We're hearing a lot these days about how the Tea Party is intentionally distorting history for political gain, etc, etc. Fellow blogger and friend, Michael Aubrecht, has been a rather vocal critic and posted some additional criticism recently. (See
here and
here.) I don't believe its any secret that Michael and I are at polar opposites on the TP. We've been able to keep our disagreement divorced from our friendship. I trust that will continue. That being said, my criticism on his position (and others who hold similar views and have expressed similar criticisms) will be spirited and pointed.
My response to Michael's two posts will also be in two parts. This first post will respond specifically to Michael's contention that the
Tea Party's Coloring Book for children
is "propaganda." Dictionary.com defines propaganda as . . .
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
These basic definitions could be applied to just about any organization that puts out a message, publishes a newsletter or a book, runs an ad, or communicates with the public in any way, shape, manner, or form. Of course, the term more often carries a negative connotation, i.e., the spreading of half-truths, pushing a harmful agenda, slanderous rumors pertaining to one's opposition or opponent, etc.
That Michael would use this pejorative term when referring to a child's coloring book that simply promotes good citizenship, patriotism, faith, and pride in our country is quite perplexing to me - particularly when it is parents and grandparents who will be making the decision as whether to purchase the book or not. It is, and should be, they who determine "age appropriateness" though I can't see how anyone could object to what's in the coloring book - based on what you'll see below. Michael writes as if his discovery that the coloring book is intended for "preschool and early primary years" is some kind of damning "gotcha" revelation. So what? It is my opinion that Michael is letting his dislike for the Tea Party cloud his judgment. The Tea Party is non-partisan, and educational. You can read more about the organization here. You can read their mission statement here. The TP is not a political party. The TP is organized as a 501(c)(4) non-profit. Their non-profit status is the same as your local Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions clubs. Ironically enough, the TP refers to themselves as a "social welfare" organization.
I had read/heard similar criticisms from the likes of the Washington Post, CNBC, and other leftist "news" organizations. But I was quite surprised to hear what I believe to be a baseless attack coming from Michael. So I decided to contact the TP directly to ask for a copy so that I could review it and see if it was as "dangerous" as some had suggested. I was unable to get my hands on a complete copy (my local Books A Million was sold out of them), but the publisher was kind enough to send me some sample pages. Let's take a look at these pages and see if there's anything that would warrant being called propaganda (click on any of the images to enlarge): 
This is page two of the coloring book. It features a few lines of God Bless America by Irving Berlin. Not exactly what I'd view as subversive or "propaganda." After these verses is a very brief explanation of the capitol building.
Next we have page 12 which features a crossword puzzle meant to teach basic facts about the American flag. Following this is the Pledge of Allegiance and some admonitions about proper respect for our nation's flag.
Here, again we have a page featuring the American flag with a few lines from America the Beautiful - a patriotic hymn my public grade school class sang every morning, along with My Country Tis Of Thee. Below this is a brief synopsis of the Tea Party's mission statement. You can read the words and judge for yourself, but they are benign and fundamental. I doubt there is much there to which many would object. These are certainly the types of basic American principles and values that I was taught in school and which were reinforced in most civic organizations.
In this page sample is a blank letter for a young person to use to write his congressman, senator, or the president. This would teach young people that they have the right guaranteed by the constitution "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When I was in the 6th grade, our class wrote a letter to our congressman. I have absolutely no recollection what the subject was, but I do recall writing him.
Finally, we have this sample page which prominently features the Liberyt Bell. The text surrounding the image is a basic explanation of American liberties and freedoms, i.e., "freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom to protest, freedom from government control of our lives, freedom of political choice . . ." Also included is this admonition:
"With liberty also comes the responsibility to be a good citizen. To educate yourself and attend school, be good in class, to work and pay your bills, pay your taxes when you grow up, and to help others when you can. Many American soldiers have died to guarantee that liberties remain part of American life. We have the best liberties in the world."
Would anyone really object to such generic admonitions of good citizenship, personal responsibility, care for your fellow man, and patriotism being encouraged in children? What could possibly be wrong with that? When I went to school, these things were a given. Regardless of whether a person was a Republican, a Democrat, or an Indpendent, I cannot think of one adult that I knew growing up who would have any objection to anything printed or represented on these five sample pages. Now, perhaps, the publisher intentionally sent me the most benign pages. But if this is representative of what's in the Tea Party coloring book, then I fully intend to purchase copies for every one of my grandchildren that are in this age group.
The type of information seen in these sample pages is really nothing unique. I can think of a number of examples that teach similar values to children - some in public schools. The one that immediately comes to mind is an organization my wife and I were involved in when we were homeschooling our children - 4-H clubs. We founded and led a club. One of the things the club attempted to instill into children was basic concepts of responsibility and
good citizenship. Yes, the book also teaches readers about the organization as well and in a positive light. So? Don't ALL similar organizations do that? It is important to point out that this is a voluntary organization and the publication is not forced on anyone. If you don't want your children taught these things, then don't buy it.
So why would anyone refer to this is as propaganda? Michael seems to suggest that because this book involved history and basic American values presented in an affirmative way, and since it's intended for children, that this somehow makes it inappropriate. But these types of books for children are extremely common.
President Obama has written one. According to the Mount Vernon book store, the President's book is ". . . a moving tribute to thirteen groundbreaking Americans and the ideals that have shaped our nation. President Obama sees the artistry of Georgia O’Keefe, the courage of Jackie Robinson, and the patriotism of George Washington within his own children and within all of America’s children. It is a celebration of the characteristics that unite all Americans."
Is his also "propaganda?" After all, he's the head of the Democratic Party. What's the difference? If "gaffs" are the issue, I don't think we need to go there. But wait, there's more. Mount Vernon
also offers
a coloring book. The description reads in part:
"Artist Peter F. Copeland captures the outstanding events in the life of revered American, George Washington . . . "
Would Michael and other critics suggest using the word "revered" when writing about Washington, and directing the book to children, is "propaganda?" Isn't that teaching them "what to think" about our first President? Mount Vernon also sells a book for children titles
Why America Is Free. It was published by "
The Society of the Cincinnati . . . so that Americans will know how to preserve their freedom." This is teaching children "what to think." The descripton also suggests an "agenda" does it not? But it is an agenda that most Americans have, historically, agreed upon.
My point is simply this when it comes to this coloring book: There is nothing unusual about an organization reaching out to youth to instill positive values. It is not even unusual for political organizations to do this. Both political parties do it. All civic organizations do it to one extent or another. And, again, these coloring books are purchased by private individuals - parents, grandparents, etc - who wish to instill these values in their children. No different than going to their local Christian bookstore to buy a Bible story book about Noah and the flood or Daniel and the Lion's Den. Is that also propaganda? Are vacation Bible schools, Sunday schools and other youth ministries propaganda? It's really nobody's business (other than parents) since these are all voluntary choices and associations.
Which brings me to my final point. Real propaganda. What is especially troubling to me about Michael's post (and other similar opinions) is the lacking sense of proportion, balance, and parity. Once again, no one purchasing the TP coloring book is forced to do so. No one is forcing someone else's children to be taught these values and principles against their will or without their knowledge. No taxpayer money is funding this publication.
But that's not true with what were seeing in many public, taxpayer funded schools and publications. As Glenn Beck's (yes, I know) website has
pointed out, we
do have some
REAL historical distortion being taught to children in a captive audience setting with taxpayer money. Did you know that the preamble to the constitution meant the following:
Click to enlarge and read.
People’s basic needs must be met in a country. Needs for housing, education, transportation and health care, overseen by our government system.
"When did the Preamble or the Constitution include the government meeting the people’s needs for housing, transportation and health care?" - The Blaze.com
Would anyone care to defend this? Where's the criticism on this - from anyone other than that "crazy conspiracy theorist" Beck? This twisted view of our constitution is being taught as a function of government by "professionals." If ANYONE is to be held to a higher standard, as Michael suggests, the focus should not be a volunteer, citizen-organized patriotic organization, but government teachers who are paid with tax dollars. They are supposed to professionals and "nation builders", aren't they? What kind of nation are these folks building?
The TP book for children is, based on what I've seen, nothing more than good old-fashioned patriotism and basic American values being taught to children. The course reference above, in contrast, is pure agenda-driven, socialist dogma being force-fed to children in government schools. (Just more anecdotal evidence to be stacked on that ever-growing pile.)
Referring to a child's coloring book, which has the main focus of instilling in young children the bedrock foundations of our republic - freedom, faith, and liberty - is, frankly, quite troubling to me. Moreover, the modern notion that children should be taught in a moral vacuum so that they "can make their own choices" and they should not be taught "what to think" is absurd on its face. Do we refrain in teaching them "what to think" about murder, stealing, lying, etc? Do we refrain to teach them the values of hard work, learning, good manners, etc.? There is (or perhaps once
was) a basic American creed that the vast majority, regardless of political or religious loyalties, could ascribe to.
The American's Creed
by William Tyler Page
I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
–Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.
I recall learning this creed in my elementary school years. Have we now become so beguiled by political correctness and burdened with guilt over societal pressure to be ashamed of our nation's history that teaching young children positive values about their country is propaganda? Is the American Creed, which is not much different than what the TP coloring book is teaching, no longer appropriate for young school children?
This is what we've come to in the United States. A truly grassroots, patriotic organization comprised of every day common citizens (including teachers, by the way) is met with unfair and ignorant criticisms, vitriol, and
even death threats for promoting, - albeit imperfectly at times - patriotism, personal responsibility, good citizenship, and our founding principles while many of these same critics ignore the real subversives and dangers to our Republic.
Dear God Almighty.
(Some will no doubt think this is overkill to Michael's post. Perhaps it is, but this has been building for some time and was motivated by comments and things I've read and seen on other blogs, and in the media, beyond what Michael has posted. Also, it may appear I rambled a bit and even repeated myself. I may even be guilty of a few gaffs. I plead insanity. My wife and I have had 3 of our granddaughters (ages 3-5) since yesterday afternoon. I've been attempting to compose this in between refereeing fights, judging squabbles, distributing Cracker Jacks, wiping noses, cleaning messes and indoctrinating them all with positive American values.)
.
, makes some salient points and comments. It is certainly a different view from what we're hearing from many younger historians now involved who were not around during the centennial and don't have the benefit of the wisdom that comes with seeing how things have changed - some for the worse, some for the better - over the last 50 years. Mr. Sylvia was around and speaks from experience. His comments are sure to spark some discussion here . . . 
of 
. They see it as a threat - in more ways than one. This post is just further evidence of the continued politicization of academia in America. I can almost guarantee that not one of the many academics who read this blog (yes, there are quite a few), will speak up and condemn this. This has to be for one of two reasons: they're complicit or they're afraid of being on the receiving end of retribution themselves. I hope I will be proven wrong. Come on, do the right thing and restore some of my faith in my fellow man.
.
: Antebellum Charleston and the Firing on Fort Sumter
: The Civil War on the Western Border, 1854-1865
: A Single Grand Victory: The First Campaign and the Battle of Manassas
: The Guns of 1861
