America seemed to represent the future… yet by the end of the 19th century, we became a people obsessed with our past. A paradox not easily explained, and frankly, not wholly considered either. The recent passing of historian Michael Kammen received little fanfare nationally, but to younger academics everywhere, it represented a melancholy turning point.
Kammen’s epic study, “Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture” … was standard reading for first year grad students across academia in the mid-1990’s. The difficult task of explaining why Americans simplify and revere their past was at the core of Kammen’s research- historians agreed with his thesis, students were primed for future frustration. The Civil War was indeed a transformative event, radically shifting our traditions of remembrance and honor. Prior to the war, argued Kammen, Americans viewed their past with casual indifference- the Civil War democratized our past- the masses wanted a story worthy of the sacrifices made in that most bloody struggle…American mythology began.
The good academic he was… Kammen was troubled by the wave of popular history that emerged in the 20th century. His analysis at times bordered on whining- why don’t ordinary folks pay more attention to academic history? To his credit, he never looked to assign blame- his study maintained an analytical approach- and his conclusions are if nothing else, valid. But, like many writers of his background, he misses the true point of historical remembrance- pride. Trying to explain it away with abstract concepts understood only in academic circles is manipulative. Our story is a complex, yet inspiring one, and the American people truly feel a part of it. The study of history is so compartmentalized that it cannot contemplate this collective remembrance. There is room for all types of historical study- academic, public, and popular history alike…. Kammen’s work proved it to be so… though it may not have been his intention.
Frank Antenori with Hans Halberstadt, Roughneck Nine-One: The Extraordinary Story of a Special Forces A-Team at War, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2007
Rising above the politicization of the Iraq war is a task best left to the men who fought it. Well publicized memoirs by the commanding Generals, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander-in-Chief only fueled the partisan debate. Green Beret Frank Antenori’s gripping account of the Battle of Debecka Pass is a vital primary source detailing the misunderstood conflict. An unusual blend of tactical storytelling and technical detail, Roughneck Nine-One is a rare look into the world of America’s “quiet professionals.”
Antenori expresses the unprecedented nature of his battle history. Typically, Special Forces battles are classified affairs, kept from public scrutiny until years later. Embedded reporters from CNN and the New York Times present at Debecka prevented the combat from being classified. Antenori and co-author Halberstadt are able to relay the events with brutal frankness and commendable accuracy. The frustrations of military logistics are explained to build anticipation for the inevitable battle. Glimpses into American military planning are rare, and Antenori’s insights are particularly telling- the warrior struggling with red tape to acquire the necessary tools.
Roughneck Nine-One is essential reading because it dispels many commonly held myths about the Iraq war. First, most importantly, the myth about weapons of mass destruction. Mainstream media perpetuates the narrative of Bush lying about WMD to start the war- Antenori establishes that if true, this was a most elaborate lie. Special Forces units were assigned specific missions targeting known WMD sites. Strategic complications delayed US entry into Iraq giving Saddam Hussein time to destroy or hide the incriminating evidence; Debecka was fought on such a mission. Secondly, that Saddam had no ties to terrorism. The Green Berets regularly engaged foreign fighters using the Iranian border as shelter- Antenori has no politically axe to grind, he tells a story the way he experienced it.
Frank Antenori opens an important window to a misunderstood conflict. Partisan bickering over the justification for the war has clouded a proper historical picture of it. Stories like Roughneck Nine-One are invaluable to scholars looking to accurately record America’s involvement in Iraq.
Frank P. Varney, General Grant and the Rewriting of History, California, Savas and Beatty, 2013
A critical examination of Grant’s memoirs and their effects on the historical record.
Professor Frank Varney’s first book is a bold effort to right historical wrongs…. and the wrongs were perpetrated by none other than US Grant. Varney proposes a three volume examination of the inconsistencies, mistakes, and outright lies found in Grant’s widely utilized memoirs. Volume one takes Grant (and his historical defenders) to task for ruining the reputation of Major General William S. Rosecrans. Varney carefully dissects both the historical record and the secondary sources which were deeply influenced by Grant’s account.
“The well of data about Rosecrans has been so tainted that many historians… are simply not motivated to look beyond the traditionally relied-upon sources- the writings of Grant prominent among them.” Varney sums up how Grant’s memoirs have affected Civil War historiography. Researchers simply assume Grant was right- they fail to verify with lesser known primary sources; what source could be more valuable than the man credited as the Union victor? Varney’s research is extensive and provides key insights to the Grant/Rosecrans feud. At the Battles of Iuka and Corinth, Grant was miles from the fighting- his battle reports change over time- and his memoir bears little resemblance to the Official Records. Historians like Steven Woodworth and T. Harry Williams have been complicit in propagating Grant’s distorted account and Varney cites key examples of his peers failing to carry-out the most basic research methodology.
Far from a redemptive piece about Rosecrans… Varney acknowledges the flaws in the man. But, the evidence of tampering and distortion are too extensive to be ignored by the historical community. Rosecrans had his flaws, but Grant’s accounts of the war have forever tarnished a General with widely accepted military skill. Grant didn’t care for his subordinate and Varney skillfully shows how he took credit for victories, exaggerated his own actions, and distorted (even lied) about the performance of others. Rosecrans was the victim of a concerted effort led by Grant- and historians have failed to give a balanced account of this chapter in Civil War history. Hopefully, Professor Varney’s future volumes will be as detailed and insightful as this first edition.
The recent Grant renaissance should be reconsidered.
Who needs sources? I’ve got Jason Bourne!
The New York Times boldly proclaimed Howard Zinn’s…. A People’s History should be required reading for all college students. Professors and high school teachers alike have responded by making Zinn’s screed one of the top ten requested academic books. The only justification can be found in celebrity endorsement and the book’s adherence to politically correct platitudes about our past. Zinn egregiously claims:
- Maoist China was “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.”
- Castro and his executioner Che Guevara “had no bloody record of suppression.”
- American actions following 9/11 were morally equivalent to the terror attack “It seemed that the United States was reacting to the horrors perpetrated by the terrorists against innocent people in New York by killing other innocent people in Afghanistan.”
- America’s very founding was a fraud “They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”
- World War II was never about ridding the world of German Fascism or Japanese Militarism- the war was America’s fault!
“Was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable.”
Where’s the research? Where’s the scholarship? Where’s the objectivity?
Zinn himself, said it best,
“I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle”
As long as young adults seek ways to… “discover themselves” and anger their parents- there will be audience for Howard Zinn’s A People’s History. Parental units are part of the so-called establishment and our farthest reaching right-of-passage in America is fighting the conformity of the “the man.” The biggest error in judgment these young rebels make is seeing the establishment as encompassing every facet of our existence- even our history…. Zinn is where too many young minds are exposed to distorted, often lazy examinations of these crucial moments.
The failure to see our Founders as truly revolutionary… is the most damaging element in Howard Zinn’s rambling. That’s what A People’s History is really, unsubstantiated neo-Marxist rambling. Europeans were murdering oppressors driven by greed; Natives were peaceful environmentalists seeking harmony with nature. The Founding of America was perpetrated by an elite few looking for a more efficient way to accrue wealth. To Zinn and his readers this is all very provocative, but when placed under the scrutiny of peer review it is amateurish.
Maybe there’s hope
Zinn’s work fails on many levels… but contextually he refuses to surrender bias to the complexities of human interaction. The Pequot war was not as simple as “Red Man Good, White Man Bad.” Our Founders were not only motivated by greed- trying explaining that to Robert Morris. To impressionable undergrads, these arguments are their first bites from the apple of nonconformity. To the middling academics who refuse to take Zinn to task, the book is an opportunity to gain some anti-establishment credibility with the youngsters.
At the heart of historical revisionism is distrust… a lack of faith in previous interpretations of the historical record. This blog has bitterly observed the crass consumerism and intellectual vanity that often drive outlandish revisions in our history. But, a closer examination reveals the true divide between revisionist and traditionalist- trust.
Maybe there’s hope
As historians rush to laud Alan Taylor’s new revision… of the American Revolutionary movement, the distrust is laid bare. If revisionist historians refuse to come out and proclaim all previous work wrong, then there must be a lack of trust. Was Gordon Wood trying to deceive us when explaining how radical our Revolution was? Did Dumas Malone wish to hide Jefferson’s feelings on slavery and freedom? Was Edmund Morgan deliberately distorting history when explaining racial diversity in Colonial Virginia? All revisionists will say is that works like Taylor’s are now “the standards.” To hell with what came before…
Unite us, David
There is no mass historical conspiracy to disregard… races or classes of people. Gordon Wood should be read in first year graduate courses and beyond. In their zeal to legitimize controversial interpretations, revisionists like Taylor and Annette Gordon-Reed propagate the distrust of these noteworthy predecessors.
Joe Ellis explained the absence of serious Madison biographies… by proclaiming “he’s boring as hell” and that “only lawyers like him.” As previously stated, Ellis’s recent comments on the Framers and Original Intent cast doubt on the rigor of his scholarship- and these nuggets of wisdom only enhance the evidence of his misguided revisionism.
Never far apart
The revision Ellis is peddling holds that Madison and other Framers… rejected the doctrine of Original Intent on its face. The only empirical evidence supporting this notion is Madison’s oft quoted explanation for not publishing his notes on the Constitutional Convention. Once established, the government continued to disappoint Madison, driving him closer to his friend Jefferson. During his presidency, Madison undoubtedly supported Original Intent as he battled John Marshall and Congress for the soul of the Constitution. He feared the elasticity in the Constitution was being abused by ambitious demagogues- Madison wanted the power of government restrained- his original intent.
What have your wrought, Joe?