Fake History |
Why You Should Stop Learning From Memes
|
by Tom B
|
We all know that one person, whether a relative, friend, or Facebook acquaintance, who consistently uses bunk history to pontificate on their worldview. Often they attempt to create a clear delineation between us and them. “But the Democrat Party was the party of the KKK!” Verging on troll status, the internet today is rife with historical misappropriations, using historical “facts” to prove modern thoughts, while lacking any semblance of context. With the internet, we now live in a world of “alternative facts,” “fake news,” and now – fake history.
Verging on troll status, the internet today is rife with historical misappropriations, using historical “facts” to prove modern thoughts, while lacking any semblance of context.
But the purpose of history is to learn from and not repeat, right? The old cliché of repeating history is an overused trope. Personally, I prefer Twain’s “History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” To be fair, even this quote has questionable attribution. I think we can all agree on the idea that history is instructive. It teaches us about ourselves today. In the words of the great Forrest Gump, history is like a pair of shoes. It teaches us “where we’re going, where we’ve been.”
All sides of the political spectrum utilize history to further their ideas. Some legitimate, much illegitimate. The left has Howard Zinn’s focus on People’s History, emphasizing the social struggle of Americans for rights and voice. Conservative historians have a harder go, due to the field’s liberal slant. Writers like Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich can be picked up at the supermarket, with overarching themes emphasizing unified societies and continuous progress.
All sides of the political spectrum utilize history to further their ideas. Some legitimate, much illegitimate. The left has Howard Zinn’s focus on People’s History, emphasizing the social struggle of Americans for rights and voice. Conservative historians have a harder go, due to the field’s liberal slant. Writers like Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich can be picked up at the supermarket, with overarching themes emphasizing unified societies and continuous progress.
The problem though is that Americans do not read history. They have a sense of it, but most haven’t seriously studied it since college or high school. It terrifies me that for most of my students, my class is their last history class, ever. |
The problem though is that Americans do not read history. They have a sense of it, but most haven’t seriously studied it since college or high school. It terrifies me that for most of my students, my class is their last history class, ever. This historical illiteracy has led to historical misappropriations. We see it on social media.
|
|
I’ve seen this meme in multiple places. It makes me chuckle. Let’s do some history on the Republicans and Democrats! The Democratic Party goes back to the founding of the Constitution, representing the more anti-federalist, pro-farmer views of Thomas Jefferson. Today this ideas align ideologically more with the Republicans. During the early 19th century, the Democrats gained footholds in rural areas, and with immigrants. Slavery eventually cleaved the Democrats and Whigs apart by region, causing many Southern Whigs to join the Democrats, and many Northern Democrats to join the eventual Republican Party.
|
|
The Republican Party ran its first candidate in 1856, assembling a coalition of Free Soilers (a single issue abolitionist party), Northern Whigs, and Democrats. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President in 1860, and while in office helped bring about the end of slavery. Whereas the Democrats became the party of resistance in the South. Should Republicans be proud of that? Heck yeah! But does that make this meme correct? No. This is why:
What people often forget is that history is complex. One event is always contingent on another. We can all be proud that Lincoln wanted to end slavery. However, Lincoln was complex in ways we don’t even think about today. In this time period it was perfectly normal to be against slavery, but still believe in white supremacy. On December 20th 1860 Lincoln stated:
What people often forget is that history is complex. One event is always contingent on another. We can all be proud that Lincoln wanted to end slavery. However, Lincoln was complex in ways we don’t even think about today. In this time period it was perfectly normal to be against slavery, but still believe in white supremacy. On December 20th 1860 Lincoln stated:
|
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the fooling of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.
|
|
Had he survived, Lincoln proposed to make it easy for Southern states to gain readmittance to the Union, making life for Freedmen more difficult. The Democrats did indeed support the KKK, helped to pass and enforce Jim Crow laws, and routinely terrorized Blacks into submission. Does that mean the Democratic Party is the party of the KKK and the Republicans are the party of emancipation today? That would be irresponsible, and few proper historians would agree. Yes, the Democrats are the party that endorsed slavery and Jim Crow. Democratic presidents also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Parties change, ideologies evolve. To believe the words in the meme is to have no understanding of progression and evolution of history, to have no concept of the complexity of politics. To believe the ideas in the meme is equivalent to believing Lincoln was bad human because he believed in white supremacy.
|
Does that mean the Democratic Party is the party of the KKK and the Republicans are the party of emancipation today? That would be irresponsible, and few proper historians would agree… Parties change, ideologies evolve. |
The Democrats used to be the party of the South until Nixon pried it away with the Southern Strategy, shattering the Democratic Party and reassembling the Republican coalition. Republican strategist Lee Atwater sums it up with:
|
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
|
|
Now does that mean Republicans are racists as that quote and this liberal meme would suggest? Surprisingly, once again the internet is not correct. This idea that Republicans are racist, or greedy capitalists, or heartless is a common idea on the left. I was recently watching the show The Untold History of the United States, and was discussing it with a friend at a brewery. Simple narratives, whether intentional or not, do not reflect the complexity of history. In fact, it robs historical people of their humanity and agency. People then and now make decisions based on a myriad of factors. Rarely are people sociopaths acting purely for themselves. Was what Nixon did right? No. Did he do it to win elections and screw over Democrats? Yes. It set up the Republicans to reverse forty years of Democratic dominance and revitalized the GOP.
|
Now does that mean Republicans are racists as that quote and this liberal meme would suggest? Surprisingly, once again the internet is not correct. |
Case in point: I mentioned that it was a Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. He couldn’t have done it without the support of Republicans (especially Northerners) who gave it 136 votes in the house and 27 filibuster blocking votes in the Senate.
LBJ wanted to purge the Democratic Party of racists and saw a way to use his Civil Rights record to help the Democrats gain in the North, eating away at Republican strongholds. LBJ hoped to push racists into a 3rd party. Although the Democrats were unsuccessful in 1968, due to some war or something, Nixon saw the opportunity to undermine the Democrats in ’72 with the Southern Strategy. Nixon stole the disaffected Southern whites, and flipped the map. Parties evolve, change, and migrate. Just like the people within them.
LBJ wanted to purge the Democratic Party of racists and saw a way to use his Civil Rights record to help the Democrats gain in the North, eating away at Republican strongholds. LBJ hoped to push racists into a 3rd party. Although the Democrats were unsuccessful in 1968, due to some war or something, Nixon saw the opportunity to undermine the Democrats in ’72 with the Southern Strategy. Nixon stole the disaffected Southern whites, and flipped the map. Parties evolve, change, and migrate. Just like the people within them.
The two silly memes I discussed might seem like easy targets. They are, if you know history. However, most people don’t, and recent us vs. them mentalities have done nothing but push people deeper into their echo chamber. Don’t use google news or any sites that prepare your news articles based on your “interests.” Subscribe to respectable news sources, not an aggregator. Look for sources and correlations. Don’t assume those on the other side are always after their own devious devices. Professionals are more reputable for a reason.
We will see history differently, that is unavoidable. But we cannot use history to create false divisions. With the exception of a few sociopaths I think we can all agree on a few things: history is subjective, nobody wants to screw the poor, nobody wants to wage war for personal gain, and nobody likes Nazis.
We will see history differently, that is unavoidable. But we cannot use history to create false divisions. With the exception of a few sociopaths I think we can all agree on a few things: history is subjective, nobody wants to screw the poor, nobody wants to wage war for personal gain, and nobody likes Nazis.
