They are hell bent on re-writing America’s past

Oct 8, 2014 by

By Dean Kalahar

October 7, 2014

There has been a lot of consternation that Common Core and new Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) standards eviscerate the understanding of our exceptional history. Most concerning is the anti-historical emphasis on social justice, globalism, environmentalism, race, class, and gender victimhood that undermines Western ideals, the Constitution, capitalism, and American culture.

Up to this point, definitive proof the new “standards” were deleterious was anecdotal. But facts now show not only intent, but a vision and mission that bring schools face to face with forces bent on dumping Americas past into the dustbin of history and replacing it with false shame to establish a global collective.

Where did this nonsense come from, who was behind it, and how could such a destructive approach to the history of our liberty occur?

For four years beginning in1997, a conference on American History was held at New York University’s center in Florence Italy called the Villa LaPietra. It was organized by the modern equivalent of Howard Zinn, Dr. Thomas Bender of NYU. Primary funding came from the liberal Rockefeller, Ford, and Mellon Foundations. At these meetings, 78 historians, half who were not Americans, gathered to create a new American History. Their vision can be read in the aptly named LaPietra Report.

The report gives specific guidelines to be set in motion in order to change American History education. The following are excerpts of the LaPietra report written by Bender in September of 2000. He does not speak alone however as “drafts have been discussed with and circulated to all the participants,” and “there is a general concurrence on the general orientation of its phrasing of the issues and its recommendations” that “represent the views of the project as a whole.”

Read critically for yourself the bizarre vision being discussed and see the purposeful intent that was orchestrated among a group determined to fundamentally transform America.

The vision:

[The] “approach builds upon comparative history, a method of historical inquiry that has been developed by Americanists.” (Specialists in the languages or cultures of the aboriginal inhabitants of America)

The approach of this project is closer to and extends recent work in the study of the African diaspora, the creation of the Atlantic world, diplomatic history, the history of migration, environmental history, the study of gender, and intellectual history.”

“Boundaries are increasingly understood as being relatively permeable, more like “zones of contact” than firm lines of division.”

Create “an internationalized history” and “understand the lines of division or dimensions of otherness.”

“The lived and experienced connections in transnational space need to be explored—both the channels that facilitate movement and the ruptures, discontinuities, and disarticulations that structure inequalities and constitute the basis for national and other forms of differentiation.”

We “offer of the gift of cosmopolitanism.” (The ideology that all human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality)

“We must resist the error of making world history a mere extension of a triumphalist narrative of the American experience” while “avoiding simplistic assertions of American exceptionalism.”

“Besides democracy, we note such historical phenomena as Christianity and/or religious pluralism, modernization and modernity, racial hierarchy, migration, environmental change, capitalism, slavery and freedom, technology, community formation, empire and colonialism, cultural modernism, identity formation and others”

“The history curriculum … will all be marked by the recognition of a plurality of narratives”

“We expect them [children] to understand the controversial power and presence of the United States”

“Promote in students a more informed sense of and commitment to a global human commons;”

The mission:

“Develop a genuinely international community of Americanist teachers and scholars.”

“We hope that the history curriculum at all levels, not only in colleges and universities but also in the K-12 levels will address itself to these issues… It is essential that college and university departments–which carry the responsibility for training historians who will teach at the K-12 levels–begin this work of integration.”

“The obligations of a professional discipline are substantial. College and university history departments are responsible for the creation and transmission of the new knowledges”

“Advise state education departments and textbook publishers”

“This report seeks to encourage a particular orientation to these challenges and opportunities.”

“We wish history to be more inclusive, not less. Such inclusiveness will, we think, eventually result in a substantial reframing of the basic narrative of American history. But we understand the process as incremental and ongoing, working in distinctive ways in different institutions.”

“The point here, again, is neither the precise structure nor the distribution, but rather the way the field of history is represented. It is not nation-centered.”

In short, progressives want American history to be without boarders, aboriginal, transnational, intellectualized, cosmopolitan, and written by Americanists. The focus: African immigration, peace, environmentalism, gender, inequality, pluralism, modernity, racial hierarchy, migration, slavery, community, colonialism, identity formation, and building a global commens.

Excuse me, but that is just exquisite collectivist crap. Goodbye  Jefferson, hello “new knowledges.”

The rhetoric, euphemisms, and denial from ivory tower revisionists can no longer hide the truth. A Progressive movement to change American History and undermine the nation is self-evident.

Change does not come all at once; it is systemic, often passive and unassuming. We have gone from the vision at LaPietra to the actions of “rewriting standards” known as Common Core and APUSH. It is time to wake up and push back against a group ideology hell bent on re-writing our past, and with it, destroying our future.


For further reading: A selection of the papers presented in Florence was published in a book edited by Thomas Bender “Rethinking American History in a Global Age.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Comment

  1. Avatar

    I am sure Mr. Kalahar tried his best to make a knowledgeable article, but over and over he fails. To anyone who cares, this is a better summary of what is occurring: and for those that want more there is Bender’s book discussed here:

    Americanists are not “Specialists in the languages or cultures of the aboriginal inhabitants of America.” They are historians who study the United States of America. Africanists study the history of Africa, so on and so forth.
    No one who knows Zinn or Bender as individuals or their work would ever conflate the two or combine them as being the other. They are not synonymous.
    His definition of cosmopolitanism is incomplete. For a fuller definition:
    He writes:
    “In short, progressives want American history to be without boarders [sic], aboriginal, transnational, intellectualized, cosmopolitan, and written by Americanists. The focus: African immigration, peace, environmentalism, gender, inequality, pluralism, modernity, racial hierarchy, migration, slavery, community, colonialism, identity formation, and building a global commens [sic].”
    There is so much wrong here. First, they don’t want US history to without borders, they just want US history taught in an international context when ideas, peoples, and things were crossing them. IOW, they want parts of US history taught in an international context when a strong international context exists. The whole first sentence ends up humorous with the negative assertion that Bender, et. al. want US history to be written by Americanists (historians who study and write about US history). The focus is correct, but incomplete. It would also include anything that Mr. Kalahar would probably want students to study.
    It would hard to study Jefferson fully without an international context of the Enlightenment, slavery, the Napoleonic wars, etc. But this is commonly done in US history textbooks to the detriment of the students knowledge.
    There is no denial of this movement. They are forthright and they are in earnest in re-writing the past to something closer to what actually happened. Is anyone against it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.