By Steve Byas

"Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future," is one of the more memorable quotations from a book of memorable quotations, George Orwell's classic dystopian novel, 1984.

This explains the efforts of the Left to control the narrative of our nation's past, and the history of the world, generally. One would think conservatives, with their nod to the importance of tradition, would engage those who distort the past, the so-called "progressives" who want to control the debate on current and future political issues.

What happens is that liberals never concede an interpretation of history. While conservatives are concentrating on today's political struggles (and I will concede there are tons of battles we must fight today, coming from all directions), those on the Left use their positions in the media, academia, and the popular culture to create an image of the past that advances the left-wing political agenda.

This is why I have written History's Greatest Libels. In this book I have 11 chapters in which I examine some false accusation or impression about some historical figure or group. In each of these chapters, I write about some false narrative that is used to advance a contemporary agenda.

We hear them almost every day, sometimes many times a day. We are bombarded with them in schools from pre-school to graduate school, on television and radio, on the Internet, in books and magazines, and around the supper table, lunch counters, and break rooms. Lies. Lies about individuals in history, groups in history, even ideas and concepts.

The lies are told so often that they have become widely accepted, and not just by those we would place on the progressive Left, but these lies are pervasive among those who favor limited government.

For example, almost every adult has heard the story that French Queen Marie Antoinette once said, "Let them eat cake," in response to the pleas of starving citizens of Paris during the French Revolution. The problem with the story, used to illustrate the supposed callousness of the French aristocracy and place the blame for the conflagration of the Revolution upon the Queen, is that it is completely bogus. The statement was first attributed to a French aristocrat long before Marie was even born.

Why would anyone do such a thing? In the case of the libel on Marie Antoinette, it is an effort to rewrite the history of the French Revolution, which became a model for future revolutions on the Left, including the Bolshevik Revolution, which brought the horrors of communism to Russia.

We even have falsehoods about Oklahoma history. One of the most persistent is that Okemah-born folk singer Woody Guthrie was some kind of hero. The truth is that Woody was a hard-core Stalinist, who wrote for an official American Communist Party newspaper. He even wrote in support of Joe Stalin, praising him for invading Poland in 1939! Yet, a recent article in the Norman Transcript referred to Woody Guthrie as an Oklahoma "hero." Hero? A man who supported a political ideology that has led to the deaths of millions of human beings? Hardly my idea of a hero.

Then, the Oklahoman ran an article on Choctaw Indian Joseph Oklahombi, the most decorated soldier from our state in the First World War. One of the famous Choctaw "code talkers," Oklahombi won the Silver Star for his role in taking, along with 23 other American soldiers, 171 Germans captive at St. Etienne, France, on October 8, 1918. They also captured 79 others. When I saw the article on the front page, I thought, "Great, a history article."

But then I read the article.

It became apparent the article was an effort in political correctness. The writer left the clear impression that Oklahombi would have won the Medal of Honor, had he not been an Indian. Furthermore, it was added that Indians were not citizens then, and Oklahombi was not eligible to vote -- because he was an Indian.

I can't say, and neither can anyone else say, whether Oklahombi would have been awarded the Medal of Honor had he not been a Choctaw. Maybe, maybe not. But, he was awarded the Silver Star, and he was the most decorated soldier of the war from Oklahoma, and no other Oklahoma soldier, of any ethnic background, won a Medal of Honor. It does not appear any of the other soldiers with Oklahombi won the nation's highest award in that particular battle, either (at St. Etienne, France on October 8, 1918). Only 119 men nationally won the Medal, which was about two and a half men, per state. Interestingly, Oklahoma was the 21st state in population at the time. Neither Virginia (20th), nor Louisiana (22nd) had a single award-winner, either. Maybe they were bigoted against southerners. But I doubt it.

Over 100,000 Americans lost their lives in the Great War. Why can't we just say that Oklahombi and all the men who went "over there" served our country, and let it go at that? Why interject charges of bigotry, for which there is no evidence? It is true that no other Indians won the Medal in WWI, but sixteen did win it, before that war, and twelve did after that war. As a group, American Indians have been some of our proudest warriors.

What was most ludicrous was the statement that Native American Indians could not vote and were not U.S. citizens. While it is true that the Snyder Act of 1924 made all American Indians U.S. citizens, who were not already citizens, by that time it only awarded such citizenship to 125,000 of about 300,000 Indians. The majority of these indigenous peoples were already citizens when part-Indian President Calvin Coolidge signed the bill.

But in Oklahoma, Indians played a huge role in Oklahoma's early political history. The Enabling Act, passed by Congress in 1906, said that tribal members who had been residents of the territory for at least six months could participate in the constitutional convention, and could vote in the subsequent referendum. Citizenship was piecemeal for Indians, nationally, until 1924, but in Oklahoma, the Enabling Act made pretty much all Indians citizens. In the book, Native Vote, it states that all "Natives who lived in that territory were made citizens through the Enabling Act."

That included Gabe Parker, a Choctaw who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was one of 55 delegates from Indian Territory at the Con-Con, along with an equal number from Oklahoma Territory. Two came from the Osage Nation (Osages were, by the way, Indians). Another early political leader in Oklahoma was Will Rogers' father, Clem Rogers. And then, Robert L. Owen, a Cherokee, was one of Oklahoma's first two U.S. Senators. I could add more, but I hope the point has been made.

Why would such a statement -- Indians could not vote and were not even citizens -- even be made?

I think you know why.