Publius' Forum

-By Warner Todd Huston

A Blog that pretentiously goes by the name Historical Implications as if its every word is one for the history books, has taken little ol' me to task for my "narrow and uninformed perspectives" in my Op Ed called "ABC -- Feteshizing 'Minority' History".

I'm happy to oblige him, as it turns out.

To start with, I LOVE these kinds of screeds because it assumes all sorts of things about its target... NONE of which the writer has the slightest clue about, nor proof of. In the end, such writing as his ends up being mere hyperbole and polemics as opposed to substantive replies.

This blogger goes on and on with his assumptions ad nauseum, but never once contacted me to begin a dialog to see if his leftist, tripe would bear out. No, much better, as far as he is concerned, to sail through life with his biases unchallenged... which is probably why he is a "Professor of Latin American History" in the high, ivory towers of a university, safe and separated from reality.

The brave "Dr. T" of the aforementioned blog -- I say "brave" because at least I really identify myself and stand by my opinions with my real name and do not hide behind an alias -- takes me to task for many things in his reply to my piece in which I advocated a smaller role for minority history in the education of our children.

It should be noted that I did NOT advocate such a focus being eliminated for college or university studies, but only de-emphasized in the primary schools. But, the intrepid "Dr. T" does a fine job of completely ignoring the central theme of my point in the piece.
(Which was...)

Certainly in higher education it behooves us to expand the vision of subject matter, but why would a child NEED to know that the Chinese had a hard time of it in California at the expense of learning about the Monroe Doctrine? Why do we need to force young students to read umpteen accounts of "Latinos" in America before teaching them about the Declaration of Independence?

Of course, it is a good thing to have a full view of history. We need a well-rounded understanding of what our ancestors went through as it reveals a nation's character and can, in the best examples, help us understand why we are how we are. But, to focus on every small subject to the detriment of the big ones is a mistake. To people like Texeira, history should be about "diversity", not about presenting a program based on what is important and formative before presenting the minutia. After all, do we teach children algebra before we teach them subtraction?

... so said I.

Yet, Doc T went on and on about how I was somehow claiming that NO minority history is important. With his high dudgeon on display because of my "assertion that White Anglo Saxons are responsible for all that is good and true in our history" he goes on to excoriate me for ignoring how minorities "shaped this country in fundamental ways though their struggles, their labor, their cultures and language and food."

Food? Yeah. I guess Mexican food WAS a central point of our history, for instance. After all, without the venerable taco and its purveyor, Taco Bell, we most assuredly would not have had the Declaration of Independence!!! Why, we MUST thank the Italian influenced pizza for helping to shape our three branches of government, too.

I feel sorry for the good Doc for his weak response indicts his own proposition. HE is one of the problems with education, sadly. When FOOD can outweigh real history in our schools we have a major problem, indeed. I am beginning to wonder if just anyone can get a job in the politically charged arena of "minority studies" in this country at this point. With Dr. T and his compatriots like Ward Churchill, facts are unwanted dalliances. We must all FEEL good about our minority history. Who CARES about who REALLY formed this country? As long as we can enjoy our tacos, proud that they helped "shape this country", we are all doing juuuust fine!

But, the funniest thing our heroic "Dr T" said was in one of his last paragraphs.

The belief that only “Anglo-Saxons” made significant contributions to the history of this country is highly myopic. It’s also based on a very old-fashioned “kings and queens” kind of history, where only leading elites are discussed and the teeming masses are ignored. It fits of course with modern conservativism, which is extraordinarily elitist in its viewpoint, but it is wildly inaccurate.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph that it is hard to know where to start.

First of all, no where did I state that Dr T's dreaded "Anglo-Saxans" were the "only" ones to make "significant contributions to the history of this country". I said we are over emphasizing those who had lesser roles at the expense of those who had the largest hand in shaping this country.

Secondly, his swipe at conservatives was hilarious. His "teeming masses" phrase was a gem right out of the Communist manifesto days of our university professoriat and his lament of conservative "elitism" as it focusses on history as being "wildly inaccurate" was amusing in context with his desire to place teaching of minority history over that of his hated "Anglo-Saxon" history. "Inaccurate" seems to be his forte, at the very least.

While his little post was amusing for me to encounter, I end my consideration of this incident saddened that such a person so blinded by PC nonsense is in a position of teaching young students in our schools and horrified that he and his ilk are paid by our tax dollars.

Worse, the knowledge that he is the rule and not the exception proves why we have the worst schools in the developed world.