The sudden appearance during the last year of cover stories in The New Republic and U.S. News and World Report about "political correctness" and "revisionist history" -- now meaning the presentation of a view of history that differs from the dominant perspective -- is no coincidence. In a recent column in Time, Charles Krauthammer, a New Republic editor, tied together the previously unlinked strands of political correctness, multiculturalism, re-examination of Columbus' contribution, and the Left's desire to shape opinion, giving ammunition to the argument that the "PC" discussion is primarily a political manipulation of the media.
And so, as the debate on political correctness rages, we will examine the literature that fuels this discussion.
A Rearview Mirror on the World
Although according to the index he only uses the term "politically correct" once in his book, Dinesh D'Souza furthered his already impressive career (for one so young) with the publication of Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (Free Press, 1991, $19.95, cloth) just as attacking political correctness came in vogue. Drawing from his undergraduate experience at Dartmouth -- where he helped to co-found the conservative and controversial Dartmouth Review -- D'Souza addresses what he considers to be the destabilization of American academic institutions by radical minorities and feminists.
I had anticipated reading this book for some time. From all early accounts, it was to be a monumental work, combining the finest in research and prose. When I finally had the opportunity to read it, I was disappointed on both counts. D'Souza has accumulated enough information for a healthy -- even important and interesting -- magazine article. But it's a book instead, and the clever chapter titles only serve to make the table of contents more interesting than the text itself.
D'Souza's material in many instances makes for an easy target; he sets himself up to be critiqued negatively by his own standards. For example, in a condescending and unself-aware way, he questions Rigoberta Menchu's right to speak as a Guatemalan Indian woman (see "A Proud Part of This Moment," page 28). For D'Souza, she is merely, wittingly or unwittingly, a Third World dupe for Marxist ideologues. Never does he question whether his own Indian heritage provides a convenient hue for those on the Right who have helped to launch his career.
The condescension does not stop there, however; as one student talks about her experiences of racism and sexism, his flippant response is to describe her as "Rachel Hammer, a bright and attractive student," just as she is explaining how women and people of color are dismissed because of their gender and ethnicity. In several similar instances, he provides a patronizing presentation of dialogues with people he describes as feminists and minority activists who are left thoughtfully considering his suggestions in silence, obviously in his mind because they had not thought out their positions so clearly until he came around.
But simply attacking his choice of language or political posture would be a disservice to inquisitive readers. D'Souza's book is having enough of an impact that it should not be dismissed simply for its stylistic or perspective flaws, even if they are legion. Instead, D'Souza's central thrust should be examined thoroughly so that in wrestling with its power we can address the problems he points to. In that regard, Illiberal Education is useful.
D'Souza demonstrates, in chapter after chapter, what he sees as the takeover of the American university system by leftist ideologues who want to impose a foreign brand of thinking. He holds an underlying assumption that what has been taught in the U.S. education system is morally and politically neutral. Those with a multicultural point of view, he argues, are introducing politics into the system.
And by so doing, he claims, they are making it impossible to stress "classical" values. He asserts that the multicultural movement afoot on college campuses is a conspiracy developed by junior faculty who are promoting their agenda in order to advance their careers at the expense of an apparently pliant and inept senior faculty and administration. Having gone to school in the D'Souza era (though not at an Ivy League school), I would challenge his opinion that senior faculty are being pushed around by anyone.
D'Souza is correct about much of how progressive people too often imagine Third World people: as refreshingly simple, unusually creative, always insightful (read uni-dimensional) people who do not blemish each other or the earth. By taking away the complex and ambiguous attributes of all Third World societies, we dehumanize people as surely as if we trade them as slaves. As D'Souza says, we create an image of the noble savage that is as "colonial" and "imperialist" as are "safari outfits and pith helmets."
But D'Souza cannot bring himself to acknowledge anything beyond the dominant view of history. He does not want the underside of society to have a voice. But democracy is built on the belief that varied viewpoints and experiences create a healthier society in the end. By clamping down on other perspectives of history ("multicultural" perspectives), he distances himself from democracy itself.
D'Souza often poses the rhetorical question, "What do students learn from the new [multicultural] curriculum that prepares them for life after college?" If life after college means holding a research position at the conservative American Enterprise Institute -- as it has for D'Souza -- then it may mean little. If, however, it means being a responsible member of an international society, dedicated to creating a better future for all, then the multicultural curriculum means a great deal.
D'Souza's work presents those who work for a better future with a few important thoughts. But an even better use of time and money would be to catch D'Souza's points in The New Republic sometime.
The Right's Boogey Books
Two recent books have stirred the ire of Krauthammer and Co., whom it seems would actually prefer if the world had "remained" flat. Kirkpatrick Sale's non-fiction offering The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy (Knopf, 1990, $24.95, cloth) reads much as D'Souza's: It is an ideological piece in which the author proves his perspective despite the ambiguities or the evidence. The difference is that this book arises out of a classically liberal position. In fact, Sale offers just the type of assessment that D'Souza uses to caricature the Left. Thus the rest of us are left climbing out of a hole we didn't dig.
In his book, Sale overestimates the influence and power of Columbus the man. True, Columbus' "contributions" allowed for and even established a foundation for the exploitation of several continents. But his was not the first instance of exploitation. Columbus the myth may have been turned into an icon for future generations as new modes of oppression were envisioned. But making Columbus the villain does no service historically or tactically. As Steven Charleston says elsewhere in these pages, it is the cargo, not the captain, that is at issue.
The Conquest of Paradise likely will be most remembered for its excesses. Not only does Sale paint a portrait of Columbus as the one who introduced oppression and death to the New World, he romanticizes the cultures that existed on the North American continent: The unmitigated harmony of the Western Hemisphere contrasts with the languish and decay of Europe. And for Sale, the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were vehicles for the entry of hell into heaven; Columbus, playing the role of Satan, entered Eden.
But the other book currently under attack from the Right is not nearly so melodramatic or shallow. Noted novelist Louise Erdrich collaborated with her noted writer and husband, Michael Dorris, to produce a fictional account of a rediscovered diary kept by Columbus (and discovered coincidentally at D'Souza's own Dartmouth College). The plot of The Crown of Columbus (HarperCollins, 1991, $21.95, cloth) includes discoveries of all sorts -- modern and old, personal and political.
As in the best of fiction, the authors present complex (read multidimensional) characters who work with forces bigger than themselves. Vivian Twostar, an American Indian professor (probably one of those young faculty members that scares the heebie-jeebies out of D'Souza), finds previously unknown information about Columbus as she prepares a pre-quincentenary article for the school's alumni magazine. She and her lover, Roger Williams, a poet and Columbus scholar, set off to discover what Columbus in his diary called "the greatest treasure of Europe." Their journey to the Caribbean in search of this treasure, their journey into themselves, and their journey toward each other combine to help us all discover much about what it means to be human. In that way, this book indeed offers the greatest treasure of all.
Helpful Histories
Two books soon to be released offer real contributions to "the search for the historical Columbus." Columbus: For Gold, God, and Glory (Simon and Schuster, 1991, $35, cloth), a coffeetable edition that nonetheless seems based on good scholarship, breaks through the popular perceptions of Columbus without throwing the delivery room out with the bathwater. Through interesting prose and beautiful pictures, this book gives a good basis of knowledge of Columbus, while at the same time critiquing just what drove Europeans, and Columbus in particular, onto the seas.
In her exhaustive study of Queen Isabella, Isabella of Castile (St. Martin's Press, 1991, $29.95, cloth), Nancy Rubin debunks many of the myths regarding Isabella and Columbus. Rubin provides a rather detailed glimpse of the Old World, including the religious intolerance of the Spanish throne: the Inquisition raged, Spanish Jews were being stripped of property and rights, and Granadian Moors were being booted out of their last European stronghold. The regal realities set "the discovery" and the treatment of "the discovered" in context: Gold was valued, heathens were not.
In the current highly politicized atmosphere, the PBS documentary series Columbus & The Age of Discovery, produced by the WGBH Foundation in Boston, tried to steer a safe passage through the debate. The introductory teaser poses the risky question, "From the Old World to the New, we sail in search of a man and his legacy. Should we celebrate Columbus' achievement as a great discovery, a triumph of faith, courage, and will? Or should we mourn a world forever lost, a tragedy of incalculable size?" But the question goes unanswered, at least in the portions I previewed.
The video series, which will be broadcast in seven parts in October and November (as always, watch local listings for time), does accurately point out that Columbus was probably not the best sailor, navigator, astronomer, or tactician on board his fleet. So what was he good at? Well, frankly, today we would call it "spin control."
Though of lesser importance than several others, most notably the Pinzon brothers who captained the other two ships sailing with Columbus, and though entirely confused as to his location, Columbus is one of the most recognized names in the World -- New or Old. Columbus controlled the spin of his discovery.
Spin has always been important, and it is no less so 500 years later. The battle for control of the soul of the quincentenary has already begun.
Who will win the battle? No telling. But for certain the world will keep on spinning.
Stay tuned!
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!