Posted on 01/31/2003 10:35:25 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 1/30/2003 6:20 PM
HIGHLANDS, N.C., Jan. 30 (UPI) -- This here's the 335th Report ta the Folks Back Home from the (More er Less) Honorable Billybob, cyberCongressman from Western Carolina.
The two big subjecks rat now r Gulf War II n the state ov the U.S. economy. President Bush addressed both subjecks in his State ov the Union address Tuesday night. We'll take a look atta firs item, the impendin war agin Iraq. In partic'lar, we'll look at one part ov the opposition ta that war, namely "historians."
Yer Congresscritter hazza mild innerest in history, but ma able assistant, J. Armor, Esq., izza act'al student, n once wazza Perfessor ov Political Science. So I'll turn this over ta him.
Historians Against History (HAH!)
A group calling itself "Historians Against the War" has issued a statement condemning any war against Iraq, and has put up on its website a list of 1,000 "historians" who have signed on as supporters of this statement. Two questions arise: Are these people really historians? And, do they reach their position from a clear-eyed view of world history, or from other factors having little to do with history?
Let's start with their statement. "We historians call for a halt to the march toward war against Iraq. We are deeply concerned about the needless destruction of human life, the undermining of constitutional government in the United States, the egregious curtailment of civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad, and the obstruction of world peace for the indefinite future."
Where did this statement come from? On Jan. 3, at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, some 50 historians from various universities appointed a committee to draft this statement and to seek signers who supported it. The Web site for the effort is (perhaps deliberately) fuzzy about this, but this is NOT an official action of the AHA.
We will play two games today. One is called "spot the non-historian." The other is "feel the bias." For those who want to play along, here is the Web site address for the Statement, the list of 1,043 plus supporters, and various eye-opening tidbits:
http://chnm.gmu.rhr/haw.htm
To discuss the list of signers, I took a sample of the first signer, the 11th, and every 10th one to the end. So it is a random, 10 percent sample. The list used was as of Jan. 23, so future visitors to the Web site will find additional names and perhaps slight changes as obvious typographical errors are corrected.
The first name is Abdul-Abad, Saiful-Islam, at the University of Central Florida; entry 241 is from the same university. That sort of sets the tone for what follows. If you are a bear for detail or are looking for your alma mater, plow ahead. If not, skip the next four paragraphs.
These entries show these universities represented: 11 - Ohio State; 31 - California, at Santa Cruz; 61 - SUNY at Binghamton; 71 - Carnegie Mellon; 81 - Kutztown; 91 and 371 - Columbia; 101 and 221 - Rutgers; 111 - Texas, at Austin; 121, 261 and 271, 391 - NYU; 131 - MIT (it says "RMIT," almost certainly a typo); 151, 641 and 791 - Wisconsin, at Madison; 161 and 611 - UC, Davis; 171 - Southern Connecticut State; 181 and 351 - California, Berkeley; 191 - Knox; 201 - North Carolina; 211 and 721 - Wisconsin, at Milwaukee.
The second quarter of the sample is: 251 - Cal State, at Long Beach; 281 and 591 - Michigan; 291 - Hood College; 301 - Notre Dame; 311 - Indiana; 321 - Texas A&M; 331 - Washington U, Missouri; 341 - Richard Stockton College; 361 and 831 - Towson; 401 - Franklin & Marshall; 411 - Chicago; 421 - Middle Tennessee State; 431 and 711 - Harvard; 441 - Smith; 451 - Cal State, at L.A.; 461 - Wabash; 471 - Maryland; 491 - Northwestern.
The third quarter is: 501 - Philadelphia; 511 - Perdue; 531 - Columbia College; 561 - Drury; 571 - Colorado, at Boulder; 621 - Tulsa; 631 - Vermont; 661 - NC, at Chapel Hill; 671 - Amherst; 731 - Michigan State; 741 - Pennsylvania.
The fourth quarter is: 751 - Truman State; 761 - Morgan State; 771 - Temple; 781 - Arizona; 811 - Iowa; 821 - Kansas; 841 - UCLA; 851 - Dutchess Community College; 861 - Caltech; 871 - Century College; 881 - Millikin; 891 - Piedmont Community College; 911 - McGill (a Canadian university); 921 - Central Florida; 931 - Vassar; 941 - Yeshiva; 951 - Duke; 961 - Adrian College; 991 - Valparaiso; 1001 - Bard College; 1011 - Colorado, at Denver; 1041 - Cincinnati.
The alert reader will have noticed that exactly 17 entries from the sample of 104 are not identified by college or university. Here's why: Entry 21 is from the American Antiguarian [sic] Society; 51 gives a name, and then says just "University." These give a name but no university: 41, 381, 541, 551, 581, 651, 681, 701 and 901. And 521 and 601 give a college, but no name.
Entry 141 says "ABC-CLIO;" 231 says "Infonomics South Africa;" 691 is from the Autry Museum of Western History; 971 is from Radio Free Maine (I am not making this up). And last, these universities are listed: Fashion Institute of Technology and London College of Fashion. What is the specialty of these scholars, the history of hemlines? And this is not to mention the three known high school teachers listed, one from my own school. They may be fine teachers, but by no stretch of the imagination are they historians.
Based on the sample of 104, the list of supporters signing the statement has about a 20 percent error rate on its face. And that is without investigation to find out whether some of the signers are students, not professors. In short, for historians this is very sloppy work. I give it an F.
Those interested in the continuing decline of American education at all levels may be interested in this wrinkle. From the 10 percent sample, of those who can be identified fully 22 are from private institutions, but 55 are from public universities. The salaries of the latter are being paid by the taxpayers of their states. To be conservative, every institution I did not know was definitely public, I assigned as private.
But even more important than the nature of the signers, is the possible biases of the organizers of this effort. When supporters only have to sign their names online, and then go out for a vegetarian lunch and feel good for the day, the effort is driven entirely by the organizers. What does the Web site say about them?
The main page offers just one link to anything other than Historians Against the War. That link would not be highlighted unless it reflected the policy views of the organizers. We click on that and find a number of historical pleasures. First is "An Open Letter from American Historians Regarding the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal." For those who have not followed that case, Mumia is a criminal and black radical who is on death row for shooting a Philadelphia policeman in the head as the officer lay wounded on the ground. This is a group that supports black racism. It is on the same Web page as Radical History Review.
We click on the Table of Contents for Radical History, and find the following. An anti-Christian analysis of West German identity after World War II; a discussion of sexual and racial politics in French unions; a discussion of the film Germinal, and teaching Class and Industrial Capitalism through Film; and a discussion of two films to teach Colonialism, Race, and Globalization in French History. Full texts available on the page include one on the rap song "Cop Killer" and another on "Whiteness" and politics; seven articles on various aspects of imperialism; two on homosexuals; five on women's sexual history; and a review of the King James Bible by the co-editor of the Review, which is listed as "Humor."
At this point, the line from Captain Renault in "Casablanca" should come to mind. "Round up the usual suspects." The organizers of this effort do not view their role as gathering the facts about the past in order to explain it for application today and in the future. Instead, they view their role as "deconstructing" or taking apart the past, to rearrange selected facts to support their social and political views. In their view, the United States is wrong because it is sexist, racist, capitalistic and imperialistic. Their goal is to bring students and others to their way of thinking, so the government and economy of the United States as it now exists, will be brought down.
Is that too harsh a judgment? At bare minimum, historians should be able to pull history books off the shelf and find examples in those pages to illuminate present conflicts. Presumably, these historians have heard about World War II --- it was in all the papers. In the three years prior to America's 1941 entry into World War II there was an organization in the United States called America First. The argument of that organization (very like Susan Sarandon in her infamous ad now) was that "Hitler is not doing anything to us." So we should stay out of the war that was already underway.
America First attracted the support of significant numbers of German-Americans who did not want their nation (America) to go to war against their ancestral nation. It attracted a number of pacifists, who did not concern themselves with the agendas of the organizers. Sadly, it had as its figurehead leader the well-respected Charles Lindbergh. But the people actually running America First included communists, Nazis, and others whose goal was to change, or destroy, the government of the United States as it existed. America First collapsed in a heap when the United States entered World War II.
Competent historians would have applied the lessons and knowledge of America First to the A.N.S.W.E.R. movement and its two anti-war rallies in D.C., which for the organizers were actually anti-American rallies. Anyone who listened to a sample of no more than a half hour of the rhetoric pouring from any of the speakers, knows this. Competent historians would have applied the same lessons to their own "anti-war" effort. These are not competent historians whose views are driven by the facts. Instead, they seem to be "historians" who use facts selectively in order to promote their agenda.
I encourage anyone reading this to go to the Web site of this organization, poke around and read the documents. See if you reach the same conclusion that there is more than a whiff of totalitarianism around this organization.
In my judgment as a historian and former professor, this group has mislabeled itself. It should be called Historians Against History (HAH!). Their effort will wind up as a mere footnote in the history of Gulf War II, just like America First did in World War II. But these "historians" would have known that in advance -- if they'd read a well-researched history book.
--
(About the author: Congressman Billybob is fictitious, but prolific, on the Internet -- the invention of John Armor, who writes books and practices law in the U.S. Supreme Court. Comments and criticisms are welcome at CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net).
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
Enjoy. And lemme know what you think.
Yes sir, the usual suspects. And thanks for the sampling of the signers, how very typical and pathetic of them.
I am reminded of David Low's cartoons from the '30s, in particular one showing Hitler (in Tyrolean costume with a beer stein) speaking with a properly seated and prim Sir John Simon, saying "The more we arm the peacefuler we'll be" (or words to that effect) and Sir John replying something like: "ummm..... well..... provisionally.... perhaps." Also the lovely one of Hitler and Stalin bowing to each other over the prostate corpse labelled "Poland" with Hitler saying "The scum of the Earth, I believe?" and Stalin replying, "The Bloody Assassin of the Workers, I presume?"
Both are reproduced (in the 1966 edition anyway) of probable signer Gordon Craig's Europe since 1815.
I remember the early '70s when I was a graduate student in history, and young leftist graduate students were beginning the long march through the institution with the connivance of their left-liberal and sometimes socialist tenured professor-mentors. So, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.
I am reminded of Santayana's famous comment that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it and Croce's remark that man does not have a nature, what he has is history.
Thanks for sharing it!
I checked all of the signers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where I was a graduate student some 30+ years ago. There were six names listed.
Two of them are not listed among the faculty on the USCB History Department's website.
Of the four who are listed, two list their specialties as "U.S. Women's History", one is listed as a specialist in "U.S. Public Policy" and the other is listed as a "U.S. Labor" historian. Not one of them describes a specialty in European history, Middle Eastern, Asian or African history.
The department's website lists 9 historians whom I knew as a graduate student, eminent men in European, American, African and Asian history. Many of those men are liberals, one was (is?) an avowed socialist and historian of socialism. He did not sign, nor did any of the eminent sernior faculty sign that absurd statement.
What this means, is that it the "historians" who signed this statement are those whose professional interests have not lead them to study any of the significant events in the history of Western Civilization that might give them any perspective in the matter of the coming War with Iraq. Indeed, there opinions are no more valuable than any lay persons.
Somewhere on the order of 100 people had read this before you caught the error. Thank you. Of course, I should have caught it in advance, by checking the link by clicking on it. (Computer 101 says to use that proof-reading technique.)
Cordially,
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.