revisionist history from Mike Huckabee

The liberal blogosphere is all atwitter (ha!) about Mike Huckabee's claim that President Obama grew up in Kenya. (Huckabee has since issued an implausible disavowal of the statement.) No, Obama did not grow up in Kenya, and yes, that's a stupid thing for a major political figure to say. But what is of far greater interest to me are the historical presumptions that underwrite Huckabee's rehashing of Dinesh D'Souza's claim that the president's intellectual worldview is centrally motivated by an anti-colonialism inherited from his Kenyan father.

Mike Huckabee, from his website

On a conservative radio show, Huckabee raised the point about Obama's childhood in order to express concern that the president's agenda, and its attendant philosophy, is entirely foreign to the worldview of the average American. "And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya--his view of the Brits, for example, [is] very different from [that of] the average American. When he gave the bust [of Winston Churchill] back to [the British, this was] a great insult to the British. But...his perspective growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather--their view of the Mau Mau Revolution is very different from ours, because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."

I want to put aside several items of concern with Huckabee's statement: the notions that most contemporary Americans have the same attitude toward the Mau Mau uprising (or, for that matter, any view of it at all); that the viewpoint on this subject of someone with Kenyan heritage might not, in fact, be richer or better-informed that that of someone without that background; and that it's important and valuable that no one deviate from the consensus opinion. Instead, as an historian, I am interested in the claim that Obama's "view...is very different from ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists."

I've got to admit that I grew up in Indiana hearing pretty much the same thing. And, well, isn't it true? Weren't the British a bunch of imperialists? If the British Empire does not represent the very pinnacle of imperialism, then I guess I need to have Mandy Patinkin explain to me what the word actually means.

I claim no expertise on the UK, and this blog focuses on the United States, but Huckabee's implicit point strikes me as the worst kind of Orwellian historical revisionism. Is he actually suggesting that the British Empire was not an imperialist project? I have a hard time imagining any reasonable person would take such a position. But I also cannot see any other way to read his comment.

revisionist history from Mike Huckabee

The liberal blogosphere is all atwitter (ha!) about Mike Huckabee's claim that President Obama grew up in Kenya. (Huckabee has since issued an implausible disavowal of the statement.) No, Obama did not grow up in Kenya, and yes, that's a stupid thing for a major political figure to say. But what is of far greater interest to me are the historical presumptions that underwrite Huckabee's rehashing of Dinesh D'Souza's claim that the president's intellectual worldview is centrally motivated by an anti-colonialism inherited from his Kenyan father.

Mike Huckabee, from his website

On a conservative radio show, Huckabee raised the point about Obama's childhood in order to express concern that the president's agenda, and its attendant philosophy, is entirely foreign to the worldview of the average American. "And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya--his view of the Brits, for example, [is] very different from [that of] the average American. When he gave the bust [of Winston Churchill] back to [the British, this was] a great insult to the British. But...his perspective growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather--their view of the Mau Mau Revolution is very different from ours, because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."

I want to put aside several items of concern with Huckabee's statement: the notions that most contemporary Americans have the same attitude toward the Mau Mau uprising (or, for that matter, any view of it at all); that the viewpoint on this subject of someone with Kenyan heritage might not, in fact, be richer or better-informed that that of someone without that background; and that it's important and valuable that no one deviate from the consensus opinion. Instead, as an historian, I am interested in the claim that Obama's "view...is very different from ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists."

I've got to admit that I grew up in Indiana hearing pretty much the same thing. And, well, isn't it true? Weren't the British a bunch of imperialists? If the British Empire does not represent the very pinnacle of imperialism, then I guess I need to have Mandy Patinkin explain to me what the word actually means.

I claim no expertise on the UK, and this blog focuses on the United States, but Huckabee's implicit point strikes me as the worst kind of Orwellian historical revisionism. Is he actually suggesting that the British Empire was not an imperialist project? I have a hard time imagining any reasonable person would take such a position. But I also cannot see any other way to read his comment.

A Minimalist Offering: Check Out This Book

With this post I'm succumbing to the diseases sweeping academia this month: the mid-term blues and spring break virus. So I offer this minimalist bit of information about a new book of interest (courtesy of my PhilPapers feed, bolds mine):
---------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Taylor (2011). Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian Foundations of Justice as Fairness. Penn State University Press.

With the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, John Rawls not only rejuvenated contemporary political philosophy but also defended a Kantian form of Enlightenment liberalism called “justice as fairness.” Enlightenment liberalism stresses the development and exercise of our capacity for autonomy, while Reformation liberalism emphasizes diversity and the toleration that encourages it. These two strands of liberalism are often mutually supporting, but they conflict in a surprising number of cases, whether over the accommodation of group difference, the design of civic education, or the promotion of liberal values internationally. During the 1980’s, however, Rawls began to jettison key Kantian characteristics of his theory, a process culminating in the 1993 release of Political Liberalism and completing the transformation of justice as fairness into a Reformation liberalism. Reconstructing Rawls argues that this transformation was a tragic mistake because it jeopardized the most important features of his theory, viz. the lexical priorities of right, liberty, and fair equality of opportunity as well as the difference principle. Controversially, this book contends that Rawls’s so-called “political turn,” motivated by a newfound interest in diversity and the accommodation of difference, has been unhealthy for autonomy-based liberalism and has pushed liberalism more broadly towards cultural relativism, be it in the guise of liberal multiculturalism or critiques of cosmopolitan distributive-justice theories. The book then demonstrates that the central elements of justice as fairness can only be defended within the context of a Kantian Enlightenment liberalism and that Rawls’s hope for a more pluralistic grounding for his theory, endorsed by a wide variety of belief systems present in modern democratic societies, is illusory. Reconstructing Rawls is the first book to systematically compare Rawls’s and Kant’s theories and the first to offer an internal critique and reconstruction of justice as fairness, reconceiving it as a comprehensive, universalistic Kantian liberalism. By doing so, it gives us both the vision of a liberal world order—“a republicanism of all states, together and separately,” as Kant put it—and a mode of justification addressed to all men and women, not as members of particular nations, races, and faiths, but as human beings, as citizens of the world. In short, it reclaims Rawls for the Enlightenment.
---------------------------------------------------

Color me intrigued. - TL

A Minimalist Offering: Check Out This Book

With this post I'm succumbing to the diseases sweeping academia this month: the mid-term blues and spring break virus. So I offer this minimalist bit of information about a new book of interest (courtesy of my PhilPapers feed, bolds mine):
---------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Taylor (2011). Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian Foundations of Justice as Fairness. Penn State University Press.

With the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, John Rawls not only rejuvenated contemporary political philosophy but also defended a Kantian form of Enlightenment liberalism called “justice as fairness.” Enlightenment liberalism stresses the development and exercise of our capacity for autonomy, while Reformation liberalism emphasizes diversity and the toleration that encourages it. These two strands of liberalism are often mutually supporting, but they conflict in a surprising number of cases, whether over the accommodation of group difference, the design of civic education, or the promotion of liberal values internationally. During the 1980’s, however, Rawls began to jettison key Kantian characteristics of his theory, a process culminating in the 1993 release of Political Liberalism and completing the transformation of justice as fairness into a Reformation liberalism. Reconstructing Rawls argues that this transformation was a tragic mistake because it jeopardized the most important features of his theory, viz. the lexical priorities of right, liberty, and fair equality of opportunity as well as the difference principle. Controversially, this book contends that Rawls’s so-called “political turn,” motivated by a newfound interest in diversity and the accommodation of difference, has been unhealthy for autonomy-based liberalism and has pushed liberalism more broadly towards cultural relativism, be it in the guise of liberal multiculturalism or critiques of cosmopolitan distributive-justice theories. The book then demonstrates that the central elements of justice as fairness can only be defended within the context of a Kantian Enlightenment liberalism and that Rawls’s hope for a more pluralistic grounding for his theory, endorsed by a wide variety of belief systems present in modern democratic societies, is illusory. Reconstructing Rawls is the first book to systematically compare Rawls’s and Kant’s theories and the first to offer an internal critique and reconstruction of justice as fairness, reconceiving it as a comprehensive, universalistic Kantian liberalism. By doing so, it gives us both the vision of a liberal world order—“a republicanism of all states, together and separately,” as Kant put it—and a mode of justification addressed to all men and women, not as members of particular nations, races, and faiths, but as human beings, as citizens of the world. In short, it reclaims Rawls for the Enlightenment.
---------------------------------------------------

Color me intrigued. - TL

Bill Fine on Tim Lacy on George Cotkin

Tim Lacy's recent thought-provoking review of George Cotkin's book Morality's Muddy Waters has elicited an interesting series of comments from Bill Fine. As I am home sick with a sick kid, I will defer to a conversation that is taking place on a post that certainly serves up more food for thought. Please see Tim's original review here and Bill's comments here. You will need to scroll down just a bit to find Bill's comments.

Bill Fine on Tim Lacy on George Cotkin

Tim Lacy's recent thought-provoking review of George Cotkin's book Morality's Muddy Waters has elicited an interesting series of comments from Bill Fine. As I am home sick with a sick kid, I will defer to a conversation that is taking place on a post that certainly serves up more food for thought. Please see Tim's original review here and Bill's comments here. You will need to scroll down just a bit to find Bill's comments.

Bleg: Request For Article Suggestions

Speaking of Professor Cotkin, here's a special request from him:

-------------------------------------
I am going to be teaching a reading seminar for M.A. students in U.S. Intellectual and Cultural History in the fall. Are there articles in the field that you think are must reads for the graduate students? If so, please let me know. Thank you for your help.
-------------------------------------

Thoughts? John Higham was an outstanding essayist. I would think something by him would float to the top. Also, David Hollinger's collection, In the American Province, seems like it would hold forth possibilities. -TL