History Textbooks With Some Varnish Missing
A Links entry from Monday, July 23, 2007History Textbooks With Some Varnish Missing
A poorly written, but nevertheless post-worthy article by The Lede about the politicization of history in Israel and Taiwan. I’m surprised they left out Japan, but I think we should avoid the temptation to be outraged at any of this historical revisionism. At the risk sounding incredibly cliché, all history is appropriated for ideological purposes, including the West’s current patronizing multiculturalist discourse. People in all countries should be more willing to admit that history itself is shaped by political battles, not just military ones, so that we can abandon the naive notion that there exists some sort of objective historical framework from which to judge the accuracy of another country’s textbooks.
Of course, I’m not saying that a country like Japan should be allowed to reduce World War II to a paragraph or, even worse, a footnote. We should be outraged, but we shouldn’t claim that it’s because the “natural” narrative of history has been violated. Instead, we must admit that what upsets us is something purely political in nature (ranging from an ever-present anti-Japanese sentiment to attempts to ‘stabilize’ the political climate in East Asia). If we don’t, we run the risk of depoliticizing history, which, in itself, is political par excellence, but omits its inherent malleability, something that I think is far worse than Israel omitting its “founding crime(s).”
Jason
Careful, you’re starting to sound like one of them no-good America haters.
In any case, I’m inclined to disagree with you. I’m sure that revisionist history is a factor with any nation, but I do think one can argue based on the degrees of alteration, and not sound hypocritical.
Awhile back there was all this clamoring over whether or not American school-children were being indoctrinated with the belief that the US was some angelic presence upon Earth, a beacon for every other nation. Because of this, we did revise our history books, but in a manner that actually made us appear less well-intentioned and righteous.
I know you took US History, so think back to that. We heard stories of the Federalists literally dragging nay-sayers into meeting halls in order to gain a quorum to vote, Adam’s Alien and Sedition Acts, Jackson’s pogroms against Native Americans, the real reasons behind Lincoln’s entrance into the Civil War (and the limited scope of the Emancipation Proclamation), the “evil” nature behind such men as Rockefeller, Edison, Ford, and Lindberg, Roosevelt’s Pax Americana stance in Central America, the whole Phillipines incident, our reluctant entrance into WWII, our embarrasing withdrawal from Vietnam and Korea, that little thing known as Jim Crow, the wasted, misdirected time known as the Cold War, the ulterior motives in the Gulf, and I don’t even need to mention present-day history.
So really, where are our Rapes of Nanking? Have we gone the way of Israel and denied native presence when our founders first arrived? How about that Russian freedom of press? Fact of the matter is, sure, we’ve fucked up in the past…but to my knowledge, there’s been little that hasn’t come out. With how cynical our population is since Watergate, I doubt any politicians would risk hiding something massive only for it to come out in 5 years anyway. I wanted to research some actual incidents of US revisionism, but I’m currently at work. Oh well, thanks for the distraction
Bryan Klausmeyer
Hey, my Internet just came back up.
I think we’re actually partially in agreement. However, I think you should expand your scope of what politicization of history means. The problem in the U.S. is that we’ve come to believe that history is objective, naturalized, depoliticized, etc. when it openly admits the ethical and moral ambiguity of itself. The perceived “apolitical” trend is thus political in itself as a reaction to criticism of being too ideological in nature, but, at the risk of sounding too much like a deconstructionist, isn’t this just masking ideology and thus, in a way, far worse than openly admitting how we perceive ourselves in the context of the historical narrative?
While the U.S. can rewrite its history to be more sensitive to multiculturalist tolerance (the Native Americans were ruthlessly slaughtered at the hands of Westerners), feminist revisionism (women played a long and crucial role in the American polity) and other post-modern considerations, we always read it with a cynical distance or simply skip over it. From my own experiences in U.S. history courses, it’s almost a hilarious folly when the professor spends an entire lecture on the varied and unique ‘local cultures’ of various Native American groups, because, without saying it (and everyone is thinking it)—none of this information will ever find its way onto an exam.
This is the disavowed stance of the tolerant multiculturalist in today’s historical discourse. We can show how much we appreciate the culture of the Other, in so far as it never really alters how our original narrative structures our ideology. This is why, in my opinion, it’s better to be more up front about how one plans on writing history. (But, of course, I think what this means is moving more towards an openly *progressive* historical stance, rather than a patronizing multiculturalist/post-modern one or a racist traditionalist one.)
Take for instance Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Howard Zinn is the historian of politics and the ‘politicizer’ of history par excellence (he wrote The Politics of History as well). Zinn’s forward of APHOTUS, and I’m paraphrasing here, basically states that all of history is selectively choosing certain facts in constructing a story, so we should just admit what kind of story we’re writing, as he does (“I’m writing a story about the people whom the traditional narratives refused to include for whatever disavowed ideological purposes, the reasons for which will become obvious…”).
Jason
Hm, I wanted to use Zinn, but I didn’t know enough about it to feel secure.
Wouldn’t that tactic (admitting our ulterior motives…that ya, we’re going to talk about Native Americans, but who cares)just work to increase cynicism in the long run; it’d be akin to saying that we were inherently forced to include these things in order to placate some minority group.
In any case, I see where you’re coming from. I fully recognize that at this moment, our certain acts of politicization or revisionism can be thought of as an eyesore, or as some careless and disheveled addition, thrown in at the last minute; but its important to picture the long run. Obviously the people reading history books “moments” after the revision (ie ourselves) will roll our eyes, but people down the line will read it without knowing what came first, and in a sense, cementing the history as always there. It sounds like trickery when phrased like that, but I think its important to understand that these things are more meant for the “later” than the “here and now”.
Jason
oh, and I wanted to add this:
“What we do now echoes in eternity” - Ralph
ha.
Bryan Klausmeyer
I absolutely agree that Native Americans and women should be included in our history—it would be ridiculous to assert otherwise. However, we should openly admit how these figures become amalgamated into our current post-modern ideology through libidinal investment. Take, for instance, the figure of the Mayan. Their culture and people were brutally raped and massacred by Cortez and the conquistadors, yes, but the Mayans themselves also practiced ritualized slaughter and cannibalism. Or Martha Washington (not that great of a feminist icon, I have to admit, but off the top of my head…), who refused to free her slaves even after George Washington died and they sold their estate.
There’s a minimum of idealization that goes on and precisely when our idealizations clash with brutal, sobering reality, our libidinal investments can turn violent. This is also the problem with what Agamben calls Homo sacer, the living dead who are the subjects, ironically, of both post-modern humintarian aid *and* Collin Powell’s warfare-without-casualties.
I think we should find a way to incorporate alternative narratives, while openly admitting our ideological purpose, in a way that doesn’t serve to reinforce traditionalist, conservative doxa. I still haven’t found an answer that I deem good enough, but I think Howard Zinn is probably one of the best examples I can think of.
(You dirty whuuure)
Alex Taylor
I don’t understand why you’re railing against multiculturalism, and I don’t understand why you’re calling it patronizing. What’s wrong with the idea of letting other people go about their business? What is your alternative? What do you mean by a progressive look at history instead of a multiculturalist one? You say that multiculturalism says others are fine as long as they don’t infiltrate our society. But there would be no conceivable way of not being affected by other cultures unless there was no communication. People talk to people and cultures merge naturally, you don’t have to set up an ideology to let it happen. Multiculturalism’s stance against cultural merging is a protest of the melting pot, which was based in the idea of anglicizing (or francophone-izing, as the case may be) immigrants and convincing them to let go of their cultures. It’s not a protest of other cultures changing ours. You have it backwards.
You clearly support tolerating other cultures and including their viewpoints in our histories. So why pick on multiculturalism?! Telling people that they can go on practicing their thing and you’ll continue with yours is the least patronizing thing you could possibly say. I don’t get it.
Maybe, as you were saying with the Native Americans not being on tests (they were at my school), your problem is that the multiculturalism is half-hearted. But that’s different from saying that the principle is patronizing and false. Don’t just throw out the word progressive, undefined, as the solution to our problems and claim that racism is the other option. That’s sloppy, par excellence. What are you trying to say?
Mark Cullen
We really should just get a message board…
Bryan Klausmeyer
Alex: I think your analysis of multiculturalism is superficial at best. The multiculturalist claim is that one can observe and admire the uniqueness and singularity of another’s culture, but how? For sure this is a sympathetic point of view, but we should step back for a moment and consider the privileged background from which the multiculturalist speaks—it’s only possible to admire the singular uniqueness of other cultures if one comes from an affluent, Western country. Thus, there’s a disavowed class antagonism at the heart of so-called “Cultural Studies” which posits that being immersed in one’s culture basically means that you can’t afford to not be otherwise.
And then there’s the second problem: what positive affect does Cultural Studies have on our current sociopolitical discourse? Take, for instance, the figure of the neo-Nazi beating up a foreigner: when questioned about why he does such a thing, he’ll basically respond like a sociologist/social worker/intellectual (just watch any documentary on Bravo about neo-Nazis to see this). What this means is that the multiculturalist discourse introduces symbolic efficiency that engenders the very irrational violence it sought to prevent. It’s no longer, “I do this, but I don’t know why,” but “I know why I do this, yet I’m going to continue doing it.”
In this same manner, global capitalism has already integrated the multiculturalist discourse. While it’s certainly important to be tolerant towards other cultures, to be open to sexual difference, etc., I think that it ultimately offers no subversive potential… “I know that I live in a capitalist society fraught with inequalities, yet I’m going to continue living as I do.”
Alex Taylor
“it’s only possible to admire the singular uniqueness of other cultures if one comes from an affluent, Western country”? What the fuck are you talking about?
How does one appreciate another society while being immersed in their own? I don’t know, ask Marco Polo.
Good work trying to equate multiculturalism with neo-nazism.
Nobody needs to come up with an intellectual justification for racism for it to continue, and if they did, who the fuck cares if they were using post-modern language? That does NOT make it multiculturalism. A neo-nazi beating up a foreigner is the exact antithesis of multiculturalism. I must now ask again: what the fuck are you talking about?
The closest multiculturalism gets to intolerance is allowing certain muslims to subjugate their women because its their culture. This sucks ass, but comes from nowhere near the kinds of places you’re talking about.
Isn’t knowing better than not knowing, regardless of whether you choose to act? Wouldn’t increasing tolerance help alleviate those actions in the future? What’s your beef?
You continue to not define your “progressive” look at history, and I now suspect that that’s because you haven’t thought this through.
Jason
Lol, this Alex Taylor doesn’t seem to like your Jijek-style of writing. I can’t say I follow 100% either. Take for example this:
“What this means is that the multiculturalist discourse introduces symbolic efficiency that engenders the very irrational violence it sought to prevent. It’s no longer, “I do this, but I don’t know why,” but “I know why I do this, yet I’m going to continue doing it.””
Now picture “Scanners”…you’ve just made my head explode.
Going back to your response to my follow-up post, I don’t see your hesitancy to incorporate revised history without some cynical, self-deprecating footnote on why we included it in the first place. It would seem counter-intuitive to the overall objective: to provide a broader, more defined scope to history, to show that past thought may have been glossed over, and to lay a foundation for future studies that are now able to work off of a more balanced set of facts. To include some Zinn-esque comment that basically mocks the inclusion of this “new” bit of history (such as the addition to Civil War studies that Lincoln freed slaves in only uprising states) would only serve to make future generations wonder what the hell we’re talking about.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Alex: Let’s play a mental exercise: Who is better able to play the role of the tolerant multiculturalist, a wealthy liberal from New York or a poor Ethiopian man? A British MP or a Chinese laborer? I don’t see why you’re getting so upset, unless it’s just an indication that you’re not able to articulate a decent critique of what I wrote.
In a way Alex, you’re right to make the connection between the neo-Nazi and the multiculturalist, even though I wasn’t trying to make that connection with my example. While the neo-Nazi is an outright, irrational, violent racist, the multiculturalist is a patronizing Eurocentrist one. How? As I said before, the multiculturalist speaks from the privileged position of an empty universality, being able to see and “respect” other cultures from a distance. This is how superiority is asserted. This doesn’t mean that a multiculturalist is a racist because she/he silently privileges Eurocentrism, but instead the opposite—its instead she/he’s very attempt at “neutrality.”
Also, if you think I haven’t laid out any “agenda” than you’ve been deliberately misreading all of my posts. I think that, in a way, Howard Zinn was more correct in focusing on the class struggle in American politics than one is on the struggle for recognition of marginal identities, tolerance, etc.
This is the problem with post-politics in general. When it attempts to depoliticize politics, say, by leaving the issues of managing ‘local cultures’ to bureaucracy and councils (or any other attempts at depoliticizing politics), what we lose is exactly the cause for what multiculturalism, in a way, wishes to correct (why are we losing ‘local cultures’ to more hegemonic ones like the McWest?)
The answer should be the fairly obvious one that I’ve already stated before (global capitalism).
Jason: I’m not saying we need footnotes, that would simply be ridiculous. I’m not even sure why you offered that as an example, as I already offered one to you (the preface of Howard Zinn’s book doesn’t say “This is an unbiased account of U.S. history,” it says, “This is a history of all of the people who suffered and lost at the hands of the rich and wealthy”). I’m asking for candidness, because right now, both in the sphere of history and in the sphere of depoliticized post-politics, multiculturalism (et al) claim(s) the former.
Alex Taylor
I’m not upset, just confused by what you’re saying.
I think I get it now though: be a multiculturalist, but be ironic about it. Well, shit, man, the best way to do anything is to be aware of the irony.
I guess all those poor African kids watching American films are just at a loss. How could they appreciate another culture when they’re poor?
It’s hard to make Europeans not Euro-centric. It’s kind of what it means to be European.
To sum: rich people are inherently evil, white people are inherently evil (except Israel, apparently), any attempt they make to understand cultures that are not theirs is patronizing. Tolerance is thinly veiled racism and war is peace.
Okay.
Alex Taylor
I forgot to make it explicit: isn’t it patronizing to say that third world people can’t appreciate other cultures?
Bryan Klausmeyer
No, the point isn’t to be “not a Eurocentrist”! That’s precisely the multiculturalist mistake. There’s nothing wrong with “Eurocentrism” in so far as we don’t attempt to privilege it or disavow it. In a rather paradoxical way, the Eurocentrist critique of Eurocentrism is Eurocentrist.
Your point about African children watching American films is exactly the point I’m trying to make! The African children, because of their unfortunate socioeconomic conditions, aren’t able to say, “What a magnificent culture the Aleuts, Ainus, Uygurs, Pashtuns, etc. possess.” Only the privileged, Western multiculturalist can do that. What the poor get is the non-culture of global capitalism, the “McWest” culture that threatens to erode all other ‘local cultures.’
This is why Habermas is wrong in stating that fundamentalism is proof that the Enlightenment/modernity is an unfinished project. What if we flip it around and reframe it: what if fundamentalism is a reaction to, and therefore an intrinsic aspect, of late capitalist society?
In a way, your last paragraph contains a grain of truth, which is probably not what you intended.
Lastly: to be even MORE explicit about the point I’m making, so that it’s VERY clear, instead of trying so hard to “love each other’s differences,” perhaps we should instead focus on what makes us similar—that all of our societies, (in the context of this ever globalizing society), are divided along socioeconomic difference that is the source of the most fundamental conflict (as opposed to terrorism or illegal immigration, or other non-issues).
In response to your second post: Apparently you forget that most people in the poorest parts of the world don’t have access to television, the Internet, books or a world-class education. I think it’s egregious and intellectually irresponsible to state otherwise, not patronizing.
Alex Taylor
I don’t think American culture is as barren as you do, but I see your point. It makes sense if you’re talking about the poorest of the poor, but cultural exchange and communication are more widespread than you think. Even if the kid in Africa doesn’t know about the Ainu, he probably knows something about China, or if he doesn’t then he will in ten years. I’m not saying necessarily that it is the case right now that everyone can know everything about every other culture, but I don’t see why that makes the ideal bad. I think it would be great if everyone had as much information and ability to learn about other cultures as possible, and was free to do their own thing. That’s what I mean by saying that multiculturalism is good. It’s an ideal, I’m not saying it’s a reality. When I said “don’t you think it’s patronizing to say that poor people can’t appreciate other cultures”, I didn’t mean physically can’t, because clearly many don’t have the means right now, but globalization is allowing for the technologies so that more and more people can, and I think a good ideology to go behind the expansive changes in communication is a multiculturalist, tolerant, pluralistic approach. That’s what I mean; not that everyone knows about that Navajo. DOn’t get me wrong.
Obviously I agree that people should rally around our common humanity. I think it would be a good idea to add more about links between societies into our history books. But history is inevitably, always going to be about the differences between people, because that’s what makes things flow (think of it as historical osmosis: plague spreads into places that haven’t had it, and gunpowder spreads to the world, changing it as it progresses).
“No, the point isn’t to be “not a Eurocentrist”! That’s precisely the multiculturalist mistake. There’s nothing wrong with “Eurocentrism” in so far as we don’t attempt to privilege it or disavow it. In a rather paradoxical way, the Eurocentrist critique of Eurocentrism is Eurocentrist.” I literally couldn’t understand the last sentence of that, but the penultimate was exactly what I was trying to say. People are always going to be of their own cultures, and that’s human and natural. That’s why there shouldn’t be any effort to force people to disavow their culture.
Fundamentalism may be a reaction to the Enlightenment, but it was around far before Voltaire and was stronger at that. How can you say that fundamentalism is a reaction to the enlightenment when the enlightenment is exactly what lifted Europe out of fundamentalism? I’ll stick with Habermas on that one, I like reason.
It’s pretty insane that you thought that paragraph was true though.
Bryan Klausmeyer
I think that there’s a big difference between the neutral acquisition of objective knowledge and libidinal investment, when the Other’s culture becomes a fantasized object. (See post #5.) Also, I think I should reinforce my position about how we should focus on a common ideological struggle over a pseudo-Leftist multiculturalist stance through these two examples:
If a multiculturalist claims to have no Eurocentrist attitude, how does one accept things like clitoridectomy, torture, subjugation of women, etc.? If one asserts that these things are brutal, usually the same person holds the belief that things like the death penalty are unjust as well, based on ideas that sprang forth from modernity, thus privileging one side and embracing a teleological progress from the admired, pre-modern cultures to modern Western ones.
Or, what about the radical Leftist who says, “we must accept all of these things as part of ones culture.” Isn’t this view just complicit with a multinational corporation that supports business over human rights?
From the multiculturalist point of view, there’s no way to escape this vicious cycle…
Also: I have no problem with reason, but I do have a problem when the term “reason” and “non-reason” serve disavowed ideological purposes. The only way the Enlightenment could propagate itself was through the demonization of non-reason, yet look at Nazi Germany—is this not the perfect of example of Enlightenment reason taken to its fullest, most demonic extent? (Reminiscent of Kant avec Sade.)
Or take for instance the assertion that Islam is pre-Enlightenment because it never went through a “reformation” (e.g., the Protestant one). This view completely ignores the Wahhabi movement. This is why it’s not enough to say that Islamic fundamentalism isn’t just a reaction to the Enlightenment, but part of it, the obscene offspring of modernity, just like Christian fundamentalists in the Midwest. (So, in a bizarre way, the term “Islamo-Fascism” (or, alternatively, “Christo-fascism”) isn’t all that off, we are dealing with a type of fascism—the type that desires “capitalism without capitalism.” The problem, of course, is one of language and ideology…)
Alex Taylor
There is a difference between those two ways of learning about cultures, but that’s not to say that someone who learns of American culture from the TV did not learn about American culture. Emotions are inevitably going to be tied up to learning about a group of people, and I don’t think any sociological learning is “neutral acquisition”.
Now we’re starting to get to the really interesting questions, which I had started to hint at in post #9. I will say this outright, right now: I don’t think the idea of multiculturalism and tolerance is racist or patronizing, and I think those are silly arguments despite the fact that you’ve argued them exceedingly well. It seems to me, after all that, that the reason was (much simplified): rich people have the technology, leisure time, etc. to appreciate other cultures, whereas poor people don’t, and thus multiculturalism is a rich man’s hobby. That does indeed create inequality of knowledge, a patronizing voice, and a lot of the other bad stuff that you were talking about.
Alex Taylor
Sorry I, hit “post” by accident. Anyway, those ills do indeed exist, but I believe it to be the fault of the lack of technology and resources to teach, not the fault of the doctrine of tolerance. I thought you were saying poor people can’t appreciate other cultures because they had not been brought up in the right environment to have the mindset to be able to, which I found understandably offensive. Not that poor people don’t physically have the means to go online, which is clear. Now I see why you were saying about globalization being the real force behind the spread of knowledge, but I think the current philosophy behind that is a multiculturalist one. I think you were talking realities and I was talking ideals. I think I have more faith in the idea that the world will get around to teaching everyone about each other some time in the future. I think we’re coming to a synthesis.
Those two examples you gave are, I think, a much more legitimate critique of multiculturalism, and one that I will readily accept (I don’t know if you were trying to say this earlier and I didn’t catch it). To be honest, I don’t have an answer for you. The conundrum is whether to be so morally relativistic that you accept murder or to be a very narrow person arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand based on your own cultural prejudices. This kind of problem also occurs within societies in transition (think about the spanking debate). Multiculturalism definitely fails to address this problem, and the best solution I’ve found is moderation and reasonableness. The only alternative philosophies I’ve been exposed to are traditional racism and the “melting pot” theory (basically traiditonal racism). If Zinn’s philosophy of history illustrates a good way to navigate these straights, please explain. I’m very interested. Side Note: It’s been kind of hard to argue against you when I’m not well versed in Zinn, but I’ve been trying to stick to responding to your critiques against multiculturalist tolerance. I’m going to read some Zinn after this.
I’m not espousing Enlightenment ideals in any eschatological way, and I don’t see it as a progression of history. My view of history is cyclical, with maybe marginal progress between cycles, so it would be silly for me to say that. I’m just saying I’m happy I live now and don’t get burned alive for thinking the earth revolves around the sun. I think reason has historically brought a huge amount of compassion to society along with progress.
Bryan Klausmeyer
I’m not so sure your last point about the Age of Reason being more humanitarian is apt. The 20th century, the culmination of modernity (as opposed to post-modernity), was the most brutal century in the history of human civilization. I think that, though, there are certainly redeeming qualities to the Enlightenment, but to say that it’s the last great chapter of history (Fukuyama/Huntington/et al), to say that it’s an unfinished project that must continue to be completed ad infinitum (Habermas), precludes the notion that maybe there’s a better option, one that we can discern through the very failures of the Enlightenment.
I think Zinn’s most famous book is “A People’s History of the United States.” It’s written in the vein of Old Left critiques of the traditional historical narrative (in the spirit of Charles Beard and Eugene V. Debbs). I’d recommend it, even though it’s somewhat dry/academic.
Alex Taylor
The Enlightenment is a step in the right direction.
The Author
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.eduRecent Posts
- Networks vs. Structures By Bryan Klausmeyer on Nov 22 2008
- Obama’s Two Constituencies By Bryan Klausmeyer on Nov 22 2008
- Teen Commits Suicide with Live Web Audience By Mark Elliot Cullen on Nov 21 2008
- Spectacle with Elvis Costello By Mark Elliot Cullen on Nov 21 2008
- @+@ ALWAYS ≠ % By Mark Elliot Cullen on Nov 20 2008
20 Comments