The idea prevalent on the Right that history such as that recounted in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States goes hand in hand with their standard firsr loyalty to Country over God (irreagrdless what their talk says — of course they say God, Country, but all of their philosophy side first with country, regardles of the obvious rampant evils they inflict upon whoever stood in the way of their intended conquests (ie. Columbus and other European “New World” excursions where they were charged with returning with treaures for the crown. Thier first order of business was to get the gold, and enslave the people (indeed, this was logged in Columbus’ initial entry after meeting the natives — he said they “would be very enslavable” just after observing how eager these natives were to share what they had.

Boy, the outcry I remember several years ago as alternative histories began to emerge about the massive cruelties and enslavements which wiped out 2/3 to 3/4 of the native populations in the space of 150 years! It was considered to be practially blasphemous to “taint” the origins of “ouir country” in this way. It was like the Christian Right is more upset about the loss of “imagery” about their nation’s beginnings than they are about the travesty against humanity that precipitated it. This is another great example of where Country goes before God, when push comes to shove. The first rush of emotional energy gets directed at the need to defend the sanctity of the Nation than in the means used to “secure it”. And this is so typical of the conceits and the deceits of Empire. Entire mythologies emerge that glorify the “achievement” (much as it still does today, in glorifying war for a cause; and that cause enlists under its banner any number of arguments to justify it.

The blindness of the “Christian” Right on this matter is revealing: the same enlistment of God in the cause and history of the Empire. It is important for a people who claim an allegiance as God’s people to maintain the mythology. Notice that none of the arguments against histories such as Zinn’s attempt to discredit the history itself, but the mere recognition of it as some kind of betrayal.