Condemned of Anachronism

We have been inflicted with a contagion.  A revisionist history narrative is growing that  involves the disparagement of our Founding Fathers.  There are calls for the removal of their memorials because of allegations of hypocrisy.

Stop these people in their tracks:

Hypocrisy is not a valid counter-argument for the logic of one’s position.  The Tu Quoque Fallacy is being weaponized to deracinate our history.  Reject their claim, regardless of their corrupt appeal to pity for the woes of non-whites during the formation of America.  That appeal is a fallacy, too.

America was built from a “political void” as a foundation to “form a more perfect union”.  From the beginning, the intent was to become more perfect.  It was acknowledged that America did not instantly manifest as THE perfect union.  Therefore, to look back from a perspective of nearly 250 years of more and more progress toward the perfect union and pass judgment on the failure of the founders to “uphold the values” that had 250 years to develop is an anachronism.  It is an unfair comparison.  It is the equivalent of criticizing the medical profession for performing surgery without anesthesia in the 1860’s… there simply were neither many options nor much supply of anesthetics in that period of history…

I heard a news contributor state this (I will try to find out this person’s name so I can properly credit this quote):  “We live life forward without knowing what’s going to happen, but then we look at life backward…”

Consider the first part of this quote:  “We live life forward without knowing what’s going to happen…

Think of Historical figures and their significant contributions to the development of our nation.  They were living life forward from a world that was characterized by:

• Minimal development of civilization
• Human brutality toward others
• Despotism that quashed liberty
• Imperialistic drive for national self-sufficiency

 

Peoples were territorial out of necessity for self-preservation

Priorities of nations were:

• Trade (ports, rivers)
• Secure borders (natural protective boundaries)
• National defense 
• Natural Resources

 

Throughout history mankind:

• Brutally dominated other peoples
• Enslaved others to secure dominance and maintain a supply of manual labor
• Sought to expand territorial holdings for purposes of natural resources, access to trade, and to provide a buffer zone for defense

…but then we look at life backward.

History is now taught from a judgmental perspective rather than a factual one.

It is a fallacy to pass judgment on historical figures if the condemnation is anachronistic. 

For example, consider the words of a politician who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance:  “I respect America’s values, but I don’t respect America’s failure to uphold those values”

 American education is now condemning our founding fathers for moral dilemmas and flaws that are an anachronism for the progress of liberty in their time.

•  How could Thomas Jefferson pioneer liberty while continuing to own slaves?
• How could America fight the brutality of Axis powers while bombing their cities and using atomic weapons?
• How could America claim moral high ground when it stole its land from the indigenous peoples of North America?
•  (Insert the paradox du jour of any given Anti-American protester…)

While these are compelling philosophical questions, they commit fallacies of logic when used as condemnation of America and its founding fathers.

 The perfect is the enemy of the good… America has experienced over 200 years of forming a “more perfect union”.  What we have now is completely different than what existed in Jefferson’s time.    There was no democracy, no individual liberty, therefore, any such establishment required political invention; there was no contemporaneous model.

 Jefferson and Washington were significant historical figures because they were instrumental in the invention of such an establishment.  The liberties they established were utterly experimental.  They had to be conceptualized, dictated in legal terms so that they could not be infringed, put into practice, and protected.

•  Why were the liberties of women, slaves, etc. not included in the original deal? 

Consider the tabula rasa concept.  The Constitution was a blank slate.  The authors had several obstacles to clear before the document would be accepted:

• Everything had to accommodate the needs of an extremely diverse demographic from Georgia to New Hampshire.  
• The unification had to be fair so that no one group would develop greater power and become the next despot.
• The prevailing decorum of the time was that political participation was most relevant to individuals who possessed a higher education.
• Political power had always been possessed by landowners (those who historically had the most stake in the interest of law)
• Landowners, by default, happened to be wealthy
• (many, many other conventions held by historical precedent, forming the prevailing concept of governance)

… to be continued…

•