James Kirchick breaks with political correctness and observes:
Two weeks ago, the Ugandan parliament passed a long-debated bill imposing lifetime sentences for gay sex acts, as well as harsh penalties for those who “promote” homosexuality. The latter clause is similar to the notorious law passed unanimously by the Russian Duma in June, which bans “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” But perhaps the most surprising development occurred in the world’s largest democracy, India, where that country’s Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling striking down a ban on sodomy as unconstitutional. …
An irony in the whole debate over gay rights in the non-Western world is that anti-gay attitudes are now embraced by self-proclaimed “anti-imperialists” and “anti-colonialists” to differentiate themselves from louche, permissive, depraved Western societies. Whereas the British Empire may have once exported Victorian values a century and a half ago, today, it is the major force for progressive change throughout the Commonwealth—alongside, of course, local LGBT activists fighting their governments’ policies and societies’ ignorance.
Blaming British imperialism is conducive with a progressive anti-Western outlook that is aghast if you suggest that responsibility for reflexive hatefulness lies with many non-Western societies themselves.
More. Also, don’t miss Kirchick’s latest piece in Foreign Policy, “Why Putin’s Defense of ‘Traditional Values’ Is really a War on Freedom“:
Rather than highlight the anti-gay nature of the law, activists in the West would do far better to criticize it first and foremost as a violation of freedom of expression. In this way, they can appeal to the vast majority of Russian citizens who, as polls make clear, are not nearly as approving of homosexuality as Westerners. …
The Kremlin’s anti-gay assault is, in essence, an assault on the open society, and it is on those terms that it must be opposed.
And of course, lest we forget:
Yet there exists, particularly in America, a large number of conservatives extremely wary of Russia in general and Putin in particular. To their credit, they were suspicious of Putin long before the world’s gay activists joined the bandwagon, raising skepticism about the administration’s foolish and failed “reset” policy when many liberals were claiming that America needed to “repair” its relationship with Moscow (as if such a thing could ever be done, on morally acceptable terms, with Putin still in power).
The propaganda law offers one of those rare, bipartisan political opportunities where left and right can come together. Presenting the law as part and parcel of Putin’s broad crackdown on Russian civil society will expand the coalition of voices speaking out against it.
35 Comments for “The Global Challenge”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Blaming British imperialism is conducive with a progressive anti-Western outlook that is aghast if you suggest that responsibility for reflexive hatefulness lies with many non-Western societies themselves.
I don’t know about that, but I do know that the role of our country’s hard-core anti-gay religious conservatives in aiding and abetting enactment of virulently anti-gay laws in Belize, Russia and Uganda (as well as other countries where they are hard at work) is well documented. It seems to me we should have a lot more concern about what our country is currently exporting than about what the British might or might not have exported a couple of centuries ago.
posted by Kosh III on
If you’re suggesting Britain exported pro-gay attitudes in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, then what drugs are you on!!!!
These laws can be blamed on Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren, Peter Akinola and many others.
posted by Doug on
And lets point out that all of those folks exporting anti-gay bigotry are rock solid, members in good standing of the Republican Party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren, Peter Akinola … Bryan Fischer, Brian Brown, Tony Perkins, Janice Crouse, Austin Ruse, Linda Harvey, Peter LaBarbera, Scott Lively …
posted by Wilberforce on
This is the usual game. Use a straw man argument to distract attention from the real problem, also known as the republican party. It’s the main gambit on this site, and it’s getting very tiresome.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s actually both but you are right that the recent rise in strict anti-gay laws has America’s religious right all of it. They lie about it when confronted in America, (I guess lying is less of a sin than man on man sex?) but they have urged this on and cheered for it.
There is a point to be made here though. On this and so many other issues the far left (no one here in spite of what some of the right-wingers seem to think) are invested in moral relativism (we can’t criticize other cultures, which is bullshit). When I talk about these issues I tend to get hit by both the right and the left. If we can’t speak out for gay rights and women’s rights and religious minority rights and against female genital mutilation and other horrors that go on around the world then we have lost our moral compass.
posted by Jorge on
Fair point.
Lousy argument. I reject the notion that this is a zero-sum game.
Also, you can go further and look at the racial distribution of anti-gay attitudes in this country. Such attitudes have long been more prevalent among racial minorities than among whites. That is not because of Pat Robertson and the moral majority. (It’s because of Alan Keyes.) Religion plays a role, but it is not the same as the the religious far-white. The other half of the reason is the same as what Mr. Miller cited–liberal attitudes of homosexuality are seen as just one example of a perverse mainstream culture. The boogeyman word sometimes changes from “colonialist” to “white”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that this may have been true historically, but it is no longer true. Polling over the last 18 months has consistently shown that non-whites are slightly more in favor of marriage equality than whites.
Typical is the March 2013 ABC News/Washington Post poll that shows this breakdown:
Whites: Support 57 – Oppose 34
Non-whites: Support 61 – Oppose 28
That is a change. In 2004, non-whites were less supportive of marriage equality than whites. Again, using ABC/WP polling data, in 2004 34% of whites supported marriage equality, but only 28% of non-whites supported marriage equality.
So relative support has flipped between the two groups, and I suppose that we can all speculate as to why. The important thing is that support for marriage equality has grown dramatically over the last decade.
Looking at the cited poll, the only reported groups that remain opposed to marriage equality are (a) 65+- 44% support, (b) White Evangelical Protestants – 31% support, and (c) Republicans – 34% support. The correlation between the groups is obvious.
posted by Jorge on
While I did feel the need to take some care with the tense of my statement, I do not consider attitudes on marriage equality relevant to the presence of anti-gay attitudes. You are well aware of this.
It is perfectly logical for racial minorities to support gay marriage being legal–for everyone else–and to also support disowning their own gay children.
One of the reasons social conservative politicians don’t make many inroads among racial minorities is because they fail to recognize that while there are many socially conservative racial minorities, they only are socially, not politically conservative. Among other reasons, the history of racism by the government creates a certain skepticism toward how government power is used, and there are enough minority leaders and intellectuals who will remind their fellows of this often. You see a similar situation with people who are personally pro-life but strongly pro-choice in public policy–a position the political right in this country abhors and the political left welcomes. George W. Bush and Rick Santorum are the only conservative politicians who I believe voice an understanding of this dynamic.
Anyway, could you explain some of this social conservative support for Russia’s anti-gay law to me? I only get most of my Gay News from this site.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anyway, could you explain some of this social conservative support for Russia’s anti-gay law to me? I only get most of my Gay News from this site.
Right Wing Watch has put together a fair summary that includes social conservative support of Russian anti-gay initatives in a four-part series “Globalizing Homophobia“. It is a bit dated (it doesn’t include Pat Buchanan’s statement praising Vladimir Putin as a moral guardian or some of the more recent statements by the likes of Brian Brown, Tony Perkins and Bryan Fischer, but it is a good start at understanding the situation.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/globalizing-homophobia
Box Turtle Bulletin has very extensive coverage of social conservative involvement in series titled “Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate“.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/slouching-toward-kampala
I can point you to similar initiatives in Belize, Jamica and other countries if you’d like, but I think that understand the situation in Russia and Uganda will get you the information you need.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anyway, could you explain some of this social conservative support for Russia’s anti-gay law to me?
Right Wing Watch has put together a fair summary that includes social conservative support of Russian anti-gay initatives in a four-part series “Globalizing Homophobia“. It is a bit dated (it doesn’t include Pat Buchanan’s statement praising Vladimir Putin as a moral guardian or some of the more recent statements by the likes of Brian Brown, Tony Perkins and Bryan Fischer, but it is a good start at understanding the situation.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/globalizing-homophobia
Box Turtle Bulletin has very extensive coverage of similar social conservative involvement in developing Uganda’s law in series titled “Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate“. I can’t put the link in, because IGF bounces comments with more than one link, but Google Box Turtle Bulletin, go to the site, and look in the upper right hand corner of the page for the link.
posted by Jorge on
Well, thank you very much, Tom.
Some of the comments by Family Watch International’s president Sharon Slater to religiondispatches.org (from one of the links on your first link) give me the impression of lawyerspeak when union lawyers tell the National Right to Work Foundation workers’ right to resign from the union. It sounds crisp, to the point, and proper, ripe pickings for any social conservative apologist. But the lawyerspeakers only come out on defense. They don’t speak for the rank-and-file, or even the powerful middlemen who can really make your life miserable if you don’t know how to aim for the throat. Much of the difference between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis is the latter’s determination to lead the middle managers of the church, and while he is on offense. (Unfortunately, the differences between Pope Benedict and the American religious right are even greater.)
Perhaps more relevant, the comments remind me of the explosive effect of the religious right’s international and culturally incompetent anti-gay advocacy on Uganda and other countries–oh, I see you linked to that. (Yes, Jorge, these forces operate in more than one country.) This is a disgusting chapter in human history. It’s imperialism all over again. This is the new imperialism. Things would be perfectly unsatisfactory if these countries were allowed to simply snap at the UN and the President of the United States instead. If letting other countries maintain their own cultural norms is so important, why are Americans even speaking to them?
*Sigh.* Carry on, Tom.
You know, most of my more liberal political allies lost this past election, I mean I had the whole foundation fall around me. But I’ll find new ones, and I still got one old ally left, one who doesn’t grandstand at all.
posted by Jorge on
>>”Some of the comments… give me the impression of … when union lawyers tell the National Right to Work Foundation about workers’ right to resign from the union.”
posted by Don on
The real reasons for these laws and debates in Russia and throughout Africa is not the scourge of homosexuality. Sure some of those countries leaders genuinely believe that. But if they were truly interested in considering the problems, they would have given it more thought.
This is about distracting a populace so leaders can get on to more controversial and consequential actions while everyone is busy shouting at one another. It has nothing to do with left or right. They might as well find a small girl and put her in a deep well. Then they can make all the deals they can that the populace would oppose if the media weren’t busy breathlessly filming the drama that has no meaning.
I am as sure as one can be that Putin really isn’t doing any of this so he can “set right” the “moral compass” of his country. This is elementary politics of diversion.
And Brian Brown is a useful fool here. History is rife with these situations. Maybe cutting food stamps for fat people will be the next debate that won’t matter. I can almost hear Wolf Blitzer’s shallow exploration of that trite topic.
But call it what it is: a political tactic designed to distract an entire populace regarding a faux issue using useful idiots to sustain it. I just with it wasn’t people’s lives they were playing with. But, these guys want more money for themselves. So, what can we do?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is elementary politics of diversion. And Brian Brown is a useful fool here.
I think that’s right. It is the old story of politicians using gays and lesbians as cannon fodder for political gain, and exploiting anti-gay bias for their own purposes. We’ve seen it enough in the United States to know it when we see it.
But the fact remains that our country’s anti-gay, conservative Christian groups — playing the fool or not — are up to their ears in funding, advising and praising the anti-gay crackdowns in other countries, now more or less openly, and it leaves me with very little doubt what they would do in the United States if they could.
We need to be watchful, and mindful, and work to spread daylight on the situation.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s not just the gays that right-wing Russian thugs are brutalizing. It’s anyone not considered to be truly Russian. that includes among others religious and ethnic minorities as well as homosexuals. The gay attacks are indeed a problem but part of a larger wave of hostile nationalism that seeks to scapegoat all of Russia’s problems on others. I hate playing the Nazi card, but this sounds awfully familiar and I suspect is going to get MUCH worse after the Olympics and not just for gay people but for Jews, racial minorities and many others. Notice the apologetic and dismissive tone the mainstream media takes on this. It’s disgusting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The gay attacks are indeed a problem but part of a larger wave of hostile nationalism that seeks to scapegoat all of Russia’s problems on others. … I suspect [this] is going to get MUCH worse after the Olympics and not just for gay people but for Jews, racial minorities and many others. Notice the apologetic and dismissive tone the mainstream media takes on this. It’s disgusting.
I agree. Evil is evil and should be called out. The media isn’t doing it, and, to be blunt, few others are, either.
Luckily, as an aside, Russian xenophobia will have less effect than it might otherwise. Post Glasnost, when it became possible for the first time in almost a century for Jews to emigrate, about a million Russia Jews left for Israel, and a relatively small number (about 200,000) remain. Israel provides a home for those who can get out.
I won’t laugh if it happens, because it will be tragic, but I wonder if conservative Christians in this country will be singing Russia’s praises quite as loudly when Russia starts enforcing the anti-blasphemy laws against non-Orthodox Christians.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I don’t think that Kirchick is arguing an either or situation — certainly there are local ethnic / cultural / religious underpinnings which make the latest wave of anti-gay attitudes… at the same time, we can’t ignore the reality of how the British imperial system created a legal framework — the legacy of which has allowed anti-gay animus to flourish and fertile ground for the marriage of modern anti-gay exports from the U.S. (thank you evangelicals, Mormons, NOM, etc.) with existing anti-imperialism.
But IOKIYAR: exporting anti-LGBT religion = religious freedom; “Gay Rights are Human Rights” = bullying other countries and an abuse of power.
posted by Jorge on
The propaganda law offers one of those rare, bipartisan political opportunities where left and right can come together. Presenting the law as part and parcel of Putin’s broad crackdown on Russian civil society will expand the coalition of voices speaking out against it.
Whose responsibility is it to do that?
Is it really necessary for left and right to come together? Let’s see, we had such a thing with the latest immigration reform. They united for a common goal. To get there, Republicans and Democratic and Republican Senators had to have secret back door conversations with each other.
Republicans and Democrats already have secret back door conversations with each other without it leading to any common goal. We could just as well have both sides just happen to throw a one-two punch.
Look, already President Obama is not going to the winter Olympics. That to me seems a really big insult. Now, what we have here is a situation in which anytime the right mentions KGB Putin and anti-free Russia, we’re going to boo the anti-gay law and anti-gay hate. We already know about the anti-gay law. All we are really lacking is energy. And of course, any time we mention the anti-gay law and the culture of anti-gay hate, the right is going to boo KGB Putin and anti-free Russia. They could use some motivation, too.
My suggestion is simply to keep the pressure up and seek publicity. Try to make it all about our goals. This will make it a competition to see who can shout the loudest. Any needed truce or cooperation will happen naturally.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The propaganda law offers one of those rare, bipartisan political opportunities where left and right can come together. Presenting the law as part and parcel of Putin’s broad crackdown on Russian civil society will expand the coalition of voices speaking out against it.
I wonder. Republican negative response to the anti-gay crackdown has been muted, to say the least, and my guess is that the muted response is a result of the loud support for Russia’s anti-gay laws from social conservatives.
Kirchick is right, of course, that “The Kremlin’s anti-gay assault is, in essence, an assault on the open society, and it is on those terms that it must be opposed …” (or at least should be opposed) by both conservatives and left/liberals, but his is not a view that seems to be gaining any traction.
Without bipartisan support in Congress, which seems to be lacking, I think that our government has gone about as far as it can at this point.
The President and the State Department have spoken out strongly against the laws. The President refused to meet with Putin at the G-20 summit. The President met with Russian gay and lesbian activists. The President, operating in tangent with European heads of state, has declined to be present at the Olympics. And so on.
That’s all to the good. But tougher measures require Congressional support, and I don’t see it happening because the bipartisan support isn’t materializing.
posted by Houndentenor on
About Putin. I wish more people would put this into the broader context of what’s going on there. It’s not just that there is persecution of gay people. That’s bad enough. It’s that their is widespread persecution of anyone not considered to be truly Russian. That means minority religions (including but not limited to Jews), ethnicities and of course gay people. I hate to play the Nazi card but this sounds eerily familiar. Many in Russia are scapegoating anyone not racially pure as an excuse for their country’s many problems and Putin is happy to exploit this since it distracts from the problems of his government.
About conservatives, liberals and Putin. It’s not fair to say that conservatives were skeptical of him while liberals embraced him. That’s a massive rewriting of history. George W Bush was taken in by Putin at least for awhile. I think many others were eager to embrace someone who could lead the country in the aftermath of communism. Because I know a number of Russian immigrants (all musicians) I have often got an earful about just how bad things really are there and have been for some time. The news media is too lazy to talk to ordinary people and provide context for news stories, especially foreign ones, so I don’t think most Americans had any idea this was coming and sadly this includes our politicians who are too lazy/greedy to talk to anyone who doesn’t show up with a campaign contribution.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
George W Bush was taken in by Putin at least for awhile.
From Reuters, last August, after Putin sent Bush a warm telegram with birthday greetings:
But you are right that Bush got taken in by Putin, in part because Putin knows how to manipulate sentiment. Bush gave an interesting interview, reported in the Daily Caller (which I do not normally quote) about the “I looked into his soul …” nonsense, and subsequent developments.
posted by Houndentenor on
I was never a fan of Putin mostly because it seemed to me that what Russia got was a little capitalism (consisting mainly of foreigners and mobsters running the economy instead of the government) and not much in the way of freedom or opportunity. It was not much of an improvement over what they had before. The same thugs were still in charge and still practicing their thuggery. I can see that some people were optimistic. I’m trying to be optimistic about the new Iranian government (but not too much because I know how hard it is to get things to change in totalitarian systems). And sometimes hope causes us to see the world and people the way we want them to be rather than how they are. We are also all lousy at predicting the future (and if you are incredibly bad about it they put you on tv to blather on about it as if last year’s predictions weren’t startlingly wrong!). Bush clearly figured out he had misread Putin so at least I give him credit for realizing he was wrong.
posted by Jorge on
I realize this is outdated, but I think I just realized some of how Vladimir Putin gave that impression ot George W. Bush. You see that charm in all those ridiculous stories about bare-chested macho man Putin in the great outdoors. As I remember it, at the time Bush made that statement, that was not what people were saying about Putin. His reputation in this country was that of an icicle. I think he may have learned how to market his public image from President Bush, what with Bush’s own informal laid-back ranchy relaxing ways, which was also his style of diplomacy. Not to mention Bush’s cowboy-style statements his first few months.
Bush was able to see that side of Putin in a genuine way before the rest of the world did in an artificial way. What Bush miscalculated were the implications. Vladimir Putin is more honest and honorable than he is upright and decent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As I read the Kirchick article, I was struck by this paragraph (emphasis mine):
I wonder, reading this, whether pro-equality advocates should pay attention to the implications of Kirkchick’s observation, now that social conservatives have more or less openly aligned themselves with Russia and Putin, and start pinning the tail on the donkey, so to speak.
If social conservatives want to align themselves with Russia and Putin as “protectors of traditional moral values”, it is hard to miss how the two are closely allied in their thinking — using the power of the government to crush individual freedom under the boot heel of ideology, a (to quote Kirchick) “fundamental assault on civil rights”.
After all, what difference, really, is there between a state built around Christian totalitarianism and a state built around any other ideological totalitarianism, in terms of the way that the power of the state is used to crush the freedom of men and women to live their lives according to their own lights?
I don’t propose a change in LGBT pro-equality tactics. We have met success so far by being the voice of reason in the discussion over equality, and I think that we should stick with what has worked so well so far. And I think that ordinary Americans are beginning to connect the dots by themselves.
But this might be a role that libertarians could usefully play in supporting equality — pointing out, pointedly, how closely aligned American social conservatives are with Russian totalitarianism.
posted by Houndentenor on
Can someone explain to me the sneer with which conservatives now speak of anti-colonialism? I have ancestors (on my mother’s side) who fought to kick the British Empire out of this country and I support autonomy and self-determination for all people. I don’t understand the line of thinking that colonialism was good. If so, why don’t we rejoin the British Empire? There must be something in this line of thinking I’m missing.
posted by Mike in Houston on
It’s part and parcel of the selective re-writing of history that so-called conservatives have been engaged in for decades… revisionism that plays well in the know-nothing base.
These are the folks that ignore anything and everything that doesn’t fit in with their particular narrative of American Exceptionalism.
posted by Jorge on
Conservative intellectuals advance a belief in American exceptionalism mainly in opposition to the belief that American foreign policy has been imperialist and destructive, especially during the Cold War. Conservatives also sometimes set American exceptional up against a strawman belief (it exists but it’s an uncommon one) in international moral relativism. Conservatives will say, hey, who are the other power centers in the world? China? Russia? Iran? al-Qaida? Uhhhh, hello! Only the USA defends freedom. With regard to Western Europe, they’ll point out that our legal and social beliefs and traditions descended from Western European countries, not to mention their own democratic revolutions that make us allies with them now.
The sneer is simply a chronic illness conservatives have when they don’t wish to speak to other people.
posted by Houndentenor on
The problem is not that America supported democracy around the world during the Cold War. If only that were true. Mostly what we did was back petty unpopular tyrants so long as they weren’t communists. Anyone who was anti-communist was considered our friend including folks like Osama bin Laden and a whole host of brutal dictators whose list of human rights violations is too long to enumerate here. If only we had backed democracy for third world countries I think we’d be far better off today than we are and so would those countries. We did some good and also so harm and we ought to own up to the mistakes so we can stop repeating them. I think that’s especially true of training and arming militants who aren’t really our friends and may one day use their skills and equipment against us (see: Al Qaeda). We created a lot of the mess we are in today with international terrorism. That doesn’t excuse the actions of the terrorists, but it does mean we should rethink how we approach foreign policy and perhaps use more discernment as to whom we train and arm.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Well, I guess “telling fewer lies and pandering to less BS” was NOT a New Year’s Resolution…for he-who-shall-not-be-named.
just about any nation’s leaders that do something that offends — rightly or wrongly — other nations (and their respective people) have always hid behind something along the lines of ‘please don’t mess with our internal affairs’.
Being “anti-imperialists” and “anti-colonialists” (or “pro) does not mean that a person is progressive or conservative or (for that matter) supportive of gay rights.
“Blaming British imperialism is conducive with a progressive anti-Western outlook…”
I am progressive and I do not have an “anti-Western outlook”. In fact, I do not know many progressives or conservatives (with any sort of broad-based, liberal education) that hate everything that is Western.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s funny when these silly labels get thrown around. Colonialism came with a whole host of evils. Saying that does not make me anti-Western. How could I be when I have devoted my life to studying and performing from the Western classical music tradition. It is true that there is a part of the post-colonial backlash that blames all problems on “western decadence” (see the rationalizations for the anti-gay laws in Russia and Africa), but there is no reason that those two things should have to go together.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Few (if any) of the post-Soviet era Russian leaders have been terribly good when it comes to respect for liberal democracy, the rule of and various human rights.
Russia is now something akin to the American ‘Wild West’.
I have not been able to find much of the criminal/civil code in English (but the Constitution is pretty much a sham), but the laundry list of serious human rights violations is pretty long (even if tried to separate out the high levels of poverty and general misery).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I appreciate that what works in terms of promoting gay rights (or feminism) in one state or nation may work everywhere. However, I am not sure that trying to sell gay rights as a freedom issue would work much better in Russia.
Putin has been pretty good about eroding most civil liberties in Russia. From what I hear, Putin has pretty much cut off the freedom of the press and any serious democratic political opposition.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Russia has taken a lot of steps in the last couple of years to clamp down on minorities and minority points of view (for example, blasphemy is a now a crime), and most civil liberties. Stephen is right to point out that this should be a source of bipartisan concern, but it won’t be. Republican politicians are scared to death of criticizing Russia right now, given the fulsome praise emanating from the social conservative wing of the Republican base. No sense in buying trouble, I guess. Anyone with any sense in the party already has a challenge from the Tea Party; adding the social conservatives to the list would ensure defeat.
posted by Mike Alexander on
“Blaming British imperialism is conducive with a progressive anti-Western outlook that is aghast if you suggest that responsibility for reflexive hatefulness lies with many non-Western societies themselves.
Ok… I’m just curious – who is blaming past colonialism / imperialism for these current attitudes. I’m not sure if that’s a mainstream idea among progressives. I’ve heard a few conservative pundits complain that this is the case, but, except for an outlier that appears on the VERY progressive Pacifica radio station KFCF, I just can’t remember ever hearing this stated….
OK. I probably have heard my bandmate from my CSN&Y band Laurel Canyon say something like that. But he’s a full on socialist… A real one!!!! And he says all sorts of things! 🙂
And note, I have taught history in high school, and don’t remember seeing that in the curriculum.