The Twisting of History for Ideological Purposes in America's Classrooms

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 16, 2003 | Thomas Sowell

[luckydevi]

One of the reasons our children do not measure up academically to children in other countries is that so much time is spent in American classrooms twisting our history for ideological purposes.

"How would you feel if you were a Native American who saw the European invaders taking away your land?" is the kind of question our children are likely to be confronted with in our schools. It is a classic example of trying to look at the past with the assumptions -- and the ignorance -- of the present.

One of the things we take for granted today is that it is wrong to take other people's land by force. Neither American Indians nor the European invaders believed that.

Both took other people's land by force -- as did Asians, Africans and others. The Indians no doubt regretted losing so many battles. But that is wholly different from saying that they thought battles were the wrong way to settle ownership of land.

Today's child cannot possibly put himself or herself in the mindset of Indians centuries ago, without infinitely more knowledge of history than our schools have ever taught.

Nor is understanding history the purpose of such questions. The purpose is to score points against Western society. In short, propaganda has replaced education as the goal of too many "educators."

Schools are not the only institutions that twist history to score ideological points. "Never Forget That They Owned Lots of Slaves" is the huge headline across the front page of the New York Times' book review section in its December 14th issue. Inside is an indictment of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century.

People of every race and color were enslaved -- and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century -- and then only in Western civilization.

Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there.

But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century.

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the total population.

It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.

In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to America, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured. The crew were imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States -- despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal in both Africa and the U.S. at the time.

What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination but what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.

That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost for every six people freed. Maybe that was the only answer. But don't pretend today that it was an easy answer -- or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains, when most leaders and most people around the world at that time saw nothing wrong with slavery.

Incidentally, the September issue of National Geographic had an article about the millions of people enslaved around the world right now. But where is the moral indignation about that?

[theDentist]

"How would you feel if you were a Native American who saw the European invaders taking away your land?"

I'd love to hear a kid reply: "I'd feel like it was a vast mistake not to progress beyond out agricultural society to one more industrial. History shows us that we will lose in the face of progress, like the South did in the Civil War."

[KC_Conspirator]

All you need to do is say, "We win, you lose".

[StrictTime]

Interesting. My heritage is Serbian, which means 'slave'. I have taught my children that their ancestors were slaves, too; through the Grace of God and hard work and sacrifice, they were able to come to this country and be free to improve their lot in life.

Wallowing in the misery of our history is not an option.

[longtermmemmory]

"How would you feel if you were a Native American who saw the European invaders taking away your land?"

Actually they felt nothing initially. They did not believe anyone could actually "own" land. In fact when the indians sold Manhatan to the Dutch, the Indians thought THEY were cheating the Dutch!

It is a matter of whose definition won out. In this case the European defenition won. (now the envirowackos are trying to change it to only animals can own land)

I believe it is more a matter of couching all history in "the founding fathers are baaaaad" and "all european history is wroooooong or eeeevil." (other than communism, maxism, and fascism according to the left.)

It is the Hitler approach, if the Left (like GLSEN) control the children, they control the future.

[familyop]

Hmmm. What should we do?

Dig for documents and re-write the truth, maybe?

http://familyops.us/anthonyproject/

Conservative historians are more than welcome to follow the trails to the original documents and write even more of the truth. The work behind the URL above was only written to get attention and provide those trails. Thus, the odd mix of opinion column, links and citations.

[mushroom]

It's always good to remember that the "noble American Indian" was still in the stone age when the Europeans arrived. Like many before them, they lost to a technologically superior foe. Much like the Brits lost to the Romans and the Australian aborigines lost to the Brits much later. The big difference is that the Indians had been separated from the rest of humanity by previously uncrossable oceans and had never developed immunity to the diseases the Europeans brought.

[bvw]

What's really ironically funny is that "Native American" is worse than "Indian", pc-wise. "American" is from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian who went to work for Spain -- just like the European imperialist tyrannt and slave-master Columbus!

What an INSULT!

Especially since the scorned term "Indian" is a derived from reference to the eco-friendly vegetarian Ghandi-cousins, the Hindus.

[longtermmemmory]

I bet you have an interesting and fun conversation when some Jessie Jackson type says you can't understand because your ancestors were not slaves.

[dpa5923]

This short article reiterates what I tell my liberal friends. White Europeans conquered this land and enslaved its people because we beat everyone else to it.

If the rest of the world were faster, they would have done the same to Europe.

[AmericanVictory]

Imagine how you would feel if you were a young Aztec and you were about to have your heart torn out and be sacrificed to Aztec gods, and some Spaniards interrupted, killed those who were about to tear your heart out and invited to follow Christ as your saviour? Wouldn't you think those Europeans were evil for stopping those "spiritual" Astecs from tearing your heart out while you were alive?

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The teaching of false history should be a criminal offense,a felony punishable by imprisonment!

[Gorjus]

you can't understand because your ancestors were not slaves.

Ah, but they were. My family name means 'shepherd' in the original and my ancestors were serfs tied by law to the land they worked. Slaves to the feudal lord. In fact, in the homeland of my ancestors, the Bubonic Plague swept through and required repopulation three times (forced repatriation, like what was done with the reservations for American aborigines). Taking someone from land to which he was bound by law and forcing him to move to another land to which he was bound by law is slavery.

That practice didn't end until . . . . 1945. My own predecessors escaped before then - mostly because the lock to the land was broken when they were needed to feed the labor demands of the industrial revolution.

So yes, I do know what it was like. (And I know you understand the fallacy of Jackson's diatribes as well.)

[longtermmemmory]

I am agreeing with you. The race baiters assume they have a lock on injustice.

[Calpernia]

It really isn't funny. My eight year old was being taught like this a few weeks ago.

[Calpernia]

Hey Spooks, see Familyop's link and review this thread.

[FreedomCalls]

"How would you feel if you were a Native American who saw the European invaders taking away your land?"

How would you feel if you were a pious Christian who saw Aztec "priests" cutting out the still-beating hearts of 50 or more people per day in the Aztec capital city to sacrifice to their gods?

On the morning of November 8, 1519, a small band of bearded, dirty, exhausted Spanish adventurers stood at the edge of a great inland lake in central Mexico, staring in disbelief at the sight before them. Rising from the center of the lake was a magnificent island city, shining chalk white in the early sun. Stretching over the lake were long causeways teeming with travelers to and from the metropolis. Tenochtitlán, the capital of the Aztec empire, now known as Mexico City. ...

Slightly more than a year and half later, in the early summer of 1521, it was a glimpse of hell. ... Sixty-two of their companions had been captured, and Cortés and the other survivors helplessly watched a pageant being enacted a mile away across the water on one of the major temple-pyramids of the city. ...

"The dismal drum of Huichilobos sounded again, accompanied by conches, horns, and trumpet-like instruments. It was a terrifying sound, and when we looked at the tall cue [temple-pyramid] from which it came we saw our comrades who had been captured in Cortés defeat being dragged up the steps to be sacrificed. When they had hauled them up to a small platform in front of the shrine where they kept their accursed idols we saw them put plumes on the heads of many of them; and then they made them dance with a sort of fan in front of Huichilobos. Then after they had danced the papas [Aztec priests] laid them down on their backs on some narrow stones of sacrifice and, cutting open their chests, drew out their palpitating hearts which they offered to the idols before them."

... No human society known to history approached that of the Aztecs in the quantities of people offered as religious sacrifices: 20,000 a year is a common estimate.

[John Will]

THings they don't teach you in school.
A stone age civilization in the north, follwed by a brutal socitey.

[FreedomCalls]

Oh shoot! You beat me to it. I didn't read down and quickly composed my answer right away. Thank you for saying what I always try to point out when the notion of the "peaceful natives" comes up. The Aztecs were brutal and evil. If I saw them as Cortés and his men did, I would have vowed then and there to do everything I could to utterly destroy them and the way of life they were living. No moral question about it. We, and they, are better off for what Cortés and his men did.

[familyop]

Thank you, Ma'am. I think it's pretty well cached around the Net now (and in quite a few university machines), so it will stay.

...think we might have a stronger defense, longer, if more young families stay together? ...could be a better answer than those social answers certain contractors were offering decades ago (i.e., a world of singles, like the Roman Empire nearly had at some point in time).