November 10th 2008
The Lies They Teach: #1 – #3
L
arry Schweikart’s book, 48 Liberal Lies about American History (That You Probably Learned in School) is one infuriating read. It leaves you feeling impotent and frustrated, knowing that the liberals and their revisionist history are doing more to win the next generation than we are. But it’s an important read, so I’ll share quick summaries of the 48 lies here over time. I strongly suggest, however, that you read the book.
The title is almost self-explanatory. Let me just add that it is a review of college-level history text books. Here are lies one through three:
Lie #1: The first presidents intended for the United States to be isolationist.
In his farewell address, [George] Washington urged that the United States stay out of European affairs and make no permanent alliances, a principle that would be a hallmark of American foreign policy for a century and a half. – James West Davidson et. al., Nation of Nations
Of course, Washington spent much of his administration seeking foreign alliances, so any historian should ponder that line from Washington’s final address before drawing such a simplistic conclusion. Schweikart shows that Washington wanted about 25 years of breathing room without hard set alliances so the nation could get strong enough to stand alone, without alliances, if need be. Washington was particularly concerned with alliances entangled by old European prejudices, that he wished to leave to the Old World.
The chapter also deals with the leftist historians’ penchant for turning Jefferson into a pacifist, debunking that theory by reminding us that Jefferson sought, in effect, “an alliance of the willing” to fight the Barbary pirates, and when Europe cowed in fear, he pursued unilateral action. Sound familiar?
Lie #2: The Mexican and Spanish-American wars were imperialist efforts drummed up by “corporate interests.”
Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation … [The Mexican War] was a war of the American elite against the Mexican elite. – Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States
Liberal historians want to look at wars like the Mexican American War and our campaign in the Philippines as proof of our societal racism, because we wage war against brown people. And when we leave when we’re done, in order to not allow us to be disproved as imperialists, these historians make the case that we left because … you guessed it: We don’t like brown people.
To make their case, liberal historians “ignored the eagerness with which our foes entered the wars,” Schweikart says. Mexico’s army was four times larger than ours, and Europe was betting on Mexico as the winner. Wrong. We did win, but the books minimize the brilliance of our campaigns, like how Commodore George Dewey destroyed the Spanish flotilla without losing a single man.
Lie #3: FDR knew in advance about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
Schweikart thoroughly debunks this old myth, but fails to make the case for it actually being taught in college textbooks. Still, I appreciated the chapter because it revealed the same ugliness we see in the 9/11 Truthers Dingbats: That for their theory to be correct, hundreds of Americans would have had to conspire, and stay quiet after the fact.
That’s an atrocious view of America, and Pearl Harbor and 9/11 conspiracists are both beneath contempt.
Posted in America, Books, Higher Education, Leftism, Uncategorized | 2 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
November 18th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Comments