not. So while I might have ideological issues with someone trying to apologize for laizez-faire capitalism at the turn of the century by pointing out the rise in the GNP (with the resulting claim that the gap in the highest and lowest incomes was necessary), it's a very different story from someone trying to claim that standards of living and working conditions for the average wage employee were better before union-initiated reforms when in fact the numbers do not support that.

I take particular umbrage with historical revisionists who try to make claims counter to the facts, and who attempt to suppress evidence or make sure at least the mainstream textbooks print only what they want to see. Which is why I am particularly upset with House Resolution 888.

A brief explanation of the resolution: it is trying to create an "American Religious History Week" designated for the first week of May. Of course, further reading of the bill shows that it would be more aptly titled "Christian American Religious History Week", as no other religions are mentioned as being historically important. What is worse, the resolution has a series of dubious historical "facts" that the Congress is being asked to affirm the truth of, to show that the Congress "rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources".

There are several sites that have done the job of debunking for me, so I'm not interested in going over each and every single argument in the tedious document.

However, this raises a very interesting issue: why is our government stepping in and deciding issues of history? Laws punishing people who willingly falsify documents, I completely understand, but deciding what is true or false and potentially leading to a decision of what is taught in our classrooms?

The majority of people in Congress are not trained historians. They're also not trained scientists. But overwhelmingly, I see Congress and our judicial system being called to make judgments regarding history and science that are not within their realms of expertise. At least I can give the judges slightly more credit -- they at least have to sit through presentations given by experts regarding the subject matter to be ruled upon. But Congress has no such requirement, and many such bills are passed without such expert testimony.

For those who support this idea -- that Congress can and should legislate what counts as "science" or "history" -- let me just step back and say, have you considered the ramifications of the state-sponsored truth?

The Soviet Union was very quick to decide what was history and what was science, supporting T.D. Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian genetics and causing starvation because Lysenko's falsified "theories" were more in line with communist ideology. The USSR was also well known for its photo-editing and its "revisionist" state-mandated textbooks, cutting out key public figures that had in some way fallen out of favor with the current regime and selectively interpreting past relations with the US.

Rather than relying on open discussion by qualified experts, the government of the Soviet Union stepped in to make sure that the correct "truth" -- i.e., only the message they wanted people to hear -- was being told. And this is what our government is trying to do with House Resolution 888. It isn't trying to establish principles on which good historical research should be based -- rather it is actively trying to determine what truth should be recognized, regardless of the methods used.

Since I can think of no other reason why people would want regulation of "truth" itself without caring about the methods for acquiring such "truth", it can only be construed as an issue of propaganda meant to further an ideological agenda. If you like the idea that we're following in the fine tradition of the Soviet Union, please feel free to support House Resolution 888.

However, if you think freedom goes hand in hand with allowing independent experts -- not untrained government officials -- to decide what is history or science, please contact your local representative and tell them not to support this resolution.

Comments

[le-bebna-kamni.livejournal.com]

For reference, here is what the back of a dollar bill in 1928 looked like:



I believe our modern bill was designed in 1957. So even if for some reason it represents the Christian god (and not paganistic traditions as I've seen fundies claim), it still doesn't reflect our founding fathers.

But there are people alive today who were old enough to remember the 1957 change. Do we really have such short memories that we think the dollar bill was always that way?

[le-bebna-kamni.livejournal.com]

And I forgot to add one more thing: I have seen pseudo-historical sites that say that the all-seing eye was accepted by Congress from the very beginning, but not used on currency. I am inclined to accept this at least marginally on the basis that many of our founding fathers were members of "secret societies", as was the fashion for the day, and can be confirmed by more reputable sources. This trend also became popular around the turn of the twentieth century, and it isn't that strange to hear of very intellectual men subscribing to spiritualism and joining Masons or other societies.

However, I hardly think that Masonry supports the idea that our founding fathers were conservative Christians.