– Jean-Francois Revel
Seeing as how there are no new posts up today, I thought I’d check with FA readers to find out whether any of you went out this weekend to see Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine a World without Her”; and to give you a chance to share your thoughts and opinions.
For myself, I saw it yesterday, first showing in the late morning. The theater wasn’t filled; but neither was it empty. I could sense in the atmosphere that all of these movie-goers were of the same political persuasion as myself. And that, ultimately, will be part of the problem with this film.
While I am thrilled that there is a movie out in theaters with a conservative message, and while I agree with, and am sympathetic to, the partisan perspective expressed, I had hoped that D’Souza would make a movie focused more on challenging some of the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky/Ward Churchill worldview history and anti-Americanism that many of us have been fed in public schools and colleges; and less on partisan attacks against President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Why? Because half of America will most likely knee-jerk tune out and dismiss the movie as partisan propaganda rather than give it the serious attention it merits.
The film addresses 5 indictments made by many on the left about America. But it only scratches the surface in how it challenges some of the liberal-view beliefs about America’s shamefulness. I have not read the book, so I don’t know if D’Souza gives more in-depth arguments and analyses against the Howard Zinn narrative on American history.
While I don’t totally dismiss Zinn’s American history, I find where it primarily is at fault is in its lopsided, agenda-driven perspective in painting an incomplete portrait of our nation’s past (and how he feels about its present). What I fear is that rather than an honest, balanced look at the United States, conservatives will buy into a pro-America propagandistic perspective that is also flawed, inaccurate, and dishonest.
Liberal reviews that I’ve seen are unsurprisingly hating the film and dismissing it. Conservative movie-goers are loving it. What needs to happen is the creation of a historical narrative that is honest, viewed in context to the times, balanced in perspective, and pro-American while acknowledging the sins of our past. There are both liberals and conservatives who celebrate Independence Day and who love our country. There should be a film that can resonate with both sides of the political aisle and make us all deeply proud and unapologetic in calling ourselves “American”.
A few books (off the top of my head) I recommend:
A Patriot’s History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen
The Heritage Guide to the U.S. Constitution by Edwin Meese
Jean Francois Revel’s Anti-Americanism
10 Big Lies About America by Michael Medved
3 Big Lies About the Vietnam War Michael Medved Show (radio program)
An American Amnesia by Bruce Herschensohn
America: The Last Best Hope by Bill Bennett
Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
-Pg 163-165, Black Rednecks and White Liberals excerpt:
Even those Western leaders who sought to end slavery are condemned by critics today for not having done it sooner or faster. The dangers and constraints of their times have too often been either ignored or brushed aside as mere excuses, as if elected leaders operating under constitutional law could simply decree whatever they felt was right.
Even a sympathetic biography of George Washington, for example, said: “He had helped to create a new world but had allowed into it an infection that he feared would eventually destroy it.” This statement is breathtaking in its assumptions. Washington did not “allow” slavery, which existed on American soil and around the world before he was born, nor did he have the option to decree its end. Even to have made slavery a public issue at the time would have accomplished nothing except to jeopardize the survival of a fragile coalition of newly independent states. Yet this man who contributed more than anyone else to the introduction of free republican government in the modern world is widely seen as being under a moral cloud, as if he had chosen to introduce or abet slavery. Washington’s actual behavior illustrated what Adam Smith had said, decades earlier, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, that a man prompted “by humanity and benevolence,” when he cannot establish the right, “will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.”
Abraham Lincoln, who took advantage of a military conflict to stretch his powers as commander-in-chief to the point of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, has been downgraded in the post-1960′s world for not having done it sooner, more sweepingly, with more fervent moral rhetoric, and with affirmations of the equality of the races thrown in. The serious legal and political risks that Lincoln took when he emancipated Southern slaves are ignored. There was no groundswell of public opinion, even in the North, for freeing slaves. On the contrary, in a war-weary nation it was feared that the Emancipation Proclamation would stiffen Southern resistance and reduce the chances of an early negotiated settlement of a conflict that killed more Americans than any other war, before or since.
Lincoln himself was unsure what the net military effect of the proclamation would be. Yet military necessity was the only rationale that had either a constitutional basis or a political chance of being accepted. Those in later times who judge only by words may be disappointed that Lincoln did not make a ringing moral case for emancipation. But seldom, if ever, do they ask whether that would have made the proclamation more likely or less likely to survive both constitutional and political challenges. Despite Lincoln’s mastery of moral rhetoric- some consider his Gettysburg Address the finest speech in the English language- the Emancipation Proclamation was written in such dry and dull language that it has been likened to a bill of lading. But Lincoln understood that ringing rhetoric can be as counterproductive in some situations as it is inspiring in others.
To have made the moral case for emancipation in the Proclamation would have undermined its acceptance as a matter of military necessity. The earlier emancipation of slaves in the British Empire likewise invoked military necessity and avoided ringing humanitarian rhetoric, in order to maximize the range of its political support. As a distinguished scholar aptly put it, “we are so conditioned to expecting interest to masquerade as altruism that we may miss altruism when concealed beneath the cloak of interest.”
As it was, Lincoln was viciously attacked in the Democrats’ press for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was this simply a question of his own political career being in jeopardy. Lincoln warned Andrew Johnson “to remember that it can not be known who is next to occupy the position I now hold, nor what he will do” at this critical moment in the history of the nation and of the fight against slavery. William Lloyd Garrison could indulge in ringing rhetoric without regard to the consequences but Abraham Lincoln had the heavy responsibility of consequences squarely on his shoulders as he faced his countrymen- and history. Lincoln had been elected to his first term by a plurality, rather than a majority, and it was by no means certain that he would be re-elected, especially with the controversy over the Emancipation Proclamation swirling around him.
Those who view slavery as an abstract moral issue are as disappointed with Lincoln today as William Lloyd Garrison was at the time. Garrison was dissatisfied with the language of the Emancipation Proclamation and with the fact that it did not decree “the total abolition of slavery,” rather than just its abolition in the Southern states at war. He seemed oblivious to the huge legal and political risks that Lincoln was taking- as many in later times would be when they criticized the limits of his actions and words. But had Lincoln’s real concerns extended no further than the military effects of the Emancipation Proclamation, it would be hard to explain his many and strenuous behind-the-scenes efforts to get slave-holding border states and the Congress of the United States to extend the ban on slavery to the whole country. Garrison’s rhetoric may look better to a later generation but the cold fact is that William Lloyd Garrison did not free a single slave, while Abraham Lincoln freed millions.
Lack of awareness or concern for the context and constraints of the times is only part of the problem of those today assessing such historic figures as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln- or the American nation as a whole.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfVUktKzPSA[/youtube]
D’Souza’s movie doesn’t fully develop an imagined alternate reality where America- the indispensable nation- didn’t come to existence. Would the world be better off today or worse?
I was pleased with the inclusion of Madison Rising’s kick-ass rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner for the closing credits of the film. Here is my all-inclusive video of that song:
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
@Nanny G: I wasn’t thinking in terms of indentured servants so much as immigrants (especially the Irish who had it worse of all), women, and child labor. They certainly had horrendous working conditions. And as you point out, slaves were expensive to replace. Women, children, and immigrants weren’t. If they perished, they just went out and got a replacement. In both cases, be it the large Southern slave owner or the Northern industrialist, they were quite inhumane especially by today’s standards.
Naturally, the Indians had it worse than anyone by far given they were almost extinct by the end of the 19th century but that wasn’t due to working conditions.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
An excellent point. That couldn’t be abolished then anymore than it can be abolished now. About all you can do is confront it when it pops up. People’s views on the matter are theirs and theirs alone. They have to change themselves.
Imagine a world with no people and no countries living off of the American income taxpayers…
If you’re interested in a sci-fi approach to the topic, check out John Birmingham’s “Without Warning”. An entertaining yarn…. 😉
FMB42
ALL THE WELFARE WOULD BE AT WORK, AND THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE MONEY TO HIRE MORE,
THE CHILDREN WOULD BE ON PRIVATE SCHOOL TO GET THE BEST OF TEACHERS,
THE UNIONS WOULD BE DISMANTLE NOT NEEDED, BECAUSE THE WORKERS WOULD BE SECURE AND NO NEED OF THAT CRUTCH TO WORK,
ALL BY THEMSELVES, AND THERE WOULD BE A GREAT CHOICE OF JOBS,
LESS ABORTION OF AMERICANS FUTUR BABY WHO WOULD LIVE,
THE PEOPLE WOULD DANCE , PRAY, AND CARRY THE FLAG IN THE STREETS ALL OVER THE USA,
AND THE USA WOULD AGAIN BE THE MOST RESPECTED IN THE WORLD,
THE MILITARY WOULD BE FIGHTING THE WAR AND WIN IT, AND THERE WOULD NO MORE BE
LOOSING LIMBS OR DEATH, ON THE WAR ZONE, BECAUSE WAR WOULD BE FOUGHT WITH ALL THE WEAPONS PLANES AND TANKS AND ARMOR AVAILABLE BUT LEFT OUT BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PAY SO TO PROTECT THE TROOPS, THAT WAR WOULD BE SWIFT AND TOTAL IN A MONTH,
NO MORE SPENDING YEARS ON A WAR THEY REFUSE TO NAME
IT AS A WAR,
AND NO OTHER COUNTRY WOULD EVER DARE TO ATTACK THE USA, BECAUSE THEY WOULD DISAPEAR FROM THIS EARTH FOREVER,
THE BORDERS WOULD BE SEALED TO ANY INTRUSION AND THE PEOPLE WOULD FEEL SAFE AGAIN AND THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY AND BE HAPPY AGAIN, THERE WOULD NO MORE BE ABUSE FROM ANY POWER,GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE PROCECUTED AND TAKE AWAY FROM THE GOVERNMENT,
WITHOUT DELAY,
David Brickner
HI,
yes but i think it must be because the youngs are being drawn to the UN WORLD GLOBAL COUNTRY talking heads,
INSTEAD OF THE USA, more and more at school most of all,
WHERE THERE ARE NO FLAG NO RECITE THE ALLEGIANCE, THEY SAID THERE IS NO TIME FOR IT,
WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS TO GIVE THAT EXCUSE, AND TRAITORS, TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE THERE IS NO NEED TO LEARN OF THE AMERICA MOVIE, IT SHOULD BE SHOWN IN EVRY SCHOOL OF THE USA, AND WITH ENPHASIS TO SHOW PRIDE TO BELONG TO SUCH A EXTRAORDINARY, COUNTRY THE MOST
EXCEPTIONALIST OF THE WORLD,
SO HOW CAN THE YOUTH BE INTERESTED TO SEE A MOVIE THEY THINK IS FROM THE PAST, IF THEY ARE LEFT IGNORANT OF WHERE THEY LIVED,
IT BRING TO MY MIND A GROUP OF YOUNGS SIGNING A SONG
OF AMERICA IN THEIR WINDOW SEPARATED BY EACH ROOM,
YET SINGNING ALL TOGETHER,
I WAS SO IMPRESS, I ASK FOR A COPY OR YOU TUBE OF IT,
I HOPE SOMEONE MADE A COPY OF IT,
BYE
@another vet:
That’s all true. But what exactly do you think it proves? Being a racist isn’t the same thing as owning slaves. The society that supported slavery in the South supported it in every aspect of its being: economically, socially, institutionally, even religiously . In the North, you were free to be a racist, or not, but you weren’t free to own slaves. This isn’t a relative exercise. The South was what it was: a society built upon slavery and all that entailed. Nothing happening outside its borders is going to change that fact or make it seem less barbaric.
I agree 100%. Only zealots and extremists believe in simple dichotomies in a complex world. The contemporary right in America is a good example of course. Anyone to left of Ted Cruz is a Marxist who wants to destroy America. That’s what I keep hearing, as I don my black hat.
That’s all true. And the majority of Germans were not members of the Nazi party during WWII. The system, the leadership, are the point, not the innocent people caught up in it.
I don’t dismiss this. It’s a two way street though. We also can’t dismiss what happened back then and ascribe no agency to those involved, as if it was just an accident of history. The South chose to maintain slavery as the backbone of their society well past the point when other Western nations had recognized it as an evil institution. And they did so at a high cost. Regardless of why the CW was fought, the end of slavery was an outcome. The hundred of thousands who died deserve the respect and acknowledgment of the good that came out of their sacrifice.
I commend you for your erudition and breadth of historical knowledge. I’ve enjoyed your insights.
@another vet:
I’m not ignoring indentured servitude. But as used it’s also a strawman argument. “Something else bad” isn’t a very compelling argument to use in a debate of this nature.
i am ignorant of why they name the irish indenture slaves,
can someone tell me why,
the word indenture to me is without theets, is it what it mean or what?
@Tom:
That is why some historians argue that the main cause of the War was that it pitted one society built around free labor and the other around slave labor against one another. In other words, it was conflicting labor systems and cultures.
I believe in the principles of our Constitution. Small limited government, strong national defense, enforcement of our laws, checks and balances, and all of the amendments to the Constitution including the Second. I don’t believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be changed through legislation, presidential executive orders, or court decisions. That makes me the extremist wearing the black hat not you according to the left and this administration so you have nothing to worry about. Despite having good friends who are black (unlike just about everyone I know on the left) and supporting individuals like Allen West and Herman Cain, since I despise Obama that makes me a racist in the eyes of the left as well.
I commend you for your erudition and breadth of historical knowledge. I’ve enjoyed your insights.
History is always an interesting subject. There is much to be learned. You obviously like it as well.
another vet
you are the best, knowledgeble and so intelligent, you can take on all the tomcats,
so smoothly,
they don”t know what to type as an answer,
AND YOU ARE MY FRIEND ALSO,
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone: You are my friend as well. You definitely come up with some good one liners. There is no doubt where you stand on the issues.
@Tom:
You’ve made valid points to your argument and we are probably more in agreement than you think. The best advice I can give you based on this thread as well as those in the past we’ve debates on, is to get rid of the abrasiveness. Notice how our debate went from confrontational to one of substance. People who hold opposite points of view than yours will be a lot more open to your opinions or at least they should be if they are open minded. I normally won’t give the time of day to someone who gets in my face which is why I try to avoid talking politics or history with people who don’t share my views. Notice how I don’t respond to Greg etc. any more. In person, I tell them to either drop the subject or shit will happen.
@NanG#1
Dinesh does make some terrific points in his movie. I went to an early show on the Fourth of July.
While this is true in early American, European, Middle Eastern/Asian History…your comment made me think….have “some” of us in America reverted back to this? By virtue of our Government, it being the catalyst, the axle (of modern day history) if you will, for effectively ‘stealing’ (looting) from Americans what isn’t theirs? And then redistributing it to those who did not effectively ‘earn’ it? The ‘creators’ at least, had some ‘skin in the game’. Now it is a dam free for all…”Free” for all…total opposite of ‘Freedom for All’ big misinterpreted difference.
What I also found interesting was the pointing out of the Great Wall of China….in comparison to our Southern Border – China did it for the same reasons to keep people out… where is China’s scorn in the halls of History for that?
Forget the fence! America should have a Wall!!! And no apologies for saying that either.