Last week, The Wall Street Journal had an opinion piece by University of Oklahoma history Professor Wilfred M. McClay, entitled, Weaponizing History.  In it, Professor McClay reminds us that the true purpose of history is to open up reality to us, by providing a balanced and honest record of the achievements and foibles of humanity.  The Professor warned that history, as it is being taught today, is being used to narrow minds, instead of of to expand them.  History should be used to tell the complex stories of the past, which necessarily must present both the positive and negative features of historical figures.  Instead, as Professor McClay points out, history is being used as a bludgeon, with which to strike out at our forebears.  Heroes of the past are now demonized, with any and all who come to the attention of the historical witch hunters being compared to Nazis.  Hence, AOC (All Out Crazy) compares immigration detention facilities to concentration camps, gabbling about how “This is an opportunity for us to talk about how we learn from our history.”  As Professor McClay points out, Nazi concentration camps are not part of OUR history.  If AOC really wants to talk about concentration camps, though, I suppose someone should explain to her that the closest we ever came to them were the internment camps into which that great Progressive Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt forced American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.  That last musing was mine, not that of Professor McClay, and it illustrates precisely the manner in which the Left is weaponizing our history.  It is indisputable that FDR put Japanese Americans into internment camps, and that they were deprived of their property, as well as their liberty.  However, to pass judgment on FDR based upon this single act alone does him a disservice.  And more to the point, to teach students about only about this part of FDR’s presidency does a disservice to history.  History is weaponized by means of a brutal simplification of the historical record.  To those who would wield the historical bludgeon, figures from the past must be purely good or purely evil.  Reality, and hence history, is not so simple.  Enter the New York Times, Project 1619.  In a recent NYT magazine, the paper proposed a history curriculum which would teach that everything that has made the United States exceptional grew out of slavery.  In the stilted view of 1619, the year the first slaves arrived on our shores, the United States declared its independence from Britain solely for the purpose of perpetuating slavery, fearing that Britain would abolish slavery in the colonies.  It is said that you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.  The Times wants to teach our children this nonsense, without the least regard for the fact that it simply isn’t true.  I come from the law, where truth is a defense.  For the New York Times, however, and for the pseudo-historians and grievance mongers who put together this garbage, history is not the truth.  Our kids are in enough trouble being taught American history from the perspective of the late, unlamented Communist Howard Zinn.  Our Revolution was fought for liberty, not for slavery.  Britain outlawed the Atlantic slave trade in 1808.  The United States outlawed slave importation at the same time.  It’s in our Constitution.  As Casey Stengel said, “You could look it up.”  Slavery had been abolished in many Northern States in the 1770’s and 1780’s.  True, Washington and Jefferson, and some others owned slaves, and that is the bludgeon with which their memories are being besmirched.  That they owned slaves is a fact to be taught, but it’s not the whole story.  Thomas Jefferson drafted an anti-slavery provision for the Declaration of Independence.  The provision was taken out.  That it was excised to secure the votes of Southern colonies for independence, however, is not proof that America was conceived to perpetuate slavery, but rather is one of those complex factors that is part of history, but not HISTORY itself. The excision reflected the economic reality of the time, which doesn’t excuse the sin of slavery or justify is continuation, but simply provides context.  For the historical weaponizers, however, it’s all or nothing, and a focus on any one negative trait or act is sufficient to damn an historical figure for eternity.  Consider the controversy over a George Washington mural in a San Francisco public school.   The mural was painted in 1935 by a Communist.   Part of the mural depicts Washington interacting with slaves and native Americans.  The artist wanted to show Washington warts and all, not just simply as “the Father of his Country” astride a white horse.  Bravo.  The idiotic School Board decided that the mural could be disturbing to teenagers because it was “racist and degrading,” and wanted to pay $600,000 to have it painted over. (Which seems a bit high.  I know a guy who would do the job for $3,000.  He uses a roller).  The Board recently decided to cover it up instead.  That is, instead of really teaching history, instead of exposing students to all the complex facts about the people of the past, and instead of preparing students  to engage in critical thinking, they prefer to cover up our history to advance an agenda.  This is not education, but rather educational malpractice.  Professor McClay reminds us that, done right, history rescues precious memories from the darkness into which they would otherwise disappear.  He writes, “Our task is to to recover the humane insight of Herbert Butterfield, who taught that the historian should be a ‘recording angel’ rather than a ‘hanging judge,’ let alone a summary executioner.”