Independence Day, heroes, and villains
Today is the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. Although the focus is on fireworks and barbecues—a tradition I intend to perpetuate this evening—deep down, this particular holiday is really about American history.
John Adams, one of our founding fathers, knew this, although he was off two days on the date. As he presciently wrote to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.
“Forever more” is a long time, to be sure. But so far the celebration is holding.
History often seems inevitable after it happens, and we tend to forget it is not—and that, most especially, the outcome is not known to those who live through the events in real time. The United States had a precarious existence at first, and Francis Scott Keys’s uncertainty about America’s continuance was not a ploy when he wrote of the fledgling United States in terms of a question, not a statement, “O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave/o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”
Abraham Lincoln was determined to make sure the answer to Keys’s question would be, “Yes.” My old-fashioned education required that we fifth-graders memorize the Gettysburg address, and although at the time the I thought its opening phrase “Four score and seven years ago…”—referring back, of course, to 1776—sounded like a long time had passed, as I got older it occurred to me that when Lincoln spoke the nation was still relatively young and facing the greatest test of its existence, with the outcome unknown.
Lincoln wondered whether a nation devoted to liberty and the proposition that all men are created equal (and for “men” read “humans”) could continue to endure. He knew full well that such “equality” was imperfect under the law of the land; correcting flaws in its application to blacks was part of the reason for the Civil War that was being fought under his remarkable and eloquent aegis.
Independence Day isn’t about being perfect and celebrating that perfection. It’s about acknowledging the wonderful and optimistic vision of the original founders, being thankful for those in the past who have preserved it, and trying to honor it in the future. There are those who think our present government to be so pernicious that it has perverted the intent of the Declaration of Independence. There are others who, like me, think our government flawed but basically sound and that no such perversion has occurred, although course corrections are sometimes required—and have always been required—in our not-so-long history as a nation.
Speaking of that history—I’ve written before about the fact that the criticism of Lincoln by his own contemporaries was at least as bad (and very similar) to that meted out to Bush. This does not mean I’m equating the two in terms of statesmanship or vision or judgment; I am not. But my high estimation of Lincoln—and yours—was not shared by most of his contemporaries.
Here’s a quote on the subject from the excellent book American Brutus, Michael W. Kauffman’s biography of John Wilkes Booth:
The Civil War was unlike anything known in modern times, and the nation came closer to collapse than most people realize today. Emancipation of slaves, confiscation of property, and the draft often led to deadly clashes between the public and civil authorities. The political storm threatened not only the federal government, but state governments as well”¦In the middle stood Abraham Lincoln, blamed for the war and fired upon from all sides. It was not just the fringe element who hated the president; judges, senators, editors, and otherwise respectable citizens left no doubt of their contempt for him as well. One senator compared Lincoln to the tyrants of history, saying “They are all buried beneath the wave of oblivion compared to what this man of yesterday, this Abraham Lincoln, that neither you nor I ever heard of four years ago, has chosen to exercise”¦”
As I’ve written before, this isn’t the sort of thing one hears about in grade school or even high school history classes. Ordinarily one has to be in college level courses to be exposed to these rather startling facts of history as it was actually lived. But most people stop taking history courses before reaching that point, unfortunately, and therefore have little of substance to refer to when attempting to compare our present situation to the past.
Some believe the teaching of the history of the United States should involved focusing on the bad—the errors and misdeeds—over the good, and that teaching the latter is somehow jingoistic. Some believe that anything offending the tender sensibilities of some child or group of children or parents should be excluded, as well, and that history should be a PC endeavor to cater to all interest and ethnic groups.
I would like instead to see the teaching of a realistic and representative balance between the good and the bad in our history; and an awareness of the fact that although this nation is indeed flawed, that is only a reflection of the flawed human condition rather than some special and unique failing of our own. On balance, the US has a more heroic and inspiring vision than most, and has lived up to it far better and far more often than one might have expected, given the nature of humanity. And this is something to celebrate.
Mark Steyn has written that Prime Minister Howard of Australia has said the teaching of history in that country should be taught as a “heroic national narrative.” That’s a novel thought, is it not? But I think our history could honestly be described that way. Remember, real-life heroes are not Supermen; they make errors and have weaknesses, and they struggle to overcome them. Our own Civil War was an example of one of these struggles to correct a major flaw in the execution of the concept that all are created equal, and to more perfectly fulfill the original vision in the Declaration of Independence. There will be other such corrections, no doubt, in our future—hopefully, neither as wrenching not as bloody.
But we must be careful not to overcorrect or overreact; the Fourth of July is not a day of national breast-beating. It’s as good a day as any, and better than some, to celebrate the remarkable and laudable vision under which this nation was founded, and to be deeply grateful for those who have preserved and expanded that vision. The fact that its execution will always be imperfect is no reason to consider ourselves the villains of the piece. There are enough true villains out there for comparison, if anyone cares to look.
Happy Birthday, America! And Happy Impeachment Day to you, Neo, & all your readers!
(Oh, did I slip? I meant “Independence Day”!)
John Adams, “…by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” I don’t understand what this means other than he’s using this as an opportunity to, I think, demonstrate a natural human transcendental feeling that he wanted to share. And in the same diestic spirit “God bless America” (there’s no other way to say it) every one and have a great 4th of July!!
Vigilante — we don’t celebrate Clinton’s Day of Shame on any one day, rather we do so whenever we fucking very well please.
“The fact that its execution will always be imperfect is no reason to consider ourselves the villains of the piece.”
so what are the reasons?
hmmmm
genocide of the inhabitants the europeans who established the place found there.
a system of slavery of black people you still oppress
arrogant assumption that america knows best about everything
oh yes. and a sadly mis-manage war in Iraq
have a great day
No reason at all. It is just we’ve bred and raised a strain of individuals such as the risibly named “Vigilante” who believe in self-Bobbetization at every opportunity. It’s a new perversion — same as the old perversion.
gerard what does the above mean?
It means elvis would chop of his weenie because as a man, he knows by the example of history that he was born a rapist, and wants to show women he’s not like that, anymore.
lee i am sooooo impressed by the depth of your argument
As am I by the depth of your historical perspective….
NOT!
so no genocide and no slaves?
Oh, that.
Yeah, there were slaves, but who, exactly, did we commit “genocide” against?
Keep in mind you’re talking to a Native American who is still alive and doing very well in the land of his “oppressors”.
Neo, you will be glad to know that we celebrated in style even over here–we even managed to find some sparklers to light and made apple pie from scratch! Most expats are rabidly anti-American, so it was nice to get a break and celebrate American things for once. 🙂
Do they still call them “hot dachshunds” over there?
The level of immaturity here continues to surprise, doesn’t it? History, such as it is to them, begins on their last moment of a ‘serious’ thought. I continue to be amazed that such trite nonsense is allowed to stand in comments.
Again, thought provoking post Neo…..I am not alone in enjoying your blog.
Celebrate ‘American’ in Deutschland? Lived there for 7 years…..had the natives breaking down our door for ‘American holidays’……expats are now ‘anti? Sheesh…..that is real news for me, and my German friends. Not to mention all the dreaded military thereabouts.
It’d be kind of nice if the useless idiots could take one day off a year, but it’s not to be.
Happy Birthday United States of America!
“Elvis” —
There’s two of them on your keyboard, lower left and lower right. You hold them down with your pinkie while you type a letter. Try it some time. It makes your text look like real English.
I think most nations are proud of themselves even when there is little reason. Odd that the nation with the most to be proud of should have to apologise for that same sentiment.
As to Elvis, 90-95% of the Native Americans died from European diseases. Half of the rest died at the hands of each other. That remaining small percentage of deaths does indeed represent some of the worst actions by the European settlers. During that period, they behaved as badly as everyone else in the world has done for millennia. To consider it equivalent to Mongol invasions or Nazi exterminations would be contemptible if it were not merely silly. It would be interesting to know what nation’s history you are comparing ours to unfavorably.
I do love the part about the arrogance of believing we know best. No, that would be the Europeans. Umm… that would be everyone except us. We may be the 800-lb gorilla, but we are the only ones on the bus asking permission to sit or pass by. Okay, that’s not quite fair – the rest of the Anglosphere, plus a few Scandinavians, is also solicitous of others. We have been a powerful nation, so our actions have great consequences for good or ill. Mostly good.
Maybe we need the Draca back in Africa to show the world how things can really get bad. Because based upon Soviet defectors, you can’t convince fanatics of anything that they don’t already believe, after all. Only when the boot crashes down on them, will they believe that they were wrong to attack and undermine America.
I do love the part about the arrogance of believing we know best. No, that would be the Europeans. Umm… that would be everyone except us. We may be the 800-lb gorilla, but we are the only ones on the bus asking permission to sit or pass by. Okay, that’s not quite fair – the rest of the Anglosphere, plus a few Scandinavians, is also solicitous of others.
Yeah? We were “solicitous of others” when we toppled democracies and installed dictators in so many countries (Guatemala, Indonesia, Congo, Chile…)
And, as we all know, Europe never committed genocide—except for that little affair with the Jews back in the 1940’s, and, of course, the Gulags, and all the Communist killings—but that, of course, is ancient history, we must never, ever discuss that. And, of course, America invented the slave trade—no, wait a minute, didn’t Islam have a lot to do with the African slave trade? Well, yes it did, but it’s Islamophobic to say so. And aren’t American blacks actually better off than most Africans? Well, yes, but it’s racist to say so! Don’t talk about such things! America is always wrong, even when it’s not.
Elvis, you are unworthy to take the name of the King. Ah, Europe! Communism, Nazism, an aging population which is rapidly giving in to a violent and resurgent Islam. Happy 4th of July! Our forbearers came to America to get away from snooty jerks like you! And we’re having a great day to celebrate that.
Assistant Village Idiot
Elvooo (he does not deserve the glorious moniker of “Elvis”) probably deeply admires the wonderful state of North Korea, and it’s fearless wunnerful leader, Lil’ Kim.
He probably admires Castro’s Cuba too. And, deep down, he probably longs for the good old days of Stalin.
Back to the Star Spangled Banner:
Given that the barbarians of the world have become a little more active, driving their attacks back against the homelands of civilization, we should remember that today’s terrorist has the same lineage as the anarchists who assassinated President McKinley and the Archduke Ferdinand.
Perhaps it is time to bring back the forgotten third verse of that anthem:
Living as free people requires that we have heroes. Not that we appoint them, but that they arise among us. And we owe it to them and to ourselves to understand the price they paid and what they bought for us with it.
Howard Zinn: “Put Away the Flags”
Source: The Progressive , July 4, 2007.
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking – cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on – have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours – huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction – what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession.”
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: “It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day.”
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our “Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence.” After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: “We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country.”
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, “to civilize and Christianize” the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: “The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness.”
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government’s lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for “liberty,” for “democracy”?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail last year that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
…..gee,Awwww…..gee, Charl,
Why is it that the people who loathe everything this nation stands for continue to live here. They hate our symbols, our history, even our freedoms; yet they live here, reaping the benefits for themselves those things they claim belong to “others”. That makes you a “hypocrite”, Charl. You pay taxes which allows the country you hate to continue it’s “imperialism” in your name, enabler.
Guess that means you won’t enjoy my favorite verse of the Star Spangled Banner, the fourth:
Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation
Blessed with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust’
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
For a guy who decrys “imperialism” so much, why did you choose a moniker in honor of one of the greatest islamophobes in history, the first “Holy Roman Emperor”?
By the way, Emperor, Mexico started that war. We just finished it.
Well, since terrorists are not in any recognized uniform, they can be called “civilians,” making every terrorist death the death of a civilian. Such a statement is strictly true, but it is intentional deception. Whether deception of the speaker by the speaker, or deception of others by the speaker, it is still an intentional deception and therefore a lie, not unlike the term “refugee camps” for the cities (built by others) in which the self-described Palestinians live. (Look at the TV footage; you can tell those are not camps.)
As to torture … if you mean Abu Ghraib, you don’t know what torture is. That doesn’t even stand up to fraternity hazing.
Contrary to what majority of people believe, it was impossible to transfer smallpox from Old World to the New one by sailing vessel. Incubational period too short for infection being latent for several month, and infected crew would be dead or healthy (and not infectious) by time of arrival. Initial success of Europeans against Aztecs was possible because native population at the time of their arrival was already struck by epidemics of the sort Europe endure in 14 century (Black Death). This is inevitable consequence of population growth, and Europe simply reached the threshold population density two centures earlier than native Americans.
nytimes.comLee wrote: “Why is it that the people who loathe everything this nation stands for continue to live here.
Actually, Howard Zinn, the author of that essay, does not “loathe everything this nation stands for”, as you mistakenly seem to think.
This is what Zinn wrote in a recent letter to the editor of the New York Times:
“I prefer that readers of history, including the young, learn that we cannot depend on established authority to keep us out of war and to create economic justice, but rather that solving these problems depends on us, the citizenry, and on the great social movements we have created.
“My history, therefore, describes the inspiring struggle of those who have fought slavery and racism (Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Fannie Lou Hamer, Bob Moses), of the labor organizers who have led strikes for the rights of working people (Big Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, Cesar Chavez), of the socialists and others who have protested war and militarism (Eugene Debs, Helen Keller, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, Cindy Sheehan). My hero is not Theodore Roosevelt, who loved war and congratulated a general after a massacre of Filipino villagers at the turn of the century, but Mark Twain, who denounced the massacre and satirized imperialism.
“I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that all of us have an equal right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality – and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that.”
“Howard Zinn”
“Auburndale, Mass.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Letters-t-1.html
Those who used to vilify imperializm and colonialism should be more aware about perils of alternatives. The only real alternative for most parts of the globe is tribalism, the natural condition of pre-empire world. Generally it was and is 30 times more deadly: 60% of males had violent death due inter-tribal wars with genocidal intent. Pax Romana lowered this figure tenfold, and British colonialism in Africa lowered this figure to 1%. After decolonization Africa returned to this “natural state” with deadly civil wars in Nigeria, Chad, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Rawanda genocide, Darfur and so on. In terms of human life loss, this is not a progress, but a terrible regress, and only re-colonization of failed states bears hope of return to safety and prosperity for NATIVES they enjoyed in colonial era.
As for slavery, this was everyday reality in Africa and pre-Columbian America centures before Europeans arrived there, and was largely stopped only after Britts outlawed it.
Actually, I was referring to you and your ilk, Charl.
Try speaking for yourself. You’ve done it before, America hater.
You still haven’t answered the question why you chose such an “imperial” name for yourself, if you hate all “imperialism” stands for.
I especially love the use of the term “my history”, as opposed to “our history”. Just shape and mold to taste.
Contrary to what majority of people believe, it was impossible to transfer smallpox from Old World to the New one by sailing vessel. Incubational period too short for infection being latent for several month, and infected crew would be dead or healthy (and not infectious) by time of arrival.
Not impossible. Even though there is a recognized period where smallpox is considered most contagious, scabs may remain 3 weeks, and although a weak transmission source, is not an impossible source. And just like not every person has a cold in a household at the same time, persons on a ship might contract the disease at different times. Likewise the virus can survive on clothing, bedding or other objects thus extending its range. Smallpox could also survive in a dead body for a period of time — probably longer than an object.
And it only takes one series of unfortunate events to spread the disease after months on a ship.
Howard Zinn says he supports HIS America, but “HIS America” is actually a collectivized abomination that exists only in the fevered ideological imaginations of him and his ilk (e.g., Charlie). Little wonder that, ignoring his own cherry-picking of a few acceptable figures and events, Zinn would have us “renounce nationalism and all its symbols”. Such people would have opposed the very foundation of the country as being focused on freedom at the expense of equality, hated the country’s continental expansion as genocide, rejected its soaring economic achievements as imperialism, and loathed its elevation and celebration of the individual. It’s true, of course, that America, like any other country or group that has ever existed, has blots on its history of which it should rightly be ashamed. But for the left, such blots just ARE America. And if you ask why the left would so consistently and persistently distort the history of this country, you don’t have to look very far — it’s because the real America, as opposed to Howard Zinn’s, represents a perpetual rebuke to all that the left stands for. That’s what the left hates with all the passion of its withered soul.
Actually, a more likely scenario for smallpox transmission across the ocean occurred to me. That is, two ships crossing paths, and making the necessary contact. An old world ship meeting up with another old world ship headed in cross paths to different destinations. That could really leap frog the initial outbreak giving it quite a head start.
Actually, I was referring to you and your ilk, Charl.
Try speaking for yourself. You’ve done it before, America hater.
“America hater”? You don’t understand, do you?
Read again (yes, this is Zinn, but I share his sentiments totally):
“I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that all of us have an equal right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality – and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that.”
Charlie Magnet:
You’re right: America has been taken over by people with no respect for rights or liberties. They did it in November 2006.
dustoffmom:
It’s not usually the Germans complaining, and they enjoyed our little celebration very much. My parents had similar experiences when they were stationed in Italy twenty years ago, with the Italians knocking down their doors for American holidays and American food. I’m sure your German friends would be surprised–strangely anti-American sentiment is not as universal among Europeans as the press would like us to believe, which I’m sure you know.
I suppose I should specify that most Americans in academia are rabidly anti-American, whether they happen to live in America or overseas. There aren’t really any military personnel stationed in my area. I was just happy to get a break to the liberal drivel I have to listen to from the expats here that I know. I’m sorry the comment seemed to offend you. Cheers, and enjoy the rest of your week!
Charlegmagne:
What part of the human race should we swear allegiance to? The terrorists? Hugo Chavez? Greenlanders? the corrupt Mexican government? Red China? The nebulous, and every-varying “poor” (whoever they are.)
The problem with people like you and Zinn, as others have pointed out, is that you don’t want to live in the real America, with all its flaws and accomplishments; you want to live in the Utopias of your imagination, where all is peace and equality, and there are no more classes, evil robber barons or bad men who have taken over our government.
(By the way, again with the vague accusations of conspiracy and wicked others ruling us—can you actually name some of those “robber barons”, et al you claim have taken over America? And if you mean George Bush, that’s nonsense, because he’s certainly working hard to end American nationalism; I’d think you’d be on his side.)
In short, you and Zinn want Marxist/Communist one-world government, despite the billions of people its killed throughout the course of the 20th Century. And you criticize America for being flawed?
I appreciate that those who criticise America in this one-sided fashion do not think of themselves as hating America, and bristle when the accusation is made. They approve of something they think is pure and good, and think that America might somehow be made to resemble that, and so delude themselves that they love “America” because there are bits and pieces that they like. It is not a complete untruth, but one of the dangerous half-truths of all eras.
It could be a long and complicated discussion, and who knows? – Charlemagne might even be willing to discuss rationally and concede made points. (Zinn has long since demonstrated that he is interested in advocacy rather than arriving at truth). But to start at the simplest level: Zinn considers nationalism to be a great evil, perhaps the great evil because it has been used for evil. In that context, what is it that he thinks that he loves about “America,” or any single country? The idea is self-contradictory. If he hates nationalism, he cannot then love a country. He loves internationalism, or transnationalism, and wants America to go there. That may be morally defensible, but it is not loving America.
More importantly, Zinn fails to note the other side of the ledger, and such people are always deceivers of a deep cast. Nationalism may have created nazi evils, but also rescued us from them. It was a variety of nationalisms that threw down the Iron Curtain. Sometimes it goes bad, as in the former Yugoslavia. All things potentially noble are botentially depraved as well.
Regarding disease and Native Americans: a variation of a hanta virus was responsible for much of the death in North America.
I have come to the conclusion that the Left only cares about the Indians when it wants to beat us over the head with them. “You evil Americans! You don’t deserve to exist, because you killed the Indians!” The fact that it was actually smallpox is beside the point for them. America did it. America is bad. It must stop being so nationalistic, and join the rest of the world—whatever that means. (Join the European Union? The Islamic Ummah? A British labor Union? A Bolivian soccer team?)
The Left certainly doesn’t trouble itself much about those Indians who are still alive, and living in wretched conditions on reservations. But, then, the Left is all about power and guilt and undermining America and the West, not about helping living, breathing human beings.
Here’s a pattern: a lefty makes some assertion denouncing the flag and all other symbols of America, to the expected huzzahs of fellow ideologues; then, when anyone suggests they might be hostile to the very country that provides and protects their freedom, they execute a quick 180 and re-cycle some tired pap about it being a “beautiful country” taken over by thugs and robber-barons (which, of course, in their view it’s been from its inception, as Zinn illustrates).
Now, you might take this as just another example of lefty “cognitive dissonance”, but I doubt very much that Zinn and his fellow lefty illuminati are actually deceiving themselves here — I think they know very well their protestations that they don’t actually hate America are empty rhetorical gestures, intended only to throw off the rubes and the sheep. The rubes and the sheep, on the other hand, are another story. For an example of that, you don’t have to go any further than our own Charl here, who isn’t even able to compose his own thoughts but must copy and paste long, turgid tracts from his political guide and guru of the moment.
So, Charles, I am curious: what part of the human race do you want us to swear allegiance to? I mean, the human race is pretty big, and there are a lot of subsets of it: drug smugglers, human trafficers, lcorrupt and decadent oil shieks, corrupt and decadent mullahs, ittle old ladies puttering around in their gardens.
Bored Euro-trash looking for kicks? Hamas? The corrupt UN, and with it’s oil-for-fools program, and tendency towards rape in the areas it’s supposed to protect? To be blunt, I’d rather have corrupt capitalists, or even a war-lord, instead of it! And what if part of the human race demands we submit to Shari’a law? What are we supposed to do then? Suppose we give up our natinal sovreignity, but other nations don’t, and conquer us for the greater glory of Basketkazia, or mullistan? Oh dear, then America won’t even be an ideal in your, and Howard Zinn’s mind then, will it? It’ll just be a part of greater Basketkazia—which, to be honest, is what I sometimes think guys like you and Zinn really want for us, despite all your talk about America’s ideals, and essential decency. You talk about the 3,000 murdered on 9/11 as if their deaths really don’t count, and you seemt to think that America just bombed imperial Japan to be mean. Do you really think the world, especially Asia, would have been better off under the Japanese warlords, and the Kempe Tai, the Japanese secret police? Do you really think America should just sit back and let its citizens be murdered by terrorists because fighting back is, so, well, not NICE?
Quite frankly, I prefer my country, my nation and my nation’s history, to some nebulous allegiance to “The Human race,”, and glorious egalitarian utiopias that never seem to pan out. And, yes, I prefer being an American to some faceless, nationless member of the human race, a mere subject of some mad King UBU or a gang like Fatah, or Hamas, or a Kempe Tai-like secret police force. Because, give up our nation, and that’s exactly what will happen to us—not Utopia.
Sally, I think you’re right.
They know perfectly well what they’re doing, but they’re trying to throw sand in our eyes, when we call them on it.
I also think they spend so much time talking to each other that they’re honestly shocked when they blurt out their views in public, and encounter those who don’t agree with them. So they’ve gotta back track.
One Empire, One Humanity, ruled by One Man. Good eh?
Well, yes, Ymar, that’s exactly what it would come down to; a world-wide dictatorship, ostensibly run for the good of humanity, but actually run to benefit one man (and his cronies and his family, of course); a man who could not be effectively opposed, because none of those bad old nations would still be around to muster their armies against him, and oppose him. And, unlike in the past, there wouldn’t be any Australia or America for fugitives to run to.
You can’t swear allegiance to mankind in general.
I think it’s time to stop our insistence that God must single out a sneezer to be blessed.
As long as you don’t try to use it to justify a current American policy, it doesn’t really matter how you feel about past a American action, does it?
The past really is the past.
Hey, at least Alpo usually uses his his own words to express his own opinion, unlike Charledupe, there. Although they’re usually contrarian, just for the sake of being contrary. I’m sure most of the time Alpo himself doesn’t believe or advocate what he’s typing.
Since you’re a leftie, maybe you could give us some insight, since Charl is obviously “sensitive” about it. Perrhaps you could tell us why a leftie like Charl, who hates everything “imperialism” stands for, would choose such an “imperial” name for himself.
Haha, lee.
I don’t consider myself a “lefty.”
Maybe Charlemagne is his real name?
In a time of trans-national corporations, terrorist groups, personal financial holdings and even political parties, the word “Imperialism” doesn’t really mean what it used to.
Fortunatly, cui bono? can still be applied by voters to any American policy proposals, foreign or domestic.
Maybe, Alpo, but somehow, I doubt it.
For someone who “isn’t a leftie”, you sure say and advocate the exact same things lefties do. So, how does one “tell the difference” if it’s “all the same”?
In my experience, most people who claim to be “righties” while advocating the virtues of the “socialist left” tend to be “closet nazis”. Please, tell me you’re not a nazi like ‘ol TC.
Aaah,
The old “Hitler was a vegetarian, too” argument, Lee?
I’m against the Iraq war mainly because I see China starting to pass us by as world leader while we screw around there.
We could spend the Iraq war money on far more profitable investments.
I’m also against it because I see it as part of the Imperialism of Idiocy, the idea that we can never foresee problems (defecits, Katrina, Avian Flu, global warming, Iran, etc.) and do something about them in advance.
The future becomes one big rug to sweep all our current problems under.
Let’s check back in 6 months and see if things are better…
Not just a “vegetarian”, Alpo, a socialist.
So, it is your opinion that America should solve every problem in the world EXCEPT international terrorism, huh? The only thing America shouldn’t do is “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”?
And I’ve noticed you dodged the direct question: Are you a nazi, Alpo?
Haha, Lee.
Are you a member of the Klan?
As far as “solviing” international terrorism, even the military now thinks we’re creating more terrorists than we’re killing or capturing in Iraq, now.
An easily foreseeable outcome to our invasion and occupation.
Here, Alphie,
It’s really not that goddamnded difficult. Let me show you how it’s done:
Alphie: “Are you a member of the Klan?”
Lee: “No.”
See, a direct answer to a direct question.
Now that I’ve done you the courtesy of answering your question, I will ask you for the third time: Are you a nazi?
Of course, the last thing Alpo is here to do is be “courteous” or “honest”.
Not sure what your game is, Lee.
Trying to drag this thread into the realm of the absurd?
But, in the interest of cordial chat…nope, I ain’t a Nazi.
Nor am I a member of the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bull Moose Party, the Whigs or even the Guns and Dope party.
See, Alpo, that wasn’t so hard, now, was it?
At least we’re getting “somewhere” with you.
Since you bring it up, do you believe all that “Bildeburger” crap?
I’m against the Iraq war mainly because I see China starting to pass us by as world leader while we screw around there.
You have no idea of what true power is. Nobody can become a power without fighting and winning wars. That includes your idealized Chinese revolution.
China is going to have it’s own set of internal problems to deal with soon, I think they’re going to be too busy with that to mess with the rest of the world for quite a while.
Thanks AmericaninDeutschland……..no, wasn’t offended so much as just believing I was getting yet another dose of how ‘bad’ we all are. I travel 3-4 months every year in Europe, and keep hearing how much ‘they’ hate us all, but I never seem to find that myself….even in France! 🙂 I do agree, generally the ‘meet on the street or shops European’ is decidedly NOT anti-American. The politicians….maybe. The press….decidedly! I have many, many good German friends, they are as bemused as can be about the tales we believe about how much America is hated. Granted, many do actually hate us…..but your average guy or gal on the street couldn’t give less of a rat’s ass about us…..they are on their way home to dinner and the TV! 🙂 And wonder why we CARE so much about what other’s think of us!
…..gee,Lee Says:
“July 5th, 2007 at 1:51 am
…..gee,Awwww…..gee, Charl,
Why is it that the people who loathe everything this nation stands for continue to live here. They hate our symbols, our history, even our freedoms”
I don’t know that they out and out hate them. But like Charlemagne (who I imagine is German?) they’re rivals or wana be rivals.
They attack the symbols, history, et cetera because it is not their symbols, the history they want taught, et cetera. Zinn’s leftist closed circle has its own ‘culture’ values and vision and he just wants that to be mainstream rather than what is… same with Char…
They can zing ‘nationalism’ and other isms all day, but they have their own… it’s what motivates them to write and carry on…
Howard Zinn: “…its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.”
Hyman Rosen: “I think it’s time to stop our insistence that God must single out a sneezer to be blessed.”
Still around Hyman? Seems to me, you and Zinn are the only ones around here who are saying that. Last time I checked, “God bless America” doesn’t exclude him from blessing anyone else. It’s the classic ‘see what you want’ or ‘twist to fit’ you get from the left all the time. It’s truly tiring.
dustoffmom:
It’s true! The Americans I’ve met all over Europe seem to hate America and Americans a lot more than the Europeans do. Naturally that’s not a blanket statement covering all Americans who are overseas or all Europeans, but it does seem to be the general pattern! 🙂
Pingback:japanese street fashion