Sunday, January 27, 2008

Wilson's 'fascism' (sic)

Orcinus reader and historian who specializes in Wilson writes in to destroy the Pantload's chapter on Woodrow. A short summary:

Sure, Wilson was a racist. But so were most Americans at the time (note the lack of resistance to segregation, and the Republicans' declining to reverse Wilson's racist policies in the federal government once they took over). As this prof says, "To put it crudely, all fascists are racist, not all racists are fascist."

He grades Wilson on Payne's 13 points of definition:
  • Wilson fails on the 'fascist negations' (being liberal himself, disliking communism but not really caring about it, and thinking conservatives too backwards);
  • on fascist goals he gets a full point for suppression of dissent, plus a half point for imperial interventions in Mexico and Haiti;
  • on fascist 'mobilizing passions' he gets a meager two points: one for strong executive aspects, and two halfpoints on a few others.
So that's a total of 4 of 13... and that's with him being generous. Wilson does similarly bad on Paxton's list. In total:
Wilson isn't scoring too highly on the fascism scale. Basically he fits Jonah's version of fascism because he supported reform and was a racist. Not exactly a convincing argument. Where's the love of war? It's not there. Where's the scapegoating of a minority? Again, it's not there, expect for a short period during the war. Where is the religious hatred? Wilson appointed the first Jewish and Catholic professors at Princeton and the first Jewish member of the Supreme Court. Where is the love of the military? Wilson respected the military but believed it had to be subservient to civilian leadership.
But what about showing Birth of a Nation in the White House? That means he's racist! And therefore fascist!
Birth of a Nation! I hear you cry. Yes, he saw it in the White House. (It was, for what it's worth, the second movie shown in the White House, not the first.) He was friends with Thomas Dixon in grad school, briefly. They stayed in touch, but were not close. Dixon asked Wilson to view a new movie that was a wonderful new teaching tool. Wilson loved movies and agreed. It was shown in the White House because Wilson was in mourning and so could not go to the theater (his wife died in August 1914; Birth was shown in February 1915). Did he say "It's like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true."? Probably not. The only eyewitness account, taken down decades later, claimed he sat silently through the movie and left without saying a word. I've held his program from the movie. It's been wadded up into a ball. His friend Dr. Cary Grayson picked it up and saved it. Did Wilson wad it up as he sat? We don't know, but it is an interesting possibility. He treated most of his theater programs gently.

Wilson MAY have told D.W. Griffith that "it's like teaching history with lightning", especially since the movie was promoted to Wilson as a new teaching tool. But the rest of the quote is likely Dixon's invention. I've spent a couple years tracking down the origins of this quote and I am fairly certain now that he did not praise Birth as in the quote, and in fact he refused to endorse or condemn it.
What a great service Dave provides by forwarding this professor's detailed thoughts. As for the Pantload... Dave himself has some comments on his sources. Lively and Abrams... lovely. A lot of other crap in there too.
I gather he just found the weight of historical evidence, which clearly shows a vicious anti-homosexuality as an expression of Nazi ideology in action, too "confusing" because it tended to obliterate the non-sequitur he wanted to publish.
A very serious argument that has never before been made with such care! Can't wait to get my hands on this. But refuse to pay more than a buck or so for it used.

No comments: