Amna: The American revolution
and the founding founders, two
parts of U.S. History celebrated
on July 4.
In recent years, they've also
become political and ideological
tools, including at times of
some extremist groups on the
right.
Lisa Desjardins has more.
Lisa: 1776 is a symbol of
freedom, reason, and the
founding of this country.
But two centuries later, that
date, 1776, was a rallying cry
for rioters disrupting a
national election at the
capitol.
>> 1776!
1776!
>> 1776!
Lisa: It is an example of how
the politics and rhetoric around
the founding has become
enflamed, and can eclipse the
actual history involved.
Joining me to discuss are Amy
cooter, the research director at
the center on terrorism,
extremism, and counterterrorism
at the middlebury institute.
And Jim Grossman, historian and
executive director of the
American historical association.
Amy, I want to start with you.
July 4 celebrates our history of
men who were radical in their
time in the founding, but I want
to talk about the group you
study now, those were in
militias, are extremists.
How do they use 1776 for their
own purposes?
Amy: For them, 1776 has been
important for longer than
what we just saw.
It is their reason to be as a
militia, as a man in society.
They see themselves acting as a
lineage of the founding fathers
and think true patriots have the
obligation to honor them and
honor the date.
Lisa: I want to talk more
broadly about political
bloodstream.
Talking about founding fathers
is oiler plate but especially
recently for conservatives.
This is Republican Tim Scott,
his July 4 message this year.
>> Our founding fathers were
geniuses who should be
celebrated, not canceled.
Lisa: Obviously there was genius
involved in the founding of
America, but I wonder how you
see the positives and negatives
versus the rhetoric is amped up
about the founding fathers.
Jim: The problem here is an
inclination among many people to
see things as black-and-white,
to see things as it's either
this or that.
And people talk about teaching
theelory and the glory of
American history.
Senator Scott says they should
be celebrated and not canceled.
They should be understood.
And that doesn't mean
celebrated, it doesn't mean
canceled.
Their ideas were brilliant.
There is no question that the
founding documents were in fact
revolutionary.
They contained insights into
liberty, into freedom.
But these men also -- they were
men, there were no women present
-- these men were also mostly
men who owned, bought, and sold
other human beings.
And they lived and had grown up
in a world where it was ok to
own, buy, and sell other human
beings.
And to understand what they
wrote, and to understand them,
we have to understand that.
This is not a theory, this is a
fact.
Lisa: Amy, one think we are
talking about here is patriotism
that could morph into
nationalism.
Can you talk about those two
ideas and what happens there?
Amy: Social scientist
distinguish between patriotism
as being love for one's
country versus nationalism which
is a negative comparison to
everywhere else.
It is not just I love my
country, but everywhere else is
bad.
And patriotism in the militia
world and beyond kind of appeals
to our founding and pains us as
this proverbial city on a hill
without looking, as Jim said,
at some of the negatives that go
along with the positives.
Lisa: Why do you think this is
bubbling up now?
Of course it is not unique in
American history to have this
divide, but why are we seeing
this form of it now?
What in the last 50 years could
have led to this?
Jim: We are seeing this now --
and 60 years is about right.
Because during the 1960's,
things changed in ways that
upset many Americans.
Between the 1965 immigration
changes in immigration law,
feminism of the 1960's, and the
civil rights acts and civil
rights activism.
For many Americans, this is not
the country that they thought it
was or that it should be.
Because women are not acting the
way their wives and daughters
and mothers acted a generation
before the 1960's.
African-Americans asserting
rights that, quite frankly, were
not granted to them before the
1950's and 1960's.
And the opening of the doors to
millions of immigrants since
1965.
This is not the country that we
were.
So I think it goes back to the
1960's as to what has changed.
Lisa: Amy, I saw you nodding
during some of that.
How do race and identity in
particular factored into what
you are seeing with militia
groups and extremists?
Amy: With most militia groups I
have studied they are not racist
at the root level, being the
same as white supremacist or
neo-nazis, that is not what we
see with this particular
movement.
But like many other white
Americans who are part of
militias, they perceive a
partial view of history.
They have not learned about
slavery or native American
genocide.
They have not learned why those
things still impact people very
differently today.
So when we have conversations
about critical race theory or
about transgender rights, it is
really easy for those things to
become kind of buzzwords that
are dismissed without much
in-depth investigation into what
they really mean and some of the
concepts behind them.
It's all too easy to use that as
an excuse to fight back is what
they see as too rapid social
progress, but package it in a
way that is appealing to a
broader swath of America.
Lisa: As we are wrapping up, I
want to focus on a survey that
your group did looking at how
Americans learned history.
They told you that they see
history as facts.
What, where, when.
Versus historians who view it as
a conversation.
And Americans mostly get their
history from sources of
entertainment.
What does that tell you about
how we understand our history?
Jim: I think it tells you that
historians have some work to do.
That we have to do a much better
job of connecting with the
American people.
And in fact this is one reason
the American historical
association has recently issued
guidelines suggesting to
colleges and universities that
more professional credit go to
historians who are writing and
speaking to the general public
rather than to just one another.
So I do think that those surveys
do suggest that we as historians
have a lot of work to do.
We do have to help Americans
understand that facts are not
very useful unless we know how
to ask the right questions about
them.
Lisa: I think this conversation
was very useful, so.
Jim Grossman, Amy cooter, thank
you to your both for a very
complex conversation, and happy
fourth of July.
Amy: You too.
Jim: Thank you.
♪♪