The education begins early these days.
Some of the lessons in “A Is for Anarchist,”* a popular alphabet book, exemplify the indoctrination.
‘F’ is for feminist, For fairness in our pay.
‘J’ is for Justice! Justicia for all.
L-G-B-T-Q! Love who [sic] you choose.
Don’t laugh. “A Is for Activist” has sold 125,000 print units since its release in 2013.
It’s always been part of parents’ responsibility to teach values to their children. I, for one, read my kids Pat The Bunny. Whether indoctrination works this way is another question, but it’s better than teaching children to hate blacks or gays.
And yet, hate manifests itself on both ends of the spectrum in the effort to indoctrinate people to one’s twisted beliefs. Duke philosophy prof Alex Rosenberg is a hater and wants to make your child hate too.
Best to start with a small boy, preferably an immigrant, a stateless refugee from a war-torn continent. Place the child in an environment that makes it obvious he owes his family’s prosperity, freedom and even its survival to the generosity of the American nation.
This could be the start of an homage to America. After all, the small boys family came to America and enjoys “prosperity, freedom and even its survival.” But in Rosenberg’s twisted world, these aren’t virtues.
Instill a reverence for the Declaration of Independence, but only the good parts. Suppress, for instance, its chilling description of “the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
Rosenberg comes to his hatred honestly, having been one of the Group of 88 at Duke who cared nothing about the falsely accused lacrosse players, happy to sacrifice the innocent.
Although a philosophy professor, Rosenberg embarks on a bizarre recitation of history, not entirely unfactual but wholly uncontextual (and not entirely factual either). The New York Times, which adores the cred provided by academic titles, provides the real estate for Rosenberg to misteach his brand of less-than-accurate history in the process of making his pitch. As with the Duke lacrosse players and the defender of black female virtue, Mike Nifong, Rosenberg sacrifices facts for the cause.
After extolling for years the genius of the United States Constitution, begin to point out the impediments to democratic government that it has imposed upon the American nation itself, and the other countries on whom we have forced it.
Be clear that the Constitution is soiled with the stain of slavery — the three-fifths clause, the requirement that fugitive slaves be returned, the clause allowing the international slave trade to persist for a generation after its ratification. The hypocrisy of our Constitution’s wording, in which euphemisms must be found every time the institution of slavery is protected, reveals the founding fathers’ chagrin. Once the student of American history discovers what the euphemisms mean, he cannot help reading the Constitution as an inexact copy of George III’s regime, not a set of truths requiring centuries of fealty.
That he has a shallow grasp of the three-fifths compromise, which was about reducing congressional representation for southern states rather than diminishing the humanity of slaves, is bad, but a common understanding among the deeply passionate and not terribly knowledgeable. But is that it? So the Constitution sucks?
Eventually the adult will appreciate why all fully developed nations have given up on the American Constitution as model. They know what we should have learned: that history long ago revealed its defects, anachronisms, hostility to democracy and unsuitability to life after the 18th century. Abroad, no one wants the United States Constitution any more. But we’re stuck with it, Second Amendment and all.
It’s not as though other countries are better than ours. Every nation bears the healed scars and the still-open wounds of its history. The lesson our refugee boy will learn as he grows up and old is that American exceptionalism is at best an innocent mistake that uninformed patriotism makes difficult to surrender.
America has its flaws, both historical and current. Understanding them in context is not only necessary to correct them, but to help us not repeat them. Creating an hysterical fantasy of presentism through which to excoriate the historical fact and the people who made our nation what it is serves to wrongfully inflame people. This is even more of a problem when it’s an academic pretending to correct history by lying about it, by deliberately presenting it in a false light so as to manipulate the understanding of children of any age.
But Rosenberg isn’t merely a dissembler, a manipulator for the cause, but a hater. And he wants to teach others to share his hatred. Remember his opening paragraph, about the small boy whose family came to America and enjoyed “prosperity, freedom and even its survival”? What other country, what greater nation that rejects our Constitution, would he urge upon the small boy?
Criticizing government, the president and the system is a patriotic duty, but its purpose is to make our nation better. Rosenberg’s purpose is to sow hatred, and his means of doing so is to spread distorted ignorance. And the great thing about this nation is that he’s allowed to do so, he has a First Amendment right to be as deceitful as he wants to be, to use his academic credentials bestowed upon him by a university he depises to get him some space in the American paper of record so that he can teach children that “A” is for anarchists.
America is deeply flawed in many respects, and at the same time is a great nation. Don’t let any hater tell you otherwise.
*In original quote, though the title of the book is “A is for Activist.”
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“L-G-B-T-Q! Love who [sic] you choose.”
So it is a choice then? I thought the party line was that we’re just born this way. It’s so hard to keep track of the approved beliefs.
Lady Gaga was born this way. The rest of us are up for grabs.
He should do a hot take on Malcolm X, MLK and W.E.B. Du Bois and their positions on gay marriage and trans issues next. Down with the statues!
Like the rest of our flawed heroes, nobody looks very good out of context. But then, they didn’t exist out of context.
Any chance this bon mot could be made available as a sampler (presumably handmade in a greater nation that rejects our Constitution) for purchase in the SJ Storefront?
Needles and yarn to go on sale soon.
justicia for all! Americans have a constitutional right to water-willows. it’s a good thing the anarchists weren’t talking about Justitia, or things would’ve gotten weird.
Good thing the Times pays people to edit or mistakes might be made.
Dear Papa,
It’s just so tempting to join the dark side and let the hate flow. Who controls what to say about what happened and why? Some billionaire? Some politician? Academics? Only the academics SHG likes? You?
There isn’t one controlling narrative that’s correct. The prof “feelz” one way about the history of slavery and the Constitution and you feel another. You’re both wrong. The facts are there, but your interpretations can’t help but be blighted by your preconceptions. That is, unless you’re more than just an esteemed legal scholar and delve into history as well.
I know I know, your interpretations are the correct ones and deserve to be called “fact,” and I’m a moron for even attempting to question you.
Best,
PseudoKid
It’s not your fault. Your mother dropped you on your head as an infant. But you already know this.
Your argument, though it raises a good question of who decides what to make of history, is flawed. The history is uncontroversial. The narrative is “presentism,” the view of history based on present-day norms rather than in context. The question isn’t “who controls what to say about what happened and why,” but whether facts can be stripped of context to promote a lie. Now some people are good with that because lies serve their cause. I’m not.
You’re not a moron for even attempting to question me. You’re a moron for asking the wrong question. The right question is whether it’s acceptable to lie about history if it promotes your preferred hatred. I think not.
Context is tricky like perception. You shouldn’t expect historians to agree where eyewitnesses to the same event can’t. There’s more nuance involved than can be recorded. Besides, who has time for all that? Unless you can put it into 140 characters or less, no one cares. Oh wait, that’s probably why you do. “Lies” are easy to propagate.
Why didn’t you put a link to the prof’s text in the article? You usually do. I clicked all the blue links and had to look at his picture instead. It wasn’t pleasant.
My omission of a link to the original New York Times op-ed was an inexcusable mistake, now rectified. Mom and I apologize, but appreciate your pointing out my failure so it can be corrected. See how that works?
There are nuances about context within the known parameters that are worthy of debate. But there are things, such as the existence of slavery at the time this nation was formed, that really aren’t open questions. There was slavery. Of this, there is no reasonable dispute.
But was Sally Hemings merely a slave to Thomas Jefferson, or a beloved mistress, half-sister to his departed wife, and was he incapable of freeing her because of the debts he assumed from his father in law that would have enabled his creditors to take her as their own, or his lack of funds with which to purchase her property as was required by law upon freeing a slave? Was Jefferson an evil slave-owning rapist or the brilliant founding father?
Do we judge him based on today’s mores or those of his age? Context can be tricky, but does that mean you go with ignoring context to achieve your narrative? But I have faith in your ability to figure it out.
Papa, I do see. I hope you don’t think I’m unappreciative. Thanks for the link.
No need to be myopic. You can look at history both ways. Back to front or front to back is just a matter of taste. So, Jefferson isn’t either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Now, now…
There are no stupid questions.
SHG,
I can’t figure out whether “trite” or “tripe” is the right word to describe Rosenberg’s piece. In any case, this is political philosophy at its very worst. That is to say, meaningless.
He should have written about the making of a Non-Academic rather than the making of a Non-Patriot. On that subject, he would have been an expert.
All the best.
RGK
If it was merely meaningless, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But when they wear the mantle of academic and spew trite tripe, they abuse the position of trust attributed to people who historically were considered scholars. We all expect politicians to lie, but we expect better of scholars. We’re running out of people to trust.
Just come out and say it: “Why do we still let those damned provincials have so many senators?”
It’s not as if he would take the exact opposite view if his view of the virtuous life was informed by North Dakota. What I find curious is what would happen if he had his pure democracy and his side lost. But then, A is for anarchy.
As far as I’m concerned, that book is indoctrinating trash.
I’ll bet the author never once considered whether or not Pat identified as a bunny.
I always thought Pat the Bunny was a euphemism.
Ah. See, I had never heard of it, so I assumed Pat was the bunny’s name.
Now I realize it’s not a problem of identity, but consent. Did the bunny continuously affirm it wanted to be patted? Is there a Title IX Coordinator for children’s literature?
As in “How come your bunny’s ear isn’t floppy, Daddy?”
Pingback: Meyer-Lindenberg: The Fixing Of America | Simple Justice