01 June 2005

You say you want a Revolution?


David McCullough has written a new book about the
American Revolution called 1776. But I won't be reading
it anytime soon.

I’ve been forever fascinated with that chapter of history,
but McCullough's biography of John Adams was duller than dirt.

He was interviewed the other day on WNYC.
[David McCullough, not John Adams]

Click here to hear it.

The only interesting part is near the nine-minute mark.
The author is asked to compare the American Revolution
with the current situation in Iraq.

Leonard Lopate:

We just discussed on this show what’s happening in Iraq right now. It’s hard for me not to see certain parallels: the raggedy, American revolutionaries defeating the formidable British – outnumbered by the British who had all the firepower. And they’re doing it through unconventional means while the British army is stuck in its old ways – the same sorts of things we’re hearing about [today’s] American military.


David McCullough:

It’s not hard to be inclined to think that way. I think however that one shouldn’t. It's too simple. Then was then, and now is now. And I’ve never felt that one ought to be interested in history or embrace history because of how it pertains to the present. You should have (if I may say so) a passion for history the way you have a passion for literature, or music, or art.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned from history.
Many lessons to be learned – and many lessons to be learned from the experience of our country during that time. One lesson to be learned, clearly (to me) is that we’ve not just been through hard times in the time since September 11th, we’ve been through very hard dangers, dark times, many times before.

And this year, 1776, was the darkest time in all of our history. The prospects for a successful United States of America never looked so bleak as they did then. It’s also an example that democracy does not come easily – that democracy is a struggle – to achieve democracy is a struggle, sometimes a painful and bloody struggle, and an extended struggle.

The Revolutionary War, the American Revolutionary War, was the longest war in our history, which very few people today seem to realize – except for the Vietnam War. It lasted eight and a half years. And it was never clear it was going to come out the way it did.


Yikes. This geezer won two Pulitzers?

I'll bet he's got a great editor.

It’s both amusing and sad to hear an intelligent person act dumb because he won’t admit the obvious. Does McCullough really believe what he said in the first paragraph?

I’ve never felt that one ought to be interested in history or embrace history because of how it pertains to the present. You should have (if I may say so) a passion for history the way you have a passion for literature, or music, or art.


Yes, you may say so. But could you also explain what the hell that means?

It smells like he’s saying history should be hung on a gallery wall,
to be appreciated and interpreted by scholars (ie. those who have
a passion for literature, or music, or art) but kept just out of the
reach of angry peasants who might want to use it to fight a war
against a powerful army.

I’ve never felt that one ought to be interested in history or embrace history because of how it pertains to the present.

Could a more absurd statement come from the mouth of an historian?

Fortunately, the American revolutionaries didn’t share this view. According to McCullough himself [about a minute earlier in the interview], one of the few advantages Washington and his officers
had was their deep knowledge of history.

They lived in an age, in a culture, which believed that
reading books was a very good way to learn things.
The old Enlightenment idea that with a close study of
books you can learn anything – including how to be
a soldier. And they did.

Boy, it's a good thing the Enlightenment is over, right?

I’m not the only one who thinks McC is overrated.

Click here.

1776

Skip the book... but see the movie!