|
Paul
Revere, Terrorist
by
Ryan McMaken
The
word "terrorist" is quickly headed down the same road
that "racist" traveled down years ago. That is, the word
is quickly becoming an all-purpose insult for anyone that the person
doing the accusing happens to disagree with. Like "racist"
or its variations like "anti-semite," "terrorist"
is a term employed to cast a person in a light that discredits him
in all matters and is thus unworthy of dialogue or consideration
as anything other than as a symbol of pure evil.
In
recent books and articles there has been a disturbing trend toward
"terrorist revisionism." This is a phenomenon in which
one takes a historical figure and anoints him with the new title
of "terrorist" in an effort the prove the truly dastardly
and sinister nature of that person. The new title reduces one to
a caricature; a symbol of terrible things rather than as a truly
historical figure that existed in a specific time and place and
reacted to real historical events in specific ways. Terrorists,
as understood by those who sling the title, are ahistorical "types"
that occur here and there in history and wreak havoc upon a peaceful,
righteous, and unsuspecting world. Supposedly, all was right with
the world until the terrorists showed up and wrecked everything.
It is also helpful to remember that in the history books, terrorists
are never members of established governments. Government agents
are always permitted to kill with impudence and maintain respectability.
Those who must do with fewer resources must labor under the onus
of being terrorists. Sixteen hundred years ago, Saint Augustine
saw the inconsistency and recounted a tale about Alexander the Great
and a captured pirate:
A
fitting and true response was once given to Alexander the Great
by an apprehended pirate. When asked by the king what he thought
he was doing by infesting the sea, he replied with noble insolence,
"What do you think you are doing by infesting the whole world?
Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate; because
you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor."
Augustine
concluded, "what are governments but great bands of thieves?"
Strangely however, the killing done by these great bands of thieves
never earns any of their agents the title of terrorist. That honor
is left to the small time thug; the pirate of Augustine’s tale.
Most
recently exposed by the historians as a terrorist is Jesse James,
the murderous bandit from Saint Joseph, Missouri who led the Younger
gang on a crime spree across the United States until he was shot
in the back by one of his own men. At one time in American history,
James was a hero to many poor Southerners and denizens of Appalachia.
One old ballad recounts that Jesse "robbed from the rich and
gave to the poor" and that "Jesse had a wife/ she was
a lady all her life/ his children they were brave." In the
late 19th century, banks and railroads were seen as tools
of government favoritism and corporate pork (which they were), and
the fact that Jesse relieved these institutions of some of their
money was not a problem for America’s poor, especially those who
had experienced the desolation of the Civil War. In a review of
T.J Stiles’ Jesse
James: Last Rebel of the Civil War reviewer Roger Miller
pins on James the title "Terrorist for the South" in an
indictment of not only James himself but also of the entire South
for romanticizing the exploits of a terrorist. This is irresponsible
scholarship. Jesse James was undoubtedly a violent criminal, and
if I saw him coming down my street I’d gladly open fire, but to
dismiss him as a terrorist simply ignores the fact that James learned
his criminal behavior fighting in an illegal war that destroyed
James’ community and it ignores the kind of resentment that government
meddling in the railroads and banking industry produced among the
citizenry of the time. It doesn’t take a PhD to understand why some
of James’ countrymen wrote sympathetic ballads about him and cheered
his robbery of those whom many Americans saw as beneficiaries of
a corrupt political system.
Pancho
Villa is another historical figure to be rechristened a terrorist
in recent years. In recent
articles and op-eds many writers and pundits have begun to draw
comparisons between Villa and Osama bin Laden. Villa has apparently
earned the title of terrorist for his 1916 raid on Columbus, New
Mexico. Villa attacked civilians in Columbus as well as the garrison
of 600 American soldiers stationed there in the early morning hours.
A firefight ensued and resulted in Villa’s retreat with 100 Villistas
and 17 Americans dead. Woodrow Wilson quickly sent Gen. John Pershing
to invade Mexico (at least the third time the United States
had invaded Mexican soil since 1846) to capture Villa.
Villa
has been dismissed as a terrorist for his "unprovoked"
attack on Americans, but it turned out that the conflict wasn’t
all that simple after all. It seems that the American government
had been supporting the corrupt Carranza regime a friendly
dictatorship in President Wilson’s pocket and had allegedly
given military support to Carranza’s army in the battle of Agua
Prieta where the revolutionary forces had been badly beaten. Enraging
Villa’s army even more were the events of a few weeks earlier when
20 Mexican nationals had been arrested in El Paso, doused in kerosene
to delouse them, and then set on fire. The revolutionaries felt
that the Mexican government had been bought by the Americans through
Carranza, and behaved accordingly. None of this is meant to imply
that Villa was a saint. He violently harassed my own great-grandparents
who fled the country soon after, and he was known to look the other
way when his men raped the wives of captured soldiers, but terrible
as it was, there was nothing remarkable about this for the time
and the place in which Villa lived. What is remarkable is that Villa
is singled out as the bad guy in a world where corrupt Mexican dictators
routinely starved and murdered their own people in their petty political
games. The difference between Villa and the "legitimate"
Mexican dictators like Carranza was that Villa’s crimes were relatively
localized. Carranza, the official thug, was able to spread
misery across a much greater area, and with American help to boot.
If
we carry the arguments of the terrorist revisionists to their logical
conclusions we find that there are plenty of other names that might
be added to lists of newly discovered terrorists in history. Consider
the commentary of the future:
A
new book on William Wallace reveals his terrorism, and exposes
how Wallace should have accepted English occupation rather than
challenge the respectable and legitimate rulers living peacefully
in London. Wallace’s raids on innocent English civilians and
his wanton killing of innocent English soldiers can only been
seen as barbarous and inexcusable.
And…
The
dissident and terrorist Paul Revere should be remembered for
his conspiracy to kill innocent British soldiers. No one now
denies that he was instrumental in the terrorist attacks on
British troops at Lexington and Concord in 1775, and that the
terrorists openly violated international law by refusing to
line up and face the British head-on in battle. Fortunately,
during their retreat, the British taught some of Revere’s fellow
terrorists a lesson by executing them for their war crimes.
And let us not forget the war crimes of Revere’s fellow terrorist
Horatio Gates who ordered his men to violate international law
by using snipers against British officers at the battle of Saratoga.
It is remarkable that some people would stoop to honoring such
butchers as heroes.
Perhaps
eventually we could also add Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar, those
Latin American terrorists masquerading as freedom fighters, to the
list. While we’re at it, should we ever conclusively prove the existence
of Robin Hood, let’s make sure he’s seen as the terrorist he was
for robbing the government of its lawful tax revenues. The list
could go on and on.
I’m
not trying to imply that William Wallace, Paul Revere, or any of
the rebels and revolutionaries discussed here are beyond criticism,
are universally loved, or that they all had unblemished records
as gentlemen, but there is a debate as to how such men should
be remembered and revered. Calling out the "terrorist"
label stifles that debate. Intelligent people understand that the
English have a different view of William Wallace than the Scots
do or that the Spanish have a different view of Bolivar than the
South Americans, but one is not denounced as a terrorist sympathizer
for suggesting that Spanish imperialism wasn’t the greatest thing
ever, although I’m sure were I a Spaniard in the 19th
century I would have been reluctant to say such a thing. Unlike
the 19th century Spaniards, however, we Americans claim
to live in a free society. We seem disturbingly preoccupied, however,
with rewriting history to serve our own modern obsession with utopian
ideals about good and evil that permeate our foreign policy and
poison the minds of Americans against serious debate on matters
historical and political.
Yes,
Pancho Villa and Jesse James were killers. The question we should
be asking ourselves though, is why they were killers and
why they attacked who they did. These are questions that should
never stop being asked, and when we give ourselves easy answers
by turning what should be thoughtful debate into self-righteous
proclamations about good and evil, we become cowards who are too
afraid to confront the grim realities of our own history.
October
9, 2002
Ryan
McMaken [send him mail]
is editor of the Western
Mercury.
Copyright
© 2002 LewRockwell.com
Ryan
McMaken Archives
|