« Howard Wolfson Nicely Reconciles Himself to Obama | Home | The Non-Inevitability of Evil »

Legacy of Mythological Patriotism from the Southern Gulag

user-pic

That few people in America even know the facts that Blackmon documents in my earlier post is astonishing--but this reflects a toxic "patriotic" denial of truths about American history that we see in contemporary politics today.

In fact, the core facts of continuing slavery in the South were repeatedly investigated and, for a short time starting in 1903, the federal government brought indictments over the issue with cases going to the Supreme Court--but the court proceedings came under such assault by southern politicians that they were shut down, all in a hail of denial of the problems of not just 20th century slavery but of the pre-Civil War version as well. The following quote sums it up:

As the twentieth century neared, though, the orthodoxy of southern patriotism was mutating virulently...The South now demanded in public forums an increasingly rabid level of absolute adherence to a baroque new mythology of the honorable southerner, the contented slave, and the tragically defeated secession.
In this, we see the same toxic DNA that twists any criticism of the government policy into hatred of government--and the metaphorical kissing of the flag that Michelle Obama was forced into.

Michelle Obama's comments that indicated that there was much in America's past NOT to be proud of was a direct assault on this patriotic denial of memory. We can't discuss the fact that U.S. mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the native American population ranks as one of the worst crimes against humanity of the last two centuries, just as the persistence of slavery in the U.S. and its mutated form as Blackmon documents was a international crime that ranks with the worst of nations of the world.

All such discussions must be telescoped as far into history and the facts downplayed as much as possible in order to maintain not only a presumption of U.S. virtue in international affairs, but is also critical to maintaining conservative policy domestically. For to continually defend the past-- low taxes, "rugged individualism", "states rights" and so on -- you have to ignore the state-supported genocide and slavery that underpinned those old conservative values.

Almost everyone on the Left readily condemns Stalinism and its crimes, yet the Confederate flag still flies in many states and conservatives defend the right of those states to fly a flag that oversaw crimes as bad as Hitler's and Stalin's.

The toxic brand of patriotism that requires denial of the past is still all too prevalent in our politics. Hopefully, Blackmon's book will contribute in a small way to helping overcome it.


105 Comments

| Leave a comment

@ Newman


but the court proceedings came under such assault by southern politicians that they were shut down

I'm sure that's true. Nor was this prosecutorial effort TRs only courageous move towards racial justice; He dined at the White House with Booker T. Washington, for which he also took a great deal of shit.


The problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't deal with the attitudes of northerners. Where were they while all this was happening?

We can't discuss the fact that U.S. mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the native American population ranks as one of the worst crimes against humanity of the last two centuries

Who says? It's been discussed for at least a century. Hitler referred to it as an inspiration for his racial policies. The '60s saw the publication of numerous books on the subject, from screed to scholarly.


And the simple fact is that you're full of shit about it. The British and United States governments at times took numerous actions to try to protect the Indians but were unwilling to go as far as shooting, or imprisoning in numbers, their own people who were desperately hungry for land. Nor do you have anything to say about the tremendous effects of disease, or about the impossibility of the simultaneous existance of a primitive hunting and gathering society with a modern one, or similar actions by the Spanish in their colonizing efforts, or real comparisons between what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others did.


It turns out you're not a serious scholar. You're just another leftie America hater.

user-pic

Seriously? This is your response? You're just engaging in the same old excuses:

"The British and United States governments at times took numerous actions to try to protect the Indians"

Sure, you can point to a few instances of good actions, but the reality is that official legal action by the U.S. was to steal the land, break treaties, and pass "Indian Removal" acts -- the official name for the law under Andrew Jackson -- to drive native Americans out of their lands. And the Supreme Court, with a few weak exceptions, largely endorsed the theft of lands. And guess what, many of the Native Americans were in farming communities and were farming alongside initial settlers until they were driven from their lands.

But your apologia for genocide above illustrates my points, including you calling me a "leftie America hater." Inevitably, even the discussion of the past brings out the usual McCarthyite and patriotic breastbeating. Thanks for illustrating my point so well.

And where did I just condemn Southerners. I noted explicitly in the original post that NORTHERN CAPITALISTS were integral to and benefitted from the Southern slave system, so of course there was an interest in North and South to suppress discussion of the system. The problem of memory suppression was quite national.

@ Newman


Seriously? That's your response. "NORTHERN CAPITALISTS were intergral to the southern slave system"...the reality is that official legal action by the U.S. was to steal the land, break treaties, and pass "Indian Removal" acts -- the official name for the law under Andrew Jackson -- to drive native Americans out of their lands. And the Supreme Court, with a few weak exceptions, largely endorsed the theft of lands"?


I guess you didn't really read, or understand, my response; no government could stand against the land hunger of the people. ALL the people. Not just "the capitalists" of your fairy tale. Why do you think immigrants flocked to our shores in such numbers? Why do you think land and gold rushes were so well attended?


Nor do you deal with the issue of disease, or of the impossibility of coexistance of two very different cultures, a problem which has existed all the time and everywhere. And you so easily equate removing Indians from their lands with deliberate murder of millions.


You couldn't do that if you weren't an America hater.

user-pic

offensivetoyou asks;

The problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't deal with the attitudes of northerners. Where were they while all this was happening?

Nathan said:

And where did I just condemn Southerners. I noted explicitly in the original post that NORTHERN CAPITALISTS were integral to and benefitted from the Southern slave system, so of course there was an interest in North and South to suppress discussion of the system.

offensivetoyou said:

Seriously? That's your response. "NORTHERN CAPITALISTS were intergral to the southern slave system".....

I guess you didn't really read, or understand, my response; no government could stand against the land hunger of the people. ALL the people. Not just "the capitalists" of your fairy tale.

WOW, great pivot, he answered your question and you applied his answer to a different equation in a vain attempt to prove your point. heh heh heh.

Neat.

user-pic

He is going from the sublime to the ridiculous John...would that make him sublimely and brilliantly ridiculous?

People like OTY also like to argue that the exception is the rule...I am waiting for that tact next.

user-pic

Libertine, :-)

when he's put in a corner he tries to subtly change the subject that got him there. He's a great pivot man. (elbow elbow)

user-pic

Libertine, :-)

when he's put in a corner he tries to subtly change the subject that got him there. He's a great pivot man. (elbow elbow)

user-pic

Libertine,

truly :-)

When he's cornered he tries to slither out by subtly taking a different direction. (elbow elbow)

You are certainly correct about all the horrors visited on Native Americans and acts of good will on the part of the US government were few and far between (the British in Canada were somewhat better-- but only somewhat). However you're wrong to say that these things cannot be discussed. that may have been true 60 years ago, but it is certainly not true today. History books, including chool textbooks, discuss this openly. TV shows like "Into The West" and even "Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman" have portrayed specific masacres in grim (if a bit fictionalized) detail.

user-pic

Nathan,

"Mythological Patriotism"

WOW, what an excellent term, it describes so well many of the modern day wingnuts on the right.

user-pic

Do we as Americans have a need or even a duty to remember the past, no matter how painful and ugly it may be? Douglas Blackmon

Admiring TR and the modern republican party at the same time is a truly astonishing example of rhetorical acrobatics. Not sure how you can reconcile the two as they have absolutely nothing in common. The last real republican to sit in the Oval Office was Ike, maybe Nixon during his first term.

user-pic

JasonEM said;

Admiring TR and the modern republican party at the same time is a truly astonishing example of rhetorical acrobatics.

Jason, excellent comment, as is the rest of your post.

@ JasonEverettMiller


What are you talking about and why is it on this thread?

user-pic

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

Re: Not sure how you can reconcile the two as they have absolutely nothing in common.

Well, um, TR had an almost Neocon attitude toward foreign policy. Now sure, there were a lot of other empires that blocked America's ability to indulge in an appetite for empire, but where America could flex it muscles it did. TR was a huge cheerleader for the Spanish-American War (and made his reputation at San Juan Hill-- at least he wasn't a chicken hawk). And then there was the whole Panama Canal business.

I am not saying he was perfect by any stretch, but he was much more progressive than the modern republican party and didn't go out of his way to use the power of his office to benefit the rich and powerful. He was the antithesis of the modern GOP.

At worst, TR was Johnson or Kennedy or FDR in terms of America's imperial ambitions abroad while pushing for progressive reforms at home.

He also learned a lot from those earlier episodes in life, so much so that he challenged a sitting president for the nomination because of the rapaciousness that he saw coming in both parties getting cozy with corporate interests. When that didn't work, he formed his own Progressive (Bull Moose) Party and was defeated by a democrat who derided him as a socialist.

TR seems to have learned from his mistakes in a way that modern republicans (and democrats) refuse to do.

Czar Reed had a distinctly different point of view on Roosevelt than we have since TR's canonization. He's an interesting character, no doubt. But he was imperialist to the core. And, Reed, ego problems aside, knew exactly where he wanted to take this country.

I don't think TR in his later years was any more of an imperialist than FDR or Kennedy. I also don't think he was a saint, though perhaps closer to one than any modern republican president since Ike.

Teddy seemed to have chilled considerably in the years after his presidency and when he formed the progressive party. I had not heard of "Czar Reed" before. There's another interesting character out of the history books that gets no play.

I guess my main point is that the republicans and the democrats have both villains and heroes in their historic ranks, often in the form of the same person.

user-pic

Or as Uncle Joe -- that's Cannon not Stalin -- said, "[Theodore Roosevelt had] no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license."

@ Ellen


So what? Newman has just finished two long articles on the shortcomings of the legal system and you want to hold TR's feet to the fire for his perception of same and his willingness to take drastic action?

Roosevelt lied about his particpation in the charge up San Juan Hill. It's a myth.

@ anna am


Now where did you get that?

user-pic

OTY...4 words for you.


The Trail of Tears.

user-pic

It turns out you're not a serious scholar. You're just another leftie America hater.

And OTY...in these 2 sentences you just made Nathan's point for him. Good work.

user-pic

Libertine,

Irony is lost on OTY. :-)

user-pic

Why am I not surprised John. ;-)

But what OTY just said to Nathan reminds me of McCain saying that Obama puts personal ambition above the country's best interests by not fully supporting the war in Iraq.

And I am betting this will be lost on OTY too.

@ libertine


You forgot to elbow each other because you were so overwhelmed with the subtlety of your brilliance.

user-pic

Thanks for the compliment OTY.

But in this case your sublime brilliance was on display as you deftly made Nathan's point without even realizing it...and that brilliance on your part is part of the reason why I kinda like having you around. Your rant about specifics that were tangential to Nathan's main point that blind devotion to country and flag twists history and has the ultimate effect of allowing current politicians to stifle debate and discourse. If America has never been wrong in the past the can't be wrong now, right? Its all about the lapel flag pins, National Anthem etiquette and whether a person has a 'support the troops' sticker on the back of their vehicle...but, God forbid, never criticize your government, they're always right.

user-pic

Libertine said:

But in this case your sublime brilliance was on display as you deftly made Nathan's point without even realizing it


its known as "putting your foot in your mouth"
:-)

@ libertine


Some people's devotion to country is blind. Mine isn't. Nathan's ability to notice that some people's bias causes them to twist history doesn't prevent him from twisting in response to his own blindness, his own bias.


Your irony is about as subtle as a turd on a sheet.

user-pic

Well turd on a sheet is what you are serving up OTY...

@ libertine


Putting it in a less subtle way which you can understand; The denial of just criticism doesn't imply that all criticism is justified.

user-pic

It is not the dispute of/denial of criticism I have a problem with it is the way it is done...

It turns out you're not a serious scholar. You're just another leftie America hater.
user-pic

hater

noun
a person who hates

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

user-pic

Hater
Hat"er\, n. One who hates.

An enemy to God, and a hater of all good. --Sir T. Browne.

user-pic

"You're just another America leftie hater."

Interesting in that Lenin hated liberals and social democrats (and American capitalism.) It's interesting because if one was a liberal, one would never be allowed to join the Communist Party so that individual could not be a 'leftie' if leftie means a socialist/communist. According to Lenin who among others started this whole thing it is impossible to be a liberal and a communist/socialist.

Suggests that maybe you'd better drop 'leftie' and simply call the object of your contempt an America hater. Perhaps a liberal America hater? But then that presents a problem because America herself is a liberal idea. What a magnificent muddle.