A few weeks ago (102425), I talked about the current administration’s attack on the discipline of history. Besides the fact that Historians are evidence-based thinkers, we are as a group, apparently, overly “woke,” and unredeemably “lib.” One manifestation of those characteristics is that we tend to point out when someone makes an error about historical events. This is a problem when many of the policies being bandied about these days are based on stories about the past that are dubious, naïve, and sometimes blatant nonsense. That they have no sense of the longer-term implications of their policies sets a nice bookend to their short-sightedness.
Recasting the Defense Department as the “Department of War” in order to promote a “warrior” mentality reveals a mindset that is stuck in an image of mid-20C American invincibility (if not some medieval tale of chivalry and derring-do). It’s as if the post-WWII period was simple and grand. We definitely basked in the glow of our triumph over fascism. After all, our foes had done us the service of acting in so brutal a manner as to make our Manichean self-righteousness all too easy. Never mind the not inconsiderable contribution of the Red Army in defeating Hitler, nor the fundamental futility of the Axis grand strategy. Let’s conveniently forget that we bestrode the world in no small part due to the War’s extensive destruction of the economies of any of our possible post-War economic competitors. And, let’s squint so our vision doesn’t encompass the problematic “police actions” in Korea and Vietnam, or the “loss” of China which followed our wartime apotheosis. It would be comforting to construct a mythology of a simple time when America was “great,” and then reengineer our way back to it. (Of course, I’ve only touched on the complexities of that era.)
Besides ensuring the restoration of order in our havoc-strewn cities, our military’s principal activities have been down in the Caribbean, revitalizing the generally dormant tradition of American intervention/imperialism. One needn’t go back to the Spanish-American War (1898), or the Mexican-American War (1845), much less the Monroe Doctrine (1823) to see this region as a playground where we would blithely telling other folks how to run their countries. The list of military deployments since I was born include six invasions (Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1961, Dominican Republic 1966, Grenada 1983, Panama 1990, and Haiti 1994), not to mention the Nicaraguan “Contras” exploits of the 1980s or numerous incidents in the first half of the 20C. These days the target, depending on who you talk to, is either the drug gangs or the Maduro regime in Venezuela. It must feel good to send a spare aircraft carrier down there and blow up/shoot up some bad guys so we can promote our own outstanding version of democracy and freedom. Featuring most recently Afghanistan and Iraq, our record of “nation-building” and democracy restoral is pretty much bereft of successes, but let’s not trouble ourselves with a few data points amid all the glory of war.
Over at the Transportation Department, Secretary Duffy has called for a return to sartorial decorum on our aviation system. Apparently, the current trends in casual dress are a problem significant enough for his attention. Safety, a limping air traffic control system, passenger discomfort, and airline extraction of every possible revenue stream all must fall into the queue behind redressing slackers who fly in pajamas. Another would-be time traveler, it seems, to the “Golden Age” of aviation, untroubled by the differences in safety, cost, and extent of governmental regulation of that earlier era. Can “Coffee, tea, or me” be far behind?
Naturally, the principal avatar of atavism (a killer alliteration if I do say so!) is the orange-haired one himself, aka HWSNBN. It’s hard—between the long list of misogynistic comments, quasi-racist “dog whistles,” and the pervasive atmosphere of anger and hatred—to know where to start. The most recent example arose in the aftermath of the killing of the National Guardswoman in DC by an Afghan man who had sought refuge here after we trashed his country. A pretty young white woman killed by violent man of color; it was a trope not to be missed. And it’s not that he needed any particular prompt to move against immigrants. So, it shouldn’t have been surprising that he referred to immigrants from “third-world countries” as the main group to be excluded. “Third-world” is a phrase that has been outdated since the demise of the Cold War over 30 years ago. After all, if the globe wasn’t any longer defined by the battle between the (liberal Western) “First World,” and the (evil Communist) “Second World,” then there wasn’t really any reason to dump everyone else into the “Third World” pot. But there he is, back in his formative years of the 1950s and 1960s; and, apparently, we’re along for the ride.
There are many and considerable moral issues about the nature of US society in the middle of the 20C that might deter one from seeing this as an idyllic period to be emulated in the 21C. But, even putting those to one side (along with whatever similar critiques one might have of the current administration in general), we should still recognize that the idea of return to some golden age does seem to be animating this gang.
It’s futile, of course. You can’t pick and choose some parts of the past that you like and pretend that there was no baggage to be dragged along, too. I had a pretty nice upbringing, but picturing my mom solely as the one who made me warm chocolate chip cookies when I came home from school doesn’t respect her or help me. The only real lesson of history is that life is complex and hard and we have to pay attention to those realities and not pretend that situations or people fit into neat categories with over-generalized characteristics. Any attempt to portray the past as simple (much less Elysian) should put us on alert that we are being led astray. The Historian’s job is to sound those alarms.
Recasting the Defense Department as the “Department of War” in order to promote a “warrior” mentality reveals a mindset that is stuck in an image of mid-20C American invincibility (if not some medieval tale of chivalry and derring-do). It’s as if the post-WWII period was simple and grand. We definitely basked in the glow of our triumph over fascism. After all, our foes had done us the service of acting in so brutal a manner as to make our Manichean self-righteousness all too easy. Never mind the not inconsiderable contribution of the Red Army in defeating Hitler, nor the fundamental futility of the Axis grand strategy. Let’s conveniently forget that we bestrode the world in no small part due to the War’s extensive destruction of the economies of any of our possible post-War economic competitors. And, let’s squint so our vision doesn’t encompass the problematic “police actions” in Korea and Vietnam, or the “loss” of China which followed our wartime apotheosis. It would be comforting to construct a mythology of a simple time when America was “great,” and then reengineer our way back to it. (Of course, I’ve only touched on the complexities of that era.)
Besides ensuring the restoration of order in our havoc-strewn cities, our military’s principal activities have been down in the Caribbean, revitalizing the generally dormant tradition of American intervention/imperialism. One needn’t go back to the Spanish-American War (1898), or the Mexican-American War (1845), much less the Monroe Doctrine (1823) to see this region as a playground where we would blithely telling other folks how to run their countries. The list of military deployments since I was born include six invasions (Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1961, Dominican Republic 1966, Grenada 1983, Panama 1990, and Haiti 1994), not to mention the Nicaraguan “Contras” exploits of the 1980s or numerous incidents in the first half of the 20C. These days the target, depending on who you talk to, is either the drug gangs or the Maduro regime in Venezuela. It must feel good to send a spare aircraft carrier down there and blow up/shoot up some bad guys so we can promote our own outstanding version of democracy and freedom. Featuring most recently Afghanistan and Iraq, our record of “nation-building” and democracy restoral is pretty much bereft of successes, but let’s not trouble ourselves with a few data points amid all the glory of war.
Over at the Transportation Department, Secretary Duffy has called for a return to sartorial decorum on our aviation system. Apparently, the current trends in casual dress are a problem significant enough for his attention. Safety, a limping air traffic control system, passenger discomfort, and airline extraction of every possible revenue stream all must fall into the queue behind redressing slackers who fly in pajamas. Another would-be time traveler, it seems, to the “Golden Age” of aviation, untroubled by the differences in safety, cost, and extent of governmental regulation of that earlier era. Can “Coffee, tea, or me” be far behind?
Naturally, the principal avatar of atavism (a killer alliteration if I do say so!) is the orange-haired one himself, aka HWSNBN. It’s hard—between the long list of misogynistic comments, quasi-racist “dog whistles,” and the pervasive atmosphere of anger and hatred—to know where to start. The most recent example arose in the aftermath of the killing of the National Guardswoman in DC by an Afghan man who had sought refuge here after we trashed his country. A pretty young white woman killed by violent man of color; it was a trope not to be missed. And it’s not that he needed any particular prompt to move against immigrants. So, it shouldn’t have been surprising that he referred to immigrants from “third-world countries” as the main group to be excluded. “Third-world” is a phrase that has been outdated since the demise of the Cold War over 30 years ago. After all, if the globe wasn’t any longer defined by the battle between the (liberal Western) “First World,” and the (evil Communist) “Second World,” then there wasn’t really any reason to dump everyone else into the “Third World” pot. But there he is, back in his formative years of the 1950s and 1960s; and, apparently, we’re along for the ride.
There are many and considerable moral issues about the nature of US society in the middle of the 20C that might deter one from seeing this as an idyllic period to be emulated in the 21C. But, even putting those to one side (along with whatever similar critiques one might have of the current administration in general), we should still recognize that the idea of return to some golden age does seem to be animating this gang.
It’s futile, of course. You can’t pick and choose some parts of the past that you like and pretend that there was no baggage to be dragged along, too. I had a pretty nice upbringing, but picturing my mom solely as the one who made me warm chocolate chip cookies when I came home from school doesn’t respect her or help me. The only real lesson of history is that life is complex and hard and we have to pay attention to those realities and not pretend that situations or people fit into neat categories with over-generalized characteristics. Any attempt to portray the past as simple (much less Elysian) should put us on alert that we are being led astray. The Historian’s job is to sound those alarms.
RSS Feed