Why The Right Hates American History

I have noticed that when I visit some on my more Right wing blogs that they have different interpretation to some aspect of American history than I had been taught….I have often wonder what’s up with that?

Thomas Jefferson knew that education is vital to a functioning Democratic Republic. Conservatives have other ideas.

Sure, the war on education helps Republican lawmakers destroy unions and slash government spending, but it’s our history of progressive change that makes Conservatives hate accurate depictions of our past.

Just think about Social Security, The New Deal, freeing the slaves, or child labor laws… all represent great turning points in our nation that progressives made possible. The fact is, our entire history – from our revolution to healthcare reform – is filled with progressive accomplishments, and it’s hard to sell the Conservative brand to people who know that history.

Source: Why the right hates American history – Salon.com

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Why The Right Hates American History

  1. I read the link with interest. As a foreigner, I am naturally interested in the way that the US as a country, and many modern commentators there too, cling on so preciously to a document from the 18th century, One side quotes from it to justify one thing, and the other side claims the opposite. The second amendment guarantees that you live in a country with more guns than people, and even the ‘best bits’ of the text are open to interpretation by factions of all kinds.
    It also reminds me just how ‘young’ a country America is, at only 240 years old. It has ‘grown up’ very quickly indeed.
    Perhaps it is time to learn from history once again, but in this case to learn that it was of its time, has little relevance in the 21st century, and needs to be re-thought? (Or even, dare I say, re-written)
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. It is being re-written every day……you can see how so here….since I like history and post about stuff….there are those that try to change the original content to suit their narrative…it is sad….chuq

    2. Beetleypete, the interpretation of the Second Amendment is highly suspect. It was written at a time where had mostly smooth bore, few were rifled, handguns were for pirates, and certainly no assault rifles. But, just about every male, from age 8-10, had one to hunt game for the dinner table. The Colonists also carried them when those darned Redcoats popped-up.

      But, now they want automatic rifles for pheasant hunting, shotguns for target practice, and silencers so that other hunters won’t know they’re around. THE REST OF US WANT AN AMENDMENT THAT GUARANTEES “FREEDOM FROM GUNS”. OR AS THE SAY: “THE RIGHT TO ARM BEARS!”

  2. Conservatism is, by definition, totalitarian and anti-democratic. The notion of conservatism is to return to “the good old days” when “conservatives” ruled with an iron fist over the majority. The majority was powerless, landless and deliberately kept uneducated so they couldn’t figure out how to get out from under the rules of their oppressors. Education (proper education, that is, not brainwashing) is a form of liberation, the Liberation of the Masses, you could say. Conservatives know this and they know that for their rule to re-establish itself after the “fiasco” of allowing public education, is to destroy the basis for such education. Much could be said about this, but that’s how I see it. Suffice to say, there is nothing strange, haphazard or ignorant of the elites when they attack public education, particularly those aspects of it that teach students HOW to think.

  3. Sure, hold a people, any people, down for centuries, and then let ’em loose. Post Civil War, “Freeman” written about that subject, in rural Mississippi, was worse for blacks than under Slavery. Post Apartheid South Africa, the list goes on.

    But, it is important to keep people hostage, in one form or another, for so lon g, relying on The System for their very subsistence, and then tell them: “You’re on your own.”

    That’s the difference between both Germany and Japan, post WWII, the people who belonged to the Nazis or swore their allegiance to the Emperor–but only did s in order to retain their jobs, were kept ON the job, and the basic infrastructure came back.

    In Iraq, Rumsfeld sent Saddam’s well-trained Army home, without pensions or a way to support themselves, but he let them take their weapons and knowledge of where Iraq’s weapons caches were. So, where do you think much ISIS’ leadership came from?

    When you keep a people down, you must give them the basic necessities of life: a public education; food, clothing and housing; a way of supporting themselves, etc. Not to demand them, however, when someone is kept down, barely able to live, true freedom entails allowing them to, first exist, then live, and from there tp thrive.

    Pull the training wheels away carefully. It’s like the old Chinese adage, about” teaching a man, or now woman, to fish being a more caring way, to promote survival capabilities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s