Kevin,
I could not have said it better. Thank you for your insightful post, 
which I am saving for future use.

Anita 





-- Kevin Joel Berland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
There is much of concern in Lyle E. Browning's recent comment (see 
below).  Of
course it is not surprising to learn that some people still feel the 
need to
trivialize issues of justice and fairness in historical (and current) 
eras by
applying the reductive term "PC."  I'm not interested in promoting or
participating in yet another round of discussion about the rift in 
modern
culture the PC quarrel represents.  Nor am I interested in rising to 
the bait
of Mr. Browning's comparison of the concerns of those Mr. Browning 
dismisses as
"PC" with the cartoonish analogy to Arafat.  Nor am I going to 
question the
notion of the so-called "emasculation" of modern culture, though many 
other
participants in this forum might be troubled or annoyed by the 
assumption that
good, strong culture is masculine and its supposed debasement is 
feminizing.

Rather, I would like to call attention to the historiographical 
problem
necessarily attendant upon one of Mr. Browning's comments about 
history.  He
apparently assumes that certain cultural struggles during the early 
history of
the European settlement of North America were necessary.  He rightly 
notes that
one party eventually dominated the other.  However, what follows 
makes less
sense: "To negate that also negates  what we became later as in the 
United
States of America. The end  result of had we been PC way back then 
was that we
don't now exist."  Implicit in this statement is the notion that the 
present
developed out of necessary past events.  Had the indigenous cultures 
not been
crushed and decimated (more accurate terms than "dominated"), this 
argument
suggests, the outcome would have been different and we would not have 
the
wonderful nation we now enjoy.  As I see it, such a claim is 
fallacious on
several accounts:

First, it oversimplifies history into a clash between 
the "civilization" of
Europe and the primitivism of the indigenous people.  In fact, there 
were not
two cultures clashing--there were many cultures, on both sides.  
Colonial
Virginia, for instance, though sharing many customs and cultural 
assumptions,
was very different from colonial Pennsylvania or colonial 
Massachusetts, and we
are only beginning to understand the vast range of differences 
between the many
cultures of the First Nations.  To claim that "one" had to dominate 
the "other"
overlooks the complexities of the situation.

Second, when such polar simplifications go along with the doctrine of 
historical
necessity, we wind up with the Jacksonian view that the resistance of
indigenous people to assimilation places them outside the bounds of 
that
justice which officially lies at the heart of the new nation, 
justifying the
forcible evictions of hundreds of thousands from traditional and 
treaty lands,
and the Trail of Tears.  This happened, by the way.  It was not an 
invention of
21st-century bleeding-heart PC historians.  Thus, to claim that 
criticizing
("negating") actions or policies of the past denies the necessity of 
such
actions or policies--as Mr. Browning has done--is nothing more than 
another
version of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which I, for one, had 
fondly
imagined was gone for good.

Third, the necessitarian argument commits the logical fallacy known 
as "post hoc
ergo propter hoc."  That is, it assumes that chronological sequence 
is the same
as causation.  The "domination" of indigenous culture(s) by Euro-
American
culture(s) did happen, and then along came other developments with 
which most
of us are well pleased.  But there is no logical proof that these 
developments
could not have happened without said "domination."  Perhaps this is 
so, but it
could be argued that had another approach been taken, the process of 
arriving
at--say--a democratic republic might have happened *sooner.*  

Fourth, the necessitarian argument excludes the possibility that some 
past
choices, opinions, attitudes, and actions might have been mistaken, 
or even
wrong.  We can't discuss real history this way.  The early colonists 
thought
they were British. Over time the transatlantic realities shifted, and 
they felt
British but disenfranchised.  Then, eventually, they felt not-British 
(i.e.,
American).  At various stages of this progression, it could be 
argued, they
were mistaken.  Otherwise, we'd all be British.  Again, the Founders 
had what
later generations would consider a limited understanding of the 
franchise. 
Democracy for them was an elite practice.  Gradually we've changed 
our minds,
allowing a wider, more egalitarian franchise, conforming to our 
notions of the
practical workings of liberty: questions of property, race, and 
gender no
longer limit voting.  The Founders did not *have* to be elitists for 
us to
become more democratic.  They were mistaken, at least in the process 
if not the
principle.  If an idea is sound, it can survive criticism.  It is not
"emasculated" thereby.

Fifth, it is a fallacy to imply or assert that criticism of a part 
(even a large
part) of a nation's history is an attack on that nation as a whole.  
Without
criticism, progress is impossible.  Remember the old saw, "Those who 
do not
learn from history are condemned to repeat it."  (Incidentally, I 
think I've
become sufficiently cynical to prefer the version that says "We learn 
from
history... that we don't learn from history.")

Perhaps I'm making too much of a casual personal statement here.  But 
I'm
interested in sharing in the fascinating process of coming to 
understand both
historical events and the way historians frame and interpret and 
explain them. 
Attacks on some historically-minded participants in this discussion 
as "PC"
undercut the free exchange of ideas.

Rant mode off.

Cheers -- KJB



On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:52:34 -0400, Lyle E. Browning wrote
> The end result of being overly PC, apart from cultural 
emasculation, 
>  seems to be a sort of acontextual Yassir Arafat variant of "Never 
>  missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" for fear of the  
> possibility of offenses real or imagined.
> 
> Two cultures collided in VA. One dominated the other after years 
of  
> struggle and opportunity to do otherwise. To negate that also 
> negates  what we became later as in the United States of America. 
> The end  result of had we been PC way back then was that we don't 
> now exist.  Now that's a nice image and one I find to be rather 
pathetic.
>