America's Blinders

[I think not]

Yep, Howard Zinn is a true American, reveals only truths, the truths most Americans don't want to hear.

 

[darkbeaver]

ITN SPAT OUT
"Well other than your nonsensical blather you haven't refuted anything, so here we are."

Your characterization of the great work of an enlightened mind such as Cortez speaks to your underrefined soft comprehension and total lack of higher order brain function,
what you percieve as" nonsensical blather" is in fact accute observation and spot on analysis, that this imparted wisdom is beyond your grasp speaks to your lack of class, and slopeing forhead.

 

[cortez]

America’s Blinders
By Howard Zinn
April 2006 Issue

POINT BY POINT-- TRUE FALSE OR UNKNOWN

1) Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many people were so easily fooled?---TRUE


2)The question is important because it might help us understand why Americans—members of the media as well as the ordinary citizen—rushed to declare their support as the President was sending troops halfway around the world to Iraq.
TRUE

3) A small example of the innocence (or obsequiousness, to be more exact) of the press is the way it reacted to Colin Powell’s presentation in February 2003 to the Security Council, a month before the invasion, a speech which may have set a record for the number of falsehoods told in one talk. In it, Powell confidently rattled off his “evidence”: satellite photographs, audio records, reports from informants, with precise statistics on how many gallons of this and that existed for chemical warfare. The New York Times was breathless with admiration. The Washington Post editorial was titled “Irrefutable” and declared that after Powell’s talk “it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”
TRUE

4) It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press and of the citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death to tens of thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we can guard ourselves better against being deceived.-- TRUE



5) One is in the dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical perspective. The other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.--- TRUE


6) If we don’t know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. I am not speaking of the history we learned in school, a history subservient to our political leaders, from the much-admired Founding Fathers to the Presidents of recent years. I mean a history which is honest about the past. If we don’t know that history, then any President can stand up to the battery of microphones, declare that we must go to war, and we will have no basis for challenging him. He will say that the nation is in danger, that democracy and liberty are at stake, and that we must therefore send ships and planes to destroy our new enemy, and we will have no reason to disbelieve him.-- TRUE



7) But if we know some history, if we know how many times Presidents have made similar declarations to the country, and how they turned out to be lies, we will not be fooled. Although some of us may pride ourselves that we were never fooled, we still might accept as our civic duty the responsibility to buttress our fellow citizens against the mendacity of our high officials.
--TRUE

8) We would remind whoever we can that President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn’t that Mexico “shed American blood upon the American soil,” but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.--TRUE

9) We would point out that President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that we really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations.

UNKNOWN-- ITN IS GIVEN CREDIT FOR DISCOVERING THAT THE UNITED FRUIT COMPANY DIDNT EXIST YET-- ILL ACCEPT HIS WORD
HOWEVER -THE GIST OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE US DID COVET CUBA AND OTHER SPANISH POSSESIONS FOR ECONIMIC EXPLOITATION IS PROBABLY TRUE

10) He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to “civilize” the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.---ABSOLUTELY TRUE-- AS YES THE WAR WITH THE PHILLIPEINES- IT SEEMS LIKE THE PHILLIPINOS DIDNT GET IT UNCLE SAM WASNT JUST GOING TO GET RID OF THE SPANISH FOR THEM ---THEY HAD A NEW MASTER-- BIG TIME MASSACRE
ONE OF THE US FAVORITE SLOGANS DURING THIS WAR
WAS-- WE SHALL KILL THEM IN THE ENGLISH WAY--- MEANING VISCIOUSLY


11)President Woodrow Wilson—so often characterized in our history books as an “idealist”—lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to “make the world safe for democracy,” when it was really a war to make the world safe for the Western imperial powers.--TRUE WW1 TOTALL BS WAR

12)Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was “a military target.” TRUE
AND NAGASKI TOO-- THE SECOND BOMB WAS DROPPED SO SOON AFTER THE FIRST--- TO ENSURE THEY COULD TEST IT AS WELL BEFORE THE JAPANEESE HAD A CHANCE TO SURRENDER
--ILL FIND YOU THE REFERANCE ITN-- NO LOOK IT UP YERSELF

13)Everyone lied about Vietnam—Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.-TRUE

14)Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.-TRUE

15) The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country.-TRUE

16)And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991—hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq’s taking of
Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.---TRUE

Given the overwhelming record of lies told to justify wars, how could anyone listening to the younger Bush believe him as he laid out the reasons for invading Iraq? Would we not instinctively rebel against the sacrifice of lives for oil?

17) A careful reading of history might give us another safeguard against being deceived. It would make clear that there has always been, and is today, a profound conflict of interest between the government and the people of the United States. This thought startles most people, because it goes against everything we have been taught.--TRUE

18) We have been led to believe that, from the beginning, as our Founding Fathers put it in the Preamble to the Constitution, it was “we the people” who established the new government after the Revolution. When the eminent historian Charles Beard suggested, a hundred years ago, that the Constitution represented not the working people, not the slaves, but the slaveholders, the merchants, the bondholders, he became the object of an indignant editorial in The New York Times.--TRUE
I WONDER IF THEY CALLED HIM A COMMUNIST-

19) Our culture demands, in its very language, that we accept a commonality of interest binding all of us to one another. We mustn’t talk about classes. Only Marxists do that, although James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” said, thirty years before Marx was born that there was an inevitable conflict in society between those who had property and those who did not.
TRUE

20) Our present leaders are not so candid. They bombard us with phrases like “national interest,” “national security,” and “national defense” as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.--TRUE

21) Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that—not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor—is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.--TRUE

22) If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up there—the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions pretending to be “checks and balances”—do not have our interests at heart, we are on a course towards the truth. Not to know that is to make us helpless before determined liars.--TRUE

23) The deeply ingrained belief—no, not from birth but from the educational system and from our culture in general—that the United States is an especially virtuous nation makes us especially vulnerable to government deception. It starts early, in the first grade, when we are compelled to “pledge allegiance” (before we even know what that means), forced to proclaim that we are a nation with “liberty and justice for all.”--TRUE--BLINDERS BEGINNING

24) And then come the countless ceremonies, whether at the ballpark or elsewhere, where we are expected to stand and bow our heads during the singing of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” announcing that we are “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” There is also the unofficial national anthem “God Bless America,” and you are looked on with suspicion if you ask why we would expect God to single out this one nation—just 5 percent of the world’s population—for his or her blessing.--TRUE- BUT NOT UNIQUELY AMERICAN


25) If your starting point for evaluating the world around you is the firm belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then you are not likely to question the President when he says we are sending our troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our values—democracy, liberty, and let’s not forget free enterprise—to some God-forsaken (literally) place in the world.
It becomes necessary then, if we are going to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens against policies that will be disastrous not only for other people but for Americans too, that we face some facts that disturb the idea of a uniquely virtuous nation.
TRUE

26)These facts are embarrassing, but must be faced if we are to be honest. We must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which millions of Indians were driven off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations.
TRUE

27) And our long history, still not behind us, of slavery, segregation, and racism.
TRUE

28)We must face our record of imperial conquest, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, our shameful wars against small countries a tenth our size: Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq.
TRUE


29) And the lingering memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a history of which we can be proud.
TRUE

30) Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted that belief in the minds of many people, that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. At the end of World War II, Henry Luce, with an arrogance appropriate to the owner of Time, Life, and Fortune, pronounced this “the American century,” saying that victory in the war gave the United States the right “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
TRUE

31) Both the Republican and Democratic parties have embraced this notion. George Bush, in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, said that spreading liberty around the world was “the calling of our time.” Years before that, in 1993, President Bill Clinton, speaking at a West Point commencement, declared: “The values you learned here . . . will be able to spread throughout this country and throughout the world and give other people the opportunity to live as you have lived, to fulfill your God-given capacities.”
TRUE-

32) What is the idea of our moral superiority based on? Surely not on our behavior toward people in other parts of the world. Is it based on how well people in the United States live? The World Health Organization in 2000 ranked countries in terms of overall health performance, and the United States was thirty-seventh on the list, though it spends more per capita for health care than any other nation.
37TH- IS THAT TRUE-- MAYBE --ANYWAY WETHER ITS 30TH OR 37TH IS A MOOT POINT

33) One of five children in this, the richest country in the world, is born in poverty.
TRUE- ACCORDING TO THE US OWN DEFINITION OF POVERTY

34)There are more than forty countries that have better records on infant mortality.
TRUE

35) Cuba does better.
TRUE- COMMIE BASTARDS

36)And there is a sure sign of sickness in society when we lead the world in the number of people in prison—more than two million.
TRUE- ITS A SIGN OF SOMETHING WRONG

37) A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world.
TRUE

38) It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars and killers who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join the rest of the human race in the common cause of peace and justice.
TRUE

Howard Zinn is the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of “Voices of a People’s History of the United States.”

 

[cortez]

i have no doubt when a similar discussion occurs in the near future though-

well have to start a square one again

 

[I think not]

Well maybe Cortez you shouldn't take things at face value, I only picked one item out of his article that caught my eye right away, he has other "intentional" mistakes. I already told you The United Fruit Company didn't even exist until a year after the Spanish-American War, you don't even bother doing your own research on the topic, you just accept it, why you accept it, I'll leave up to you.

 

[cortez]

Secondly, The United Fruit Company didn't even exist as a corporation until 1899 and didn't even get involved in Central America until 1901 and then only in Guatemala. It wasn't until 1912? that they got involved in Cuba.

Zinn, another commie.[/quote]

Hmmm..You really should do your research more carefully, ITN, so that you dont make incorrect statements. The United Fruit Company was formed in 1899, I agree with this stated fact. HOWEVER, your statement that they werent involved in Central America until 1901 and then only in Guatemala is absolutely wrong.

The United Fruit Company was formed in 1899 by the merger of the US railroad baron, Minor Keith, and the Boston Fruit Company. Minor Keith had begun by building railways in Costa Rica, but began planting bananas alongside the rails. By the time of the merger, his banana company was more important and more lucrative than the railroad, and indeed, he dominated the banana trade of Columbia and CENTRAL AMERICA.
The Boston Fruit Company controlled trade in Jamaica and the West Indies, their merger thus creating a powerful force in trade and politics.


The United Fruit Company therefore, at its inception in 1899, was obviously VERY involved in Central America.

I assume, by your own insistence that we discredit Zinns entire discussion as a result of him apparently making an error in one part, that we should now discredit YOUR entire discussion ,based on this error of yours.

Well........ Be rational and call me a commie.....or sit down and give a properly researched discussion on the article, instead of trying to evade the content by finding nit picking details.....

The point of the article AGAIN, is to not take the reasons that presidents give us for going to war at FACE VALUE... Do you have any discussion to contribute and or contradict THIS assertion.....

 

[Jay]

"I assume, by your own insistence that we discredit Zinns entire discussion as a result of him apparently making an error in one part, "

ITN is saying that he intentionally left out facts....not that he made a mistake.

 

[I think not]

Well........ Be rational and call me a commie.....or sit down and give a properly researched discussion on the article, instead of trying to evade the content by finding nit picking details.....

History is nit picking Cortez, I know you hate the fact that it is, but it is, one slip and the entire context changes, that's what so good about being a revisionist. Zinn claimed the Spanish-American War began because the United Fruit Company (among others) needed to get into Cuba. First, like I said, it didn't even exist till 1899. Second, I never realized it was a merger, but the previous companies were already in Cuba, so what would have been the purpose of the invasion if you already have something? Again, he's playing with words.

Just because Zinn is a historian doesn't place him on a pedestal, mistakes and ommissions are made, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, but the fact that his philosophies are Marxist and Socialist, lead me to believe his article has an ulterior motive. And that's my opinion.

 

[I think not]

And on another note, his entire article is riddled with "opinions", for example:

And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991—hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq’s taking of Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the UN sanction the Gulf War? And what oil did the US get out of the Middle East that it didn't have before 1991?

 

[I think not]

Want another one?

Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was “a military target.”

Bamba Nobuya describes his fellow countrymen as follows:

“According to the Marxist interpretation of imperialistic war, the “people” should have been innocent, but they were not. The Japanese populace did not [just] passively support the nation’s military expansion, nor did they back the government simply because they feared the police. On the contrary, most people competed to get front seats on the fascist bandwagon, as the then common saying “Basu ni noriokureruna” (Don’t miss the bus) vividly suggests. It was rather the people that agitated for tough diplomacy” – End quote

I have a question here, is it not true that the people and factories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the rest of Japan, armed Tojo's butchers and sent them forth on their campaigns of pillage, rape and murder? I'll answer that, YES! However the passage of time has slowly but surely loosened lips of Japanese historians and the revisionists have to constantly come up with new refreshing ideas.

 

[cortez]

History is nit picking Cortez, I know you hate the fact that it is, but it is, one slip and the entire context changes, that's what so good about being a revisionist......

Second, I never realized it was a merger......

Just because Zinn is a historian doesn't place him on a pedestal, mistakes and ommissions are made, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, but the fact that his philosophies are Marxist and Socialist, lead me to believe his article has an ulterior motive. And that's my opinion.[/quote]


ITN,

You NEVER REALIZED IT WAS A MERGER........

This is an important nit picking fact that changes the context of the story completely..... How can you be conducting a debate and argument against the content of this article when you so obviously havent researched the material...

You are led to believe that his articles have an ulterior motive......BECAUSE his philosophies are Marxist and Socialist.....

What motives would that be....

 

[I think not]

ITN,

You NEVER REALIZED IT WAS A MERGER........

This is an important nit picking fact that changes the context of the story completely..... How can you be conducting a debate and argument against the content of this article when you so obviously havent researched the material...

You are led to believe that his articles have an ulterior motive......BECAUSE his philosophies are Marxist and Socialist.....

What motives would that be....

No, I never realized it was a merger, I admit that, I am not up to snuff on corporate history, it has never been an interest of mine. However, he stated United Fruit was the reason for the Spanish-American War, when United Fruit, was already in Cuba, apparently, just under a different name. And you are right, it is an important nit picking fact, that makes him look even more ridiculous. Invade a country to establish what if you are already there?

 

[cortez]

ITN:::erhaps it is because you are NOT up to snuff on corporate history that you are unable to properly understand the gist of Zinns discussion.

Instead of facing the main tenets of Zinns argument, you have chosen to try and find some minor detail to disparage his article. Now that I have had to explain to you that you were wrong about the United Fruit Company not having any involvement with Central America in 1899, you have tried to evade the argument again by your ridiculous statement..quote Invade a country to establish what if you are already there Unquote.

To explain this to you, in simple terms, I leave you with the following: An excerpt from the speech by Grover Cleveland : American Interests in the Cuban Revolution
(U.S. Department of State; Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, 1896) Please note the date....

It is to the same end, in persuance of general orders, Spanish garrisons are now being withdrawn from plantations and the rural population required to concentrate itself in towns. The sure result would seem to be that the industrial value of the island is fast diminishing.....

The spectacle of the utter ruin of an adjoining country, by nature one of the most fertile and charming on the globe, would engage the serious attention of the government and people of the United States in any circumstance. In point of fact, they have concern with it which is by no means of a wholly sentimental or philanthropic character. It lies so near us as to be hardly separated from our territory. Our actual pecuniary interest in it is second only to that of the people and government of Spain. It is reasonably estimated that at least $30 million to $50 million of American capital are involved in plantations and in railroad, mining and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to almost $64 million rose in 1893 to about $103 million, and in 1894, the year before the present insurrection amounted to nearly $96 million.


Hmm.....sounds to me like old Grover was in actual fact being HONEST about the reasons for attacking Cuba...

Oh, and by the way, at the end of the war, in January 1899, the Cuban farmers were not allowed loans to buy land. Six weeks later, in February, 1899, the United Fruit Company came in and bought up all the land dirtcheap...Seems like they were ready for that rape and pillage of Cuba.

Hows that for revisionism...

 

[Alberta'sfinest]

Pre-empting WWIII. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to have attacked Germany when the nazis reoccupied the rhineland. If this would have happened, WWII wouldn't have, as Hitler would have lost public opinion and no war could have been undertaken.
We've successfully pre-empted many conflicts since, but the catch 22 of pre-empting a war is that we never know if anything would have come from the situation.

Here's a scenario for you. You live in a country with an army of 100,000. Next to you is a country with no army. You have everything, and they have nothing so you don't care too much about them. Then they build a 10,000 man army. This catches your attention, but you're not worried. Then the next year they add another 10,000 men, and another 10,000 with each consecutive year. Would you wait until they built a 100,000 man army, capable of severly damaging your country, or even taking it over? Or, would you go in the next year when they added the next 10,000 and cripple them, and any army added in later, leaving message that if they try and build up, they'll be destroyed every time.

The US has been doing exactly that. The problem is now that they aren't big enough to do this to everyone anymore, so now the plan is to limit the resources necessary to conduct war to try and cripple other nation's abilities. The US is in the middle east to make sure that they control the oil, so nobody else can use it against them.

 

[darkbeaver]

So what do you think about that Alberta is it a good idea or what, which side are you on will you use your gifts for the good of mankind or will you seek false power and a place above your fellow man, the choice is yours. If you advocate for the dark side (the corporatocrasy) then you're no friend of your own species. Will you sell that great big brain of yours or will you give it away freely, which way is the path to true power, cooperation or competition.

 

[Lotuslander]

Alberta's Finest wrote:

Pre-empting WWIII. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to have attacked Germany when the nazis reoccupied the rhineland. If this would have happened, WWII wouldn't have, as Hitler would have lost public opinion and no war could have been undertaken.

The problem was the only countries who could have successfully challenged Germany were Brtian and France. Britian had no landforces near the area at the time and we all no that every since Napolean I the French have a hard time fighting Germans. In any event public opinion in both these countries would have been dead set against fighting a war with Germany in order to deny land to Germany which most Europeans believed was rightfully hers. This is compounded by European Public OPinion which was dead set against fighting a major war. There was simply no apetite for it. In Canada it is hard for us to imagine just how devastating the war had been particularly for the French, demographically they still haven't recovered, I read once that a between a fifth and a quarter of all young men in France had been killed-the lost generation-Not too mention all the money, destroyed farms and infastructure, train networks etc... The re-militarisation of the Saar area was viewed as a minor violation but not something to get overly concerned about, Hitler would "blow himself out" was the common theory, which was held by almost everyone except Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: America's Blinders

Pre-empting WWIII. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to have attacked Germany when the nazis reoccupied the rhineland. If this would have happened, WWII wouldn't have, as Hitler would have lost public opinion and no war could have been undertaken.
We've successfully pre-empted many conflicts since, but the catch 22 of pre-empting a war is that we never know if anything would have come from the situation.

Here's a scenario for you. You live in a country with an army of 100,000. Next to you is a country with no army. You have everything, and they have nothing so you don't care too much about them. Then they build a 10,000 man army. This catches your attention, but you're not worried. Then the next year they add another 10,000 men, and another 10,000 with each consecutive year. Would you wait until they built a 100,000 man army, capable of severly damaging your country, or even taking it over? Or, would you go in the next year when they added the next 10,000 and cripple them, and any army added in later, leaving message that if they try and build up, they'll be destroyed every time.

The US has been doing exactly that. The problem is now that they aren't big enough to do this to everyone anymore, so now the plan is to limit the resources necessary to conduct war to try and cripple other nation's abilities. The US is in the middle east to make sure that they control the oil, so nobody else can use it against them.

unfortunately your argument is too easy to follow
the policy pre-emptive strike is a self fufilling policy
it was hitler who employed the policy of pre-emptive strike
why is it you always think that the OTHER nation is hitler in these ww2 analogies---

 

[I think not]

Hitler didn't employ the policy of pre-emptive strike, he did not consider the countries he invaded as a threat to Germany, he employed a policy of Napolean style expanionism.

 

[Jay]

Who gives a shit about Hitler....he's was just another stupid mad socialist anyways.

How many of these freaks are we going to have to kill this century? Any bets?

 

[cortez]

Hitler didn't employ the policy of pre-emptive strike, he did not consider the countries he invaded as a threat to Germany, he employed a policy of Napolean style expanionism.

yeah sort of
didnt he-at least initally phrase his expansionist retoric in defensive terms---- ie czechcoslovacia poised like a dagger pointed towards germany