James Loewen Explodes Myths of Neo-Confederates

James Loewen, author of 'Lies My Teacher Told Me', spent two years at the Smithsonian Institution surveying twelve leading high school textbooks of American history. What he found was an "embarrassing amalgam of bland optimism, blind patriotism and misinformation" as summarized on the dust jacket of his book. Basically, he found our kids are being taught pabulum and bollocks, passed off as real history.

I already wrote of his skewering of myths to do with Christopher Columbus, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-you-didnt-know-about-christopher.html

And now he has taken on the baloney and BS circulated by those he calls "Neo-Confederates" in his essay, 'Why Do Some Believe Myths About The Confederacy?' (Denver Post, July 5, p. 1D), very timely as the South Carolina state legislature is now on the verge of finally removing the odious Confederate Battle Flag. As he puts it:

"As soon as Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done and why."

Adding that a generation later, "the resulting mythology went national and persists - which is why a presidential candidate can suggest that slavery was somehow pro family and the war was fought mainly over states' rights."

Thus, the Confederates had "won with the pen and the noose what they could not win on the battlefield".

In other words, sore ass losers whose only way out was to reconstruct and revise history to their liking. The tragedy wasn't so much that they did this, but that so many accepted it and it's even crept into history textbooks alongside the codswallop about Columbus, the treatment of American Indians and the origins of the Vietnam War.  As Loewen puts it:

"We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation that they spread  which has manifested in both our history books and our public monuments."

Again, you don't see Nazi monuments in Germany, so why are we seeing Confederate monuments here in the U.S.? Or is it that we extol those who fought on the wrong side and moreover propagated one of the most vicious sub-human, brutal programs in history where slave women could be raped at will by 'Massah' while holding his Confederate flag, and her husband could be whipped to death for complaining.

This was the system put into place by these degenerates which the mythology of today's Neo-Confederates defends.

Loewen adds that these degenerates have also succeeded in altering the language which has actually been accepted, noting:

"In addition to winning the battle for public monuments, neo-Confederates also managed to rename the war, calling it 'the War Between the States'.  Never mind while it was going on nobody called it that."

But Loewen asserts the "most pernicious" claim by these neo-Confederates is that the Civil War was fought over states' rights.  As he puts it:

"When each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states' rights.  In its 'Declaration of the Causes Which Impel The State of Texas To Secede From The Federal Union' for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended them: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.

These states had, in fact, exercised states' rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government's attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some also no longer let slave owners transit through their states with slaves. Thus, 'states' rights' were what Texas was seceding against."

Even more malignant, as Loewen writes:

"During and after the nadir of the Civil War, neo-Confederates put up monuments that flatly lied about the Confederate cause. For example, South Carolina's monument at Gettysburg, dedicated in 1965, claims to explain why the state seceded: 'Abiding faith in states' rights'"

But this was exploded on the same basis as Texas' reasons given earlier.  South Carolinians also invoked specious "states' rights" in 1965 when they tried to prevent federally mandated desegregation, but as Loewen points out (ibid.):

"The one constant was that the leaders of South Carolina in 1860 and 1965 were acting on behalf of white supremacy."

Worse:

"So thoroughly did this mythology take hold that our textbooks still stand history on its head and say secession was for, rather than against, states' rights. Publishers mystify secession because they don't want to offend Southern school districts and therefore lose sales."!

Ugh! Say it ain't so! Venal school text publishers?

Loewen again:

"With our monuments lying about secession, our textbooks obfuscating what the Confederacy was about, no wonder so many Americans supported the Confederacy until last week. We can literally see the impact Confederate symbols and thinking had on Dylan Roof".

Indeed, because that thinking is all about white supremacy, nothing more, Defending their ancestors' "rights" to keep slaves, rape them at will, beat and starve and work them mercilessly - and split families asunder at will.

At least the Germans who once supported the Third Reich let that 'puppy' die soon after, and erected no Nazi monuments. Even my three German friends, Dieter, Hans and Werner, who fought in the Wehrmacht - were adamant that they spit on the swastika and were against any Third Reich memorials. They insist, and history supports them, that the Wehrmacht was seized by Hitler for his own purposes. Unlike the Southerners who willingly joined the Confederacy to fight to preserve slavery, the Germans were conscripted into the Wehrmacht under threat, mainly to their families.












Photo: Teutoburger Forest, W. Germany, May, 1985, with two former Wehrmacht soldiers- Dieter on the left and Hans on the right. Far right is Reinhardt who acted as translator.

The Third Reich, as Hans put it, was "not about anything patriotic or a noble heritage" but imposing its will on Europe and the world and subjugating - butchering Jews. Dieter was even more forthright when we talked in the Teutoburger Forest in May, 1985, observing that anyone who'd remove those issues from the basis for German aggression was "stupid" and "didn't know Third Reich history".

In the same way, James Loewen writes that "removing slavery from its central role in the Civil War marginalizes African-Americans and makes us all stupid"

It is time now Americans wake up and move beyond that historical stupidity. If the Germans can do it, so can we!

South Carolina removing its Confederate Battle flag later this week would be a momentous step in that direction.

Do We Need A Google "Truth Algorithm" For Web Searches?

Back in March, Google announced a new search algorithm that would display websites and news stories based on their factual content at the top of the list and the factually-deficient results at the bottom.  This is radically different from current practice where Google puts the top read results at the top and less read to the rear. But is this the way it should be, given people may be reading too much bollocks and not enough factual, scientific material?

Should creation science websites or climate denier sites be at the top of searches because  most people read them, or at the bottom because they are not factual? If the former is acceptable, then really all we have is a popularity contest. Is that valid for those seeking genuine information as opposed to PR and nonsense?

Interestingly, when Google first announced this new search program, there was instant blowback and outrage from FOX News (which consistently ranks low in accuracy at Politifact.org and Factcheck.org.) Why would FOX be howling its head off? Maybe, just maybe because their honchos know most of what they put out there is gibberish and distortions. From O'Reilly to Hannity and Fox n' Friends, none of it can be trusted.

FOX wasn't the only bunch screaming. Others included: climate change deniers, Vaxers (those against childhood vaccinations), and birthers.  Again, why are they howling like stuck pigs if they are offering valid information? There'd be no reason for such outbursts.

Sadly, Google has no plans to start using the program but it's interesting to consider the uproar if they did given all the liars, PR-mongers, disinformationists and others would have to come out of the woodwork. They'd not sit still or remain quiet given it might jeopardize their interests.

But think of the benefits!

For example, employers could fact check job candidates' resumes and LinkedIn pages, identifying bogus credentials including inflated education credentials that might eliminate many job seekers on the basis of fudged resumes.

Even more importantly, kids and others interested in advancing their educations on the subject of climate change, evolution and American history wouldn't be driven first to nonsense sites such as those of Roger Pielke Jr., Ken Ham and the history revisionist Larry Schweikart, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/08/48-liberal-lies-how-about-50-tea-party.html

Imagine how much more efficient educational web searches would become if all the detritus could be instantly ranked at the bottom instead of the most relevant and factual material - forcing truth seekers to plow through page after page, even after refining searches.

But it seems this is what we will have to settle for until Google implements its truth algorithm. That means facts and truth will not come easily but only after diligent work. Of course, in this quest reading can also do wonders, because it upends the popularity ranking systems prevalent for existing web search engines.

Point of fact, babble such as put forward by the likes of  Larry Schweikart, Ken Ham or Roger Pielke Jr. wouldn't stand a chance at being seen as credible if people read more diligently from the pool of books shown to be factual or scientific. Books such as Darwin's Origin of Species, and James Loewen's tour de force ('Lies My Teacher Told Me') exposing the bogus American history taught our kids- but more importantly also disclosing the actual history omitted!

Moral of the story: read first, or at least read to check any web searches you pull up - don't just accept the first ones as the factual ones.

What You Didn't Know About Christopher Columbus

Today is Columbus Day, but one wonders how much actual history Americans know. If it's only what's been fed to them in standard high school textbooks it's probably not much - according to James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me - Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.  No surprise Loewen commences his historical analysis with the chapter, 1493 - The True Importance of Christopher Columbus.

He begins by reciting a synopsis of the usual pabulum fed to students almost as a formula: Born in Genoa, Italy, of humble parents, grew up to become an experienced seafarer, had already sailed as far as Ireland and Africa which convinced him the world was round but wanted to go further. And there were the fabled riches of the East - spices, silk and gold- which provided a compelling incentive. Oh, and he beseeched Queen Isabella of Spain to underwrite his modest expedition comprised of "three pitifully small ships", the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria. The voyage was difficult, and the crew almost mutinied and "without his daring American history would have been very different"....blah, blah, and blah.

As Loewen observes (p. 30):

"Unfortunately, almost everything in the traditional account is either wrong or unverifiable. The authors of history books have taken us on a trip of their own, away from the facts of history and into the realm of myth"

Myth? Well, yes! In many ways analogous to how too many of us in the current history epoch have been force fed the myth of the Warren Commission Report - and only a relatively few have done the research that challenges and exposes it as politically contrived myth.

In the case of Columbus' alleged original voyage, Loewen correctly notes that his "discovery" was not the first but the last, of the Americas. He writes (ibid.):

"It was epoch making because of the way Europe responded. Columbus' importance is therefore primarily attributable to changing conditions in Europe, not to his having reached a 'new' continent."

What exactly were these changing conditions? Some of us have become aware of them by exploring replicas of ancient texts, such as Hartmann Schedel's, Chronicles of the World (1493), also known as the Nuremberg Chronicle. Basically, on distilling the real history one arrives at three major imperatives for Columbus' voyage: 1) Military dominance over rival states  - the development and testing of newer weapons and modes of warfare,  2) Social technology innovations that enabled the mercantile sectors to manage far flung enterprises, and 3) the amassing of resource wealth and the theological or ideological domination of other ("lesser") peoples.

Taking (1) first, Loewen notes:

"Around 1400, European rulers began to commission ever bigger guns and learned to mount them on ships. Europe's incessant wars gave rise to this arms race."

How did Columbus' voyage fit in? The first people he encountered were Arawaks (p. 52) and Columbus attempted to render them servile while grabbing as much of their natural wealth as he could (he used slaves to help amass the resources). This included their women, who after one of Columbus' expeditions (in 1493) saw him offering Arawak females to his lieutenants to rape. Loewen describes this as a "particularly repellant aspect of the slave trade".

Finally, the Arawaks (for whom many relics and implements can still be seen today in the Barbados Museum) could take no more and fought back, but "their sticks and stones were no more effective against the armed and clothed Spanish, than earthlings' rifles were against Martian death rays in 'The War of the Worlds'".

Further (ibid.):

"The attempts at resistance gave Columbus an excuse to make war. On March 24, 1495, he set out to conquer the Arawaks. Bartolome de las Casas described the force used to put down the Arawaks: 'Since the admiral perceived that daily the people were taking up arms, ridiculous weapons in reality...he hastened to proceed to the country and disperse and subdue, by force of arms, the people of the entire island.  For this he chose 200 foot soldiers and 20 cavalry with many crossbows, and small cannon, lances and swords. And an additional terrible weapon.....20 hunting dogs, who were turned loose and immediately tore the Indians apart."

The bloody, murderous rampage set the stage - the template if you will - for other European conquests of other lands, the seizure of their resources and the slaughter of their peoples.  This included the American seizure of native Americans' lands and their subjugation via the Indian wars of the late 1800s.

Motive (3) almost invariably entered because before the native peoples were subjugated they were forced to convert to whatever the European doctrine or religion was - thus Catholicism and imperialism in the case of the Arawaks and Indians of South America (by the Spanish) and Protestantism in the case of the Hawaiians by the Americans.

Meanwhile, the mercantile motive (3) was ramped up especially after Columbus and his expeditions began hauling back all the loot they'd seized. So no surprise one beheld the rise of bureaucracy, double entry bookkeeping and mechanical printing. In respect to the first, Loewen points out P. 33):

"Bureaucracy, which today has negative connotations, was actually a practical innovation that allowed rulers and merchants to manage far flung enterprises efficiently. So did double entry bookkeeping, based on the decimal system, which Europeans picked up from Arab traders."

These mercantile developments allowed the conquering European nations to keep track of their amassed stolen wealth, how large percentages could be used to refine and improve their armaments and enable attacks on other empires (e.g. the Dutch, Spanish, English were at each other's throats for many decades and a number of Caribbean islands still bear the marks  and residual implements of their battles - including Barbados. There, massive cannon mounted onto parapets on the west coast near St. James continue pointing to the open sea - awaiting the next attack from the Spanish or Dutch - which will never arrive)

What have American history textbooks to say concerning all the above? Not much! Loewen at the time of his writing,  examined twelve textbooks (e.g. American Adventures, The American Way, The American Pageant) and found a composite story that pretty well resembles a repetitive kind of programming (many use the same phrases over and over) - singing all the positive notes and none of the negative.  As he writes:

"Overall, the level of scholarship is discouragingly low, perhaps because their authors are more at home with American history than European history. They provide no real causal explanations for the age of European conquest. Instead they argue for Europe's greatness in transparently psychological terms - 'people grew more curious'. such arguments make sociologist smile: we know that no one measured the curiosity level in Spain in 1492 or can with authority compare it to the curiosity level of Norway in 1005."

Worse are the omissions, such as the development of arms and military technology leading to exploration and further domination of less advanced native peoples. Or, how the exploitation of resources and the accompaniment of diseases (such as smallpox)  helped the Europeans "conquer the Americas and later the islands of the Pacific". Indeed, Loewen, in his excavation of truths-facts in the 12 books could only come up with one text with a single paragraph on the latter factors:

"Except for one paragraph in The American Pageant, not one of the 12 textbooks mentions either of these factors as contributing to world dominance."

Sadly, most Americans today who acknowledge Columbus Day, and especially students - will be unaware of any of the history left on the cutting room floor by textbook authors determined to paint a PR-propaganda view. Which is sad, because this strategy only contributes to the disdain for history shared by so many.

Those who wish to learn of many other textbook  historical travesties, and especially omissions, need to read Loewen's book and realize how little they really know!

Exposing More of Larry Schweikart's Lies About Liberals

"I fear that if you're an educated conservative, and you've had the misfortune of reading this book, you've already pulled a good deal amount of hair out of your head like I have........Forget that Schweikart is an abominable writer and harms the conservative movement by making it look like buffoonery. IN FACT.......you know what? .....Just forget this book ever came out"  - Reviewer on Amazon.com

"Schweikart discredits lies that he himself invented and attributed to liberals to make himself appear the hero. It is like the exterminator who releases mice into your house then charges you to get rid of them. "   Reviewer on Amazon.com

We now examine a few more of the ridiculous lies Larry Schweikart attributes to liberals in his book, '48 Liberal Lies About American History' .   

Lie #12: The Founders Envisioned a "Wall of Separation" Between Church and State, Keeping Religious Influence Out of Government

Well, Larry might be excused here, since most fundamentalist-leaning, right wing  radicals don't seem to be aware of Thomas Jefferson's (1802) letter to Danbury Baptists:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

It thereby became an unspoken, unwritten principle that has been practiced on many judicial levels since. And it pretty well embraced Jefferson's (and Madison's) vision of keeping religious influence out of government. The most famous ruling validating it? The 1962 case brought by Madalyn Murray O'Hair which has kept prayer out of the public schools - as it should be.

Lie #18: Senator Joseph McCarthy Concocted the "Red Scare," and There Was Nothing to Fear from Communist Subversives

Most of us, especially from Wisconsin, know the murky history of Joe McCarthy - but evidently this bozo doesn't. We know, for example, that he fomented hysteria about the "Red scare" that reached into almost every U.S. Dept. and agency and at one time bloviated in a Senate hearing about an astounding number of "communists" at  State  and in the military that ran "into the thousands".. He eventually discredited himself by his overreach and unsupported exaggerations, though he ruined hundreds of lives with his insane demagoguery. You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

One more interesting fact: It was during the 'Red scare' hysteria of the early 50s  that the Children's Crusade 'Know your Commies' cards came out, e.g.

Lie #21: Columbus Was Responsible for Killing Millions of Indians

 Blatant exaggeration and red herring. Columbus himself did not "kill millions of Indians" and no liberal of any sense ever said he did. This is another case of what one reviewer described as Schweikart's tactic of inventing the lies himself than attributing them to liberals - analogous to the exterminator who releases mice in your home then charges you to remove them.  Those who want the lowdown on the effects of the arrival of the Europeans, including Columbus, on native Americans,  can consult James Loewen's excellent and quality book, 'Lies My Teacher Told Me'.

The key aspect to note? The Europeans brought smallpox with them to the New World, as well as other diseases (e.g. measles) which devastated native populations. But, as Loewen also notes, there was indeed a genocide waged but not over one limited period (i.e. Columbus' arrival) but over hundreds of years. (Culminating in the "Indian Wars" fought in the American West, punctuated by many massacres - such as at Sand Creek in Colorado.)

Lie #27: Richard Nixon Sent Burglars into the Watergate Office Complex

Schweikart can maybe be pardoned for this howler, because he wrote his screed before all the Nixon tapes were released (including new ones only recently). But even then he might have been able to obtain the deathbed account of E. Howard Hunt, one of the Watergate burglars,  who 'fessed up that  he'd been sent to the Watergate complex by....who else? Nixon!   Bottom line: 'Tricky Dick' basically hung himself by keeping a tape system originally installed by JFK, and using it to the point every nefarious word or plan was faithfully recorded.  By the time of the Watergate investigation in 1973 his 'goose' was basically cooked. (Though his supporters to this day hate to admit it.)

Lie #28: Neither Ronald Reagan's Election nor the "Contract with America" Proved the Triumph of Conservative Ideas

No liberal of any sense ever  "denied" (or proclaimed as a 'lie')  that Reagan's two terms "proved" the triumph of conservative ideas, because one can't deny what never existed in the first place. . What we have said is that too many millions got suckered by Reagan's "aw shucks"  demeanor into buying into conservatism more than they otherwise might. Much of this mental hijacking was superbly described by neuroscientist Robert Ornstein in his 'New World, New Mind'.

Ornstein noted how this "old Mind" (the regressive mind)  of a nation or people can be ramped up collectively and reinforced if its leaders also display and act on their own 'old Mind' predjudices, beliefs, etc. For example( p. 172):

"..the old mind has never been so much in evidence in American politics as in the second half of the Reagan administration"

Ornstein observed that Reagan's 'avuncular' persona and smile (which essentially disengaged too many  Americans' critical thinking centers) made it much easier for them to buy into the "morning in America" pap and swill he was busy feeding them. Never mind the half million tossed into the streets from mental hospitals, or the conversion of the U.S. to the world's foremost debtor and so on.

The populace' old Mind was its own worst enemy in perceiving the very real damage Reaganites were perpetrating (which has more recently been emulated by the Bushies as well as  Bushie leftovers- i.e. neocons, in Obama's State Dept.. ) Orstein points to the (then) 'Star Wars' program as yet another example of 'old Mind' workings (p. 169):

"The Star Wars program represents the continuation of a mind blindness to trends that have long made military thinking one of the clearest examples of old mind functioning. The rigid, unimaginative training of those who choose military careers apparently reinforces the brain's natural tendency to focus on the immediate and the near term and especially, to count on the environment to remain unchanged. So obvious is this effect that the comment that 'generals are always preparing to fight the previous war' has become a text book commonplace. "

The takeaway was that despite the face these assorted conservo  clowns have put on (e.g. Gee Dumbya) Americans bought into them in enough numbers to put them into power (or keep them there)  where they wrecked the economy even before Obama arrived! Sadly, those like Reagan, Bush Jr. et al have exploited Americans' dumb "faith in the future" i.e. that Repukes will do things better, despite the fact their very core plans (preserving massive tax cuts for the wealthiest) will do the opposite!

But let's go on:

Lie #30: George W. Bush Was Selected, Not Elected, in 2000, and Votes Were Stolen on His Behalf

This is the truth. The theft of the 2000 election was described in detail, including the publication of actual documents from Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris showing how Choicepoint was hired to put more than 53,000 black voters in Duval County on felons' lists (they weren't but they were put there, because Harris knew most black voters were democrats). The entire background and evidence is available - for those who want it  - in Chapter One of Greg Palast's 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.'

The unlawful elimination of all those black voters allowed Bush to take the 27 electoral votes of Florida, though he lost the popular vote by over a half million. Hence, the evidence is there that Harris, Jeb Bush et al, stole the election on his behalf.  The  Fla. recounts to try to show Gore actually won were doomed from the start because they didn't include all counties. In any case, the voter rolls would still have been short those 153,000 banned black voters.

Still, the  abrupt stoppage of the vote recount by the Supreme Court effectively halted the process and amounted to a "selection" of Bush Jr., as Vince Bugliosi pointed out in his book, The Betrayal Of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President .

The truth is a bitch.

Lie #37: Global Warming Is a Fact, and It's a Man-made, American-Driven Problem

Actually, all the evidence shows that this is the case.  Anthropogenic warming  is certainly as much a fact as just about anything in science can be expected to be, and the evidence is all around us from collapsing ice sheets and glaciers, to the instability of the polar vortex, to increasing intense storms and heat waves to acidification of the oceans. As for being "American -driven", it largely is. It is also a fact that we are offloading many of the worst carbon-laden fuels and also coal, and tar sands oil to China. Hence, much of their CO2 output is actually derived from what WE have dumped on them!

Lie #47: The Reagan Tax Cuts Caused Massive Deficits and the National Debt

Again, this is true, though portrayed by Schweikart as "a liberal lie."  The fact is that before the Reagan era America was still largely a creditor nation, more capital inflows than outflows, holding more debt from other nations than debt owed to them. Reagan changed the dynamic by going on a $2,1 TRILLION spending spree, mainly for military hardware and toys as well as allowing ridiculous cost overruns for common materials (e.g. $75 hammers $3,000 each toilets).  In the wake, and coupled with Reagan's tax cuts, the country went from mainly creditor to debtor and the situation has remained the same since - as tax cutting has become a fetish with the Reepos.

Final Lie: History Textbooks Used in Schools Are Unbiased and Not Politically Correct

Again, this is true, though portrayed by Schweikart as a liberal lie. The problem is not, however, so much "political correctness" as the refusal to look at all the blemishes, fractures and conflicts of our history. In other words, our history books are overly sanitized, a point noted by James Loewen. Do any of the current history texts examine the duplicity of the Warren Commission in its findings on the JFK assassination? Of course not. Do any of them examine the My Lai massacre committed by American troops in Vietnam? No. Do any of them really examine the betrayal of native Americans in assorted treaties (concerning their land) and the many massacres ...such as at Sand Creek here in Colorado, or at Wounded Knee?  What about the nation's track of growing inequality? Is there any examination of the historical factors that have led to this? What about the origin of Army Security and spy programs and how they were mounted against unions, workers? I could go on and on, as Loewen does - which is why he refers to 'Lies My Teacher Told Me' - the title of his book.

But then teachers are constrained by their tepid history curricula and textbooks. If those are avoidant of the underbelly of American history, the history teacher will be averse to exploring it too. (One reason why any real American history teacher also needs Howard Zinn's text : "A People's History of the United States" as an accompaniment.

Our kids get bored senseless by history because it's taught as settled events and assorted dates to be memorized, as opposed to a sequence of conflicts, many of which are ongoing. The aim ought to be not to whitewash our history but to show it with all its boils, pustules and follies as well as internecine, unsettled conflicts and divisive issues.

We do our students a disservice by teaching them the nation's history is immaculate and getting them to buy that we are the "exceptional people of the world". We aren't!  We are no different from all other nations, and the delusional belief we are "special" merely feeds our hubris.

"48 Liberal Lies on American History"? Exposing Larry Schweikart's Book For the Dreck It Is

"Where's Larry? We wanna learn 'bout Liberal Lies!"

It's almost a given that when you hear or see some right winger, who professes to be an "independent thinking researcher" on matters of history and politics, he or she is really a gullible pawn who doesn't know squat from squash. The first test, especially when they sound off about "liberals revising history",  is asking them to list four or five examples off the top of their heads. Nine will get you ten they can't do it, but will instead say "Read Larry Schweikart's book about 48 Liberal Lies!'

In such a case, rather than waste time on dreck (most of us who are college educated are choosy on how we invest our intellectual capital - or should be!) we check out the background of this purported history guru who would lead us libs from profound "ignorance" to the one and only truth.

It turns out if one even does a modest amount of research much can be learned about Schweikart. For example, he used to be a drummer for the 60s rock band 'Steppenwolf'. (According to an Arizona Tea Party site). Who'da thought?  I last saw those guys live in New Orleans in 1969 but they were only ok - not as good as the Stones, for example.

Other information we learn:

- He's a frequent guest on Fox and Friends, and also a "darling of the Right' including being pals with David Horowitz and Larry Prager

- He's had extended appearances on Limbaugh, bloviating at length

- His book '48 Liberal Lies About American History' has appeared in numerous Right wing venues including the hysterical 'Free Republic' to the somewhat more rational National Review.

So much for "independent thinking". Sounds more like dittohead "thinking".

Looking at Schweikart's list,  the discerning and historically- educated person, who's also worked in academia, can immediately spot two commonalities in the "lies". All are based on the strawman fallacy - which is attributing to an opponent or opposed group positions which they don't really hold or generally hold, and red herrings - contrived positions confected by Schweikart himself in order to distract from more substantive points or issues.

I'm not going to waste blog space with all of his listed BS idiocy but will just cite a few. Those who want to see the full list  of howlers (underwritten by his two endemic fallacies)  can easily Google them:


Lie #5: John F. Kennedy Was Killed by LBJ and a Secret Team to Prevent Him from Getting Us Out of Vietnam

Lie #6: Richard Nixon Expanded the Vietnam War

Lie #7: The "Peace Movement" Activists Were Not Dupes of the KGB 

Lie #8: Ronald Reagan Knew "Star Wars" Wouldn't Work but Wanted to Provoke a War with the USSR


The first alleged liberal lie listed is easily shot down - thanks to more than 20 years of released FOIA files on the assassination, and the obvious and evident exposure of the Warren Report as a political fraud. In combination with other facts released,  LBJ  has definitely been shown to have had a role, if not as the ultimate mastermind, then as a cooperative agent. Most of this I already showed in previous posts,  e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/lbj-was-reluctant-warrior-it-doesnt.html

Noting especially that LBJ faced prosecution in the Bobby Baker scandal just days after the Dallas motorcade - with money trails to be released by the press and also a full judicial inquiry. Thus, actively cooperating in the assassination  (e.g. helping plan the motorcade route through Dealey Plaza) provided an expeditious solution to all his troubles - plus catapulted him into top dog position.   As for the "secret team" stuff, if Schweikart means the CIA or elements within it, e.g. 'Staff D' , a SIGINT operation also mandated for assassinations -   then he'd be correct and I already expatiated on how that was done, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

Of course, those too damned lazy to do independent research would never learn that.

The claim that Nixon expanding the Vietnam war is a lie, is also a lie. Everyone not stoned or semi-conscious at the time,  and who has read the Pentagon Papers, knows damned well of Nixon's bombing campaign in Cambodia. By the very definition,  when you add another nation to your bombing sorties and attacks you have expanded a war. So I've no idea WTF Schweikart's all about.  It seems he believes his readers are brain dead zombies or totally illogical. I'm not sure which.

The Peace movement blather ("lie #7")  is a similar pile of horse manure, mainly for the consumption of right wing stooges who were either comatose during the 1960s or weren't born yet. Anyone alive then knows it was the FBI's COINTELPRO which actually infiltrated the protest groups including the Weather Underground, Yippies, the SDS as well as less well known groups. The basic strategy was to dress these undercover imps like hippies then "join" the groups and spread havoc from within by telling lies or planting false info. (Google COINTELPRO and learn more about it!)  Had the KGB really had a hand in any of the protests the FBI would already have had its people in on busting - exposing their influence. Hoover was a hyper-paranoid so would have  known if the KGB had any role!

The Star Wars tripe (#8)  has been circulating in the circles of the semi-educated Reich wing for decades. But a simple resort to picking up the special 'Directed Energy Weapons Report' in Physics Today from April, 1989 will disclose how Star Wars was totally exposed as a white elephant and fraud - a colossal waste of money.  The Report, all 30 odd pages of it, shows how the media and the Reaganites were led by the nose on this absurd program that had about the same chance of working as shooting an ICBM down with a rifle.  In that sense, the simple media PR emanating from the damned program would have clearly spoofed the Russkies into really thinking there was something there.

Oh, let's not forget another  liberal "lie":


Lie #20: Lee Harvey Oswald Shot JFK Because He Was a Deranged Marine, Not Because He Was a Communist 103

And, of course, neither is true. Oswald wasn't "deranged" at all but was portrayed that way by the puppet press which was cowed before LBJ's egregious political solution. . (See my  2 earlier links above to see how I skewer this crap.)

Other comments, from those who've reviewed Schweikart's book on amazon include the following:

1) I fear that if you're an educated conservative, and you've had the misfortune of reading this book, you've already pulled a good deal amount of hair out of your head like I have, internally pleading with Schweikart not to be such a bad writer and worse a bad spokesman for a cause.

Look: forget that these aren't really common things anyone is taught in school. Forget that many of these arguments are in fact originated by anti-government types. Forget that Schweikart is an abominable writer and harms the conservative movement by making it look like buffoonery. IN FACT.......you know what? .....Just forget this book ever came out.

2) Wow. This guy is an idiot. Reconstruction ended as a compromise of the 1876 disputed presidential election. By the 1920s it was fifty years behind us. The New Left never amounted to a true block of scholars as they discredited themselves and promoted unsustainable positions decades ago. In fact this is my main complaint about Schweikart, he discredits lies that he himself invented and attributed to liberals to make himself appear the hero. It is like the exterminator who releases mice into your house then charges you to get rid of them.


3) Of Schweikart's 48 "lies" I (who attended both American public schools and American public colleges) had never heard of most of them. In Lie #1 he claims that liberals believe American presidents were isolationists. No president has ever been a true isolationist. Lie #2 claims business interests promoted wars with Mexico and Spain. Actually, one cannot compare these two wars so simply as they were fought in different periods of our history under different sets of values. In 1898 the concept of imperialism was not unpopular with many, only a minority which included Andrew Carnegie.


4) Lie #34 truly demonstrates Schweikart's ignorance about Indians. He claims the lie is the first Thanksgiving took place because the Indians saved the Puritans from their own ineptitude. Larry, there is no lie here, this is exactly what happened. First of all the Pilgrims were not Puritans, they were separatists. Puritans wanted to "purify" the Anglican church. The Pilgrims saw Anglicanism as a lost cause not worthy of saving. So they set sail for Holland and lived there for a few years. But then they sought a greater degree of separation so they set sail for America, in September. When they arrived in November they realized they had no way of providing food for themselves through the New England winter. If the Pilgrims were so capable, why would they set sail in the fall, with no chance of planting a crop before winter? They truly were inept as the massive numbers of deaths from starvation that first year reflect.

5) Schweikart and scholarship are two words that really do not belong in the same sentence...cull 48 "liberal lies" from statements made at one time or another by "liberals" and then "demolish" same in 5 or 6 pages....seriously....that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack (and, by extension, could have prevented it) is a lie that a liberal would propagate?.

6) Looking at his other books, they're purely political in nature and not objective in the slightest. It's no wonder that they're on the reading list for conservative and religious book clubs. They're so filled with hero-worship of the Founding Fathers and the other "Great Men" of US history that they are utterly useless as legitimate history books. No, I am not offended as a liberal but as a historian.

Take this book for what it is: a puff piece intending to make historically illiterate American, conservative Christians feel superior for being historically illiterate American, conservative Christians.


7) This book is a perfect example of the false "two-model" approach common to (but not exclusive to) fundamentalist thinking - we see it in the discussion of politics, religion, and regularly in most any broadcast media debate. This book is rife with allegedly "liberal" opinions (and often just conspiracy theories), many of which are certainly not taught in schools and universities. The book seeks to cover an array of topics, but in the end, sadly it says very little. It reads more as a reactionary quasi-tirade against illusory "liberal" foes somewhere in academia, the author being "true" history's courageous advocate. The writing itself bears the faint din of paranoia.

As for the genuine seeker of historical truth -  intelligent and educated people who wish to learn about the REAL lies taught about our history-  I recommend James Loewen's excellent and quality book, 'Lies My Teacher Told Me'

Enough said!