People's History of American Empire

[FOTD]

As the war drums beat loud this week in DC, keep perspective of the cost/benefit to our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg&eurl=http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1592

In 1973, I took Poli Sci from Howard Zinn, a patriot who continues to this day to fight for the greater humanitarian cause of mankind. Zinn no doubt had a huge influence on my frame of reference.

Please do not allow those proclaiming we have done the right thing in Iraq and to leave now would be a mistake to continue this lie. It's time to go home.

[cannon_fodder]

This is a bit off on a tangent, but I had a discussion about Zinn to a friend on Oregon a few weeks back and sorry AOX, but Zinn runs afoul in my mind (his most noted book particularly.  

The guy started with interesting ideas and still comes up with great thoughts (he certainly is smart and an entertaining author), but generally he is out to convince people of his view - not to educate them on history or anything else.  An agenda should not be passed off as history.

quote:Zinn said
Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable . . . because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.
. . .
This is a biased account, I am not troubled by that.

But hey, a history book with no citations probably trustworthy, right?

Actually, he has some serious issues with fact.  Violent crime is down in the last 15 years - not up, Mumia's conviction is sound and has survived numerous appeals in spite of protests of college kids who really only know its cool to chalk "free Mumia" on sidewalks, the notion of the "noble savage" has long since been dispelled (the Indians were the executioners of the captives in the Pequot War as well as the majority participants), we did not force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, unemployment declined under Reagan,  the Civil War was not waged to ensure the oppression of the underclass...

If you have not read the book, let me summarize it:

quote:
As (insert factors here) took hold there was a need for the capitalists to assert and ensure their dominance over the poor and invent common goal between with them.  When viewed from this perspective the  (insert event in American history here) was a brilliant move to keep the proletariat from reaching their full potential (insert snarky comment crediting the wealthy for the idea).  Thus (insert historical event again) can be viewed as a means to greater profit for the rich upon the backs of the poor.

Just repeat that.  

The revolution took place because equality with the abundance of land threatened the gentry.

The civil war was to protect northern profits .

WWI was to bolster industrialists and break unions.

WWII was to assert American economic dominance.

The war on terror was to cut back gains from the dot com and distract people from problems that might lead to the great Marxist revolution!

Basically, everything is the capitalists fault.  They are keeping the man down and always have been.  BUT, th revolution is coming - so long as the man doesnt keep it down.

Of course, intellectuals like Zinn have been part of "the man" for at least a generation now (really going back to Marx) and have nothing to show for it.  The countries that most closely follow the ideologies often end up being the most murderous and repressive regimes - places where citizens flee whenever possible to go to countries dominated by the man.  

Marxism and pacifism are wonderful things - so long as we ignore the human element in the equation.  Seems kind of like a fatal flaw.

I do, however, agree with one point he makes:

quote:Sometimes the intellectuals have an exaggerated view of their own importance.

/tangent.

[FOTD]

Good. I don't agree with all his radical tudes either. But I do agree with him on this war at this time in history. I thought the video was well done.

[cannon_fodder]

I have a more mixed reaction.  Of course, I do agree that the video was very well done.  I watched the video again keeping your "this time" premise in mind and jotted down some notes.

1) First, I take exception to the term Empire.  
a) Empire is from the Latin "imperium" denoting a military command.  I am not aware of any locations other than bases that are under US military command, especially in the context of the term (meaning they exacted tribute from and considered the territory part of Rome).

b) Empire is usually denoted as headed by an absolute ruler (hence expansionist Rome was a republic until the Augustus toppled the power of the Senate and it became an Empire)

c) Empire is the control of several countries by one central authority.  While closest to applying, we have effectively absorbed the former Indian, Mexican, and Polynesian territories into Americana.  The same is true for all nations that today are the most homogeneous (the Franks, the Anglos & Saxons...).  

Certainly we strive to assert our influence globally, but the territorial ambitions that mark a an "Empire" have ceased.  The ability to yield influence is an entirely different idea than the normal connotation of Empire.  Which is why using such verbiage is an effective tool for influencing people, and why I give him credit for his argument.

2) Even in this video he pretends that the plight of the Native Americans is somehow unknown.  I feel confident that most Americans are aware that our expansion Westward Ho and the ideals of Manifest destiny came at the expense of Native Peoples and it often was an overt attempt at either genocide or ethnic cleansing (dead or assimilated).  

Clearly a poor historical legacy for the United States and a result of ignorance and ideology at the time.   Interestingly enough, the bible was widely used to justify the treatment of Natives (and Africans, and anyone else really) and the stripping of their culture.  Talk about opening up tangents: noble savage concept, history of exterminations around the world (most stable regions are a result of one culture dominating another at one point), what would have happened if the tables were turned and Natives had the power (who knows, but a point of discussion).

I digress...

3) In the video his depiction of the Spanish American war was incorrect.  By most accounts we had noble intents of pushing for Cuba's independence (as illustrated by our assertion of that right upon the conclusion of the war).  Furthermore, the war was not a "long, painfully drawn out conflict" - it lasted 109 days.

Now I will agree that we took the other possessions as a prize willingly expanding our territory.  Though I must then assert that we have since either offered each of them independence on their own terms (and most have wanted to remain a protectorate or territory of the US).

4) From there my paradigm applies perfectly to this video - insert country (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) = excuse to assert more imperial control.  That is just too simple.  It ignores treaty obligations, international law, and the fact that we were in all those places at the invitation of another nation (S. Vietnam, S. Korea, Kuwait/Saudi Arabia).  

I don't doubt American interests were the reason we were there and not altruism.  But the notion that we were there to expand an Empire seems dubious (as S. Korea has always ruled itself, we did not claim Kuwait as our territory, and we never taxed the Vietnamese).

5) 9/11 was indeed caused by the United States being in the Middle East.  I still contend with the notion of the war for oil - Saddam had been selling us cheap oil for a decade, why would we doubt that he would sell the Kuwaiti oil to us?  Furthermore, we probably would have defended any friendly nation against overt invasion.

Nonetheless, we were in the Middle East defending one nation against another at the invitation of every other nation in the region.  Therefor, we deserved to be attacked.  I just don't buy it.

I do not deny that it was the excuse used to attack America, but religious ideology is the REASON.

6) "I fought WWII to defeat fascism and to create a new and Just world.  Free of aggression, racism, and hatred."    The implication being of course that the real reason for the war was something else - going back to his conspiracy theories about the control of the proletariat and the willingness of Patricians to sacrifice them for their ends.

Of course, this statement could be boiled down to "I dropped bombs on cities to create a world free of aggression."   Thereby pointing out the fatal flaw in altruistic justifications for war.
- - -

It was a very well done film.  He raised interesting points and I like to think tries to take somewhat extreme positions and leave out facts to try and at least make people think.  I understand the notions he is trying to raise and certainly do not subscribe to the altruistic American Wars that text books sometimes sell.

But on the whole, I find his propositions to be over simplified rhetoric.

[FOTD]

The attack on 9-11 was done to provoke us....it worked... big time. It was not for religeous reasons. An assault to draw us into chaos. We were led into an illegal political war by oily neo connected suckers.....

I do not wish to get into our Imperial nature versus your belief we were not there in Iraq for oil.

Psst, America did you forget about Iraq?
"Death and violence follow the troops home."

http://www.populistamerica.com/the_darker_legacy_of_iraq

"Suicides among US troops are increasing at a higher rate than at any time in history, as we demand that people repeat tours in Iraq. Vast increases of violent crimes by returning Iraqi- Afghanistan veterans within the USA signify the culture of violence spreading. The cost of this Iraqi war is borne in massive death and physical injury, as well as increasing monetary loss. Yet it may be that the cost in psychological damage to the American troops and our collective psyche is the most vastly under-estimated negative factor.  

Psst, America did you forget about Iraq?"

The Iraq Assessment You Don't Get to See

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/the-iraq-assess.html

How do you know anything when it's all secret?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/petr-a09.shtml

"Asked by Warner if it troubled him that "up to 80 percent of Americans don't think it's worth it," Petraeus merely reiterated that he thought it was."

Is the real reason to keep the troops In Iraq  to invade Iran? Or is it about oil? Or both?

[cannon_fodder]

Ok, I don't get it.  If the attack has nothing to do with religion why are all the people that attack us Muslim and chanting praise be to Allah while carrying the Koran and wanting Mulsim law?  Debate the strategy involved with wanting to draw is into a conflict if you want to, but pretending religious ideology isn't behind it is obtuse.

But since you are a legal scholar of war, please explain to me how and when this became an illegal war and reference which American conflicts were "legal."  Grenada?  Nicoragua? Somalia or the Balkans under Clinton?  Afghanistan?

Clearly the terms of the peace agreement of Gulf 1 were violated (as sponsored by the UN), historically giving cause for resumption of conflict.  There is also a point to be raised on  the terms of 1441 and inherent threats.  If the terms of peace are breached, the resumption of hostilities is automatic.  

That is of course pretending that war is waged under international law, which it never really is.  The victors merely decide what the law is after the fact and apply it to the losers.  And the war comports to all US laws as they currently stand (though I still would really like a more literal interpretation of the need for a Congressional declaration of war).
- - -

I digress...

if you did not want to debate the imperial nature of the United States why did you post a thread titled "American Empire?"

[FOTD]

Ok....The Bushevik Empire.....better?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Ok....The Bushevik Empire.....better?

Well, at least somewhat.  []