Radical American Nationalism

Lots of people ask me why I teach history. There are lots of reasons, but this little scenario sums it up as well as anything:

The first time a student comes to class late, he knocks on the door, sheepishly enters, quietly acknowledges the instructor, and slumps into his chair, embarrassed.

The second time, the student enters without knocking. He looks at the teacher, maybe cracks a polite smile, and quietly sits.

The third time the student arrives late, he opens the door, nods to one of his friends, and sits without acknowledging the teacher at all. After sitting, he quietly begins a conversation with a student close by.

The fourth time, the student throws open the door and calls to his friend across the room. The student greets every student nearby as he or she slowly progresses to his seat, where he cracks a joke to a student sitting in front of him.

We've all seen it before in many places and in many situations. What's the key here? No one corrects the student. Even though the teacher obviously has rules pertaining to punctuality, they are not enforced. Of course, the real question is this: had you only seen that student arrive late the last time (without context), what would you assume about the teacher and their attitude toward someone breaking a rule, or about the rules in general? Almost without exception, people like to push the envelope. We like things to be easy, and rules and morals, even when talking about something as simple as classroom punctuality, are not easy. We always like to take as much as we can, until we bite the hand that feeds us. We take "little steps" towards a path of less resistance. This is the ripple effect. The "slippery slope."

As the world changes faster than it ever has, these slopes can appear even more slippery. For instance: one of the clearest failures of modern social behavior, particularly in America, is the inability to adjust to instant availability of proof. We've become so accustomed to lying that this simple change creates devastating problems. For instance, had the student in the example been presented early on with proof that he was late, and that this would be used to ensure his following punctuality rules in the future, the problem likely would have been solved. But in general, when incontrovertible evidence proves someone wrong, there are two general directions they can choose: admit failure and move on, or create a scheme in which the information at hand is out of context, misinterpreted, or even wrong completely. This, I believe, is the birthplace of our "complicated relationship" with the truth. With that in mind, let's begin.

It’s saddening, it’s maddening, it’s what’s worst about us not only as Americans, but as human beings. Most importantly, it’s real. It’s white supremacy, as well as all of its components. The modern iteration of this silly and confusing set of “principles” has chosen to rely on the internet and other technology, which of course owes its heritage to enlightened, democratic, humanist reasoning, to spread its message. I don't think I need to elaborate on why that is counterintuitive, hypocritical and altogether silly. As silly as it is, it has once again become deadly. I and most other people had hoped that we would be discussing things like flying cars and space colonization in 2017, but here we are discussing the merits of structured racism. Disappointing doesn’t begin to cut it. But alas, here we are.

For those who have suddenly acquired such a passionate interest in history, particularly that of America, I can only say that I wish they had payed more attention when they were being taught it in school. But then again, recent efforts to undermine public education would lead most to believe that their teachers were somehow out to get them. If we’re to believe the conservative radio talk show hosts, school teachers are slanted, radical left wing pawns that push the slanted, radical left wing agenda in the hopes of, if I am understanding their meaning, ruining America. As a part of my profession, I have become reasonably familiar with American history and school textbooks used to teach it. I have tried to enrich my education about it with as many perspectives on it as I have time for. That's a big part of my job. There is no plot to misinform future generations and push established ethnic groups to the fringes of society. But If there is one certainty I can say that I find consistently in our history, it is that we have always thrived on touchy-feely things like diversity, and we have always pushed back against them. We’ve always bitten the hand that feeds us, whether it has been that of immigrants or Native Americans, or any other group to which we owe our prosperity.

Our history is quite literally filled with contradictions like those, which is fine. We, like every nation, are imperfect. It is just, right, and perfectly healthy to accept things like that. But one of our imperfections lies in the fact that we have trouble taking a hard look at that stuff. For instance: subscribers to our “alt-right” of course represent the views of much of the country, only in a more overt way. That is fact. They represent everyone who is inherently suspicious of muslims or latinos or black people or jews. They represent people who will always blame their misfortunes and anxieties on other people, and never on their inability to adapt to the world that they live in and accept that it is and always will be changing. They represent the people who thought that European immigrants were ethnically inferior, until they were determined to be white enough to fit in. I assure you that that's a much bigger group than what shows up in polls and bar graphs about white supremacy. As flawed as our “founding fathers” were, they did not intend for America to be some sort of haven for white culture, or any culture in particular for that matter, to flourish. If they had, they would have been explicit about it in our founding documents. What those documents are explicit about, however, is the dignity and equality of every single person in this country in the eyes of the law.

In addressing our recent spat over monuments, I will be as brief as possible. What many (including our president) see as an assault on southern culture, in some sense, is just that. Southern culture continues to venerate the leaders of a misguided and failed rebellion because every day, in little towns and big cities alike, they see people like Stonewall Jackson still commanding the armies of the confederacy against the northern aggressors. They aren’t "culture and heritage." They are physical representations of a warped mindset that cannot accept the reality of the confederacy's failure. And let's be clear: our Civil War was fought over the right to continue the institution of slavery. When the dust settles and the mental gymnastics are over, those are the facts. No one needs to tell me that there were other factors. But the continuation of slavery was one, and a big one at that, and for me and most other people, that is enough. Monuments to men who fought to create a nation that would be economically dependent on slave labor do not belong in a country that professes a love of freedom. Those monuments sprang up during a time when klan membership was at its apex and when Jim Crow policies were growing like a malignant tumor. They should have never gone up in the first place, so they’re coming down. Put more frankly, they glorify losers, which I think is something I don’t believe our Commander in Chief is very keen on.

Folks who think that relegating the poor, defenseless confederacy to history books and stuffy museums is “erasing history” in the name of political correctness, again, disappoint this social studies teacher. I only wish that the energy spent defending these monuments had been spent learning about the denial that so many fans of the confederacy live in regarding the facts of the case. The chivalrous and well-mannered antebellum south is still on a pedestal, while the reality of the plantation system is conveniently glazed over, if not ignored altogether. That kind of denial is explicitly dangerous. And even with that in mind, modern technology has shown us that nothing is ever truly “erased.” No one is ever going to forget the confederacy, but alas, losing a war generally relegates you to secondary status. Perhaps that sounds a bit like gloating, but I think that is fair. It's not erasing history, it's not self-hate, it's just fair. Most of my peers and I learned about our Civil War and slavery and how they were intertwined, and we manage to still approve of America, the South included. So yes, in the future, those who wish to revel in the glory of the losing side of our bloodiest war may have to travel further than their local town square, but I have no doubt that they will be satisfied in their local library. I would hope that they might consider themselves lucky, because such easy access to information like that is truly exceptional, particularly when the total history of human conquest is taken into account.

All of this has struck a chord with me because I believe that our Civil War, the defining moment of this country, saw the maturation of some of the greatest leaders in modern history. It's very American to say so, but the men who saw the country through that conflict will represent what it means to be a truly great leader for generations. These people eventually found the clarity to not only understand the immensity of the situation that they were now a part of, but to understand what lay ahead for this country if the conflict did not end agreeably. They had 600,000 reasons to get it right. Those reasons would be quickly forgotten as time passed, but in those raw moments following our deadliest war, men like Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee set their sights on reconciliation and reflection rather than retribution. So for how poorly many southerners regard President Lincoln, one need only look at his terms of surrender for the rebellious states to see that they owe him a great debt of gratitude. Destruction of white culture, they say? Abraham Lincoln was within his rights to crush the south and it’s “culture and heritage” and make them a distant, wretched memory if he so wished. He knew that this was unwise, and gave southerners a brother’s welcome back into the union. His band played Dixie when the surrender was received. Let them keep their homes and their farms, he said. Let them keep their flags. So yes, folks, the scholars who proudly fly their confederate flag have liberal politics to thank for that right. Again, biting the hand that feeds us.

Where it has become complicated is where people cut from conservative cloth complain of our society giving people of traditionally disadvantaged groups a “leg up.” Maybe the most interesting thing I heard during my time attending college in central Pennsylvania was an interview with a man (who was about my age) who said that he was supportive of Donald Trump and his policies because he was “tired of the white guy always being wrong.” Interesting, no? There is, and likely always will be, a segment of America that sees words like “diversity” and “inclusiveness” as code words for the white guy being wrong. They will see efforts to promote people of different ethnic backgrounds, particularly in government and other public service, as unfair and an assault on their ethnicity. Step into their shoes, and you may see something worth discussing. Imagine growing up in a place where the majority of your formative interactions with people outside of your ethnic group were experienced through watching television or reading the newspaper. Then enhance those experiences with the anxieties and frustrations of older generations who have experienced the very same upbringing. The scattered dots begin to connect, and defeatist culture is born.

What I would tell that young man that I heard on the radio is that he is probably misinterpreting the situation he finds himself in. The white guy isn’t always wrong, but from now on he is probably not always going to be right. While the pieces of paper that came our of our independence spoke of enlightened equality, America's economy has always favored rich white protestant men, even before it was America. And while many of us strive for loftier aspirations than economic success, money matters. I don't think it is realistic to deny that. So for my part, that is where I see things like affirmative action and the like playing their role. People who are not white or rich or protestant or male are at an inherent economic and cultural disadvantage to those who are, and I think most people at least intrinsically understand that. So no, I don't think it is crazy to say that certain ethnic groups are inherently less powerful per capita, and are therefore "entitled" to opportunities like affirmative action. It's tricky, but it's the the right thing to do.

And yes, now that times are a little tighter and globalization is helping other countries and not just us, those "entitlements" feel very much like a modern invention to just help out minorities and other disadvantaged people. History tells a different story. The active style of government that gave birth to entitlements, as well as the entitlements themselves, saved the United States from a descent into total economic collapse during another fast-fading memory, the Great Depression. The men and the mentality that caused the Depression were not the people to look to for solutions in any crisis, let alone one as vast as this. So Franklin Roosevelt takes the reigns of a country in true crisis and changes things. He is perhaps the only president who can claim to have inherited a country which was brimming with genuine "carnage," and he resolved to use his power to moderate the impulses of large businesses and other wealthy interests. How did he sell his New Deal reforms to the country? Where did he go for his photo-ops? Not to the homes of sharecropping descendants of slaves in Mississippi, but to the Tennessee backwaters peopled by innocent looking German and Irish immigrant children. America was not prepared to support poor black people, even if it meant dragging the entire country to the bottom of the ocean. White children, even poor ones, would do the trick. Now that public perception leans towards black people and other minorities reaping most of the benefits from entitlements, those entitlements are on the political chopping block. That is not a coincidence.

I’ll again reference history when I say that a swing towards defensive conservative politics (and the corresponding liberal reaction) tend to signal when societies and dominant cultures are almost certainly in decline. For those who take the time to learn about every “civilization” that has come to an end, that is consistent. The Mayans and Aztecs, the great Muslim empires, imperial China, Rome, Soviet Russia, they all saw the same political trends as they descended into ruin. I believe that that is what America is experiencing. Why are we declining? Lots of reasons. The world has caught up with us economically, and we have been slow to adjust. Our infrastructure is, in fact, "crumbling," and it is becoming too expensive to replace.

Perhaps most importantly, our government is being led by a group of people who yearn for an idyllic past that is never going to come back, and they are quite literally changing the rules of government to keep themselves, their families and their culture in an advantageous position. It's not going to work, but can we really blame them? I think that is worth asking. Lawmakers may not seem so, but they are usually astute observers of social undercurrents. They understand that their culture will soon be just another minority, so pushback is only natural. They are adrift at sea, gasping for air while the rest of the world sails away, and they will eventually drown. My question is this: will they drag the rest of the country down with them? I will say to them what I will say to all of the alt-whatever groups that have allowed fear of other cultures and attitudes to occupy their entire being: God will forgive you, but history will not. One day many years from now, scholars will most likely look back at America and say, "All of the information was at their fingertips. How could they have not seen the parallels? How could they have ignored all of the 'little steps' towards ruin and waited for the one 'great shocking occasion?' How could they not have known?"

A bit depressing, I know. The takeaway? Like everything, I suppose it depends on who you ask. Our decision to abandon the opportunity to be moral leaders for the entire world puts us in quite a pickle. We let our extremes get the better of us. We got scared, we are still very scared, and ultimately we will regret it. We are discussing history and science as though they will change if we just fill ourselves with enough denial and hatred and contrived confidence. As I spoke of before, we are not inclined to make peace with difficult realities, but we must. Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Lee and every other person who has had the blood of hundreds of thousands of young people on their hands knows that no amount of well-wishing, torch-lit marching, or "little steps" can being a single person back from the dead. They were leaders who chose to take a moral high road. at least for a little while, they were able to put aside rivalries and political squabbles, because after what they had just experienced, they knew that those things were, in a word, bullshit. And for me, they chose to look to the better angels of their nature because they knew exactly what happens when any other path is chosen: entire generations from towns hundreds of miles from battle return home with broken bodies or broken minds, if they return at all.