# Are liberals less interested in the history of foreign countries than conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2003, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870 "2003-05-08T10:09:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/41 "2003-05-08T17:52:46Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I’m trying to do what I said – to discuss whether liberals ought to be more interested in the history of foreign countries. Physician, heal thyself. At the very least, you (and the article you’re unquestioningly accepting) are casting a gigantic net and accepting a big ol’ generalization as the literal truth. Everybody could know more about foreign countries with no harm done, but turning that into a “liberals are ignorant” thread is loopy. Not out of character or unusual, just logically deficient. “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. … We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war” -Ann Coulter ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/42 "2003-05-08T17:56:34Z")
**Dangerosa** , I would agree with you that most History profs are liberals. That makes is all the more striking that _National Review_ does a more thorough job covering the international history than _The Nation_. \*\* [/QUOTE] Not really, History Professors, Historians and people like me, History Hobbiests, don’t get their information about History from The Nation. We read books. We read articles in publications dedicated to History - or related fields like Sociology or Econ or even (gasp!) Women’s Studies. My general interest subscriptions are things like National Geographic and Smithsonian - which do a good job of covering History. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/43 "2003-05-08T18:02:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*Right. Usually about a week before their forced relocation and reeducation. “Turned to communism” – that’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. More like, “bent over a barrel by communism.” > > The biggest load of historical shit I’ve ever heard is the revisionism that ignores the body count from communism, for the marching songs and cameraderie. \*\* Well, then, what DOES get people interested in communism? Really? Why would someone study it and want to overthrow the government and implement it? And why would people join the movement? I don’t think they do it out of shits and giggles. :rolleyes: And then, of course, later they realize, they were no better off. BUT…you have to remember something-these peasants did not have democracy or the freedom we enjoy. They didn’t know what they were missing. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/44 "2003-05-08T18:07:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > The best seller, “Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot” by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza explains Latin American economic problems in terms of Latin American economic policy. It’s a conservative book. > > Economist Hernando DeSoto has an important economic theory regarding under-developed countries. He isn’t a conserative, but his work is highly touted by conservatives. I don’t think he’s as esteemed by liberals, but would be happy to be corrected on this point. \*\* Try _Inevitable Revolutions: the United States in Central America_ by Walter LeFeber, first. Then read: _Murdered in Central America, the Stories of Eleven U.S. Missionaries_ by Donna Whitson Brett and Dr. Edward T. Brett (and yes, btw, the latter was my academic advisor) Also: _Central America: A Nation Divided_ by Ralph Lee Woodward ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/45 "2003-05-08T18:10:19Z")
Oh, and another thought: I just wish I’d kept track of how many hours I spent studying the history of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 as I helped the campus anti-war group. The right-wing paper on campus criticized some of our stuff, but admitted they couldn’t say a bad thing about me. The laptop I use at school has half of the frickin’ BBC site saved as favorites. That old saw “all generalizations are false” comes to mind." ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/46 "2003-05-08T18:14:20Z")
Can someone tell me again why **december** hasn’t been banned already? I mean, he pulls this kind of stunt several times a week, every week, and seldom do one of his “insightful” OPs provide anything beyond another mass shout-down from saner minds. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/47 "2003-05-08T18:32:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysler \* > \*\*I’m sorry, but I must debunk your unfounded anti-liberal bile with unsubstantiated and annecdotal evidence of my own. > > Namely, I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and I own the Gouldberg Variations CD set _as well as_ albums by X-Japan and Shakira…\*\* Well, all I can say to that is Hah! It is well-documented that [Hannibal Lecter](http://www.mnemosyne.org/mn_bits_hannibal.html) was a fan of the _Goldberg Variations_, and he undoubtedly was a man of conservative tastes (though there is evidence he was not averse to eating the occasional liberal). See, I got cites\* and everything. \*from someone who obviously has far, far too much time on her hands. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Goo_Fee)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/48 "2003-05-08T18:58:29Z")
I am going to be not nice and say things like: “Liberals, like women, mainly think outward–that is about people, places and things other than themselves. Conservatives, like men, think inward–that is mostly about themselves, their gods and their money. I really believe liberals are more interested than conservatives in just about anything except Rush, God, Guns and Money.” ---
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/49 "2003-05-08T19:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > **It is well-documented that [Hannibal Lecter](http://www.mnemosyne.org/mn_bits_hannibal.html) was a fan of the _Goldberg Variations_** Gack. Not having the CD in front of me, I faithfully Googled “Gouldberg Variations” to check the spelling. I obviously learned _nothing_ from the [hamster](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182538) thread and should be thusly flogged. **Doctor Goo Fee** , you owe me a new keyboard! Per the discussion at hand, I learned all I know about communism from _The Good Earth_ by Pearl S. Buck. Made me stop saying “I told you so” to peasants who have to choose in lose-lose situations. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/50 "2003-05-08T20:27:39Z")
And by the way: Since it appears one major point to the OP (aside from the usual temptation to see how high liberals will jump when thwacked with a stick) was to flaunt conservatives’ superior sense of history in these troubled times, let’s look again at this quote: _“Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven’t studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.”_ How very true. Right-wingers have always had a superb grasp of the history of the Nazis. Why, one of Ronald Reagan’s [finest moments](http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id278.htm) had to do with that era. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/51 "2003-05-08T20:40:47Z")
And hey, good old Dubya Bush knows a LOT about foreign nations, doesn’t he? He’s demonstrated that over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/52 "2003-05-08T20:47:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\* People usually turned to communism out of misery from right wing oppressors. > > Think about it. \*\* Let me think about this…Huh? Your keen interest is in Russia, yet the czars could hardly be called “right wing oppressors.” Oppressors, yes, but right-wing? Hardly. More like monarchists ruling in a dictatorship, no? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/53 "2003-05-08T20:59:13Z")
Of course. But I just used right wing in this case, because I was referring to Latin America, as **december** brought it up. In Latin America, that was definitely the case-in a few nations, they were out right fascists. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/54 "2003-05-08T23:01:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*I’ve known a fair number of intelligent and thoughtful conservatives, and a fair number of intelligent and thoughtful liberals. > > One of the few things they have in common is an ability to reason from the evidence. Another thing is the capability to avoid the misuse of broad-brush generalizations. > > And yes, that was a direct answer to the OP. \*\* Of course the above post is itself a generalization. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/55 "2003-05-09T02:40:17Z")
\*\*december \*\*: \ ***Dangerosa** , I would agree with you that most History profs are liberals. That makes is all the more striking that _National Review_ does a more thorough job covering the international history than The Nation. \* According to whom? The so-called “liberal” who wrote the nonsenical and partisan BS to which you linked? First, **december** , a not irrelevant fact: _The Nation_ is a weekly publication **devoted to current events**. As such it neither is nor professes to be devoted to historical topics: though it does publish columns by eminent historians and reviews of important works of history. When _Nation_ readers want to learn history they read about it in books (as **Dangerosa** has already suggested)–often the same books that the _Nation_ covers in its _superb_ book reviews which it publishes both weekly and in two special issues each year. More important still, I challenge you to find _any_ _Nation_ feature article on a current event, foreign or domestic, that doesn’t make a bona fide effort consider the relevant historical context from which the subject derives. I mean this seriously: I am throwing down the gauntlet. Search the _Nation_’s archives and read a few of the feature stories and come back to me when you have found an article that is deficient because it fails to take the historical context of a current event into account. Note: I offer you this challenge in spite of the fact that I have never seen any post of yours that suggests to me that you yourself have even an average college graduate’s _historical_ knowledge on any topic. To the contrary, you are quite possibly one of the most ahistorical (and, not uncoincidentally, one of the most ideologically blinkered) posters in Great Debates. That may sound unkind, but then again, one must take responsibility for the OPs one generates, no? In the meantime, here’s a sample of what the _Nation_ has been publishing for its readers while you’ve been reading ignorant drivel by risible faux- liberal bloggers: [Shedding Lincoln’s Mantle by Columbia historian and frequent Nation contributor Eric Foner](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000807&s=foner). (Foner is a distinguished historian of, I think, nineteenth and twentieth century US hsitory). [History by the letter, by City College historian Louis Masur](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990215&s=masur&c=1), an article that takes the occasion of the Starr report to discuss the relation between primary documents and the production of historical narratives. [A Bend in the Color, a review of a new history of racial anthropology, written by an NYU social historian](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990215&s=fergerson&c=1) which, among other things, offers an historical critique of books like _The Bell Curve_. Those btw were just the first relevant hits to come up when I put the word “historian” in to the _Nation_’s search archive. Foreign countries. Lessee now… Why not check out [Islam through Western Eyes](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19800426&s=19800426said&c=1), a short article by literature professor and cultural historian Edward Said? [The Terrorism Trap, by a foreign policy fellow](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19961202&s=barnett_wtc_19961202&c=1), which discusses terrorist policy in light of cold war and post-cold war foreign policy history. [How We Ended the Cold War](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19991101&s=tirman&c=1), a reflection on the cold war by a Fulbright scholar. [The Revolution Within](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030526&s=english), an extensive review of three books on recent Russian history. [The Ghosts of May](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19930531&c=1&s=singer19930531), an account by a journalist of the demise of socialism in France with special emphasis on the post-1968 period. Once again, all of this came up randomly in searches for “history” + various foreign countries (and this despite the fact that the _Nation_’s search engine is actually not very good). Let’s say I give you three days **december** to look through the _Nation_’s feature articles–with special emphasis, if you wish, on the ones on foreign policy–so you can come up with one that is, by your lights, deficient in historical context. I’ll check back from time to time to see what you come up with. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/56 "2003-05-09T03:10:39Z")
Thanks for your offer, **Mandelstam**. It seems like a fair way to test the OP. I have a couple of immediate points. Your post calls Michael Totten a “so-called liberal” and a “risible faux- liberal.” Those may be fair descriptions FAIK. OTOH he calls himself a liberal, so I took him at his word. Do you have a reason to disbelieve him, except that he criticized some other liberals? Totten’s claim was that the Nation did a limited job of covering the history of countries other than America, so I will focus on the foreign affairs Nation articles, and skip the articles on American history. I will take a look at the foreign articles you cited and provide a response. BTW how many issues worth of The Nation did you review to collect this sample? ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/57 "2003-05-09T04:24:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Thanks for your offer, **Mandelstam**. It seems like a fair way to test the OP. > > Your post calls Michael Totten a “so-called liberal” and a “risible faux- liberal.” Those may be fair descriptions FAIK. OTOH he calls himself a liberal, so I took him at his word. Do you have a reason to disbelieve him, except that he criticized some other liberals?\*\* Yeah–I have my own sense that he is simply too ignorant and incoherent to be ideologically classifiable as _anything_. His remarks on _The Nation_ and the way he uses them to support this absurd thesis are completely unsubstantiable; so his calling himself a “life-long liberal” who’s just figured this stuff out only serves to make him seem more absurd. (In other words, if he were a self-identified conservative he’d just be saying stupid partisan things; instead he’s offering a stupid argument in the form of an alleged insider’s critique). The thing is that given that its purpose is coverage of current events, _The Nation_ is probably more historically engaged that any other publication of it’s kind; I’d be very surprised to find any historian or history major or history buff objecting to it on grounds of historical indifference. Also ridiculous is the claim that the liberal worldview (by which I mean and Totten means the left-liberal worldview), in aiming to make the world better, avoids history. On the contrary, left-liberals almost reflexively turn to history by way of justifying their claims: not least because history affords the very best evidence that the world does in fact change. (Conservatives are much more likely to appeal to the allegedly unchanging qualities of human nature, or of a particular national character, and to gloss over or misread historical evidence on these grounds.) So it’s almost as though you’d found someone saying, “Well I’m a life-long conservative and I’ve just learned that conservatives are not very interested in neoliberal economic doctrines, the evidence for which is that I find that the _Wall Street Journal_, a conservative newspaper, doesn’t really discuss these doctrines–except by way of bashing left-liberal opponents of these doctrines. And the funny thing is you can find more legitimate coverage of neoliberal economic doctrines in _The New York Times_.” I’m serious here–that’s what the guy sounds like to anyone who actually reads the stuff that he presumes to know well. _“Totten’s claim was that the Nation did a limited job of covering the history of countries other than America, so I will focus on the foreign affairs Nation articles, and skip the articles on American history.”_ And that claim is just ridiculous as you’ll see if you just look at what’s been published in the last 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 275 issues of _The Nation_. Don’t even bother with the links I posted–just take a look at _any_ issue. Although feature stories, editorials and stories about current events, columns and book reviews tend to structure each issue, there’s almost always quite a lot of information about foreign countries–none of which is handled ahistorically. And the reviews of books on history, which are generally written by accomplished historians or comparable experts, are _extremely_ informative–among the best one finds outside of specialist academic journals IMO. \*I will take a look at the foreign articles you cited and provide a response. BTW how many issues worth of The Nation did you review to collect this sample? \* Like I said, I just put the words “historian” or “history” + a country into the search engine (and it’s a lousy search engine) and this is what came up. But the individual issues speak for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/58 "2003-05-12T03:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*As for the US causing problems in Latin America-three words for you: > > United Fruit Company. > > Two more: > > William Walker. > > Another three: > > School of the Americas. > > And finally: > > Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine \*\* Read that as a counterbalance [http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html](http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html) especially this part The Bureau was very active in Latin America, particularly in Chile. It was in no small part Reagan administration pressure that forced or led General Pinochet into holding the plebiscite that led to his departure. Historically it is a fact that when President Reagan entered office, virtually all of Latin America was under military rule. When he left office, almost none of it was. This is partly because the Reagan administration, given its own ideological stance, had the ability to delegitimize regimes… … The Reagan administration’s support for human rights surprised a lot of people; in part, because of the bad beginning. It surprised General Pinochet. It surprised General Stroessner. It surprised a lot of generals. It surprised a lot of Americans on the Left. It surprised them so much that to this day, they will not admit it, or acknowledge it, or honestly see it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/59 "2003-05-12T03:42:46Z")
December - Why do you come to this board? This is NOT an attack mind you, i am just wondering. It is obvious 80% of this board is leftist, and all you will get is verbal abuse for offering your positions so why bother? there are less biased boards where you can discuss politics w/o abuse or harassment from assholes. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870/60 "2003-05-12T04:09:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic \* > \*\*December - > > Why do you come to this board? This is NOT an attack mind you, i am just wondering. It is obvious 80% of this board is leftist, and all you will get is verbal abuse for offering your positions so why bother? there are less biased boards where you can discuss politics w/o abuse or harassment from assholes. \*\* Translation: There are boards where your partisan (partisan, not ideological) views will not be challenged. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-less-interested-in-the-history-of-foreign-countries-than-conservatives/173870.md?page=4)