Beck's always telling us to read history books. Maybe he should take his own advice

[elfs]

I was listening to Glen Beck this morning (I know, I'm a sucker for pain, but I had just come from the dentist and the lidocaine hadn't quite worn off yet) and Beck was ranting about how some woman in Obama's administration, Anita Dunn, admitted that she admired some of the writings of Mao Tse Tung. As he began to work himself up into that froth he borrowed from Mark Levin, the one he uses before he goes into the crying jag he borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart, he shouted, "Can you imagine if someone on the right had said they admired Adolph Hitler's spirit, how he 'got things done'?"

I don't have to imagine it. Pat Buchanan has openly admired the way Hitler kicked the German economy into shape. Dominionist pastor Rick Warren exhorts his followers to use the Hitler youth as a model for taking over the world. And Vox Day has stated that the United States could handle its illegal immigrant problem by taking pointers from Hitler and his round-up of the Jews. (To be fair, less-crazy right wing pundit (but Intelligent Design proponent and Bigfoot hunter) Michael Medved took Day behind the woodshed, but Day emerged and remains unapologetic.)

As for the Mao Tse Tung thing, I'm reminded of the way a couple of political science students got their actor student friends to read from The Declaration of Independence and Mao's Little Red Book on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. As people listened, they walked through the crowd with clipboards and asked people what they thought of what was being recited. Few recognized Mao's work, but less than a quarter recognized Jefferson's. Worse yet, among those unfamiliar with either, more people approved of Mao's material than Jefferson's.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It bugs me that it's so hard to separate means and ends when talking about history. It would be nice if it were more socially acceptable to say that yes, Hitler was pretty damn good at what he did, or that, yes, the 9/11 attacks were tactically brilliant, or that, yes, the Hiroshima bombing was an act of terrorism -- and maybe a justified one. Or that, yes, even tyrants and monsters say things worth knowing once in a while.

How else are we going to learn the lessons of history if we can't see what works, even for the bad guys?

Number 127

[grum]

Indeed, I heard an NPR spot on James Brown this afternoon. (apparently he did something at Harper's Ferry? I confess I haven't looked it up). And one of his descendents said that even 50 years ago he was considered a terrorist and her relatives didn't fess up to being related. But now he was considered much more acceptable. I wish there were a good way to use that to get the people who need it most to discuss the concept that terrorism is a tool. And that the victors write the history books, so of course we're not going to describe things we hold were valorous and/or necessary were terrorism. They were valorous and/or necessary. Those other guys, they're terrorists (because they're not on our side).

Blargh. I'm almost too embarrassed to post this. I wish I were more eloquent.

[abostick59.livejournal.com]

James Brown: Godfather of Soul
John Brown: [his] body lies a-mouldering in the grave, but his soul goes marching on.

ETA: What's more, John Brown's side eventually won, in 1865.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

See, he's read Mussolini, and as such he knows full well that the public has no memory whatsoever. He can blather on about whatever he likes, even directly contradict *himself* with something that he said *last week*, and *noone will ever notice*.

Although it makes *great* fodder for John Stewart. He loves to expose that kind of hipocracy. And it's funny as hell when he does, too!