Love Americans, Hate America?

Love Americans, Hate America?

"Love Americans, Hate America" is the title of an excellent blog by Amar C. Bakshi at the Washington Post. There is a limit on the length of “Comments”, which is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Fortunately for me, my blog is, well ... mine; -- so I can prattle away until I'm done. The following is a comment I submitted that exceeded what the WP deemed reasonable by a few hundred words; at least.

I agree with them, by the way.

[Originally submitted Oct 27,2007]

by: 00 Buck

Love (Ourselves), American Style
One of the reasons US History as presented to American high-school and post-secondary undergrads has become so “revised” is the “publish or perish” imperative imposed on university professors, PhD candidates, and 'distinguished' scholars.

Follow the Money
Book publishers put considerable pressure on academia. “New Editions” and “Revised Editions” generate considerable profits; -- causing earlier editions to be replaced by the millions. At the university level, this specious 'depreciation' rate severely limits “after-market” opportunities for students to economise by selling and purchasing their texts second hand.

The pressure to produce “new and improved” texts begs the question since they must, by inference, be substantively different from those they would succeed. What a school board or university faculty might be disposed to approve is influenced by marketing strategies. But, to an even greater extent, it is often driven by whether or not the author happens to BE a faculty member or, as is often the case, associated with the State or Municipal School bureaucracy.

I invite testimony to the contrary, but the history curricula of secondary and post-secondary institutions and the inventory of campus book stores is evidence of a “closed shop” WRT American authors and publishers. It would be no small novelty to the average student or history buff anywhere in the USA to discover an account of the War of 1812 penned and published in Britain or Canada. That is why, even among 'educated' Americans, few are aware that the massed forces who sallied forth from thence to invade Canada were rather ingloriously repulsed; which defeat proved to be an “education” in discouragement sufficient to allay notions of trying it again. The Yankee mantra of “We never lost a war.” should be qualified with “... that we admit to in print.”

To the Victor go the Spoils
Of all the perks of war, perhaps the one most unequally apportioned among the combatants is the right to draft the official brief of the hostilities with an appendix of condignly agreeable interpretations and authoritative sounding endorsements.

To Americans, they won the Second World War. To the Allies in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, America's involvement in WW II resembled a conscriptee forced into the ring in the tenth round of a fifteen round 'knock-down', 'drag-out'. The outcome was predictable. But for the Johnny-come-lately “ringer” to assume all the credit for the victory is preposterous; -- even though the bookies (American Financiers and Capitalists) did make a killing on a rigged fight.

Human Nature
The personal history of a nation in many respects is like unto a personal resumé. Anyone who has operated on their own cv a few dozen times over several decades (by way of 'perfecting' it) knows that the latest edition is better; 'improved' as it were by the twin virtues of maturity, --and hindsight. Also, those “References:” who might have been eligible for consultation on findings of fact have almost certainly faded from the picture; 'long-time'.

I'm not so much persuaded that Americans' understanding of history, especially their history, is the result of intentional “whitewashing” or propagandizing so much as it is merely a phenomenon characteristic of mundane human behavior; --folks just struggling to get by, get grades, and get tenure in capitalist economy.

Nevertheless, the result is a populace whose self-image and sense of importance is hugely distorted and whose image of other people and the histories of other nations is depreciated and ignored.

Perhaps nowhere has this ignorance been made more starkly apparent than what happened during the invasion of Baghdad.

Artifacts of Human Civilization, some dating back 5000 years, were treated like so much pawn shop inventory and either destroyed or left for looters. Much of it will never be recovered; lost to history and mankind, --considered 'justifiable' collateral damage in America's quest for oil. The cultural value of the contents of the Smithsonian Institute, the American Museum of Natural History and the Library of Congress together pale to insignificance in comparison. But the architects of the Iraq War lacked the intellectual collateral to know, much less care, about what they were doing. Perhaps they were also unaware that Iraqis actually do have a word for 'philistine'.

Current Events
In the real world, most Americans do not have the luxury to invest much 'quality time' in continuing education. To keep abreast of what is going on requires a certain amount of prioritizing and sacrifice. Making informed decisions about what the country is doing is not as straightforward as it could be, -- a circumstance greatly exacerbated by the failure of ACME (American Corporate Media Establishment) to meet its responsibility to prioritize issues and to persistently educate the public on their significance.

One virtue that is at a premium in the vetting of current events history in America is “Independence”.

MSM outlets have all agglomerated into corporate entities with boards of directors, fund management investors and 'big stake' shareholders who expect big bonuses and maximum returns on invested capital. Editorial policy that might adversely affect confidence in “Corporate America” in general, and circulation 'cum' advertising revenues in particular, is tantamount to (in current vernacular) “cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.” or “counter productive” WRT superordinate corporate goals and objectives.

Corporate goals and objectives are also hitched to those of the reigning political party. Without massive corporate financial support, neither Party has a chance of fielding candidates with sufficient backing to have any chance of winning. And candidates with empathy for, and commitment to, the interests of Corporate America are the ones who will cultivate relationships beholden to, not independent of, the geese who deposit the golden eggs in their war chests.

This 'hitching' is a dynamic relationship. To get elected, a candidate needs support. Once elected, the health (profits) of those who invested in their candidate depends on good will, and favourable policy. The summary dismissal of Phil Donahue, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes etc., is a fair indication of what consequences might befall even the most influential and established journalists who run afoul of this Administration's Policy.

This 'hitching' is not lost on Putin.

During his 'téte à téte' with Bush Feb 24, 2005 it was reported in the WP that: “It's not clear how well Putin understands the controversy that led to the dismissal of four CBS journalists over the discredited report on Bush's National Guard service. Yet it's all too clear how Putin sees the relationship between Bush and the American media – just like his own.” Vlad had a very good understanding. The message these dismissals sent to corporate publishers and editors in the US was unmistakable: “No matter how far up the masthead or how senior, any [of your] journalists might be, if they incur our displeasure they can look forward to unemployment or a career as a free-lance stringer; and PDQ too.”

The surreptitious, strategic leaking of items to the WP, the NYT and various TV 'pundits' has also brought ACME into disrepute. The White House has been finessing them to play 'à la' that differentially gifted in-bred savant in “Deliverance”; earning some newspapers the unfortunate nick of “The Banjo Press” because they 'idiotically' just 'played along', --didn't take the steps necessary to discover just who actually started the dyadic polyphony.

Beyond the Fishbowl
Those of us living abroad have a different view of what the Bush/Cheney era has wrought in the USA. Most Americans still see the spectacle of 911 as the genesis of a Global War on Terrorism; -- a Holy War against any ideology, nation, or loosely held affiliation whose interests conflict with America's. This is the pervading dialectic, literally engraved in American neurologics.

BUT IT'S A DISTORTED VIEW.

The 1997 Manifesto titled “Project for the New American Century” was an official declaration of American foreign policy for the next 100 years. It represents the culmination of geopolitical and economic ideology fomented in the fore brain of DicK Cheney back in 1992, and underwritten by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and a political science sycophant-hack pretending to at least 2 orders of magnitude beyond his skill set who goes by William Kristol, --just to name a few contributors.

• From the Project’s founding “Statement of Principles”
  http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

June 3, 1997

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

• We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

“As the 20 th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?”

The US didn't so much win the Cold War; the Soviet Union just lost first. The economic, political and social upheaval that befell the Former SU is just around the corner for America. There was little or no warning about the collapse in Russia. There has been ample warning about the prospects for the USA, but it is not in the interest of Corporate America, the MSM, the Military Industrial Complex, and the current Administration to allow this spectre to resolve in American consciousness.

“Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

The key words in this “Statement of Principles” are: Global, Political, Prosperity and Interests. The 77 page, 45,000 word Document they preface is a working paper advocating the build-up of American military forces and capabilities in anticipation that President Clinton would soon be out of the way.

One writer described the evolution of this working paper thusly:

"The blueprint for our current foreign policy was being written back in 1992 by then-Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney. His writings set out a new doctrine that called for U.S. power in the twentieth century, to be that of an aggressive and unilateral approach that would secure American dominance of world affairs by force if necessary.”
-- by: Mary Louise

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

What has become known as “The War on Terrorism” began with the dissemination of a series of manifestos among nations and peoples around the world. The attack on the Twin Towers was a predictable response, a consequence to to a 'de facto' unilateral declaration of war against any nation, any people, any affiliation that might be deemed an impediment to America's glomming on to anything of value to its economic interests.

These and various supporting corollary texts repeatedly stipulate in that the US reserves the right to intervene militarily (i.e. wage war) “preemptively” if it feels it is in its interest to do so. The invasion of Iraq on what is clearly understood to be 'trumped up charges' and unabashed duplicity makes apparent this policy is in effect. The reluctance of the American public to do anything about it, the absence of a 'vox populi' demanding such articles be rescinded, and for censure, impeachment etc., is perceived as tacit approval, making Americans liable, by default, to bear the consequences.

The US hadn't defeated communism in 1987; it simply became what it hated, --usurping its implicit objective of world domination and boasting that, as the self-proclaimed victor, it might now accomplish global suzerainty by any and all means at its disposal.

As the US once felt justified in thwarting the spread of Communism, so must O. B. Laden have felt justified in engineering his heinous act of September 11, 2001. Nevertheless, the US had specified the “Articles of War”, laid out the rules, “served notice” as it were. Bin Laden & Co. took note and responded in kind.

Instead of learning from the disaster, --learning what it's like to feel threatened by a violent, arbitrary, and ideologically driven cabal, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Administration persisted in incorporating and codifying the rhetoric and policy that Americans hated most about Communist ends/means rationalization; lies, secrecy, invasion of privacy, rescinding of human rights, torture, duplicity, unabashed violations of domestic and international laws and treaties, and intimidation, -- the basic ingredients of state sanctioned terrorism. The President's [Bush's] National Security Strategy of September 14, 2001 http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssintro.html
is a mocking testimony to just how far America(ns) had come to sanction the very evils they were born and bred to hate.

“In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:

• brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
• display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
• are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
• sponsor terrorism around the globe; and

• reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.”

The ideologies of “Divine Right of Kings” (“L'Etat, c'est moi”) and “Manifest Destiny” resulted in disastrous consequences for France, The Third Reich and The Former Soviet Union. Yet this Administration would have America proceed headlong down the same rat hole. “Mien Kampf”, “Das Boot”, “The Prince” and the “Communist Manifesto” could have been the inspiration for Cheney's schemes and treachery. The American Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights --the "Charters of Freedom" most assuredly could not.

For my part, I would happily shoot a 'Cruise' or two up Osama's wazoo. Not because he violated what America had come to stand for; before 2001; but because he, and his “coalition of the willing, (aka al quada), are analogs, 'dopplegangers', ghostly incarnations of prevailing American egoism and zietgeist.

Bush and Cheney just didn't get it. Bin Laden was mocking them by imitating them.