Framing the Dialogue

Berliners woke up on a summer day in 1961 to find that soldiers from communist controlled East Berlin had constructed a barrier between themselves and West Berlin.  Comprising mostly of barbed wire, and armed guards, the wall was soon constructed to be a more permanent barrier.

This escalation of the Cold War sent a chill throughout the western nations.  President Kennedy visited in 1963 and his famous words are still celebrated to this day.  This is a portion that I feel expressed the sentiments of many:

“While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your mayor has said, an offence not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.”

The Cold War escalated for many years punctuated by Vietnam, Afghanistan, and nuclear proliferation.  Many of us grew up knowing where fallout shelters were in case of attack.  The Wall was always there, more than just a symbol.  Western novels and movies frequently portrayed Soviet villains and James Bond killed his share of Soviet spies.  The world seemed to be hurtling toward a real war.

Fast forward to the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Critics painted him as a warmonger pushing the United States toward World War III.  This is an all too common characterization of a conservative.  I believe that Reagan recognized evil and pointed it out. 

I also think, however, that he recognized the fragile nature of the Soviet economy under decades of communist rule.  President Reagan pushed and pushed and pushed them.  He used the power of capitalism to apply economic pressure to the Soviets to keep up.  Remember Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative)?

Twenty-four years after President Kennedy’s speech, Ronald Reagan added his own plea on behalf of Berlin:

“In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Mikhail Gorbachev was the last head of the U.S.S.R. and he deserves credit for his role in ending the Soviet Union.  His reform policies of glasnost and perestroika lead to the end of communist rule.  This information is readily available.

What prompted this posting was a blurb printed in my local paper quoting an article from the Boston Globe.  The author offers President Obama advice to “match the greatness with which Gorbachev acted 20 years ago.”  Reading the entire article, it is AMAZING that President Reagan is not given any credit for the end of the Soviet Union.  I grew up during that period and remember it well.

Maybe the author only learned about that period in history books. 

Maybe he just researched Boston Globe articles. 

Maybe you can excuse this revisionist history to the author’s youth and inexperience. 

I cannot.

Update October 11, 2009:

In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

Ninety men survived the long trip,
Tired of Columbus’ wrathful whip.

When finally he arrived on shore,
The natives of him were unsure.

The people he was sure to exploit,
Of that it seems he was most adroit.

Rather than a national hero,
Columbus is a mean, old zero.

This is not the way we learned Columbus’ song when I was young, and this is my interpretation about how they teach about our heroes these days.  It seems that many schools are taking the gloves off and showing old Christopher in a different light.  The light is flourescent and not very flattering as these quotes attest:

“I talk about the situation where he didn’t even realize where he was and we talked about how he was very, very mean, very bossy.”

 “You don’t hear people using the world ‘discovery’ anymore like they used to. ‘Columbus discovers America.’ Because how could he discover America if there were already people living here?”

 ”The indigenous population was kind of waiting expectantly, almost with smiles on their faces.  I wonder what this guy is bringing us?’ Well, he’s bringing us smallpox, for one thing, and none of us are going to live very long.”

My favorite is that schools actually put Columbus on trial for his “crimes” with one school finding him guilty and sentencing him to life in prison.    I have no doubt that the students were presented a balanced view of the events.  I am sure that the students were presented with the facts about the bloody sacrificial practices of many indigenous peoples.  By “sure” I mean not really.  Some of the teachers featured in the article seem excited about destroying the traditional view of Christopher.

Next in the ciriculum will be about how mean and bossy the pilgrim settlers were to the native Americans.  I also look forward to reading about how they are treating George and Abe come President’s Day.  Hint – both George and Abe were quite bossy. 

We really have to be diligent about what our children are being taught.