Quite Disconcerting

[E.A Rumfield]

I've been learning a little history on World War 1 America and I must say it is quite sad. In the 1900's the ideas of communism were growing. People all over the world were fed up from working for too long for pay that couldn't support them. In Russia the Bolsheviks over threw the czar and in America the movement was growing. Then World War 1 hit and everyone forgot about it or most people did. Anyone opposed to the war or claiming pacifism risked being jailed beaten or lynched. Swept up in patriotic propaganda America became very much a difficult place to live freely in. It can be argued, somewhat successfully that, America entered WW1 to teach the workers a lesson about who was really boss and take people somewhat indifferent to the matter minds elsewhere. In war time things become excusable. Only the profiteers enjoyed the war. Big business, munition makers. They caught the Kaiser and made the World safe for The Big Four. Liberty Bonds and everyone buying refrigerators. After the war ended America had the first Red Scare. The patriots won the war and the workers were crushed.

Read a little about these people and tell me how much you think our government is legitimate. Or any government for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haywood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Little_%28unionist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Everest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill

No the history of America doesn't get any better. It doesn't matter what you thought of these people or their values the fact is our freedom was never more than an illusion.

What about McCarthy and the Red Scare?

What about the Kent State shootings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

The Chicago Seven or the Democratic Convention in 68?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

Ronald and the Contras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

How bout this guy? Gary Webb was a Pulitzer Prize Winning journalist who exposed the CIA's drug smuggling efforts in Los Angeles at the height of the crack epidemic. Webb was found in his home with two gunshot wounds to the head. The police called it suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

What about Clinton and Mena Arkansas?

What about MKULTRA and the CIA's experiments with LSD as a possible truth sermon or mind control device?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_W._McCoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dormouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKOFTEN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKCHICKWIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Committee_report

The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that it is America duty to maintain global supremacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

Federal wiretapping and the Patriot Act. Google and Facebook.

Not that this kind of thing didn't happen all over the world but this is America. We are the self-appointed protectors of Democracy and Freedom. We decide who is wrong and we handle the wars. And we are also possibly the filthiest thieves in the world.

[Emil Miller]

I've been learning a little history on World War 1 America and I must say it is quite sad. In the 1900's the ideas of communism were growing. People all over the world were fed up from working for too long for pay that couldn't support them. In Russia the Bolsheviks over threw the czar and in America the movement was growing. Then World War 1 hit and everyone forgot about it or most people did. Anyone opposed to the war or claiming pacifism risked being jailed beaten or lynched. Swept up in patriotic propaganda America became very much a difficult place to live freely in. It can be argued, somewhat successfully that, America entered WW1 to teach the workers a lesson about who was really boss and take people somewhat indifferent to the matter minds elsewhere. In war time things become excusable. Only the profiteers enjoyed the war. Big business, munition makers. They caught the Kaiser and made the World safe for The Big Four. Liberty Bonds and everyone buying refrigerators. After the war ended America had the first Red Scare. The patriots won the war and the workers were crushed.

Read a little about these people and tell me how much you think our government is legitimate. Or any government for that matter.

[Not that this kind of thing didn't happen all over the world but this is America. We are the self-appointed protectors of Democracy and Freedom. We decide who is wrong and we handle the wars. And we are also possibly the filthiest thieves in the world.

It's very easy to be selective and draw imperfect conclusions from entries such as you have given. Yes, you are correct that these kind of things happen everywhere because, despite freedom of the press and other so called checks and balances, governments exist on duplicity and subterfuge: it's called politics.
However, it doesn't follow that every action taken by a government is automatically of the same order, some awful legislation that actually damages the national interest is passed with the best of intentions.

[Shevek]

It can be argued, somewhat successfully that, America entered WW1 to teach the workers a lesson about who was really boss and take people somewhat indifferent to the matter minds elsewhere.

I'd like to see that substantiated, because if anything the war opened up a host of new opportunities for working-class and radical movements. This was incidental, of course, but during this time the public actually started paying attention to the demands of radicals even if most people looked upon them with confused contempt.

If they were alive, I'm sure the thousands of people who participated in the strikes and sympathy strikes during the interwar years would be interested in knowing that the war had crushed them.

[Alexander III]

The thing about WWI and WWII for America is that it was a middle and upper-class war, the majority of the volunteers were from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds who joined because they wanted to join. If you were to read Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise you would see that he looses half of his princeton class in the war. The first world war was tragic for europe because not only did the nations loose large segments of their male youth, but they lost the best of their youth. The boys from the best families all became lieutenants, and lieutenants ended up having the highest fatality rates out of all ranks in the war, at roughly 68% for the british I believe. Anyway world war I was a war which injured all strata of society. Just go to any Oxbridge or Ivy league college, they are all full of wwI memorials for their students and the quantities of names on those memorials is staggering.

Also you seem to imply that there is a structure and order to government, and a long term centennial plan. There isn't. There is each administration doing whatever it takes to make sure it gets elected again, regardless of weather it is benficial to the nation or not. Of course you do have bright spots of genius; but what you attribute to malice and scheming and plots, is more easily attributed to corruption, individualism, greed, and stupidity.

[Volya]

The thing about WWI and WWII for America is that it was a middle and upper-class war, the majority of the volunteers were from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds who joined because they wanted to join.

Can you show me the numbers that show this?

[Shevek]

The thing about WWI and WWII for America is that it was a middle and upper-class war, the majority of the volunteers were from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds who joined because they wanted to join.

This is false in the case of America. Hence, conscription.

[E.A Rumfield]

I'd like to see that substantiated, because if anything the war opened up a host of new opportunities for working-class and radical movements. This was incidental, of course, but during this time the public actually started paying attention to the demands of radicals even if most people looked upon them with confused contempt.

If they were alive, I'm sure the thousands of people who participated in the strikes and sympathy strikes during the interwar years would be interested in knowing that the war had crushed them.

They started hanging wobbly leaders once the war ended. Claiming they were reds. Before the war they hung hun spies and pacifists. While perhaps like you say inadvertently new possibilities were opened for the working class they still never caught up to the wealthy. With the war came increased occupation, governments trying to seize oil and such.

I heard a quote "After the war the public I'll damn well do what they're told."

[E.A Rumfield]

The thing about WWI and WWII for America is that it was a middle and upper-class war, the majority of the volunteers were from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds who joined because they wanted to join. If you were to read Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise you would see that he looses half of his princeton class in the war. The first world war was tragic for europe because not only did the nations loose large segments of their male youth, but they lost the best of their youth. The boys from the best families all became lieutenants, and lieutenants ended up having the highest fatality rates out of all ranks in the war, at roughly 68% for the british I believe. Anyway world war I was a war which injured all strata of society. Just go to any Oxbridge or Ivy league college, they are all full of wwI memorials for their students and the quantities of names on those memorials is staggering.

Also you seem to imply that there is a structure and order to government, and a long term centennial plan. There isn't. There is each administration doing whatever it takes to make sure it gets elected again, regardless of weather it is benficial to the nation or not. Of course you do have bright spots of genius; but what you attribute to malice and scheming and plots, is more easily attributed to corruption, individualism, greed, and stupidity.

That's false all those Harvard kids joined the Red Cross. They saw action sure but it gave them VD not shell shock and trench foot. And in America we had a draft.

[Alexander III]

This is false in the case of America. Hence, conscription.

Just doubled checked and you are right, my mistake. But what I have a hard time understanding is why In the first and second world wars all the men who went to serve were men who believed in what they were doing and most of them were gentlemen, while vietnam was an army of men who had tried desperatly to get out of the war. I always aasumed the enormous disparity between the quality of the WWII and I american recruits and those in vietnam was because the former was composed of men who were there out of a sense of duty and patriotism and the latter was an army which did not want to be there and was brutally forced there.


That's false all those Harvard kids joined the Red Cross. They saw action sure but it gave them VD not shell shock and trench foot. And in America we had a draft.

You are right about the draft, and I don't know about Harvard, but I know about Princeton from This Side of Paradise, and I assure you those were not ambulance drivers, the huge causalities reported by Fitzgerald indicate that those men were clearly fighting men. And at every oxford college there is a memorial with the causalities from WWI of students and I have seen nearly all of them, I assure you the numbers of dead are staggering, these were the elite of society, the flower of britain's youth, and they did not shy away from their duty and were the bravest men amongst the lot. These boys were not people who were destined for a life in a farm or a factory afterwords, or as some clerks in a small business, these were men which would have come to rule britain when they grew up and to think how many of them sacrificed that for their country. Just as an aside lets not disrespect any of the men who fought, with your class motivated hate, if find it unpleasant and rather vulgar.

[Volya]

Just doubled checked and you are right, my mistake. But what I have a hard time understanding is why In the first and second world wars all the men who went to serve were men who believed in what they were doing and most of them were gentlemen, while vietnam was an army of men who had tried desperatly to get out of the war. I always aasumed the enormous disparity between the quality of the WWII and I american recruits and those in vietnam was because the former was composed of men who were there out of a sense of duty and patriotism and the latter was an army which did not want to be there and was brutally forced there.


The difference between the attitudes of soldiers in WW1 and the Vietnam war, is because of the difference in the wars themselves. WW1, they all knew they had a genuine reason, it was to fight off the 'barbaric Hun' and save their families. Whereas in the vietnam war, the reason was much less clear. They were fighting in a un-developed country that posed no major threat to them, against an enemy that seemed relatively weak.

Also, I'm not sure if this was in effect during WW1 + 2 also, but in the vietnam war, if you were a student going to university you could 'dodge' the draft, hence why there were more working-class, black soldiers.

[E.A Rumfield]

The difference between the attitudes of soldiers in WW1 and the Vietnam war, is because of the difference in the wars themselves. WW1, they all knew they had a genuine reason, it was to fight off the 'barbaric Hun' and save their families. Whereas in the vietnam war, the reason was much less clear. They were fighting in a un-developed country that posed no major threat to them, against an enemy that seemed relatively weak.

Also, I'm not sure if this was in effect during WW1 + 2 also, but in the vietnam war, if you were a student going to university you could 'dodge' the draft, hence why there were more working-class, black soldiers.

That's where you miss it. There was no reason to fight then or now. The "barbaric huns" was propaganda. Just like the German government probably pumped some anti ally propaganda. During the war profit of business sky rocketed to something like 520%. After the war ended America saw a land of resources and started building suburbs and more cities. Everyone bought a car and a fridge the American dream was born. The price of lumber prior to WW1 was like $16 a thousand feet. During the war the price of lumber rose to $116 per thousand feet. There are even cases where the government paid as much as $1200 per thousand foot. Standard Oil got richer. The railways got richer. Telephone companies got richer. Big Timber got richer. The Bankers who owned it all got richer. 37 million people died. The world was made safe not for democracy. But for Big Business. The soldiers came home. Some in boxes. Some crippled, physically or mentally. Couldn't find jobs. Couldn't adjust back into society after leaving in a trench, praying there wasn't a shell with their name on it. That's war. The big bankers funded both sides. During the commotion they took the cookies out of the jar.

And what does that mean destined to work in a factory? Like that makes a difference. A life is a life. And bravery is nothing but a liquor. You know they often did that? They would give soldiers booze to make them 'brave". History as you know it is a lie. Wake up Alexander the Queen lied to you. This is not class motivated hate these are facts. We were all lied to. There are 8 billion people in the world at the whim of a few thousand. You think war is noble? You think that blind faith is honorable? It's all a lie. Look hard enough you'll find all the terrible things Britain has done. Like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars



How bout this. When America was building the Panama canal, they suddenly switched companies. In the process millions of dollars disappeared.

[E.A Rumfield]

Did anyone look at the links I posted. Read about Reagan and the Contras. U.S Special Forces trained Nicaraguan Para-Military troops and supplied them. Those troops went on to commit some of the worst war crimes recorded. Indiscriminate murder of women children. Entire villages wiped out. Mass graves.


What about MKULTRA where the CIA experimented with mind control through the television. You think that stopped?

Look at the links detailing the CIA's history as a criminal organization who used drug money to fund covert wars the Congress wouldn't approve.

This is the free world friends.

If Nixon wasn't enough what about the Democratic National Convention when police showed up in swat gear and started beating the **** out of all the unarmed protesters. Where was the constitution then. Where was the Queen?

Where was God? no where to be found.

[Darcy88]

what you attribute to malice and scheming and plots, is more easily attributed to corruption, individualism, greed, and stupidity.

Exactly.

Rumfield, I would suggest you read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States if you haven't already. It goes through the iniquities of the American power elite from the very beginning of the arrival of Europeans on the continent.

I'll admit that it came as a shock when I realized that America is no less innocent or peaceful than any other great state of history. But then it makes perfect sense that so powerful a nation would be engaged in imperialism and oppression. Such is the nature of power and politics. Its the way it always was, the way it is, the way it will be. Except in the minds on idealists this is the way things work. We can do what we can to limit the suffering wrought by the powerful, but to entirely eliminate inequality and oppression is, I think, a fanciful notion not rooted in any realistic grasp of the historical reality.

[tonywalt]

Exactly.

Rumfield, I would suggest you read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States if you haven't already. It goes through the iniquities of the American power elite from the very beginning of the arrival of Europeans on the continent.

I'll admit that it came as a shock when I realized that America is no less innocent or peaceful than any other great state of history. But then it makes perfect sense that so powerful a nation would be engaged in imperialism and oppression. Such is the nature of power and politics. Its the way it always was, the way it is, the way it will be. Except in the minds on idealists this is the way things work. We can do what we can to limit the suffering wrought by the powerful, but to entirely eliminate inequality and oppression is, I think, a fanciful notion not rooted in any realistic grasp of the historical reality.


Paul Johnson's 'The History of the American People" is very good also.

[E.A Rumfield]

It is not idealism. We are rational creatures, no? We are God's children, made in his almighty image. We are a civilization of cultured and scientific people. Or so I've been told. Then why do we behave the way we do? The fact is we are a viscous and cruel species of tailless monkeys. I am ashamed to be a human being. I can't even identify myself with the human race, I can only speak for my self as an individual, but tell me this. What is the purpose of our civilization if we have made no advancements in the last 500,000 years or so? Are we just waiting to destroy ourselves? How much longer do with think we can keep up this lifestyle of such growing excess, and at what cost? Are we so delusional to think we can live like this forever or do we not care? Do you feel comfortable leaving the world in the condition it is in? Because I personally would like to make a difference. And those that write off the need for change are just preparing themselves for their own failures. The world up to this point has been a compilation of deeds "good" and "bad". What do you live for? Does it not make you sad to look out your window and see litter and traffic. Does it not make you sad to see the world in its present condition? Are you willing to squash everything you believe in deep down? Wouldn't that kill you? That's why most people you meet on the streets are already dead. Only waiting to get buried. Imagine if we all thought like that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's very easy to be selective and draw imperfect conclusions from entries such as you have given. Yes, you are correct that these kind of things happen everywhere because, despite freedom of the press and other so called checks and balances, governments exist on duplicity and subterfuge: it's called politics.
However, it doesn't follow that every action taken by a government is automatically of the same order, some awful legislation that actually damages the national interest is passed with the best of intentions.

I can't believe this is about to happen, but here goes . . . I totally agree with Emil Miller! Wow! That was weird.

The whole OP seems a little to conspiracy-theorish for my taste. Do governments do horrible things? Yes. Do they do good things? Yes. Do they do more bad than good? Probably. Do the bad outweighs the good? Not necessarily.

And, as for the thing about the WWI and WWII draft, it's true that there was me, but there's no doubt the people going to war were way more patriotic and willing than they ever have been since.

[Shevek]

Just doubled checked and you are right, my mistake. But what I have a hard time understanding is why In the first and second world wars all the men who went to serve were men who believed in what they were doing and most of them were gentlemen, while vietnam was an army of men who had tried desperatly to get out of the war. I always aasumed the enormous disparity between the quality of the WWII and I american recruits and those in vietnam was because the former was composed of men who were there out of a sense of duty and patriotism and the latter was an army which did not want to be there and was brutally forced there.


Vietnam was a proxy war, and military intervention on behalf of former French colonizers (who were especially brutal, even relative to the history of colonialism) did not meet with the same patriotism and rallying effect of nationalism that occurred during WWI and II. With the sinking of the Lusitania and the issuance of the Zimmerman telegram, Americans felt deep humiliation that their domestic security was being threatened by Germany. WWI came shortly after the territorial gains from Mexico, so there was already paranoia within the federal government even before the Zimmerman telegram. As for WWII, the obvious motivation was Pearl Harbor, and there was a tremendous public willingness to retaliate against Japan and, thanks to Churchill, defeat Nazi Germany.

There was dissent and protest during both wars, but it really did not match the movements that came out of the New Left as American intervention in Vietnam was beginning. The widespread negative public reaction to America's involvement in Vietnam was not just the grounds upon which military intervention was justified, but the fact that America wasn't doing so well. Communism was still widespread, and the carnage didn't seem justifiable. The New Left argued this signalled the decline of American influence. Other issues such as the politicking of Henry Kissinger in the invasion of Cambodia did not bridge trust between the government and the people. Concerns of racism on the Vietnam front were sparked by the Civil Rights movement. So the image of people being coerced into Vietnam, and the contrasting one of people fighting in Europe and on the islands of Japan out of a sense of duty, I think has to do with the political atmospheres that preceded each war. Nationalism was simply on the decline in the '70s, to be revived a decade later.


Paul Johnson's 'The History of the American People" is very good also.

If you don't mind reading a non-fiction text by a guy who idolized Augusto Pinochet.

It isn't a terrible work, and it clears up some myths about key events, but it takes a fairly familiar view of American history. Johnson supports the government on foreign policy at almost every turn, and gives a lot of flak to leaders like Jefferson who appeared too intellectual for the "common sense" American public. It is a comprehensive account, but has little in common with Zinn's work.

[Alexander III]

It is not idealism. We are rational creatures, no? We are God's children, made in his almighty image. We are a civilization of cultured and scientific people. Or so I've been told. Then why do we behave the way we do? The fact is we are a viscous and cruel species of tailless monkeys. I am ashamed to be a human being. I can't even identify myself with the human race, I can only speak for my self as an individual, but tell me this. What is the purpose of our civilization if we have made no advancements in the last 500,000 years or so? Are we just waiting to destroy ourselves? How much longer do with think we can keep up this lifestyle of such growing excess, and at what cost? Are we so delusional to think we can live like this forever or do we not care? Do you feel comfortable leaving the world in the condition it is in? Because I personally would like to make a difference. And those that write off the need for change are just preparing themselves for their own failures. The world up to this point has been a compilation of deeds "good" and "bad". What do you live for? Does it not make you sad to look out your window and see litter and traffic. Does it not make you sad to see the world in its present condition? Are you willing to squash everything you believe in deep down? Wouldn't that kill you? That's why most people you meet on the streets are already dead. Only waiting to get buried. Imagine if we all thought like that.

Here is how you start. You most likely smoke a 20 bag a day? or at-least a 20 bag every two days, right?

That makes, at least 300 bucks a month on weed.

1) stop smoking weed
2) send 300 bucks a month to a charity, or and better yet; save up 300 bucks a month for a few years and then go to a third world nation and use the money you have accumulated yourself, to help provide food, shelter and clean water to those who need it.
3) Once 1 and 2 are complete: you are no longer a hypocritical college indoctrinated freshman, and have actually matured and acted upon your idealism. Because lets face it, when Berlusconi starts talking about family values, it's just pathetic.


Or: enjoy the world for what it is, assume and enjoy that hierarchy is the natural order of things, and thus not feel bad about spending 200 euros on alcohol and girls in one night, when you know how many people there are in the world who are dying, simply and oddly enough, because they lack water. Simply go to bed with a smile and a nice thought, dedicated to those many out there leading horrible lives so that we may live a very pleasurable and idle one.

[Alexander III]

Vietnam was a proxy war, and military intervention on behalf of former French colonizers (who were especially brutal, even relative to the history of colonialism) did not meet with the same patriotism and rallying effect of nationalism that occurred during WWI and II. With the sinking of the Lusitania and the issuance of the Zimmerman telegram, Americans felt deep humiliation that their domestic security was being threatened by Germany. WWI came shortly after the territorial gains from Mexico, so there was already paranoia within the federal government even before the Zimmerman telegram. As for WWII, the obvious motivation was Pearl Harbor, and there was a tremendous public willingness to retaliate against Japan and, thanks to Churchill, defeat Nazi Germany.

There was dissent and protest during both wars, but it really did not match the movements that came out of the New Left as American intervention in Vietnam was beginning. The widespread negative public reaction to America's involvement in Vietnam was not just the grounds upon which military intervention was justified, but the fact that America wasn't doing so well. Communism was still widespread, and the carnage didn't seem justifiable. The New Left argued this signalled the decline of American influence. Other issues such as the politicking of Henry Kissinger in the invasion of Cambodia did not bridge trust between the government and the people. Concerns of racism on the Vietnam front were sparked by the Civil Rights movement. So the image of people being coerced into Vietnam, and the contrasting one of people fighting in Europe and on the islands of Japan out of a sense of duty, I think has to do with the political atmospheres that preceded each war. Nationalism was simply on the decline in the '70s, to be revived a decade later.



If you don't mind reading a non-fiction text by a guy who idolized Augusto Pinochet.



You are very right and thanks for that account; I had forgotten to take into consideration that in both WWI and II There was a far more real sense of national unity against a backdrop of an equally strong opponent who could pose a real threat.

[E.A Rumfield]

Here is how you start. You most likely smoke a 20 bag a day? or at-least a 20 bag every two days, right?

That makes, at least 300 bucks a month on weed.

1) stop smoking weed
2) send 300 bucks a month to a charity, or and better yet; save up 300 bucks a month for a few years and then go to a third world nation and use the money you have accumulated yourself, to help provide food, shelter and clean water to those who need it.
3) Once 1 and 2 are complete: you are no longer a hypocritical college indoctrinated freshman, and have actually matured and acted upon your idealism. Because lets face it, when Berlusconi starts talking about family values, it's just pathetic.


Or: enjoy the world for what it is, assume and enjoy that hierarchy is the natural order of things, and thus not feel bad about spending 200 euros on alcohol and girls in one night, when you know how many people there are in the world who are dying, simply and oddly enough, because they lack water. Simply go to bed with a smile and a nice thought, dedicated to those many out there leading horrible lives so that we may live a very pleasurable and idle one.

Way to go. I can smoke all the weed I want and I'm still better than you. Can't you see I won this here argument because you had to resort to some strange baseless personal attack. I don't go to school and I don't spend in the euro. See how off base you were? Did that make you feel good about yourself? Since you seem to think this is a pissing contest I'll leave you alone, I won't go for the jugular.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, uh, E.A., your title is "A 40 bag to freedom." I don't think him assuming you're a pot-smoking, do nothing loser is that far of a leap to make.

Anyways, I agree with him. Maybe you should actually attempt to do something to change our horrible, horrible world if you haven't done so yet.

[E.A Rumfield]

And see right there is where our perceptions defer. You say I'm a loser. That's all well and good. I say I'm free. Free to do whatever I want go where ever I want. What's life worth in the end if you didn't live it? Is it honorable to slave at a job for 40 years just making enough to pay your bills. Get off work eat dinner watch sportcenter fall asleep. I don't want that for myself. I just want to be left out. I'll die without any regrets, I hope and if you can manage that then it was all good.

[OrphanPip]

The thing about WWI and WWII for America is that it was a middle and upper-class war, the majority of the volunteers were from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds who joined because they wanted to join. If you were to read Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise you would see that he looses half of his princeton class in the war. The first world war was tragic for europe because not only did the nations loose large segments of their male youth, but they lost the best of their youth. The boys from the best families all became lieutenants, and lieutenants ended up having the highest fatality rates out of all ranks in the war, at roughly 68% for the british I believe. Anyway world war I was a war which injured all strata of society. Just go to any Oxbridge or Ivy league college, they are all full of wwI memorials for their students and the quantities of names on those memorials is staggering.


That's a little misleading, because you have to take into account the relative small size of university cohorts during the period. My own McGill has a WW1 memorial with the names of all the students who died in the war. However, it is a mistake to assume because large numbers of the educated enlisted that more of the upper and middle classes fought in the war.

First of all, commissioned officers tend to come from the educated class, but they form a relatively small portion of the total fighting forces. Most commissioned officers will come out of the military academies, but during a major mobilization like that of WW1, they were recruited out of universities. Nepotism in the military at the time also made it so that only those from good families would be eligible for those positions anyway.

Secondly, it isn't just patriotism that motivates participation as a commissioned officer, it would also often be a good career move that would be expected of young men of certain families. No one expected the war to go on so long or be that deadly.

I would sincerely doubt that majority of casualties came out of the middle or upper class, simply because the populations of those groups makes it likely impossible.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And see right there is where our perceptions defer. You say I'm a loser. That's all well and good. I say I'm free. Free to do whatever I want go where ever I want. What's life worth in the end if you didn't live it? Is it honorable to slave at a job for 40 years just making enough to pay your bills. Get off work eat dinner watch sportcenter fall asleep. I don't want that for myself. I just want to be left out. I'll die without any regrets, I hope and if you can manage that then it was all good.

I didn't say you were a loser. I'm just pointing out that when you have your user title about how much you like marijauna, it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

Anyways, if you're so free, why don't you go and make the world a better place, even if in some small way?

[E.A Rumfield]

That's a little misleading, because you have to take into account the relative small size of university cohorts during the period. My own McGill has a WW1 memorial with the names of all the students who died in the war. However, it is a mistake to assume because large numbers of the educated enlisted that more of the upper and middle classes fought in the war.

First of all, commissioned officers tend to come from the educated class, but they form a relatively small portion of the total fighting forces. Most commissioned officers will come out of the military academies, but during a major mobilization like that of WW1, they were recruited out of universities. Nepotism in the military at the time also made it so that only those from good families would be eligible for those positions anyway.

Secondly, it isn't just patriotism that motivates participation as a commissioned officer, it would also often be a good career move that would be expected of young men of certain families. No one expected the war to go on so long or be that deadly.

I would sincerely doubt that majority of casualties came out of the middle or upper class, simply because the populations of those groups makes it likely impossible.

See this guy gets it. Think about the senselessness of war. Think about some kid barely old enough to **** to drink to think for himself going off to die. For what? That's the point. War will never solve a problem. Maybe if we all kill each other but that's a reach.

The whole thing about the barbaric huns, don't you think the Germans had similar propaganda. If the Germans won WW1 we would be having the same conversation only you would be telling me how it was the duty of all brave and patriotic Germans to defend the Reich against the evil British. Like Nietzsche said there is no right or wrong only the weak and the strong. And the strong write the history books.

[E.A Rumfield]

I didn't say you were a loser. I'm just pointing out that when you have your user title about how much you like marijauna, it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

Anyways, if you're so free, why don't you go and make the world a better place, even if in some small way?

I try my best.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

See this guy gets it. Think about the senselessness of war. Think about some kid barely old enough to **** to drink to think for himself going off to die. For what? That's the point. War will never solve a problem. Maybe if we all kill each other but that's a reach.

The whole thing about the barbaric huns, don't you think the Germans had similar propaganda. If the Germans won WW1 we would be having the same conversation only you would be telling me how it was the duty of all brave and patriotic Germans to defend the Reich against the evil British. Like Nietzsche said there is no right or wrong only the weak and the strong. And the strong write the history books.

So, what, your point is that war is horrible and senseless and that it leads to bad things? That's revelatory.

[E.A Rumfield]

My point is you can make the people do anything. All you have to do is appeal to their emotion. Reason goes out the window with the first stresses. Is patriotism a belief based in reason. Certainly not. How do you think Hitler got power. By appealing to the unhappy masses. By telling them just what they wanted to hear. If we are not careful who's to say we don't fall into the same trap. Cause one thing people don't do is learn from their histories. We have very short memories. Don't you find it troublesome that easily 10 out of the last 15 presidents were criminals.

[Shevek]

E.A. Rumfield, you say you're free from the bounds of modern culture -- the rat race, the Establishment, whatever you want to call it -- but you accept an awful lot of popular generalizations. The notion that we have "very short memories" can only be accepted by someone comfortable enough to not have to deal with or think about the very real resonance of past events. And Hitler gained power for a variety of reasons -- one of them being his charisma, yes, but that is just the most obvious and easily recognizable reason. The stab-in-the-back theory attributing the loss of WWI to internal enemies, which preceded Hitler, gave any future dictator an opportunity to polarize German society. Hitler also knew how the exploit the Weimar government to get what he wanted.

Your misanthropy might change if you investigated these topics a bit more deeply.

[GreenLucky]

Daaaaammmnnnn. Y'all take yourselves real seriously. I can't complain though, keeps me laughing on my lunch break.

[tonywalt]

If you don't mind reading a non-fiction text by a guy who idolized Augusto Pinochet.

It isn't a terrible work, and it clears up some myths about key events, but it takes a fairly familiar view of American history. Johnson supports the government on foreign policy at almost every turn, and gives a lot of flak to leaders like Jefferson who appeared too intellectual for the "common sense" American public. It is a comprehensive account, but has little in common with Zinn's work.[/QUOTE]

I would hope it doesn't have anything in common with Zinn's work.


It's the best and most comprehensive account of a rather amazing US history and it proudly states the achivements of the country rather than a constant self-flagellation of wrongs by people of his leaning. Paul Johnson's book is dispassionate history rather than Zinns book on social studies of his own leaning.

Zinn was not as pure a historian as Johnson and had an more blatant agenda than Johnson. Zinns real work (and perhaps good work) was in certain social causes, civil rights, and anti-war efforts alot of which I agree with, but history should be dispasssionate as possible. I just want the facts and don't much care for a modern perspective framed onto event so 150 to 200 years ago.

He was also a self described socialist, and I contend that a Socialist writing a history of the United States is not a good fit, to say the least. The US redefined capitalism and promoted capitalism!).

I also enjoy Johnson's writing and being British, rather than American he has a unique perspective.

[Shevek]

I would hope it doesn't have anything in common with Zinn's work.


It's the best and most comprehensive account of a rather amazing US history and it proudly states the achivements of the country rather than a constant self-flagellation of wrongs by people of his leaning. Paul Johnson's book is dispassionate history rather than Zinns book on social studies of his own leaning.

Zinn was not as pure a historian as Johnson and had an more blatant agenda than Johnson. Zinns real work (and perhaps good work) was in certain social causes, civil rights, and anti-war efforts alot of which I agree with, but history should be dispasssionate as possible. I just want the facts and don't much care for a modern perspective framed onto event so 150 to 200 years ago.

He was also a self described socialist, and I contend that a Socialist writing a history of the United States is not a good fit, to say the least. The US redefined capitalism and promoted capitalism!).

I also enjoy Johnson's writing and being British, rather than American he has a unique perspective.

So The History of the American People is both a proud proclamation of American exceptionalism and a dispassionate history? I would hardly say it's neutral, and the book's 1100 or so pages isn't just facts and analysis. Much of it is Johnson's personal opinion. "The creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures" -- note the similarity to how Edward Gibbon began his extensive history of Rome's decline and fall, which certainly wasn't dispassionate (being the great work that it is). Zinn's book is hardly perfect either, born out of the agenda of revisionism, but it was highly influential in revealing little known facts and details to the public. With Noam Chomsky dominating criticism of American foreign and domestic policy today, Zinn's perspective might not seem that important or original, but he surely did more than Johnson for the field of American history.

I'm also not sure why a socialist should not write about American history, so long as he or she is upfront about their views like Zinn. Much of the history of Canada has been and still is written by self-proclaimed socialists, and Canada is certainly not a socialist country, but without their contributions we wouldn't know half what we do about the development of Canadian social policies.

[tonywalt]

So The History of the American People is both a proud proclamation of American exceptionalism and a dispassionate history? I would hardly say it's neutral, and the book's 1100 or so pages isn't just facts and analysis. Much of it is Johnson's personal opinion. "The creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures" -- note the similarity to how Edward Gibbon began his extensive history of Rome's decline and fall, which certainly wasn't dispassionate (being the great work that it is). Zinn's book is hardly perfect either, born out of the agenda of revisionism, but it was highly influential in revealing little known facts and details to the public. With Noam Chomsky dominating criticism of American foreign and domestic policy today, Zinn's perspective might not seem that important or original, but he surely did more than Johnson for the field of American history.

I'm also not sure why a socialist should not write about American history, so long as he or she is upfront about their views like Zinn. Much of the history of Canada has been and still is written by self-proclaimed socialists, and Canada is certainly not a socialist country, but without their contributions we wouldn't know half what we do about the development of Canadian social policies.

I do not think a socialist should write the history of the United States, even if I were a socialist like Zinn was in life.

A cornerstone of United States's foundation has been economic possibility spawned by a laissez faire economy. Zinn was a loud critic of the US-and it would be safe to say he does not hold the founding fathers in the esteem they deserve. I'm sure he worships a few 20th century people though.

[Emil Miller]

Reading these posts, Zinn comes across as another tree hugger but it is worth recalling that Paul Johmson is an amazingly maverick character. Starting out on the far left of the Labour Party he swithched sides and moved over to the far right (in English terms) and became, among other things, an advisor to Mrs Thatcher.
Back in the 1990s he wrote Wake Up Britain which pinpoints a whole host of deficiencies in the body politic and social of the UK; many of which I agree with. However, Johnson's views on America would appear to be as highly coloured as Zinn's, albeit from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

[tonywalt]

Reading these posts, Zinn comes across as another tree hugger but it is worth recalling that Paul Johmson is an amazingly maverick character. Starting out on the far left of the Labour Party he swithched sides and moved over to the far right (in English terms) and became, among other things, an advisor to Mrs Thatcher.
Back in the 1990s he wrote Wake Up Britain which pinpoints a whole host of deficiencies in the body politic and social of the UK; many of which I agree with. However, Johnson's views on America would appear to be as highly coloured as Zinn's, albeit from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

I am aware of Johnson's background, but the History of the American People is written without casting nasty aspersions on the Settlors, Founding Fathers, and writers of the Constitution. Zinn splats all over them, and that kind of writing has taken root amongst the young who parrot it.

The only major historical figure revered is Abraham Lincoln-obviously. It's gotten to the point where Thomas Jefferson is now best known as the guy who slept with Sally Hennings. It's mentioned in virtually any write up on the guy - incredibly minor compared to his contributions to the country.

[Emil Miller]

I am aware of Johnson's background, but the History of the American People is written without casting nasty aspersions on the Settlors, Founding Fathers, and writers of the Constitution. Zinn splats all over them, and that kind of writing has taken root amongst the young who parrot it.

The only major historical figure revered is Abraham Lincoln-obviously. It's gotten to the point where Thomas Jefferson is now best known as the guy who slept with Sally Hennings. It's mentioned in virtually any write up on the guy - incredibly minor compared to his contributions to the country.

In my experience the young will parrot anything they are told to but, leaving aside the question of why Jefferson would want to sleep with one of his slaves, it is hardly surprising that the current round of self-righteous hand wringers are making such hay out of it. However, Johnson's record as a former editor of the New Statesman and later a contributor to newspapers such as the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and even the Sun, while writing a long running column for the Spectator is bound to put a question mark over the reliability of his writings on the USA.

[OrphanPip]

In my experience the young will parrot anything they are told to but, leaving aside the question of why Jefferson would want to sleep with one of his slaves, it is hardly surprising that the current round of self-righteous hand wringers are making such hay out of it. However, Johnson's record as a former editor of the New Statesman and later a contributor to newspapers such as the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and even the Sun, while writing a long running column for the Spectator is bound to put a question mark over the reliability of his writings on the USA.

Well a lot of people interested in Jefferson are intrigued by his attitude towards slavery. This guy was one of the largest slave owners in Virginia (over 200), while being a mild, yet prominent, advocate of abolitionism. Although, I don't believe in idealizing historical figures, Jefferson also had a lot of bad economic ideas about keeping America an agriculturally based economy.

When I visited Jefferson's home of Monticello I got the sense that he was a brilliant yet obsessive and odd man. The guy decorated the main entrance to his house with maps, fossils, mounted animals and aboriginal art so that people could educate themselves while waiting for him.

[tonywalt]

Well a lot of people interested in Jefferson are intrigued by his attitude towards slavery. This guy was one of the largest slave owners in Virginia (over 200), while being a mild, yet prominent, advocate of abolitionism. Although, I don't believe in idealizing historical figures, Jefferson also had a lot of bad economic ideas about keeping America an agriculturally based economy.

When I visited Jefferson's home of Monticello I got the sense that he was a brilliant yet obsessive and odd man. The guy decorated the main entrance to his house with maps, fossils, mounted animals and aboriginal art so that people could educate themselves while waiting for him.

The DNA tests done only proves that it came from the paternal line of Jefferson's - not necessarily Thomas Jefferson(of course this is not how the media presents DNA evidence). Nonetheless, he probably did sleep with Sally, and given her beauty - hardly surprising.

Alexander Hamilton did not have slaves and was a born West Indian and opposed to Slavery - that's very enlightened for that day and for a West Inidian - incredibly rare. His correct vision for America was Commerce and Industry (New York City being his political base) and a correct call compared to Jefferson's Agricultural view. (Yea, shot in a dual-eh silly thing).

Jefferson's contribution as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence was no small feat and his work (against strong odds) to separate Religon and State was impressive.

And Benjamin Franklin a polymath who accomplishments are mind boggling today.

I do not think we should idealize historical figures, rather not denigrate them.

Lastly, I honestly do not think anyone changes their views on Serious Discussion - it ironically strengthens individual positions.

Anyway, Happy Friday All.