George Orwell’s inherited opposition to homosexuality as well as his early employment in the arm of imperialism does nothing to ruin his status as my favorite essayist. Likewise, the knowledge of T.S. Eliot’s and Evelynn Waugh’s gross anti-Semitism or Ezra Pound’s distinct alliance to fascism deter me from reading their work. Yet, in the process of learning of these deplorable attitudes, I am given a sharper understanding of imperfection and a resolution to be a better person than my forebears.

That ideal is suffering from a gross usurpation spurred on by the same people who want to ignore the sins of our country and highlight only our goodness or perhaps create false equivalents in the name of “patriotism.”

Why can’t history be objective like all of our academic pursuits? Academia is gradually undergoing the dissolution of objective truth into conspiracy and misapprehension pushed by yokels of the worst kind.

One such example can be found in the National Review, which pumps out the same dogmatic piffle to promote a “balanced” approach to education. That is a noble cause, but how would the National Review, with clear political bias, define balance? Apparently, academia downplays the positive aspects of American history, aspects the Review classifies as “liberty, prosperity, democracy and saving the world from fascism a few times …”

Orwell would have appreciated democracy’s involvement in the fight against fascism in Spain, but he only found allies in the anti-Stalinist socialist faction of Catalonia. He was indeed saving the world from fascism “a few times,” and severely late to the party.

I’m sure that in the promotion of liberty, democracy and prosperity, the Review wouldn’t mind also displaying a history — alongside its fluffy language — of the utter oppression of the Native American population, slavery and Jim Crow laws, the exploitation of the poor working class, the firebombing of Dresden and carpet-bombing of Cambodia. Numerous instances in which America was the antithesis of “liberty, democracy, and prosperity.”

Learning about our history does not deter me from loving my country, hoping we can do good and appreciating the good we’ve done for the world. In my pursuit of humanitarian intervention, I have frequently endured the slander of “warmongerer,” but understanding our history gives me an understanding of that sentiment.

Shame is a humbling instrument.

A column was published by this newspaper bemoaning the juxtaposition of “good” and “bad” America on Feb. 24, perpetuated by “leftists” — whoever those people are. The writer, Clay Rogers, penned an appalling example of what he believes to be “fairness.”

As he writes, “There’s nothing wrong with teaching about America’s atrocities, but a fair account should be given. What modern textbook teaches children about the atrocity of the American welfare state? Which textbook teaches children about the bankrupting of our nation and the millions of lives that have been ruined due to social welfare programs?”

What a disgusting comparison. How can any reasonable individual find our nation’s atrocities equivalent to social welfare programs that constitute a tiny portion of the budget, yet with enough potency to bring thousands of people out of poverty and make the “American Dream” — our scant excuse for capitalism — realistic? The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo; slavery and Jim Crow, which many nations solved well before us; the ongoing suppression of women and forced exile or extinction of whole populations of Native Americans are all to be regarded akin to sheltering and feeding starving poor people?

Yet the columnist continues in an attempt to prove such an atrocity outright by drawing a correlation between the welfare provided for Native Americans residing in Canada and their suicide rate. If we’re talking about American atrocities, Canada has no guilt in the atrocities done by the United States, so it’s a false comparison anyway. Does the writer want us to believe that welfare leads to suicide? I dare say, in all my years writing for the Daily, this may be the sickest assertion ever published.

The real irony, though, is that Rogers seems to deplore the lefty “Marxist” labeling of America as a frequent “oppressor,” yet he sets out to extinguish this imaginary revisionism by highlighting the suicide rate among Native Americans, whose history gives us the most haunting episodes of American oppression. The irony is furthered by a reference to Orwell, who fought for the working class and against Western imperialism, especially in India.

The final muse made by Rogers regards an anthropological study on prostitution, a sharp turn from the previous diatribe against our history curriculums. At the surrender of cogency, the study of history and anthropology were merged into an incoherent blob. Anthropology involves defining entities and studying human beings, while history regards the cause and effect of events and the study of whole civilizations.

If the facts are presented unbiased and objective, without lefty or righty definitions of “balance,” we will gain an important understanding of America’s history. That is, it’s an ongoing experiment. Looking back at our atrocities is a sobering affair, at once shaming and beckoning a change in sentiments. Rogers says that if history is taught in its entirety, every rational human will see that America is a good nation of good people. I seriously doubt that proposition, but that doesn’t mean I hate my country or believe we are the pushers of indiscriminate evil. We have fought for what is good and we can do more to spread goodness.

As Samwise Gamgee from “The Lord of the Rings” proclaims, “there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo … and it’s worth fighting for.”