Gotta Love Revisionism
Jan. 15th, 2008 09:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2008-01-18 07:04 pm (UTC)There are a few simple on-the-ground assertions I'll make.
If unemployment (for any reason) is very low, employees will be treated reasonably because they have choices. For example, because there are not many people in my field "market pressures" dictate that someone with my qualifications usually get paid better than someone who studied English or History and is seeking an academic job.
If unemployment (for any reason) is very high, employees will be treated unreasonably because they do not have a choice. This certainly happened during the economic catastrophes of the great depression, where you either risked your life digging tunnels for a few dollars or you basically starved. There is no incentive for employers to treat workers well because they are completely expendable.
While growing up I was completely convinced that the more you worked the less money you had. My parent's owned a farm in the 80's and worked very hard and made very little money. The banker actually had days off and sat around all day and made a reasonable income. I just can't buy the idea that "amount of income and quality of work done" is somehow proportionate on an individual level, even if it might be true on an "average" basis.
To me, the minimum wage is a no-brainer. It's a measure that curtails taking advantage of employees that may not have reasonable choices in whatever circumstances they may be in. If equal pay for equal work happened magically due to the invisible hand of capitalism, that would be great. However, it doesn't...not ALL THE TIME and not for everyone.
When my workplace unionized and we finalized our first contract, a few individuals with in our bargaining unit received 50% increases in wages due to a minimum full-time equivalent salary of $28,000. This is in the University of Michigan system (all of the salaries of everyone working for the State of Michigan including the U of M are part of the public record, btw). So, before unionization some faculty members were getting paid less than your average sales associate at Home Depot, even though teaching at a University requires years of special training requiring thousands of dollars to be qualified.
Now, if the U of M magically paid their lecturers a living wage because it was the right thing to do - or because they actually understood that using their lecturers as cheap expendable labor was destroying their "product" - unionization would not be needed or even desired. Also, if unskilled entry-level jobs automatically paid people what they were actually worth to the company, a minimum wage would not be needed. In fact, having a minimum wage would not affect these companies or the workers because the workers would be compensated above minimum wage due to "market forces". (Which actually is the case for many people - good for them!)
Is industrialization or unionization the reason we enjoy a relatively high quality of life? Even without crushing numbers, I think I can safely conclude that it is both.