THE CHANGING HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
When I got those used books at Goodwill, I got an old copy of
A Pocket History of the United States. Since I had been looking for a refresher, how could I pass up one for 50 cents? But there was another interesting aspect to this book: it was written in 1942. Before the PC era. So it's un-PC without specifically trying to be un-PC like more recently written books do. It's both strangely refreshing and extremely jarring to read things like "It was fortunate for the white settlers that the Indians of North America were too few and too backward to be a grave impediment to colonization. ... Armed only with the bow and arrow, the tomohawk, and the war club, and ignorant of any military art save the ambush, they were ordinarily no match for well-accoutured and vigilent bodies of whites." No one talks like that anymore! It's an interesting way to read history.
One of the things that has struck me most about this book so far is the preface. Written in 1942, it rings of patriotism and pride. It's worth it to me to type the whole thing out because rarely do we get to read something like this about our own country. (Please stick with me; I know big blocks of quoted text can make my eyes swim too):
America emerged out of obscurity into history only some four centuries ago. It is the newest of great nations, yet it is in many respects the most interesting. It is interesting because its history recapitulates the history of the race, telescopes the development of social and economic and political institutions. It is interesting because upon it have played most of this great historical forces and factors that have molded the modern world: imperialism, nationalism, immigration, industrialism, science, religion, democracy, and liberty, and because the impact of these forces upon society is more clearly revealed in its history than in the history of other nations. It is interesting because, from its earliest beginnings, its people have been conscious of a peculiar destiny, because upon it have been fastened the hopes and aspirations of the human race, and because it has not failed to fulfill that destiny or to justify those hopes.
The story of America is the story of the interaction of an Old World culture and a New World environment, the early modification of the culture by environment, and the subsequent modification of the environment by the culture. The first European settlers in America were not primitive men, but highly civilized, and they transplanted from their homeland a culture centuries old. Yet the United States was never merely an extension of the Old World: it was, what its first settlers anticipated and its founding fathers consciously planned, something new in history. The unconquered wilderness confronting the pioneer from the Atlantic to the Pacific profoundly modified inherited institutions and gave rise to wholly new institutions, and the intermixture of peoples and races modified inherited cultures and created, in a sense, a completely new culture. The new United States became the most ambitious experiment ever undertaken in the deliberate intermingling of people, in religious toleration, economic opportunity, and political democracy--an experiment perhaps still under way.
European historians and commentators, admitting readily enough the substantial virtues of the American people and the value of their political experiments, long asserted that American history was nevertheless colorless and prosaic. It is, on the contrary, dramatic and picturesque, and cast in heroic mold. There are few parallels in modern history to the drama of the swift expansion of small and scattered groups of people across a giant continent, the growth of a few struggling colonies into a continental nation of fifty states, or the spread of a new culture and of new social and economic practices so swiftly to the four quarters of the globe.
Makes your heart swell, huh? That was written by Nevins and Commager, the authors of the book. That was the United States in 1942. And then something happened, something that changed our nation forever. I don't exactly know what it is. My husband and I wonder about it often, why it is that WWII was the last justified war, why the Greatest Generation receives a praise no longer given to men, why no one speaks of the United States being "cast in heroic mold" any longer.
Nevins passed away before the updated edition of the book, so Commager wrote the preface alone in 1976. See for yourself what happened to the United States between these editions.
The first edition of this history was written at the beginning of World War II and was designed to present and interpret the American historical record not only to the English-speaking world, but also to the peoples of all nations who were interested in the evolution of the first constitutional and first democratic society at a time when both constitutionalism and democracy were in mortal peril. In the thirty-five years since its preparation, it has gone through five revisions and enlargements and has been published in most of the languages of the world.
This sixth edition appears as the United States celebrates or recalls two hundred years of independence. The decade since the last edition has been the most challenging, and perhaps the most sobering, since that of the Civil War and Reconstruction. In its preoccupation with war, its succeptibility to large-scale corruption, and its attack upon the integrity of the constitutional system, it discloses interesting analogies to that earlier decade. Thus, this last decade, too, has been a time of trial and disillusionment. It witnessed on the world stage a meaningless and futile war that did infinite damage to a distant people with whom we had no legitimate quarrel, and did irreparable damage to the social, economic, and moral fabric of our society. It witnessed on the domestic stage the ignominy of Watergate and all its attendant evils. It marked, in a sense, the real end of American innocence--the end of that long era that stretched from the Declaration and the Constitution to the Marshall Plan and the launching of the United Nations, when Americans could consider themselves as in some sense exempt from the truth of History and when they could take for granted that Nature and History permitted them to enjoy higher standards of conduct and of morals than the nations of the Old World could afford to indulge. It marked the end, too, on both the domestic and the international scene, of those concepts of an infinity of land and resources, of geographical and moral isolation, and of a special destiny and a special mission, which had bemused the American mind from Jefferson to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whether a United States chastened by experience and matured by failure can adapt herself in the third century of her existence to a new position in the world remains for the future to discover. Clearly she has the capacity to do so: immense natural resources, sound institutions, a proud heritage, and a people as competent to meet challenges and overcome trials as any in the world. There is no reason why she should not emerge from the current crisis more dedicated to the values and potentialities of her Constitution, more ardent in her response to her obligations to be vigilant against usurpations of power, more intelligent in setting the limits on that power, and more magnanimous in its exercise.
This is the same man who wrote the first preface. What happened? What turned him from pride in the greatest nation on earth to words like "meaningless and futile", "irreparable damage", and "chastened by experience and matured by failure"? The first half of our history contained slavery and a Civil War, yet there was no talk in that preface of "attendant evils" or "the end of American innocence." I wasn't alive, I don't understand; what happened to our country in the second half of the last century to make us so ashamed of ourselves?
Why do we measure the greatness of the US from the "Constitution to the Marshall Plan" and resent everything that came after?
The United States is the only place on this forsaken planet I would ever want to live, but we have some serious problems. Why can we no longer see our greatness?
Posted by: Sarah at
05:35 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1403 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Historiography, or the way history is interpreted, has got to be one of my favorite aspects of studying history. Someone's interpretation of a historical event says so much more about their contemporary time and context, than the actual event they are writing about. When I did my final exams for my Master's I had to prep a topic called "The Origins of the Cold War," and depending on which era it was written in, the origin (and blame) lay with someone else. In the early 50s it was all blamed on Stalin, then a little later, all on American aggression, and then in the late 70s and early 80s it was a little of both, and then once the Russian archives were opened after the fall of the USSR there was even more added to the mix. Pretty interesting stuff...and good point about how slavery was something that was okay to look over in the 1940s, but in the wake of Vietnam there was such shame.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at November 27, 2006 06:33 AM (deur4)
2
It is so sad that we're rewriting our history to make us look less than what we are. I blame the colleges, which are filled with leftists.
We need to reclaim!
Posted by: Nancy at November 27, 2006 07:12 AM (8i2KG)
3
What happened? Vietnam. That's what he's talking when he uses words like "meaningless and futile" and "irreparable damage." Slavery and the Civil War were domestic American issues that we took care of. That's fine. But wars like Vietnam and Iraq hurt our integrity worldwide, obviously. Thanks for the post - it's rather eye-opening if you think about it. Or you could be like Nancy and not think at all.
Posted by: Will at November 27, 2006 07:40 AM (QRBGL)
4
Ah, good. Will's here doing his level best to support his pet meme. Oh dear, am I also not thinking at all?
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 27, 2006 10:54 AM (MKaa5)
5
"Slavery and the Civil War were domestic American issues"...huh? Slavery, at least in its earlier days, was all about kidnapping Africans and bringing them the the U.S. Hardly a purely domestic issue, unless Africa is somehow part of the U.S. The Civil War disrupted the flow of cotton to the British textile mills, and threw hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions--of millworkers out of their jobs.
Why precisely would Commager (and Will) think that what we were trying to do in Vietnam was morally different from what we did in the Phillipines?
I suspect that Commager's opinion was influenced by the prevailing academic climate: it was popular to be patriotic in 1942; it was popular to anguish about America's lost soul in 1976.
Posted by: david foster at November 27, 2006 10:54 AM (SpkYG)
6
I think David may be right about the author's new pc feelings in the 1976 edition.
I am now 70, I remember WWII vividly. I remember the patriotism. I am going to get some criticsm here but I think the communist left in academia is responsible for a lot of the change. My husband retired 8 years ago after teaching in a college for many, many years. I know what I didn't at the time, Joe McCarthy was on to something. He may have been a drunk, he may have been a real crazy jerk but he knew the communists were trying to take over. I was a liberal in those days. My eyes are opened now. It took Carter to do it. Then all the information that is even now coming out of the Soviet union files tells us he was right. Have you ever read a communist manifesto from the 1940's? If I can find one I will try to email it to you. A lot of it has come to pass.
Posted by: Ruth H at November 27, 2006 11:42 AM (hJW8i)
7
CORRECTION
I meant to say Humanist Manifesto in my post. I'm searching for one I can send.
Posted by: Ruth H at November 27, 2006 02:29 PM (hJW8i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BEATING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL AGAIN
A few weeks ago I asked
what was wrong with our country that women were encouraged to covet Gucci luggage and expensive suits. Today I ask again. I just saw a segment on Fox where they talked about the worst possible Christmas gifts. I watched an "expert" say that the worst thing you can buy for your spouse is something practical. An appliance, something for the house, or even a foot massage bath? All wrong. Jewelry, that's the ticket. No wonder Americans' financial priorities are all out of whack. You know what I'm getting for Christmas? A washer. And my husband's getting a dryer. No jewelry, no gadgets, not even used paperbacks. We're getting practical things because we're adults and we don't need to spend money frivolously just to prove that we're in love. I must be the most horrible wife in the world because I give my husband what he wants for holidays: a contribution to his Roth IRA. I didn't realize that I had to throw money down a hole in order to show my love for him.
Where do they come up with these people who dole out this absurd advice? No wonder everyone in this country is drowning in consumer debt.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:07 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Chalk my husband and I up as a couple that also gives practical gifts. We have been married 12 years and always use December (also our anniversary) to max out contributions to our 401K each year. This year for our anniversary I got him a new mattress set and be frame so he could sleep in comfort when he returns home from this deployment. Last year I got a roomba which I love, so I am hoping this year I get a scooba so it can scrub the floors for me. Much better than any diamonds!
And no debt here, kid's college accounts are fully funded, and retirement is mapped out. I guess we are pretty boring!
Posted by: Korin at November 26, 2006 01:10 PM (kQWmi)
2
Oops, make that our Roth IRA, not our 401K. LOL
Posted by: Korin at November 26, 2006 05:14 PM (kQWmi)
3
And why on earth would one ever listen to "so-called" experts from the media on anything. You've got your heads on straight and your priorities clear. Those giving advice are phony numbskulls who need a whack on the side of their head to get what is truly important. When people only think of the next month or so vs. 10 or 20 yrs. are too superficial to take seriously.
Posted by: toni at November 26, 2006 05:54 PM (gk4oU)
4
We just had this same conversation. I have everything I ever wanted and then some. What I need is a new toaster that doesn't burn the bread on the low setting OR a new blender so I make margaritas every night! I'd also be super happy if my boys asked for more Geo Traks from Santa!
Posted by: Angie at November 27, 2006 03:01 PM (ec43W)
5
You guys aren't alone, I always ask for stock. On this years list KBR and General Electric.
Posted by: Mare at November 28, 2006 07:27 AM (3cGBi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FYI
P.S. Gravy has always been the bane of my roasted bird existence, but this year we tried
Alton Brown's version, made from a white roux instead of just stirring in cornstarch and hoping for the best. I used white wine, stock, and the turkey drippings, and it was wonderful.
Posted by: Sarah at
01:28 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
nothing says good cook like excellent gravy!!
Congrats
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at November 24, 2006 06:42 PM (4V65g)
2
I love Alton... *sigh* and yes he does teach gravy making beautifully - which makes the meal so outstanding.
Posted by: Teresa at November 24, 2006 07:53 PM (o4pJS)
3
I confess I keep "Tones" on hand. It's a dry chicken gravy mix I pick up at Costco. It adds flavor, doesn't lump and thickens very nicely. I use the flour roux to start but Tones helps in a pinch.
Posted by: toni at November 25, 2006 02:53 AM (gk4oU)
4
I don't like making the gravy either but Fred said it turned out fine this year. My mother in law's receipe calls for the liver from the turkey (cooked on the stove), turkey drippings, Wondra, Magi Seasoning and Kitchen Bouquet Seasoning...yuuummmmyyyy!
Posted by: Angie at November 25, 2006 04:09 PM (ec43W)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GOOD POINT
Again with the
Lileks:
I understand how some are using the gaffe to draw attention to a greater point re: the hard leftÂ’s attitudes towards the military, but if that wasnÂ’t actually the point Kerry was making then I canÂ’t jump on board and affirm the greater point. That smacks of fake-but-accurate.
He has a point, and we'll leave it at that. And just wait and see what happens next week.
Last night I asked my husband if part of being a grown-up means getting an ulcer every two years. I can see why less than half the country cares about voting: it's entirely too stressful to pay attention. Even when your personal choice is a no-brainer (dude, I vote in Missouri), watching the rest of it unfold is torture.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:46 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So, you are on board with giving someone, Kerry, the benefit of the doubt regarding NOT being anti-military. ThatÂ’s not fake-but-accurate equivalence, thatÂ’s just ignorance.
Sorry, still like your blog.
Posted by: tim at November 02, 2006 07:08 AM (nno0f)
2
No, I truly believe Kerry has utter contempt for the military. But Lileks is right that if he really did mean it to be a joke on Bush, then it's fake-but-accurate to say that this particular instance is a manifestation of his contempt. I have no idea what he meant to say or what's just spin to cover his ass. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that I can't stand the man and think he's a pompous fool. I simply was posting Lilek's observation because I think it's an astute one.
Posted by: Sarah at November 02, 2006 07:56 AM (7Wklx)
3
OK, gotchÂ’a, weÂ’re cool.
That aside, in my humble personal opinion I believe he said EXACTLY what he meant to say considering the tainted history of the man, the context versus where he was speaking, the supposed joke that really doesnÂ’t work, etc, etcÂ… (No need to rehash it all).
Posted by: tim at November 03, 2006 03:55 AM (nno0f)
4
I tend to believe that Charles Johnson had it right when he said "Two words: Occam's Razor." It seems likely he thought the joke would go over well for his audience & didn't expect it to be blasted on YouTube. So he's backtracking. By all means, I think something like that certainly could've come out of that man's mouth. But some people honestly heard the joke and thought he meant Bush from the get-go. So who knows? More disgusting, I think, is
this stuff from ABC News, where they're basically defending Kerry, saying that he's right that stupid people join the military. Sigh.
Posted by: Sarah at November 03, 2006 05:45 AM (7Wklx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GEM
Gnat woke up with an earache on Halloween, which led Lileks to write this
intensely insightful tidbit:
The school party was off, though, and that was a crushing disappointment. At least she didn’t say “it’s not fair.” You never know quite how to respond to that. You want them to believe that things are fair and good and happy and full of sparkly unicorn-dust, and your inner Drill Instructor wants to bark “Suck it up, half-pint! There’s a whole lot more unfairness rolling down the road and you’d best learn how to get out of its way! Now drop and give me 20!” It’s not fair has an impotent and powerless ring to it, and I’m glad she doesn’t say it much. I think I drummed “just my luck” out of her early on, too; that one’s poison. Luck is like Communism – believe in it if you like, just don’t base your actions on it.
My husband and I have begun to talk more and more frequently about how we want to raise our imaginary kids. And this gem of parenting advice -- thrown willy-nilly into The Bleat as only James Lileks can do -- really spoke to me.
My husband loathes people with an external locus of control, people who whine that it's always circumstances or bad luck or fate or someone else's fault that things didn't go their way. We talk constantly about how we can instill personal responsibility in our imaginary kids, and I think this nugget from Lileks is one idea we can keep tucked in our brains for future reference.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:17 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
1
EXACTLY. We are only victims of our own self. Period. At least that's how I look at things, and it sure does make it easier to get through lifes disappointments.....
Posted by: Tammi at November 01, 2006 01:17 PM (3UQTn)
2
My high school physics/calculus teacher always responded to students who complained about something not being fair that "A fair is a place where you ride rides"
Posted by: Peg at November 01, 2006 04:53 PM (JemrD)
3
Sarah,
I think you will like this, Cat blogged on it...
she died laughing
http://aswiftkick.mu.nu/archives/150614.html
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at November 01, 2006 05:16 PM (IVwWm)
4
We have always taught our children that there is no luck. They control the outcome with their actions.
I currently work with a large group of civilians and whenever they have personal problems and begin to complain they come by my desk and state "but my life isn't as tough as yours, Vonn".
Response: "Suck it up. If you can't fix it don't whine about it, truck on!"
Did a lifetime of military association give me this attitude? If so, how can we teach it to civilians? I love my co-workers, but I can't only watch a married man struggle so much, because he wife is out of town on business for 3 weeks and he has to care for his 8 year old son alone AND function at work. Not to mention, Grandma and Grandpa live down the street. Sob, sob, gag!
Posted by: Vonn at November 01, 2006 06:45 PM (/VoEr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
69kb generated in CPU 0.0139, elapsed 0.087 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.0768 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.