Amna: The American revolution and the founding founders, two parts of U.S. History celebrated on July 4. In recent years, they've also become political and ideological tools, including at times of some extremist groups on the right. Lisa Desjardins has more. Lisa: 1776 is a symbol of freedom, reason, and the founding of this country. But two centuries later, that date, 1776, was a rallying cry for rioters disrupting a national election at the capitol. >> 1776! 1776! >> 1776! Lisa: It is an example of how the politics and rhetoric around the founding has become enflamed, and can eclipse the actual history involved. Joining me to discuss are Amy cooter, the research director at the center on terrorism, extremism, and counterterrorism at the middlebury institute. And Jim Grossman, historian and executive director of the American historical association. Amy, I want to start with you. July 4 celebrates our history of men who were radical in their time in the founding, but I want to talk about the group you study now, those were in militias, are extremists. How do they use 1776 for their own purposes? Amy: For them, 1776 has been important for longer than what we just saw. It is their reason to be as a militia, as a man in society. They see themselves acting as a lineage of the founding fathers and think true patriots have the obligation to honor them and honor the date. Lisa: I want to talk more broadly about political bloodstream. Talking about founding fathers is oiler plate but especially recently for conservatives. This is Republican Tim Scott, his July 4 message this year. >> Our founding fathers were geniuses who should be celebrated, not canceled. Lisa: Obviously there was genius involved in the founding of America, but I wonder how you see the positives and negatives versus the rhetoric is amped up about the founding fathers. Jim: The problem here is an inclination among many people to see things as black-and-white, to see things as it's either this or that. And people talk about teaching theelory and the glory of American history. Senator Scott says they should be celebrated and not canceled. They should be understood. And that doesn't mean celebrated, it doesn't mean canceled. Their ideas were brilliant. There is no question that the founding documents were in fact revolutionary. They contained insights into liberty, into freedom. But these men also -- they were men, there were no women present -- these men were also mostly men who owned, bought, and sold other human beings. And they lived and had grown up in a world where it was ok to own, buy, and sell other human beings. And to understand what they wrote, and to understand them, we have to understand that. This is not a theory, this is a fact. Lisa: Amy, one think we are talking about here is patriotism that could morph into nationalism. Can you talk about those two ideas and what happens there? Amy: Social scientist distinguish between patriotism as being love for one's country versus nationalism which is a negative comparison to everywhere else. It is not just I love my country, but everywhere else is bad. And patriotism in the militia world and beyond kind of appeals to our founding and pains us as this proverbial city on a hill without looking, as Jim said, at some of the negatives that go along with the positives. Lisa: Why do you think this is bubbling up now? Of course it is not unique in American history to have this divide, but why are we seeing this form of it now? What in the last 50 years could have led to this? Jim: We are seeing this now -- and 60 years is about right. Because during the 1960's, things changed in ways that upset many Americans. Between the 1965 immigration changes in immigration law, feminism of the 1960's, and the civil rights acts and civil rights activism. For many Americans, this is not the country that they thought it was or that it should be. Because women are not acting the way their wives and daughters and mothers acted a generation before the 1960's. African-Americans asserting rights that, quite frankly, were not granted to them before the 1950's and 1960's. And the opening of the doors to millions of immigrants since 1965. This is not the country that we were. So I think it goes back to the 1960's as to what has changed. Lisa: Amy, I saw you nodding during some of that. How do race and identity in particular factored into what you are seeing with militia groups and extremists? Amy: With most militia groups I have studied they are not racist at the root level, being the same as white supremacist or neo-nazis, that is not what we see with this particular movement. But like many other white Americans who are part of militias, they perceive a partial view of history. They have not learned about slavery or native American genocide. They have not learned why those things still impact people very differently today. So when we have conversations about critical race theory or about transgender rights, it is really easy for those things to become kind of buzzwords that are dismissed without much in-depth investigation into what they really mean and some of the concepts behind them. It's all too easy to use that as an excuse to fight back is what they see as too rapid social progress, but package it in a way that is appealing to a broader swath of America. Lisa: As we are wrapping up, I want to focus on a survey that your group did looking at how Americans learned history. They told you that they see history as facts. What, where, when. Versus historians who view it as a conversation. And Americans mostly get their history from sources of entertainment. What does that tell you about how we understand our history? Jim: I think it tells you that historians have some work to do. That we have to do a much better job of connecting with the American people. And in fact this is one reason the American historical association has recently issued guidelines suggesting to colleges and universities that more professional credit go to historians who are writing and speaking to the general public rather than to just one another. So I do think that those surveys do suggest that we as historians have a lot of work to do. We do have to help Americans understand that facts are not very useful unless we know how to ask the right questions about them. Lisa: I think this conversation was very useful, so. Jim Grossman, Amy cooter, thank you to your both for a very complex conversation, and happy fourth of July. Amy: You too. Jim: Thank you. ♪♪
