Blog Archives

November 11th 2008

The Lies They Teach: #4 And #5

L

arry Schweikart’s 48 Liberal Lies about American History (That You Probably Learned in School) is continuing to infuriate me, which is a good thing.

I’m providing quick summaries of the lies, but the book is rich in detail and I strongly suggest you read it.

The title is almost self-explanatory. Let me just add that it is a review of college-level history text books. Here are lies four and five:

Lie #4: Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombing of Japan to intimidate the Soviets with “Atomic Diplomacy.”

Truman agreed with [James] Byrnes that use of the bomb would permit them to “out maneuver [sic] Stalin on China,” that is, negate the Yalta concessions in Manchuria and guarantee that Russia would “not get in som much on the kill” of Japan or its occupation. – Arnold Offner, “Another Such Victory,” 1999

The theory that Pres. Truman used the bomb to intimidate the Soviets instead of conquer Japan is a theory, Schweikart shows, that only an academic could concoct.

The revisionists start by revising the estimates of U.S. war deaths that would occur Operation Olympics by first declaring the stated estimates wildly over-estimated – the “casualty myth,” they call it – then conjuring up their own, lower, estimates based on numerous  false assumptions.  They also reject actual documents in Japanese and Soviet archives in favor of their own conclusions – even the Japanese deputy chief of staff of the Japanese Army General Staff, who wrote, “There is nothing we can do about the … atomic bomb.  That nullifies everything.”

Schweikart didn’t go into it, but I believe this lie is fired by elitist fires.  Truman had the misfortune of assuming office, unelected, following the most elite of all elites, FDR.  This haberdasher from the Midwest could not be allowed to do anything right, and liberal elite historians have worked hard to miscast him.

Lie #5: John F. Kennedy was killed by LBJ and a secret team to keep him from getting us out of Vietnam.

This is another of the lies Schweikart includes not so much because it is dwelt on in college texts, but because liberal profs, fearful of being called part of the education establishment, frequently let students go to sources beyond the required text books – books like Barr McClellan’s Blood, Money & Power:  How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.

I’m sure I don’t have to re-hash this for C-SM’s audience; suffice it to say that Schweikart presents five different JFK myths and quickly dispatches them all in a flood of big facts and juicy details, including good stuff on Jack’s real position on Vietnam vs. the recasting of that position for the benefit of Bobby.

Previous in this series:

The Lies They Teach: #1 – #3

Share

17 Comments »

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.

Share

2 Comments »

September 18th 2008

Great Moments In Higher Education

E

nglish prof Andrew Kent Hallam of Metro State University in Denver gets the Proving Academics Are Bigoted Idiots Award today for this, courtesy of Denver’s CBS news:

Metro State College is investigating a professor who asked students to write an essay critical of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them.

“I was shocked, I was holy cow, this is just an open door for him to discuss politics with us,” said Jana Barber, a student in the class.

Barber shared the first class assignment with CBS4. Instructor Andrew Hallam asked students to write an essay to contradict what he called the ‘fairy tale image of Palin’ presented at the Republican National Convention.

“What the faculty’s responsibility is to provide opportunity for critical thinking and civic engagement so bringing something of relevancy into the classroom was the faculty’s goal,” said Cathy Lucas, spokeswoman for Metro State. “Should he have broadened it and included all the political figures, yes.”

Leftist that he is, Hallam refused to talk to defend his position to the media.  Instead, leftist that he is, he changed the assignment.

hat-tip:Jim

Share

No Comments yet »

« Prev

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here