Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future

Very good book. Read it if you are concerned about the current political situation in the USA.
This is a must read if you are concerned about the current political situation in the USA.

Anatomy of the Un-Free Mind
Fascists, of both the small-f and large-F varieties, have a curiously adversarial relationship with history. Their entire political movement depends on myths of past national greatness, which is almost always presented as lost, but which they promise to restore. But they generally despise historians, and attempt to squelch nuanced or conflicting narratives. Briefly, they adore the idea of history, but despise the practice, especially if it requires any self-reflection.Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley has written multiple books about how autocrats, propagandists, and spin doctors use language and knowledge to strangle public discourse. This book’s title appears to promise a look at how authoritarian regimes rewrite history generally, but in practice, it focuses primarily on academia. Stanley examines how regimes inculcate a spirit, not only of ignorance, but also incuriosity, among citizens at a formative age.First, tempting though it might be, Stanley stays substantially clear of large-F Fashies. He talks somewhat about Hitler, less about Mussolini. But he mainly focuses on current strongman authoritarian regimes, especially Putin’s Russia and Netanyahu’s Israel. He spends some time on the British colonial empire in Africa and India, his father’s scholarly specialization. And he unambiguously aims his harshest criticisms as Donald Trump’s American brand of anti-intellectualism.In Stanley’s telling, autocrats begin by constructing the purpose of historical education. Their reasoning starts from an intended conclusion—instilling a love of country and an adherence to hierarchy—and retrospectively determines how to achieve that goal. This means having institutional control of textbooks, administration, and personnel. Nationalists have made firing educators and replacing trustees a cornerstone of their recent campaigns.The process of controlling the historical narrative closely resembles the process of creating imperial colonies; this isn’t coincidental. Autocrats create a hierarchy that, they contend, has always existed. They instill a central imperial language, and make it illegal to speak indigenous languages; not for nothing did British colonialists force the Kikuyu of Kenya onto reservations, exactly as America did to its native population. Because indigeneity is necessarily anti-authoritarian.Here, I wish Stanley went more into how administrations silence history among adults. He describes how administrations use schools to prevent passing local autonomy and traditional identities onto the next generation. But how, other than armed force, do autocrats control adults? Stanley is vaguer here, perhaps because academics began committedly studying the process only after the atrocities of World War II. Traditional knowledge disappeared quickly, and we’re unsure how.Mythical history looms large. That might mean presenting Germans as the genetic descendants of ancient Greece, as the Reich did (they’re not), or how schoolbook history presents George Washington as blameless, honest, and certainly not a slaveholder. Either way, it presents an innocent past that enthrones the dominant population as necessarily deserving power. This mythic past presents history as a constant decline from prelapsarian goodness, which politics must promptly reclaim.Many critics respond by insisting that “classical education” counters authoritarian overreach. But Stanley insists that there’s no single magic machine. Classical education can empower intellectual curiosity and resistance to tyranny, if teachers focus on the questions the ancients raised, and if teachers address ways that our morality has changed. But authoritarians love using “classical education” to teach mindless adoration for the dead, which only compounds state-centered mythological ignorance.Although Stanley focuses on history, he acknowledges this applies to all disciplines. He quotes Toni Morrison, who wrote that choosing the canon of literature is very much about choosing the national culture. When science serves the purpose of politics and industry, rather than inquiry and discovery, scientists always arrive at state-sponsored conclusions. The conventional liberal arts can improve human experience, or it can tie us to autocrats. Regimes know this.This breakdown is chilling, certainly for those of us who believe in learning and inquiry, but hopefully also for anyone who just has kids, or loves a free society. Knowing history isn’t just a moral good, it’s a commitment to liberty and democracy; when governments decide what citizens may know, they control electoral outcomes. But the darkness notwithstanding, Stanley’s breakdown assures us that ignorance can be resisted. If we try.

Good source of information
Bought the book after seeing an interview of the author as I wanted to know details. The book is information is how authoritarian governments use certain propaganda to dehumanize groups they don’t agree with or to consolidate power. I read this book after reading Strong Men by Ben-Ghiat. This book goes into details of how propaganda is spread while Strong Men by Ben-Ghiat goes into details how such authoritarian governments consolidate power, maintain power and how they might end. Once you read Erasing History you’ll have a greater sense of aware when you see such propaganda on TV or articles. I learned a lot and you can walk away learning a lot as well. It’s a good read given the current political time in the US.

This book is one of the most frightening books I have read as the 2024 election is one month away
Jason Stanley makes a strong case on how we are accepting a fascist view of history by erasing facts that make us uncomfortable. To say slavery is not as bad as we are led to believe and the genocide of the indigenous people is acceptable under the label of Manifest Destiny is the basis of fascism, because it disregards a people’s history. The first target is education and having been an educator, I saw it first hand. I made it a policy to choose literature that expressed diversity in our culture.