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.
>
|
