From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Textbooks and Lefty history (Was: Re: history)
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 18:42:45 GMT

In article <10301@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <92088.153056HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>, HERSCH@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:
>> In article <10190@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says:

># #I won't go into great detail on the rest of the many errors, some
># #of them apparently intentional deception.  Jackson & Tolbert define
># #colonialism as "a formal system of domination whereby one nation
># #officially removed the power of self-determination from the natives
># #of another." [p. 1]  But even a quick examination of the history of
># #colonialism shows this statement to be false more than true.  In
># #many parts of the world, colonialism replaced one despotic monarch
># #with a foreign government.  In many places, not even a native monarch
># #was in charge (India, Aztecs, puppet in Cambodia).   In the case of
># #China and Japan, there is strong reason to believe that colonialism
># #led to the development of democratic institutions in societies that
># #were run by autocrats and feudal lords.
># 
># My goodness, what a tendentious load of bullfeathers for one
># paragraph! Your authors' definition of colonialism is rather
># unexceptionable. It's certainly true that colonialism often
># resulted in a foreign despotism replacing or being superimposed
># on a native despotism, but that in no way contradicts your
># authors' definition as you have quoted it. I don't know much
># about Mexican or Cambodian history, but your example of India
># is not very well chosen. There really was no unitary *concept*
># of India until British imperialism invented it. The region was

Actually, in the period before the British came, the majority of India
was ruled by the Mughal Dynasty which had its origins in Central Asia.
It was definately foreign and NOT Persian for that matter.
>
>
># a huge welter of communities with hundreds of competing sovereignties,
># in Western terms. Some of the "rulers" were Persian, it is true,
>
>Actually, there wasn't a Hindu ruler left by the beginning of the
>17th century.


I believe there were 3 small Hindu kingdoms in the south.

># but even where that was true there remained an indigenous,
># native political culture that was irrecoverably corrupted and
># ultimately destroyed by the British.
>
>This in now way justifies the misleading claims about native
>"self-determination."
>
># Perhaps you are preparing to offer us a history of the success
># of "democratic institutions" in China; when you do, I'm sure
># your academic reputation will be made. But even if
># there had ever been such a thing as a democratic China, to imply,
>
>There was, briefly, a MORE democratic China.  It was by no means
>democracy from our standpoint, but it was certainly more so than
>under the Qing Dynasty.

This is true.  Until Mao Zedong and the Communists took over, China
was at least a nominal democracy.
>
># as you do, that that would justify European imperialism shows that
># you have at least as much of an axe to grind as you claim
># your authors do. But it's not really the fact of having an axe
># to grind that bothers you, clearly; it's the nature of the axe.
>
>No, the dishonesty bothers me.  History is seldom the neat little
>ideological box that is presented by the axe-grinders.  Jackson
>& Tolbert's crap is no more accurate than "white man's burden."
>Colonialism was different, depending on the century, the colonizing
>country, and who was being colonized.

The dishonesty from the left in the academic world is sickening as is
the propaganda that white males are all evil and Colombus was the
source of all the evil in the world, which is something I frequently
hear from leftist pigs here.
>
># #The book is full of assertions that all whites are racists.  This
># #is both false, and intentionally inflammatory.
># 
># If this book is "full" of assertions that all whites are racists,
># I wonder why you don't give even a single example.
>
>Tired of typing.  If it's important to you, I'll post some quotes.
>
># #Maybe there are good Marxist historians.  But nearly everything that
># #I've seen at this university from leftists has been the most grossly
># #inaccurate crap I can imagine.
># 
># I hope my remarks so far are not interpreted as a defense of this
># particular work you have quoted; I have not read it, and, from
># the material you've quoted, have no desire to. It sounds like a
># lousy book. No, I'm not defending this book, I'm arguing with
># what you say about it.

Sounds to me like you've been defending the book.  The original poster
had some very good and accurate comments about the left wing in the
academic world.
># 
># The larger point about this that I would make is that if this is
># your idea of an argument against Marxist historiography, then
># Marxist historiography has little to fear from you. I would at
># the least have expected you to *try* to show that the real or
># imagined faults of this book are specifically *Marxist* faults,
># which you do not. You don't even give any evidence that its
># authors are Marxists at all! Their Marxism is certainly apparent
># in none of the passages you have quoted. The only thing clear
># from these passages is that they're bad writers.
>
>They managed to discuss all the evils of Western civilization,
>without mentioning even one committed by the Soviet Union -- not
>even one!  Yet they acknowledged that the Soviet Union was part
>of Western civilization.  Curious, isn't it?

Very interesting.  To go further, I wouldn't be surprised if they had
good things to say about the Soviet Union and Communism.  Leftists
have been singing thier praises.  Wasn't it the Methodist Church
(which is rather leftist) that said that Cuba under Castro should be a
'model' of how a society should be run.
>
># #I should point out that your remarks
># #about "postmodern" historians aren't saving you -- I doubt you'll
># #find a single one of them that doesn't subscribe to crap about
># #dictatorship of the proletariat (meaning themselves, of course --
># #aren't college professors proletariat? :-)), the intrinsic racism
># #of white males, and all the rest of the Political Correctness
># #fascism that runs Sonoma State University.
># 
># Your interlocutor has already pointed out that many of these
># so-called "postmodern" historians are quite conservative; indeed,
># reactionary is a term that could be applied to some with justice.
># Just a further warning that it's always a good idea to know
># something before you say something.
># 
># H.
>
>I guess that's why books like _Tenured Radicals_ were written --
>so that conservatives would destroy each other criticizing
>deconstructionism and the rest of the conservative agenda. :-)
>
It's about time we did something about those in high influence in the
academic world who use their status to spread their lies and
propaganda.  It's sickening and a disgrace to higher education.
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." -- Martin Bormann, 
>1941.


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 End the strike.  Get back on the ice.  Get the playoffs going.