« Sooner or later, we're gonna dance with Kim | Main | Saturday Squiggy »
July 07, 2006
Celebrating Denigrating Independence Day
How did the Los Angeles Times commemorate the 4th of July?
Well, at least in part, by running an opinion piece by a self-hating American author, Mark Kurlansky, titled, WWFFD? Who cares? Let's stop fussing about what America's founders thought, and let our minds run free.
SOMEONE HAS TO SAY IT or we are never going to get out of this rut: I am sick and tired of the founding fathers and all their intents.
The real American question of our times is how our country in a little over 200 years sank from the great hope to the most backward democracy in the West. The U.S. offers the worst healthcare program, one of the worst public school systems and the worst benefits for workers. The margin between rich and poor has been growing precipitously while it has been decreasing in Europe. Among the great democracies, we use military might less cautiously, show less respect for international law and are the stumbling block in international environmental cooperation. Few informed people look to the United States anymore for progressive ideas.
"The most backward democracy in the West"? I'm not sure how he defines "backward," but I suspect he's referring to the majority of voters who didn't pull the lever for Kerry or Gore, who won't turn Congress over to the Democrats.
Where to begin? The U.S. healthcare system is so awful that our neighbors to the Great White North, blessed with every Socialist's wet dream, i.e., government-run "free" medical care for all, are coming to the U.S. of freakin' A. to get the surgeries they can't get in Canada.
That we have a terrible public school system gets no argument from me, but then again, it's been destroyed by the teachers' unions, working hand-in-hand with leftists to do away with the classic teaching techniques that produced well-educated young people ready to enter the workforce from the 19th century thought the early 1960s. "Mainstreaming" retarded kids, children with autism, doing away with "gifted" teaching tracks, forcing teachers to teach to the slowest kid in the classroom, and most of all, social promotion and failing to expel disruptive students have devastated public schools.
But don't even lay any of that at the feet of Conservatives; that's all you, Comrade.
As to workers' benefits, yeah, those Europeans have it made. Great benefits, but stagnant economies, with crushing taxes and rampant unemployment. Remember the riots in France earlier this year? French employers wanted the ability to do something outrageous: fire bad workers.
Fascist bastards! They're almost as bad as American capitalists.
Heh.
The author of the piece tips his hand with the line about growing inequality between rich and poor in the U.S., as opposed to the disappearing gap between the classes in Europe.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, right, Comrade?
Bloody communist.
We ought to do something. Instead, we keep worrying about the vision of a bunch of sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches. Even in the 18th century, the founding fathers were not the most enlightened thinkers available. They were the ones whose ideas prevailed. Those who favored independence but were not in favor of war are not called founding fathers. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania — with whom John Adams bitterly fought in the Constitutional Congress of 1776 because Dickinson did not believe it was necessary to engage in bloody warfare in order to achieve independence — is not a founding father.
Those opposed to war with England are not Founding Fathers because they weren't in favor of independence from the King, you twit. They were Royalists. And apples are not oranges, dogs are not cats.
You could speak out against slavery and still be a founding father, as long as you did not insist on its abolition, as many did who aren't in the pantheon.
The Constitution produced by the founding fathers lacked the enlightenment of some of the colonial charters of several generations earlier, most notably the laws of Pennsylvania that barred slavery, refused to raise militias and insisted on fair-minded treaties with Indians. Benjamin Franklin despised these "Quaker laws" of his colony and even published a pamphlet denouncing the Pennsylvania Assembly for not sending young men to fight the French and Indians.
That warmongering Ben Franklin: the Donald Rumsfeld of the 18th century. Of course, he's not the only one to despise pacifists. Lord knows, I do, too. And while the Founding Fathers couldn't resolve the disgrace of slavery, we did as a nation engage in a savage civil war, did spill the blood of hundreds of thousands of . . . white Christians within eighty years of the signing of Declaration of Independence.
And let's not forget that the Constitution, in a provision often cited -- mistakenly, ignorantly by people like the author as proof of the racism of the Founding Fathers -- counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the census, not because they were thought of as sub-human, but to deny the slave states greater representation in Congress, where seats are apportioned in the House on the basis of population.
In other words, the three-fifths rule hurt the pro-slavery states.
To be honest, the U.S. was never as good as it was supposed to be. Perhaps no nation is. Henry David Thoreau wrote of nations, "The historian strives in vain to make them memorable." Even in the first few decades, most Europeans who came to see the great new experiment were disappointed. Writer after writer, from British novelist Charles Dickens to the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, arrived to discover less than they imagined. Tocqueville observed of American character: "They unceasingly harass you to extort praise and if you resist their entreaties, they fall to praising themselves."
Fanny Trollope, the English writer, made a similar observation in 1832: "A slight word indicative of doubt, that any thing, or every thing, in that country is not the very best in the world, produces an effect which must be seen and felt to be understood." I have no doubt the response to this article will show an America still unwilling to be criticized. But it is difficult for a society that accepts no criticism to progress.
Ooh, Europeans, in their lace, brocade and powdered wigs, looking down their noses at us unsophisticated colonial rubes. I see some things never change.
Of course, Tocqueville also said, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
And he recognized the volatile nature of American society, the opportunities available to all, so different from the ossified regimes in Europe: "Born often under another sky, placed in the middle of an always moving scene, himself driven by the irresistible torrent which draws all about him, the American has no time to tie himself to anything, he grows accustomed only to change, and ends by regarding it as the natural state of man. He feels the need of it, more he loves it; for the instability; instead of meaning disaster to him, seems to give birth only to miracles all about him."
Slavery was the most celebrated flaw of the founding fathers, but they also set the stage for the genocide of about 10 million American Indians and did not even entirely reject colonialism. They believed that it was wrong to tax colonists who did not have representation in the legislature, but the tax, not the lack of representation, was the grievance. They were affluent men of property, and they hated paying taxes. Ironically, they repeatedly used words like "enslavement" and "slavery" to criticize taxes while at the same time accepting real slavery.
Boo-frickin'-hoo. Like I said, Americans killed each other by the bushel over slavery. They paid their debt to the slaves in blood, brother against brother, for four long years. As to the Indians, yeah, they got a raw deal. But let's not kid ourselves, they didn't live some Garden-of-Eden existence when it was just Indians and buffalo from sea to shining sea. American Indians practiced slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifice, torture, and constant warfare between the tribes, and they devastated the environment, too. Terrible violence and short, brutal lives were the norm long before the Mayflower dropped anchor at Plymouth Rock.
And isn't interesting how the author mocks the link between taxes and slavery? Of course, socialist theory posits that economics and capitalism makes workers into slaves, albeit without actual chains.
The founding fathers were all men of the establishment who wanted what Robespierre sneeringly called, when his own French Revolution was accused of excess, "a revolution without a revolution." John Steinbeck noted that the American Revolution was different from that of France's or Russia's because the so-called revolutionaries "did not want a new form of government; they wanted the same kind, only run by themselves."
Yet it is only with anti-establishment thinkers that a society progresses. The reason that there is always more disillusionment with Democrats than Republicans is that Democrats raise the expectation of being anti-establishment when, in reality, both parties are committed to maintaining the status quo and the "intent of the founding fathers."
Of course, some might say that another significant difference between the American Revolution and that of the Russians and the French is that we didn't celebrate victory by chopping off the heads of our fellow citizens, or committing countless acts of mass murder against those citizens who were deemed ideologically suspect. We preferred ballots to bullets in the back of the head.
Call me crazy, but I thing that egg-sucking Steinbeck was out to lunch; I prefer our way over that of the guillotine and the gulag.
But the founding fathers, unlike the Americans of today, understood their own shortcomings. Thomas Jefferson warned against a slavish worship of their work, which he referred to as "sanctimonious reverence" for the Constitution. Jefferson believed in the ability of humans to grow wiser, of humankind to make progress, and he believed that the Constitution should be rewritten in every generation.
Every hear of Amending the Constitution? It's happened a few times over the last two hundred and sixteen years. Sounds like anything but slavish adherence, as each Amendment presumes to modify the original.
"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind," Jefferson wrote in 1816. "As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
It is surprising that these words are not more often quoted in Washington because they are literally carved in stone — on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial to be exact.
So let us stop worshiping the founding fathers and allow our minds to progress and try to build a nation of great new ideas. That is, after all, the intent of the founding fathers.
So, stop worshipping their ignorant, brutal, slave-holding asses, but try to honor their wise ideas and intent.
Okaaaaaay.
You know, reading that made me want to kill myself. As well as stop bathing, speak french, and get jiggy with Cindy Sheehan.
Which makes me want to kill myself all over again.
Want to know the scariest thing?
The author writes about history.
Hat tip to Wild Bill for sending me the link to the article.
Posted by Mike Lief at July 7, 2006 08:17 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Great post. I sometimes wonder what the opinion of some of the writers would be if they actually had to pay the kind of taxes the euros do. They'd be screaming. Of course, it's almost confiscatory here, so maybe that isn't a good point...
Anyway, found your comment at the knave's hideout, and found that you were a bubblehead. So... tag, you're it!
Going on the bubblebloggers roll, unless I hear otherwise.
I've spent a little time perusing your posts, and I am certain you are going to be a frequent read. Keep up the good work, amigo.
Posted by: bothenook at July 7, 2006 05:11 PM
"That we have a terrible public school system gets no argument from me, but then again, it's been destroyed by the teachers' unions, working hand-in-hand with leftists to do away with the classic teaching techniques that produced well-educated young people ready to enter the workforce from the 19th century thought the early 1960s.
"Mainstreaming" retarded kids, children with autism, doing away with "gifted" teaching tracks, forcing teachers to teach to the slowest kid in the classroom, and most of all, social promotion and failing to expel disruptive students have devastated public schools."
Oh dear, you had to go and do it didn't you? Attacking teachers? One of the most hard working and underpaid professions in our country?
You are misinformed when you speak of the teacher's union changing the way we teach. The way we teach is guided by legislation (sp? I'm a child of the 60's school movement and can't spell, go figure...it was called "whole english" and was going to revolutionize teaching.). Currently that would be NCLB which was preceeded by Goals 2000.
I teach teachers, and the dictates of our methods come from the state and the feds. I don't think there is a teacher out there who agrees with the current teaching methods. If teachers were in charge of education, with the union backing, we would have a much stronger educational system in this country today. We know how to teach, and we know what works in a classroom, but the current administration doesn't agree with our advanced knowledge.
Do you realize that teachers in CA currently (whether they have a MA or not) have to take as many classes as would qualify them for a master's degree? To become a teacher in CA you need a minimum of 5 years in college, some univ have more difficult requirements and it take six years.
All of this to spend the majority of the day with your (yes, that's right, you are off at work or the gym and we are with your kids more than you are Mon- Fri than you are) children for 35k a year.
Having attended private schools for most of my life, I intended to put my own children in private school as well. When it came time for school I visited many (happy to provide a list to those in CA interested), as well as our neighborhood public school. I could find no reason to choose a private school as our neighborhood public school exceeded all I saw going on in the private secter.
We do not mainstream students with retardation or autism. If their parents choose for them to be in a mainstream class, or if that child shows an aptitude, that particular student is usually provided 1:1 support, which usually benifits the entire class.
The law dictates that we (as school districts) provide "the least restrictive environment" to students who have disabilities. Would you prefer to have them hidden away in the basement? What would you do if you had a child with retardation or autism? Stop and think about that for a second.
As autism has risen 300% in the last decade (In CA) it's worth looking at...there's a strong chance that it could affect your child. Then what would you say?
Meanwhile "gifted" programs have not been done away with on the left coast. Both of my children have been identified as gifted, one is gifted AND has a disability. They can go hand in hand. Throughout school (they are now in 11th grade) have benefited from enrichment programs. Both are in "GATE", AP, and honors classes. Both attend the community college on the side, which is a wonderful resource for gifted children.
The problem is that the republican govs and pres continue to make education a low priority, making mandates without providing funding to assist. This creates a weakend ed system as we are constantly spending funding on documentation and testing, and not teaching.
In short, the enriched programs you speak of are the last to be funded because the republicans have chosen it to be that way.
You cite the teaching methods from 1900-1960 which I find intriguing. The 1900's and beyond belonged to the wrote teaching method (fueled by the strong American fondness of Behaviorism ala Skinner), which was fine; those who could memorize excelled, those who didn't learn that way bought farms and factories. 1945-1960 was the height of Robert Gagnes' method. Mind you, Gagne' worked for the airforce teaching adults during WWII how to put pegs into holes.
Is this how you would like your children taught? I'm not knocking Gagne', he brought much to teaching, but it's not a method for teaching children today, it's a method for teaching adults of low capabilities who choose the armed forces rather than law school or public office (eh, hum).
Again, I'd like to state, this has nothing to do with teacher's unions or leftist. It has to do with the current administration. It's a top down thing. We (in the education field) are stuck with fullfilling the law and the law is not always conducive to what we know as teachers is the right way to teach.
Posted by: Dawn at July 8, 2006 04:36 PM
Those are good highlights, straight from the classroom. I've heard teachers complain about the testing, scores and paperwork. If only the truly good teachers could earn the right to teach by starting with a blueprint, but with the freedom to add their own interpretations. Dialogue leads to questions, questions lead to learning.
("The way we teach is guided by legislation")
I'm wondering if people are really complaining about the powerful PACs on the Hill. Because any union has clout in that way. Behind the scenes, that's where all the answers are.
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at July 9, 2006 11:41 AM
This is an interesting link for those interested in the state of public vs private education.
Posted by: Dawn at July 15, 2006 11:02 AM
"Boo-frickin'-hoo. Like I said, Americans killed each other by the bushel over slavery. They paid their debt to the slaves in blood, brother against brother, for four long years. As to the Indians, yeah, they got a raw deal. But let's not kid ourselves, they didn't live some Garden-of-Eden existence when it was just Indians and buffalo from sea to shining sea. American Indians practiced slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifice, torture, and constant warfare between the tribes, and they devastated the environment, too. Terrible violence and short, brutal lives were the norm long before the Mayflower dropped anchor at Plymouth Rock."
Geez. I keep coming back to this particular posting and have so many problems with it. #1 I'm a teacher...#2 I'm a Native American (Blackfoot).
It's unfair that you portray native americans as canibals and brutals. Yes, some tribes used this as a means to an end (read your history...they were FEW), but far more were peaceful and not interested in brutality.
You post things as if they are fact without backing them up with evidence. Could it be that you are so wrapped up with WWI and II , as well as the current conflict...that you have no real insight into the nation as it was forming, puhleeze? I can't believe that to be the case, but your postings show no real proof of any understanding.
Have you not read the interpretations of Cheif Seattle? Your blog shows a clear lack of insight into the world of education and native american studies.
Geez, you must have more insight than to post this bs without checking into it fully???
Posted by: Dawn at July 15, 2006 06:25 PM