This diary is written in response to an exchange between BostonJoe and SallyCat in the comment section of Joe’s Exceptional Amnesia, wherein SallyCat searches for the point of posting a long list of unsupportable actions taken, as they say, in our Name (if often covertly). Her question was, if I might summarize, what is the extent, and the point, of such guilt? I’m rephrasing that question like so: What is the point of knowing history?
It seems to me, first off, that there isn’t a single, necessary, point in knowing history. That is: as our capacities for dealing with knowledge differ, our need to know likewise differs. The key to understanding need to know, i think, relates to the fact that we become responsible for what we know.
As I’ve written elsewhere, Real History imparts a burden; while Fake History (think the Warren Report or Official 9/11 Report) shifts the burden onto a scapegoat. This shifting of blame works in two interconnected ways. Most obviously, responsibility for the act is put solely upon an expendable outsider (the patsy). By acceding to this bit of fake knowledge, the people become free of the burden of addressing what actually occured. To be burdened by knowledge of Real History is to face what I think of as Hamlet’s Dilemma.
We can see the same dilemma (from a different angle) played out in a less exalted context, as in, for example, Fox’s 24; wherein the President’s wife is convinced that for the sake of National Unity she should not reveal her husband’s responsibility for a day of terror attacks upon Los Angeles.
This situation, to my mind, relates back to the fundamental paradox of national identity. As Israeli ex-foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami puts it: Every nation is born in sin. We can see this same principle at work in the fact that what is forbidden for individuals (murder) is allowed and even exalted for nations (war, and in fact, genocide).
There is, thus, a deep psychological exchange that has to go on, whereby we all agree to forget the past for the sake of the Greater Good. This is the heartstring the tyrant plays on. Axiomatically: Power is the shadow image of Truth and Reconcilliation. It is, in the Idealist or Dualist worldview, the copy of a genuine process.
So, if I might restate the question: What is the point of distinguishing between the copy and the Real Thing? If the copy is good enough for, say, Jimmy Carter, who are you and I to complain?
One possible value is as a sort of innoculation against fraud. This whole myth of American virtue and exceptionalism makes for a credible citizenry who only well after the fact realize that the latest just war is in fact another colossal injustice. Likewise, such wisdom might serve as an innoculation against false flag terror.
The counter argument – the argument in favor of not distinguishing between the copy and the Real Thing – holds that to introduce uncertainty into the national consciousness is to court anihilation from evil people who fail themselves to make such a distinction. Everyone knows that madmen who believe themselves ordained by God are as dangerous as a plague. The only way to survive them, thus, is to become them.
This sort of thinking leads to the at least we’re better than Saddam rationalizations for criminal behavior. By feeling better than Saddam we justify our evils. From this perspective, to dwell obsessively on our own crimes – outside the context provided by the really evil people – is to become the Perfect that is the Enemy of the Good. Many attacks on Chomsky are launched from this perspective,
One Gnostic rebuttal to this Anti-Gnostic argument is to question whether or not, given the fact that the vast majority lives within a delusional world (a Fake History), democracy is anything more than a ritual fetish. The Gnostic perspective, thus, is closely allied with the drive toward so-called People Powered Politics (PPP). Real History is the cornerstone of any genuine PPP.
But what if, like Kos, you find that most people’s idea of Real History strikes you as a dangerous Conspiracy Theory? Do you become Anti-Gnostic for the people’s own unrecognized good? (I’ll answer for Kos: YES – though of course you keep PPP as a slogan.)
This conflict easily converts to the ongoing conflict between the Idealists and Pragmatists. Or in other words: How much history can we afford to know? How much guilt can we bear? How many horrors can we be responsible for?
What really frightens me about America is the thought that – as a Roman historian (i have to look up the name… in an actual book!) said about Rome during its transition from Republic to Empire – we can neither bear our flaws nor bear to correct them.