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. >