Twisted explanations spice up history

Thursday, October 23, 1997

Twisted explanations spice up history

HISTORY: End pretense of ‘learning’ by relating past through
creative – if inaccurate – theories

I recently read an essay in Newsweek magazine by Robert Manning,
an assistant secretary of state during the Kennedy administration.
He claims that history has overplayed the Cuban Missile Crisis, and
that "the dangers of the 13-day interlude in October 1962 have been
greatly exaggerated." He says that, from the very beginning,
Kennedy and his advisors knew the United States had the odds
overwhelmingly in its favor; with far superior weapons on our side,
the only threat that the Missile Crisis really presented was a
psychological one.

Manning emphasizes that this change in perception is no one’s
fault, that no one tried to purposely falsify history in this case.
He says that the story has simply grown larger and larger over the
years, until even the people and players in the event remember it
as more threatening than it ever was.

After reading this article, I was sickened … by the author’s
nerve. Damn that Robert Manning! I like my Cuban Missile Crisis
story scary with a capital "S"! I can’t believe for a second that
the alleged truth was so important to this Manning, this alleged
assistant secretary of state, that he would destroy the cool
version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What a grade-A goober. I think
he was paid off by an Oliver Stone fan club. Those bastards are
always behind the scenes, screwin’ us over.

See, I think that the truth is, if we believe Manning’s account,
there can never be any solid account of history anyway. If history
changes as its players become a little feeble-minded and creative,
then there can never be any sort of absolute historical events. For
example, in my memory of the 1992 presidential election, there was
a Democrat running. But, lo and behold, my memory must have been
distorted over time. And if history can never be accurate anyway, I
say …

Any time history isn’t exciting enough, we should change it.
Think how many kids will no longer ditch history class after we
tell them about how Gerald Ford single-handedly conquered Aqua
Man’s underwater empire. Remember Vietnam? Don’t let some crazy
bought-off history reviser with an alleged title tell you we lost.
In the new version, benign yet oddly enigmatic Elmo-like aliens
negotiate a settlement in which the United States and Russia get a
shared monopoly on dirt. All dirt. Woo-ha! Before this, no one knew
the infinite possibilities and marketability of dirt. Good for
toys, food, household appliances, slightly crumbly cars, etc.

And as for that hazy 1992 presidential election? Well, Perot
(who arrived with the aliens of Vietnam peace-treaty fame) won and
"wrasled" his way to world peace. Calling himself Lone Star and
wearing nothing but a bright yellow Speedo with the slogan "Wrasle
for Unity" emblazoned across the butt, Perot challenged, in October
of 1993, all world leaders to "Face me in the ring, sissy-boys!"
Needless to say, with his scissor headlock, he whupped ’em all.
Hence, since then, this has become the standard way for world
leaders to negotiate treaties. No more aliens are needed. Hey, if
we’re going to pretend that one little demented billionaire changed
two-party politics in the United States (by receiving the vote of
every voting-age citizen who still believes in the Easter Bunny and
very short, big-eared knights in shining Armani suits that can
carry us off on white stallions, or gold-plated Bentleys) then damn
it, let’s make it spectacular.

Watergate never happened because Nixon ate his tapes. Hiding in
a corner each night and eating tapes, he would snap and bite and
froth at any reporters who came near him. He digested Woodward and
Bernstein. The people, thinking he was the coolest rabid president
on the planet, forgave him the Watergate debacle. And you were
worried that Oliver Stone would get it wrong. Oh wait, you probably
weren’t worried. How many people actually went to see that movie?
Two. Me and the person I forced to go with me by telling him it was
called "Nick’s Son," a delightful comedy about Santa Claus’
illegitimate child.

In 1996, Perot’s reign of terror over the world’s leaders was
put to an end. In that year, the American public (and a few
Estonian voters) chose Senator Edward Kennedy as their new
president. With his theme of universal health care and his slogan
of a "stocked wet bar in every home," Kennedy was the inevitable
choice. His size put Perot to shame, who by this time was fatigued
and got a sound ass-kissing in the ring from the Queen of England.
Kennedy soon took over and has since then made the United States a
utopia, as all rational human beings knew he would. See, in this
case, we’ve wiped out the public’s silliness in not seeing Ted
Kennedy as the very essence of a true leader.

And, for those of you who thought that this new concept of
history could never hit closer to home than national politics,
there’s also the changes that will be made to UCLA. In the new
improved version of UCLA’s history, we were the first university in
western civilization. Built by the Greeks in A.D. 321 (accurate
years matter little in this new historical theory) UCLA was headed
by Aristotle and, by virtue of its history, puts Harvard, Oxford,
and Yale to shame.

Now that we have seen this exciting and refreshing view of
history, I’d like to address the history professors and students
(as well as the squirrels) on campus: If you ever research and note
a historical inaccuracy as Robert Manning did, please don’t share
it with anyone. Keep it as your deep, dark secret. Keep it in the
closet. (Michael Jackson is sooo cool. Did you see that "In the
Closet" video? Stud, stud, stud! Ooh! Can we make the Jackson 5
Nixon’s cabinet? They were so much cooler than that boring
Kissinger.) Disillusionment sucks and personally, I just want a
little more spice in my history soup.

When people worry over the media and Oliver Stone-type movies’
writing sensationalized history for ratings, they are worrying
about nothing. History will be changed over time anyway. And, most
likely, the memories of the events won’t be dulled. People
shouldn’t worry so much about whether history is accurate or not.
And, for those people who say that we should learn from history,
well you just be quiet. If we did that, we could never have been so
amused by Clinton trying to hide tapes. See? We’ve already
forgotten the ’70s. Well, all of us except the DJs at K-Big, who
insist on having Saturday night disco music. Nobody learns from
history anyhow.

By the way, all rabid history professors should send their hate
mail to [email protected]. You can’t send it to me because I
will be in Washington the rest of this quarter serving as a
bartender for Ted Kennedy’s administration.