The corrupted judgment of American History imparted to future generations: Revisionist History Propagandistic Messages

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

• Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.
• Confucius: “Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”
• Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well.”

Author Gretchen Rubin has been credited with recently popularizing the aphorism in her book, The Happiness Project.

(I must credit the website for this information:  http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249676)

I decided to apply that motivational business concept in a historical/anachronistic application.
Our Forefathers set out to establish a “More Perfect Union”. Notice their use of the comparative ‘more”, rather than the superlative “most”, or simply dubbing it a “Perfect Union”. By carefully modeling the semantics through word choice, they humbly acknowledged their current imperfections with the intent to improve, to become more perfect. They were remarkably forward-thinking regarding the Constitutional concept of “Liberty”. They eschewed the hubris of assuming they were the ultimate authority on a Free Society. They understood that, with the guidance of our governing document, Liberty would be open to match the “more perfect union” America would become as geographically and culturally diverse states would grow more consistent in their agreement of what “liberty” is and to whom it applied.
As you have probably noticed, Americans are beginning to question (and perhaps dismiss altogether) the integrity of our Forefathers because they did not provide equal liberties for Americans of African descent and women. There are even some “statue-phobes” who are calling for the removal of Jefferson and Washington monuments because they were slave owners. Hold on a minute! It is as though people are assuming they simultaneously invented liberty for “white men” and slavery for “black men”. The slaves they owned were an inheritance that was passed to them, a vestige or their predecessors.

Be careful not to abandon the Good, the accomplishments of these men, because they failed to be Perfect. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” These guys had not experienced the progress over the 240 years of a “more perfect union” that we have. To judge them using the anachronism of our current progress of “liberty” is unfair. (I blame the failing education system for this misconception, but I’ll address that later.)
That brings us to another useful aphorism:
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”

― Søren Kierkegaard

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:

1. Minimal development of civilization
2. Human brutality toward others
3. Despotism that quashed liberty
4. 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

Throughout history mankind:

• Brutally dominated other peoples
• Enslaved others to maintain 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.

Wow, these people were hypocrites in terms of “liberty” and “all men are created equal”, enslaving fellow Americans and denying women the right to vote.

Well, those concepts were an anachronism in their time.  They came about with great efforts by great Americans.

The framers of the Constitution had to start from the square upon which they were standing. It was difficult enough to get 13 geographically, culturally, and economically diverse regions to come together and agree on a plan for government. Too many innovations and it would be even more difficult, if not impossible, to come together as The United States of America.

History is now taught from a judgmental perspective rather than a factual one. I have seen historical programs designed to appeal to children that overtly present an anti-“old white men” attitude that reflects poorly on our Founding Fathers… even to the extreme as calling them “backward-thinking” (for not providing for the right of women to vote).

No, no, no… This judgmental, simplistic portrayal of American History is eroding patriotism passing on to future generations.
It is a fallacy of logic to pass judgment on historical figures when the condemnation is anachronistic.
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?
• How could the Founding Fathers selfishly deny women the right to vote?

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

Remember:

• 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 contemporary 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 equitable so that no one group would develop greater power and become the next despot.
• Many things needed to be accepted with the agreement that they would be dealt with later. .. and, as history has progressed, they have.

That brings us to the modern concepts, fraught with intolerance as they are, of “toxic masculinity” and “white privilege. I will further address these topics in a later post.