Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Revisionist History Text

For many years now a 'text book' that has been widely used to teach our children and grand-children high-school (AP) US History is this book, written by a 60s social worker cum Yale professor, John Mack Faragher, along with several of his co-conspiratorial academicians ...
 
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Many-History-American-People/dp/0205011918/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417538541&sr=1-1&keywords=out+of+many+7th+edition
 
We glibly speak of such people being 'liberals', or 'progressives', or even 'leftists', without understanding that they are completely *Marxist *in their ideology and do all that is humanely possible to inculcate these perverse values in those they sell their ideas to, including school systems, publishers (of which there are but two major houses), and all our children who have absolutely no idea, thanks to their 
predecessor teachers and administrators, what America is about so as to be equipped to prevent our final subjugation under a globalist totalitarian collectivism.
 
The following for your information and use in personally making your stand for America and against the continued use of such travesties in the teaching of our progeny is a more detailed critique of this _Dystopian Fiction_.
 
A text on American history must include facts, derived from and honestly reflective of primary source documents, openly cited so as to invite peer and student review and further, careful, analysis upon which to base sound inferences, judgments and conclusions. IN CONTRAST, 'Out of Many' cites NO source documents, presenting a rendition of history 
disconnected from those who made it.Rather, its Pedagogical Support pages state that a LIST of source documents from a selected collection is available to students for purchase. The book itself includes a single page entitled 'Text Credits' which cites copyright information for a few 
figures and illustrations in only 20 of the 31 chapters. Introductory material includes a section entitled 'Using Out Of Many, AP Edition', under 'Primary Source Documents', stating: "Short excerpts from letters, personal diaries, or first person accounts located in the margins  throughout the text give the perspectives of both well-known and ordinary  Americans on the course of historic events".Yet none of these sparse 'excerpts' so much as cite the works from which they are taken, thus obfuscating their authenticity and preventing verification. While such select views presumably reflect those from individuals purported to have had direct and relevant relationship to the situation to which they 
are tagged, these abbreviated singular points of view easily mislead the reader into thinking they convey the complete, accurate and true account and should therefore serve as the ultimate vindication of the text's otherwise unsubstantiated scenarios. 'Out of Many', ironically written in 'narrative' form, fraudulently presents us with but its authors' fiction.
 
Such a text must embody the theme which is the United States. IN CONTRAST, the book's title is incomplete because it is designed to reflect a political, not an instructive, agenda and it is thoroughly incompatible with our Founding Documents.
 
·Our nation's motto is 'E Pluribus Unum' - literally - 'out of many, one'. Intentionally deleting 'one' from its title presents a distortion of America's guiding principle, its spirit and purpose. It denies the uniqueness and exceptionality of the American identity, our adopted character upon which this nation is built. And it disingenuously promotes the authors' progressive perspective that diversity, not American 
individualism, is the paramount virtue. In the book's introductory section 'Community and Diversity', the authors purposely mistranslate our Motto as 'Out of Many Comes Unity', reinforcing their peculiar view: "The struggle to meld a single nation out of our many far-flung communities is what much of American history is all about". The implication is that man, whether by inexplicable self-enlightenment or 
through his government, serves as the justified coercive agent forging this nation into shape.
 
Our Declaration states: "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Our nation is founded upon the supremacy of God; in contrast, this text ignores God 
and denies His role in our achieving liberty from man's tyranny. Our nation is founded upon government defined through Biblical principles as part of our Judeo Christian heritage; in contrast, this text contains no traceable reference to the Bible and denigrates documents such as the 
Mayflower Compact as mere civil contract. Our nation is founded upon the Individual, and individual liberties; in contrast, this text ignores, nay subjugates, the individual, stating: "In the making of history, communities are far more important than even the greatest of leaders". This flies in the face of reality which has proven that the world is only changed by dedicated individuals successfully implementing 
their unique vision. Our nation is founded upon families, one of our premiere forms of Happiness and the true building block of our society, an institution to which the authors give but begrudging lip service.
 
In direct contrast to America's foundational theme and Document, the authors present a twisted view of life, stating: "Every human society is made up of communities". This nation's central government was formed a Democratic Republic NOT a democracy In contrast, the authors promote, no celebrate, democracy which is rightly called the 'Tyranny of the Majority', the end of which has, as Adams rightly attested, always been suicide Yet these authors further state: "In a community people develop the capacity for unified action". Hence, political - that is, mob - action is unveiled as their highest form of cultural expression For 150 
years prior to the Constitution, the colonies enjoyed free markets and liberty, forming a class-less society of American citizens. In direct contrast, the authors constantly focus on communities as classes in struggle.
While collectivism and class warfare pre-date Marx, such dogma foisted on us through these pages represent the pillars of communism dutifully enshrined as the opiate for atheistic progressive minds.
 
Such a text must employ sound reasoning based on coherence.IN CONTRAST, the book promotes common myths.
 
Revolution is defined as: "A sudden political overthrow brought about from within a given system, especially: i) forcible substitution of rulers or of ruling cliques; or ii) seizure of state power by the militant vanguard of a subject class or nation." Yet our founding Document is a Declaration of Independence, not a Declaration of Revolt or Insurrection. The French revolution saw the peoples' violent overthrew
of their monarchy. American independence, however, was enacted through a separatist movement such that our long-established local governments came to fully represent citizen interests as the sole legitimate protection of our individual rights. The war waged to free America from British occupation in no way threatened the overthrow of the Crown or seizure of its power which was, per the grievances against it listed in our Declaration, tyrannical despotism.
 
Our Constitution is a compact among the willing Sovereign States to form a union for enumerated purposes, not a federalized power such as those which long dominated other nations, especially in Europe. This Constitution strictly prescribes the working of this central government so as to maintain i) a balance of power to preclude despotism, ii) a
system representative of the interests of those who have a stake in America and her success and with severely limited, delegated power, and iii) assurance that the rule of law would protect individual liberty and justice.It, and the Bill of Rights, enshrined the principles of the Declaration clearly reserving all other power to the People and their agents, the States. In contrast, the authors view this Constitution,
"framed by white men who represented America's social and economic elite" as a means of allocating political power to abate racial and class warfare between the 'privileged' (bourgeoisie) and the 'ordinary people' (proletariat), thus again echoing Marx.
 
Civil wars are fought among factions within a nation to rebalance political power. Such was the case in America when seven Southern States withdrew from the Constitution and were forced to rejoin the Union when overcome by the power of the federal, central government backed by its
Northern States. While many political, social and economic issues surfaced to raise tensions to hostility, at no time did the Southern States intend to overthrow the central government and usurp federalist power .Hence they, like our colonial Forefathers, pursued a separatist action that in no way demanded an armed response. In contrast, the authors state: "The issue of slavery was irreconcilable. The only
remaining recourse was war." A 'war between the States' which became a 'war of Northern (federalist) aggression' thus was deceptively transformed into a 'civil war' even so as to justify Union war crimes. Once again their inflammatory rhetoric, in this case elevating 1850s racial tension, reinforces the author's theme of class warfare as a part of their misguided portrayal of our national identity.
 
Such a text must inculcate honest assessment of historical events based on a complete set of facts in an unbiased fashion_IN CONTRAST, the book contains 'Document-Based Questions' that use selective representations
to guide false-choices leading to erroneous conclusions.
 
For example, one such question asks students to "assess the degree to which the Roosevelt New Deal was a 'revolutionary and radical' approach to solving the problems of the Great Depression". Inputs to the assessment include the chapter and 5 so-called "documents". The chapter's
section entitled 'Hoover's Failure' states: "There was great irony, even tragedy, in President Hoover's failure to respond to human suffering". Though the authors point to the fact that Hoover was reluctant to irrevocably engage the federal government in a blatantly unconstitutional role, and was concerned that handouts would destroy "the initiative and enterprise of the American people', their presentation insinuates that Hoover was the cause of the Great
Depression due to his inhumane unwillingness to institute European socialism. They blatantly encourage in the student a subconscious demand that politicians betray their oath of office to uphold the Constitution because the ends would justify the means. Current day buzzwords in the
story such as 'income inequality', '(re)distribution of wealth' and 'reform' dominate the author's discussion leading to the conclusion that the nation became prosperous in the wake of the New Deal's massive government growth while so-called "conservative counterproposals ... limited what could be changed". The 'documents' cited for the student to address the question included a Bureau of Census chart of Unemployment, an excerpt from Roosevelt's first inaugural address, a painting of a strike riot, 2 government posters of the era, and an undated political cartoon. These easily lead the student to conclude that Roosevelt's anti-constitutional government expansion fueled by debt was indeed
'revolutionary' and actually ended the Great Depression, rather than its actual termination, as proven by the economic data, as a result of the military buildup during World War II. Perhaps most insidious of all is the excerpt from FDR's speech where he states: "Our Constitution is so
simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of form", thus mocking the People as the ultimate repository of political authority ,
making us believe that those to whom we have entrusted governance are our leaders rather than our employees, and establishing the precedent that federal politicians and bureaucrats are solely qualified to determine the limits of their own power.
 
In conclusion*, 'Out of Many' fails to meet the qualifications
required of any instructional text. The authors have produced a most unprofessional work, unworthy of serious consideration. It is a fiction of their dystopian other world. Their political agenda is at once pro-Marxist and anti-American. This document is nothing more than progressive propaganda designed to inculcate collectivist values in our children if, for no other purpose than to result in the overthrow of our country without firing a shot.
 
Source: Bruce Duncil
 

No comments: