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.
2 comments:
"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?"
Perhaps it is more important to consider the effects rather than the intents of U.S. actions. Even if the reasons for either of the Iraq invasions had nothing to do with concern for the Iraqi or Kuwaiti people, the reality is that Kuwait was saved from annihilation and Iraq is free from a murderous tyrant.
"...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"
Yes, indeed. Doesn't this play into the whole "conservative" idea that powerful individuals do play a large role in determining history? If Sistani hadn't rallied his followers, those mass demonstrations would not have taken place. I don't think most conservatives believe that ordinary people cannot make history; the idea is more that a powerful leader is needed to unite and rally the people into manifesting their common desires into productive action.
"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."
One visit to the Governor's Mansion doesn't indicate a great deal of friendship between W and the Taliban. I think the demand to turn over Bin Laden was our attempt to give the Taliban "one last chance" - not really a way of demonstrating a nonexistent friendship.
It isn't blind patriotism that is the problem with textbooks and the way history is taught. The problem is a lack of analysis. There is not much emphasis placed on causes or effects, whether they portray American actions in a positive or negative light.
- The people of Kuwait don't see it that way; what they see is their corrupt, greedy royal family being bailed out by the West (not just the US; this was an international effort). For them, life under Saddam was basically the same as it was before the invasion and now after.
- certainly al-Sistani played a role, but much less of one than the crowds and crowds of iraqis who gathered every day to dmeand elections and then went to vote in them. That would've happened even if the ayatollah hadn't pushed for it; it's simply that the US viewed Sistani as the 'leader' of the Iraqis, in their narrow understanding of the term.
You don't just invite over a bunch of radical, terrorist-supporting theocrats for no reason, do you? Bush wanted to build an oil pipeline, and was willing to behave cordially with a gang of Islamofascists to do it.
Post a Comment