We had to take down Saddam! He’s a brutal dictator! He gassed his own people and invaded Kuwait!
Certainly true, but very little of that could have been achieved without our help. Let's not forget the decade or so the Reagan and Bush I administrations spent propping him up, providing him with chemical weapons, and granting tacit approval to the invasion of Kuwait? Or how we allowed the anti-Saddam resistance we promised to support collapse back in ’92? Wasn’t there a better way to lose the lives of 1,500 American troops and spend $200 billion? Is none of this relevant? I find it difficult to believe that Rumsfeld and those folks have all turned over a new leaf and promised never to support dictators again, especially since that’s not at all what they’ve been doing.
Bush brought free and fair elections to Iraq!
One could argue with how free and fair the Iraqi elections were, but it’s fairly clear that Bush wasn’t behind them. In fact, he strenuously opposed them. Bush wanted a national assembly chosen by the hand-picked members of the Iraqi Governing Council. it was only when Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani demanded elections, and crowds of Iraqis held rallies every day in support of elections that would be open to all, did the US relent. This also buys into the conservative notion that history is made by powerful individuals, not the people themselves, but that's another issue.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/iraq_12-02.html
The US had nothing to do with causing the 9/11 attacks!
Well, I won’t try to claim that the attacks were deserved (I can’t think of anyone in the U.S. who claims that, though Chomsky et al. have been accused of it). But the fact is that it was the Reagan administration which trained and funded Osama and the Taliban to fight the Soviets. I realize Reagan is dead, but there are plenty of people still around who were involved in that whole affair; why aren't the being punished? W himself was rather fond of the Taliban when he was governor of Texas and up till 9/11; after the WTC attacks he went to the Taliban and politely asked them, in the name of friendship, to turn in bin Laden. They declined, and only then did we decide to invade Afghanistan.
These are only three small examples. The causes of this may seem simple; we have short attentions spans and short memories, we’re not inclined to think ill of our country, and it’s not wise to confuse ourselves with too much nuance. Rubbish, I say. Rubbish! We didn’t get these ideas out of nowhere; they have to be rammed into our heads from in early age and constantly reinforced.
Looking on the history lessons we give children (and, for the most part, adults) nowadays, what we get is an extremely simplified version of events, with very little time given over to opposing viewpoints. Presidents are heroes, failures, or unknown. Wars have good guys and bad guys. The US spreads democracy and freedom everywhere, and only attacks when provoked.
The problem is not entirely one of blind patriotism; I don’t think we need textbooks that endlessly bash our country either. The problem is that there’s no balance and there’s no gray area. History, as is commonly conceived of in this country, is an endless straight line leading us towards more progress. Not everyone thinks so, and it might be nice to hear from them once in a while. An equilibrium should be achieved between Howard Zinn and what we have now.
I doubt anyone here has ever read 1066 and All That, which was a satire of British history textbooks (written 73 years before America the Book) but one of its more pointed jokes was the constant tendency to group historical figures and events in one-dimensional categories. I remember this passage especially:
Henry the VII overthrew Richard III, who was Bad all around, and paved the way for Queen Elizabeth, which was definitely a Good Thing. But, he was notably cruel to his own wife, thus making him a Good King but a Bad Man.I think whoever wrote that might’ve gotten a job with Houghton-Mifflin.
