The Florida publication Bizpac Review is leading attacks on Evelyn Garcia, a candidate for the Florida House, because she has stood her ground and dared to criticize the Israeli occupation. In its latest article Bizpac Review says that the Democratic Party should purge Garcia, who has already resigned her membership in the Democratic National Committee because of the controversy. Garcia’s response to that article, sent to us today:
If Bizpac Review wants to continue its attacks on me they should at least get the facts straight. First, what I wrote [in leaked email] was “concentration PRISON camps,” describing the places involuntarily “housing” tens of thousands of Palestinians, many without charge or trial, indefinitely, whose communities are forcibly blockaded by air, sea and land including a Berlin-like wall and apartheid-like tactics like military checkpoints that have forced some pregnant women to die on the roadside for lack of reaching hospital, among other “amenities”.
Second, having resigned all my positions with the Party, I am NOT a member of the Democratic Executive Committee as was falsely claimed.
Finally, for notable quotes I submit the following (with apologies to its author for the comparison):
“I appreciate the anxiety Israelis feel at seeing their neighborhood imploding. But it is also striking that a people for whom the Exodus story of liberation is so central–and who for so long argued that peace will happen only when the Arabs become democratic–failed to believe that the liberation narrative might one day resonate with the people of Egypt and now proclaim that the problem with the Arabs is that they are becoming democratic.”
Thomas L. Friedman, “Is Morsi bad for Israel,” the Palm Beach Post, July 6,2012.
“Para ir adelante de los demás, se necesita ver más que ellos.”
Jose Marti
Good on you Evelyn T Garcia.
Well done Ms Garcia! Nothing wrong with speaking the truth!
The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER…
link to youtube.com!
Thanks for the link. I find it really annoying when people from the USA constantly praise their country as great. A country that murders people, foreigners as well as its own citizens, can hardly be great.
Imagine a German would say that Germany is great. The immediate response would be something like, “Your f*cking country killed 6 million Jews.” However, people from the USA conveniently ignore their own country’s history as land of slavery and segregation.
For the record, I don’t think any country is great, because every country has tons of problems, bigger or smaller ones. Also, I would never vote for a politician who calls his country great, because someone who thinks that his country is already great doesn’t consider it necessary to improve anything. And such a politician is totally useless.
Well, “totally useless” pretty much sums up American politics.
The “America is great” meme (actually “America is the greatest” is more what they say) is basically a myth fed to the working and middle classes in the US as a substitute for social and economic reforms which would actually make a difference in their quality of life. It permits those who really run this country (the corporations and the rich) to diffuse the potentially harmful political power from affecting the rich, by imagining that the US is the most free, most fair, wealthiest, best educated and most dynamic society in the world. Religion is used similarly. It’s all bunk, of course, but people who point that out are usually just called “liberal” or “anti-American” or are compared to the French.
@ Woody:
It’s all bunk, of course, but people who point that out are usually just called “liberal” or “anti-American” or are compared to the French.
Republicans accusing lefties of being “anti-American” is pretty much like Zionists calling non-Zionists “anti-Israel”. Just because someone has a different idea of what the country should be like, doesn’t mean that this person wants to destroy the country.
What’s wrong with the label “liberal”? You seem to think that it’s an insult. And what do the French have to do with it?
Be called a liberal in the US of A is an insult in today’s political culture. Has been for some time. Basically means you’re a whimp, a peacenik, a softy, a tree-hugging pot-smoking effeminate lil woos… any one of a couple dozen epithets and labels. It means you have no back-bone and no strong will to go to war with other countries and bomb them back to the Stone Age, all in the name of defending America and democracy, of course. Hence the reference to the French, who have been seen as being wooshy-washy appeasers (to fascism) since their role vis-a-vis Nazi Germany in WWII.
“Just because someone has a different idea of what the country should be like, doesn’t mean that this person wants to destroy the country.”
Yes, but there is a very large and very vocal (and exceedingly stupid) segment of the American population who actually believes that someone who believes in ideas which, in Europe, would be barely be center-left, are castigated as being the devil incarnate. Basically, all the stereotypes of the stupid, gun-toting, reactionary American has a large basis in fact. Sadly.
“What’s wrong with the label ‘liberal’”?
To the aforementioned yahoos, this is the worst thing one can be, because, to them, it is code for “different” or “other.” They are fed a line of nonsense which makes them believe that liberal or progressive ideas will mean “the end of America as we know it.” I think that there is a vision of America that is very anti-social, in which the true American is the island unto himself, alone on the prarie with only his guns and his wits to protect him and his family from the wider world. It’s false and dangerous and was never really true, but a lot of Americans believe it.
“You seem to think that it’s an insult.”
I personally don’t. But to probably half of Americans it is. There was an election back in 1988 in Florida where a candidate named Connie Mack was running against a man named Buddy McKay. The tag line of Mack’s ads was “Hey Buddy, you’re a liberal.” He won. America is a really messed up place. It’s like an incredibly well-apportioned insane asylum.
“And what do the French have to do with it?”
These same people hate the French. To them, the “French” are the polar opposites of Americans. Basically because they surrendered in WWII and because of a general perception that French people are rude, coupled with political conflicts with France — and in some places, because of the Francophone issues in Canada — the idea of the French as the epitome of everything that a real, red-blooded American should aspire against has taken hold. It’s usually mostly harmless (calling “french fries” “Freedom Fries” when the French refused to go along with Bush’s war on the Iraqis, etc.), but it does tap into a rich vein of native xenophobia among Americans and a latent Francophobia in the English-speaking world.
@ Averroes: Thanks for the explanations and welcome to Mondoweiss. Peacenik, softy and tree hugger sound great to me.
@ Woody:
someone who believes in ideas which, in Europe, would be barely be center-left, are castigated as being the devil incarnate
Yeah, I have noticed that, too. For example, Republicans often refer to Rachel Maddow as leftist, whereas I consider her centrist.
To the aforementioned yahoos, [liberal] is the worst thing one can be
Actually, in Germany, the term “liberal” is often considered an insult, too. “Liberal” is usually associated with the centre-right party. This means that “liberal” stands for “not left enough”. A little while ago, I read a book about the experiences of an “Ami” in Germany. The guy wrote that whenever he told Germans that he’s a liberal, they laughed at him. This confused him, until he learnt that in Germany the term means right-leaning, not left-leaning.
America is a really messed up place.
Do you still live there?
To them, the “French” are the polar opposites of Americans.
Strange. To me, France is the USA of Europe, mainly because the French have a strong national pride and don’t like to speak foreign languages.
calling “french fries” “Freedom Fries” when the French refused to go along with Bush’s war on the Iraqis, etc.
I’ve heard of that. How dare the French disobey the leader of the world?
Thanks German Lefty. Those labels sound perfectly fine to me. I’m a Canadian citizen of Iraqi background, living in Australia… talk about confused, hehe. Interesting because there is a lot of xenophobia and racism towards Arabs/Muslims and all immigrants generally over here… more than I expected, more than I ever seemed to encounter in Canada. Seems like it’s noble here (and in Canada) to be leftist or liberal on every issue except on the Arab or Muslim issues, in which case nothing short of the hairy-chest syndrome is acceptable.
“Yeah, I have noticed that, too. For example, Republicans often refer to Rachel Maddow as leftist, whereas I consider her centrist.”
Well, some Americans refer to a weak-tea centrist like Obama to be a raging socialist, so you just have to recalibrate here in the USA.
“Actually, in Germany, the term “liberal” is often considered an insult, too. “Liberal” is usually associated with the centre-right party.”
That’s kind of funny, because there are portions of the right in the US who are trying to “take back” the term liberal. They call themselves “classic liberals”, harking back to the dawn of the age of Enlightenment through the beginning of the 19th Century.
“Do you still live there?”
I do. My own little corner of the USA is pretty reasonable, compared to many, and it is my home, the only place I’ve ever known. So there’s that.
“To me, France is the USA of Europe, mainly because the French have a strong national pride and don’t like to speak foreign languages.”
To which an American would reply, “yes, they do. They speak French. That’s about as foreign a language as you get.” (Okay, bad joke…)
“I’ve heard of that. How dare the French disobey the leader of the world?”
Yup. If it wasn’t for us, they would be speaking German, yadda yadda…
I don’t disagree with any of the comments here on the sub-thread raised by German Lefty as the label “liberal.” All the stuff said regarding the pejorative usage in America of the word “liberal” is true. And it makes sense that the label is applied in Germany as denoting somebody right of center because of the negative legacy of Hitler’s regime. But German Lefty should also know that there’s a common pejorative use of the term “tea party” to mean white male racists with nothing on their mind but turning the clock back to Jim Crow times. Actually, early Ron Paul supporters were the first tea-party grass roots folks, and their key issue, and the key issue of the early self-labeled Tea Party organizations were all economic issues, hostility to endless government spending (and waste and fraud) as the answer to all American domestic problems that resulted in dependency on government, and hence too, the resurrection of “No taxation without representation.” Ron Paul supporters remain at the sophisticated forefront of this movement in the economic, fiscal, and monetary arena and they not racist at all, and they are the only consistent political force against USA’s bloated spending on the military and stupid foreign policy. Some big GOP guys basically hijacked a lot of tea party folks and separated them from authentic Ron Paul supporters, and welded them to the standard GOP agendas of corporate welfare and bible-belt social-cultural issues. Obama refers to that result as those “who clutch their bibles and guns.” The only American political party/group that would reign in US “soft” imperialism and knee-jerk support for Israel right or wrong will be found in the Ron Paul group. But Ron Paul’s vision is attacked on both the left, right, and center as hopelessly out-dated “isolationism.” They all ignore his reasoning, which is that he is for defense, but not for “slaying dragons over seas” to line our own pockets and milk those we intervene to save from themselves. His logic positing that we create more terrorism than we stop is lost on most Americans, including both DNC & GOP. Dennis Kuncinich and Ralph Nader agree with a lot of Ron Paul’s views. All three are considered “wacky” by the mainstream.
@ Averroes:
I’m a Canadian citizen of Iraqi background, living in Australia
I’m a German citizen of German descent, living in Germany. Sounds boring, huh?
there is a lot of xenophobia and racism towards Arabs/Muslims and all immigrants generally over here… more than I expected
Really? This surprises me, too. How does this xenophobia manifest itself? I’d like to know what negative experiences you had if you don’t mind telling me.
it’s noble here (and in Canada) to be leftist or liberal on every issue except on the Arab or Muslim issues
The same applies to Western Europe. I’ve heard quite a few leftist Germans complain that the left-leaning parties are too “Muslim-friendly”. My ex-boyfriend, who is a socialist from Britain, recently raised this complaint, too. What’s the hairy-chest syndrome?
@ Woody:
some Americans refer to a weak-tea centrist like Obama to be a raging socialist, so you just have to recalibrate here
Actually, I don’t consider Obama a centrist. Some of the things he does or supports would count as right-wing extremist in Germany, e.g. indefinite detention, targeted killings, aggressive war, death penalty. Also, he’s in favour of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons in his own country, which in Germany is rejected even by conservative politicians. In terms of marriage equality, however, he is more progressive than the conservative party in Germany.
That’s kind of funny, because there are portions of the right in the US who are trying to “take back” the term liberal.
In Western Europe, the centre-right parties are usually referred to as “liberal”. In the USA, however, the term “liberal” means left-leaning. What Europeans call “liberal” is dubbed “libertarian” by Americans.
My own little corner of the USA is pretty reasonable
Then I assume that you live in the Northeast.
If it wasn’t for us, they would be speaking German
Yes, I have already read this sentence countless times on the internet. As if the terrible thing about Nazi Germany was the German language…
Not boring, no. At least you don’t have a crisis of identities, lol.
As to the xenophobia and racism here in Australia, it surprised me when I first arrived here about a year ago. I’m not going to exaggerate and say that it’s so wide-spread or prevalent that you encounter it wherever you happen to go, but when I compare it to the situation in Canada, it is more obvious here. The police tend to racially profile quite frequently, especially in the predominantly Arab or Muslim suburbs of Sydney such as Bankstown, Auburn, Fairfield, etc…
Also, they have or are implementing policies here, such as the “income management” policy, that seem to be targeting low-income Arab/Muslim neighborhoods and families, as well as areas with large populations of indigenous peoples (although the official version would quickly deny this). Despite all the claims of good intentions and wanting to help the poor manage their money to take care of their families, it is nevertheless a policy that I do not think would ever get passed or implemented in Canada. See this link for a little more info on how it works:
link to abc.net.au
There is another incident at a halal KFC that occurred several months ago that is indicative of how horrible things are here regarding Arabs and/or Muslims:
link to youtube.com
Again I don’t want to necessarily argue that the racism is so rampant here that you see Arabs or Muslims being lynched on light poles, nor am I stating that Canada is a bastion of all that is good and noble or that no racism exists over there, but it does seem to be more wide-spread and accepted here, in general. There are obviously very good-hearted and open-minded Caucasian Australians who are as appalled by these things as anyone else, but again I’m just commenting on the general comparison I’ve noticed between the two countries.
And of course it doesn’t help at all that Rupert Murdoch controls around three quarters of the news media in Australia, again a situation that is practically unheard of in Canada (though perhaps more common south of the border). So this doesn’t help trigger any type of open and healthy debate on such issues. You also have the fact that Australian politics are infested with lackeys and lapdogs (from the Prime Minister downwards) who toe-the-line wherever the US is concerned and compete with each other to show which of them is the more obedient servant to US interests. Quite pathetic actually. I don’t think the situation has a parallel even under Harper’s right-wing government in Canada, though I may be wrong.
Then you have the quite revealing new TV series here called “Dumb, Drunk and Racist”, which shows some quite shocking incidents of the types of things I’ve been referring to:
link to youtube.com
Hope this helps clarify my statements.
And it makes sense that the label is applied in Germany as denoting somebody right of center because of the negative legacy of Hitler’s regime
I am not sure what you mean. This has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler. In all of Western Europe “liberal” stands for centre-right. Ordinary right-wingers are called “conservatives”. And the term “right-wing extremists” is usually shortened to “right-wingers”.
Regarding Ron Paul: I agree with some of his views. If I had to decide between Obama, Romney and Paul, I’d choose Paul. He is the only one of them who doesn’t want to kill foreigners. And I am a foreigner.
“The only American political party/group that would reign in US “soft” imperialism and knee-jerk support for Israel right or wrong will be found in the Ron Paul group.”
I agree with most of what you said regarding Ron Paul. He’s very eloquent, intelligent, charismatic, and more important than anything, an honest and moral man. One of the last few voices of sanity in the US political culture these days. However I take issue with the above statement… another alternative group that would do as you say would be the Green Party, headed by Jill Stein. On foreign policy issues I believe she is more in line with Ron Paul than any other candidate out there.
See here: link to youtube.com
and here: link to jillstein.org
Oh and btw, the hairy-chest syndrome was something in common parlance in US political circles during the Kennedy/Johnson days and the Vietnam War (not that I’ve been around that long). Something I read in a superb book of that era called Roots of War, by Richard J. Barnett. An excellent and in-depth analysis of the war-mongering liberals at that time.
link to amazon.com
It basically refers to the machismo chest-beating mentality of US politicians at the time who thought that it was feminine and/or cowardly to consider any other options or alternatives to war and destruction in Indochina.
@German Lefty
Here is the full episode of that TV show called “Dumb, Drunk and Racist”:
Part 1: link to youtube.com
Part 2: link to youtube.com
Sorry I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but couldn’t help notice this:
Australia a land of racists: Survey finds many anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic
link to news.com.au
Perhaps it isn’t all that different from other places in Europe or North America after all… Btw since most Arabs are Semites also, shouldn’t being anti-Arab instead be called anti-Semitic?
Averroes, yes, I should have stated the Green Party in addition to Ron Paul supporters. As you may know, the US mainstream media has worked feverishly to keep Ron Paul out of the news, and most especially, his views on US foreign policy. Nobody in the Green Party ever even made it on to the presidential campaign debates shown across the land on prime time TV.
“Actually, I don’t consider Obama a centrist. ”
Good points. I was thinking primiarly of his economic policies.
“Then I assume that you live in the Northeast.”
Yup. Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region. In the Philadelphia tri-state area.
“Yes, I have already read this sentence countless times on the internet. As if the terrible thing about Nazi Germany was the German language…”
It’s chest beating. I doubt if they care about the language, but (especially to the French) it’s more a statement “you surrendered and we had to save you. You are weak and we are strong.”
@Citizen
Yeah I remember John Stewart going berzerk over this. The newscasters had a conveniently timed case of amnesia regarding Ron Paul, as Stewart aptly points out here:
link to youtube.com
90% of what most Americans think they know about Islam comes straight out of Tel Aviv via the Israeli Consulate in NYC.
@ Averroes:
At least you don’t have a crisis of identities
Well, I do have a tiny crisis of identity, too. My home country, the German “Democratic” Republic, doesn’t exist anymore and quite a few West Germans don’t really accept East Germans as Germans.
Also, I’ve heard several complaints by Turks living in Germany as well as by Germans with Turkish background that people in Germany regard them as “Turks” and that people in Turkey consider them “Germans”. They are basically perceived as foreigners in both countries. As far as I am concerned, I accept everyone as German who speaks German fluently and who self-identifies as German.
Also, they have or are implementing policies here, such as the “income management” policy, that seem to be targeting low-income Arab/Muslim neighborhoods and families, as well as areas with large populations of indigenous peoples
I watched the video and have to say that this policy sounds like it is very controlling and humiliating. Also, this policy implies that all poor people are poor, because they are too dumb to spend their money responsibly.
There is another incident at a halal KFC that occurred several months ago that is indicative of how horrible things are here regarding Arabs and/or Muslims
Thanks a lot for the link. The video is very informative. It also shows that media have very much power and bear a big responsibility. I liked the comparison/contrast with the settler. Really creepy guy.
I don’t think the situation has a parallel even under Harper’s right-wing government in Canada, though I may be wrong.
In case you wonder: I have a very positive image of Canada, despite the right-wing government. However, I think that Canada’s good reputation around the world is partly due to the stark contrast to the actions of Canada’s neighbouring country.
Then you have the quite revealing new TV series here called “Dumb, Drunk and Racist”
I am going to have a look at the episodes.
This reminds me that there is this documentary by journalist Günter Wallraff about racism in Germany. From Wikipedia: “Autumn 2009, he stunted with a controversial undercover story as a black man to expose latent or explicit racism. The black author Noah Sow criticized this action: ‘He imitates oppressed minorities and harvests money, attention and even respect by doing so’. As a ‘painted white’ he could not have created real black experiences.” I, too, think that the documentary doesn’t give a realistic picture of racism in Germany. In my opinion, most of the negative reactions that Wallraff (disguised as black man) got in the film are not because of racism. He behaved and dressed in a weird way, appeared pretty dumb and rather poor. I am sure that a non-black person/foreigner with these features would have got similar reactions. The only real, explicit racism that I’ve seen in his documentary was when he went to a football game. However, everyone already knows that there’s racism at such events. Nothing surprising.
link to youtube.com
It basically refers to the machismo chest-beating mentality of US politicians at the time who thought that it was feminine and/or cowardly to consider any other options or alternatives to war and destruction in Indochina.
This reminds me of the video “The Splendid Chaps Of The Military”:
link to youtube.com
The UK-based creator of the video jokingly refers to pacifism as a “radical tactic of insulting foes with wave after wave of relentless cowardice”. He also says stuff like this: “Killing things is illegal to Jesus, unless – of course – you are wearing a uniform… It is a proven scientific fact that peace can only be achieved by precision killing… Soldiers must be vigilant, so that they do not commit war crimes. Killing an enemy [by shooting him] in the face with a gun is fine. Killing him with landmines just isn’t cricket… [A soldier] travels the world, defending the crown from those who haven’t the means or the inclination to attack it.” I also recommend his other videos.
Australia a land of racists: Survey finds many anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic
When it comes to surveys, you need to be sceptical . Who funded and conducted the study? Could there have been a desired outcome? Are the questions suitable for the examined issue? In January, a study was published which claimed that 20% of Germans were latently anti-Semitic. An insanely high percentage. I found this hard to believe. That’s why I had a look at the questions. And I noticed that they had nothing to do with spotting anti-Semitism. For instance, one question was: “Do you believe that Jews killed Jesus?” So, what if I believed that Jews killed Jesus? Does this automatically mean that I hate Jews? That I make all Jews responsible for the killing of Jesus? Also, I could be a Muslim who is glad about the death of Jesus. (Just an example!) Or an atheist who doesn’t care. Another question was: “Do you believe that Jews have too much power in your country?” The possible answers were “yes”, “no” and “I don’t know.” However, this question cannot be answered like that. I would have replied something like: “It depends. As a lefty, I think that left-wing Jews have too little power and right-wing Jews have too much power. Jewishness or not doesn’t make a difference to me. What matters are a person’s character and (political) views.” The question and the possible answers are themselves anti-Semitic, because they imply that all Jews are alike. When you have such a flawed questionnaire, then the outcome can’t be correct.
link to globalpost.com
“However, I think that Canada’s good reputation around the world is partly due to the stark contrast to the actions of Canada’s neighbouring country.”
You mean Greenland, right?
@German Lefty
So if they can’t speak fluent German they aren’t German enough for you? lol.
Btw Canada under Harper took part in the Afghan mission, and still has military personnel there to this day, as trainers or advisers. But we got our own dose of the same ra=ra=ra jingoistic “support the troops” nonsense during the past 10 years.
No I think she meant Iceland…
“No I think she meant Iceland…”
Iceland. Of COURSE. Those people are nasty buggers, aren’t?
Woody: “You mean Greenland, right?”
Averroes: “No I think she meant Iceland…”
Woody: “Iceland. Of COURSE. Those people are nasty buggers, aren’t?”
Very funny, guys. Very funny.
“So if they can’t speak fluent German they aren’t German enough for you? lol.”
What is there to LOL about? Having a common language is of major importance. It’s essential for integration and to prevent the creation of parallel societies within one country.
Canada under Harper took part in the Afghan mission
Yeah, but at least Canada didn’t come up with the glorious idea of starting the war. Besides, I didn’t only think of foreign policy. Canada is also much more progressive than the USA in terms of health care and LGBT rights (nationwide marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws, trans people in the military). There’s no death penalty and no Wild West mentality regarding guns. Consensual sex in form of prostitution is allowed. So, sex workers aren’t treated like criminal scum.
But we got our own dose of the same ra=ra=ra jingoistic “support the troops” nonsense during the past 10 years.
Really? How terrible.
Well, there’s no danger of that happening in Germany. Occasionally, some German politician considers it necessary to reprimand us citizens for not supporting or respecting our troops.
Recently, I read a thread in which some German soldiers complained that a part of the civilian population even wishes the troops harm. Well, they are contract killers. So, what do they expect? Praise?
A few weeks ago, there was an anti-war and anti-military protest in Munich. The signs said stuff like, “Abolish the military!” Made me smile.
@ Woody:
It’s chest beating. [...] it’s more a statement “you surrendered and we had to save you. You are weak and we are strong.”
I don’t understand how people can pride themselves on stuff that their country did before they were born. That’s as silly as feeling guilty about things that your country did before you were born.
“I don’t understand how people can pride themselves on stuff that their country did before they were born. That’s as silly as feeling guilty about things that your country did before you were born.”
I’ve thought long and hard on it. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is some innate tendency among humans to wed ourselves into bands. Frankly, I believe it is an evolved trait that was useful for survival in our distant past. I think it’s why one can feel part of “something bigger” for no other reason than favoring a particular sports team.
So when one feels like there is a personal connection between the self and the political (or religious or ethnic or national) entity, the acts or “glory” of that entity become, psychologically speaking, personal. So if the USA did something in the past, the members of that “band” take on the “glory” of the act for themselves.
@ Woody:
I think it’s why one can feel part of “something bigger” for no other reason than favoring a particular sports team.
The (stereo)typical American again. I think that this being a part of something bigger is really just imagination. There’s no logical, valid reason for having such a feeling. Americans constantly feel bigger than others. They think that they are exceptional and therefore have the right start aggressive wars and kill people.
So when one feels like there is a personal connection between the self and the political (or religious or ethnic or national) entity, the acts or “glory” of that entity become, psychologically speaking, personal.
Of course, it makes sense that people have a personal connection to their state. I have that, too. The state is supposed to represent me. Whatever the state does happens in my name. So, if the state does something wrong, then I am ashamed of it. If the state does something good, then I may feel some pride, because I contributed to this achievement by taking part in the election and by paying my taxes.
However, there’s no point in being proud/ashamed of something that your country did before you were born, because this stuff didn’t happen in your name and you didn’t contribute to these actions in any way.
Besides, giving unsolicited help to someone (in this case: France) and then bragging about it and holding it against this someone is not a nice way. If the only reason for helping others is the subsequent possibility of bragging about it, then that’s anything but noble.
Speaking of Icelanders..
link to scotthortonshow.com
Also, for some interesting reading on how things are unraveling in the US political culture, check out:
link to salon.com
German Lefty, is it beyond any reasonable German mentality to imagine a scenario where Germans will actually be threatened so that they feel the need for something more than a few German volunteer military, despite the fact the USA basically guarantees the real practical strong defense of Germany?
The same question could be asked of a Japanese citizen.
@ Citizen:
is it beyond any reasonable German mentality to imagine a scenario where Germans will actually be threatened so that they feel the need for something more than a few German volunteer military
Well, most of us are pacifists. That’s probably why we can’t imagine that there are actually people on this planet who are in the mood for starting wars. Also, I think that we don’t need an army at all. The police should be sufficient for self-defence.
the fact the USA basically guarantees the real practical strong defense of Germany
From what or whom does the US military defend Germany? Nobody attacks us. Also, German and other European troops help US troops in Afghanistan. So, Germany supports the USA, not vice versa.
Besides, it’s not exactly an advantage for us to have US soldiers here. Last December, it was reported that in the event of a US military action against Iran, the Iranians would attack the US military airfields in Germany in order to disrupt supply and logistics operations. So, Germany would be involuntarily dragged into this war.
Also, for some interesting reading on how things are unraveling in the US political culture, check out: salon.com
Averroes, I am a fan of Glenn Greenwald, too.
Yeah his pieces are very good. I’m addicted to them, lol. He’s up there with John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Seymour Hersh, and a few others, who do honest and real journalism. Still not in the league of Noam Chomsky or Edward Said though.
Oh and btw, see this article for just one (among many) example of how the US government sponsors terrorism, in this case in Latin America:
link to guardian.co.uk
@German Lefty
I am sure you will love this piece by Chris Hedges called “War is Betrayal”:
link to truthdig.com
Definitely a good read.
Thanks for your response, German Lefty. I undertand that German troops can opt out of serving anywhere outside Germany’s borders. Is that correct? This would fit your concept that Germany views its military as local police. I think Germans should be concerned that it will be dragged into a war with Iran, thanks to USA, who would, in turn, thank Israel in an honest world as to causation. I agree, nothing to be thankful for. Nevertheless, ultimate thanks would be to AIPAC, the orchestra leader in the USA.
Re: ” That’s probably why we can’t imagine that there are actually people on this planet who are in the mood for starting wars.”
Really? Are the Germans not aware that Israel has started every war it had except the ’73 war? And that war was started by Arab states to grab back land Israel stole as war plunder against international law in the ’73 War?
Any US missile defense systems still operating out of Germany? If so, what are they still doing there? Who are they defending against? What does the average German say about that?
Nice clip, except I have serious about America having fought wars in the past for moral reasons. Which war was that? The Philippines? WWI & II? Vietnam? Or maybe it was the war with Canada way back when…? Even the part about fighting a war on poverty as opposed to the poor seems to be simplistic and misleading. Howard Zinn debunks a lot of that junk.
I think about the only wars we fought where we weren’t clearly in the right would be the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. Otherwise, one has to be intentionally selective in one’s choice of evidence to cast us as not being in the right.
Colin,
You must be joking? Are you stating that America could have been in the right in the Philippines over a century ago, a war that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people there? Or Vietnam perhaps. with around 2 million dead, half of them civilians? If you add Laos and Cambodia to the loop, that nearly doubles. This is not selective choosing and picking, these are real consequences of those US wars of aggression against weaker nations. Vietnam until this day is bearing the consequence of all that Agent Orange chemical warfare that devastated their country half a century ago. Both ecologically and in human terms, with children still being born to this day with the most bizarre deformations. Whatever you may think of the purported reasons for invading and bombing the living sh*t out of these defenseless nations, such as doing it for benevolent or humanitarian reasons for the good of the people on the receiving end of our weapons of mass destruction (the rhetoric is still common these days), no one can deny, based on the sheer facts and the utter destruction of those places we’ve invaded or gone to war with in the past, that they were completely unjust and immoral wars of the most brutal nature. Almost all wars are (not just American ones), there are barely any exceptions. Can’t help but remember the quote from the wise Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian, who described the situation as such: “They create a wasteland (or desert), and call it peace.”
“I think about the only wars we fought where we weren’t clearly in the right would be the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War.”
LMAO. You’re joking, right? Hell, the centuries’ long war against the Native Americans has to top any list of the US’s history of evil war. Followed by the various wars fought against Central American, Caribbean, Pacific and Asian states during the years.
Heck, the only war you can even plausibly make the claim that we were wholly in the right, in my opinion, was WII (although we fought it in a very evil way, at times) and Korea (ditto).
WOODY TANAKA- Sorry to disagree, but Korea bore more than a passing resemblance to Viet Nam. I don’t feel like getting into this, but here is a link if you are interested.
link to dissidentvoice.org
I think I agree with Woody Tanaka on the relative righteousness of America’s historical wars. I would add the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 were relatively righteous too. The Civil War was in a class of its own by definition.
Keith that article is nonsense.
We can debate the morality of the partition of the Koran peninsula and the acts of the various actors all day long (spoiler alert: no one comes out looking particularly good.) But to assert that the cause of the Korean War was anything other than Kim Il-sung’s desire to bring his happy-go-lucky style of political leadership to all of Korea, is a bit much.
But once we posit that, for better or for worse, the partition resulted, in 1948, of two separate states, the invasion of the South by the North was actually handled appropriately by the US, as they went and got the UN’s approval. Of course, there were larger geo-political concerns and the Rhee government was a piece of crap, and Korea was a mess even through the 1980′s, but I think the US gets an A for effort there.
Short clip about Howard Zinn’s assessment of America’s so-called just wars;
link to youtube.com
His book is of course much more detailed and comprehensive, as are the works of Chomsky and others.
WOODY TANAKA- “Keith that article is nonsense.”
Actually, no it’s not. It is completely consistent with other things I have read such as “The Hidden History of the Korean War” by I.F. Stone, as well as by comments by Noam Chomsky. Perhaps you could quote an example of the “nonsense”? The reality is that the Russians pulled out, the US stayed in and remains, the suppression of democracy began before the war, and the US lead war against a Third World country resulted in numerous US atrocities and millions of deaths. The country was divided by US diktat because a unified Korea would have elected the communists. Disagree if you like, but the article is spot on.
Woody
I would delete Korea, it was not our business.
They had a civil war, north against the south, (does it sound familiar?), and we decided to help the south for political reasons, establishing after the end of war a bloody military dictatorship that lasted nearly 30 years.
The only war that was forced upon us is WWII, where the japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and the german u-boats were sinking US ships. All other wars were aggressions against a much weaker, sometimes tiny, land. We never attacked a country that would give us a good fight, for good reason. It is safer to be a kindergarten bully, if you are years older than the other kids.
“Perhaps you could quote an example of the “nonsense”?”
Sure. How about this gem:
This is bunk. The reality is that regardless of the cause of the division (which was not “US-imposed.” That’s nonsense. “Resulting from the conflicting aims of the US and USSR” would be more accurate), the fact is that by the time the North invaded the South, the UN had recognized the Rhee government as legitimate, and both North and South Korea had declared themselves.
This situation had persevered for two years before the North invaded. The primary cause of the war was the fact that Kim Il-sung wanted to rule all of the Koreans, and not merely those unfortunate enough to live north of the 38th parallel. That was the primary cause of the war.
(And if the US’s role in the partition was wrongful, then it all turned out for the best, as it resulted in all of Korea not ending up as the Kim-family-fiefdom-cum-Orwellian-hellhole-living-nightmare that exists today. One cheer for US Imperialism!)
“The reality is that the Russians pulled out”
Actually, the Soviets pulled out. Russia was not an independant state at the time, but was part of the Soviet state, being run by a Georgian dictator. But, yes, the Soviets pulled out, after essentially destroying or permitting to be destroyed (often by assassination) any opposition to the communists and, more specifically, any opposition to Kim Il-sung. By the time the Soviets pulled out, they had already accomplished in the North far worse than your article claims the Americans did in the South.
“The country was divided by US diktat because a unified Korea would have elected the communists.”
Well, the article says would have preferred a socialist system. But Kim and his band weren’t pushing socialism, they were pushing a communist system that has morphed into the Juche ideology, so there’s no telling what the Koreans would have voted for if there had been free and fair elelctions. But that brings up antoher point. At no point in any of the countries occupied by the Soviets after the war did the the communist forces ever permit free and fair elections or any political organizing which opposed the communists. This includes Korea, so there is no way to know what might happened if history were different.
The article is polemic nonsense.
” I would add the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 were relatively righteous too.”
I didn’t add the Revolutionary War, because the fundamental issue in that case was which minority group would be capable of passing laws which were binding on a largely vote-less population. I don’t see how replacing the MP at Westminster with local propertied white males was much of a difference to the majority of people in the colonies/states. If they had outlawed slavery and extended the franchise to all, that would be different.
Further, one of the things which led to the war was the Americans’ desire to expand into the land of the Native Americans, which would entail massive ethnic cleansing/genocide.
I also didn’t add the War of 1812, because I found none of the reasons for the war were sufficient to justify war and some of them (the British support of the Native Americans in their defense of their lands against American invasion; and the desire of Americans to take over Canada) to be downright unrighteous.
“They had a civil war, north against the south,”
No, they didn’t. At the time of the North Korean invasion, North Korea had already declared itself an independant state. Both the ROK and the DPRK were declared in 1948. The war started two years later. And even though the UN recognized the ROK as the sole soverign in Korea, it recognized the de facto existence of a separate and independant North Korean state in SC 82, where it called on “the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel.” This was a war between two states, not a civil war.
“and we decided to help the south for political reasons, establishing after the end of war a bloody military dictatorship that lasted nearly 30 years.”
The facts concerning the end of the war and the Korean political situation into the 1980s are deplorable, for sure, but they are irrelevant to the question of whether the defense of the South Koreans against Kim Il-sung’s invasion was righteous.
German U-boats were not sinking U.S. ships before the U.S. entered World War Two. Actually, Hitler avoided responding to U.S. naval provocations in the months before Pearl Harbor. (Once war was declared, German U-boats then proceeded to sink a lot of U.S. shipping.)
So the impressment of American sailors into the service of the King of England was not an important factor in leading to War of 1812? And, didn’t the unintentional spread of smallpox lead to the bulk of deaths of the native Americans who were not immune? A bi-product of trading?
“So the impressment of American sailors into the service of the King of England was not an important factor in leading to War of 1812?”
It was a reason given by the Americans, but I do not believe it justified war. A diplomatic resolution was proper, but that would have meant the Americans altering their behavior and addressing issues of their making which led to the impressments.
“And, didn’t the unintentional spread of smallpox lead to the bulk of deaths of the native Americans who were not immune? A bi-product of trading?”
There were many waves of communicable diseases among the Native Americans, worse than probably the world will ever see. Made the black plague look like a picnic.
It wasn’t a byproduct of trade, but a byproduct of European and American conquest of Native Americans and those that survived got to experience the theft of their land, their ethnic cleansing and, in many cases, genocide at the hands of the US Army. Remember THAT on memorial day…
“Korea was a mess even through the 1980′s, but I think the US gets an A for effort there.”
I’d give the US a D minus.
I think the US was right to defend South Korea against invasion and that North Korea has been ruled by a Stalinist dictatorship ever since WWII, but you were closer to the truth when you said that the US was on the right side, but fought the war in an evil way. Even the NYT has carried stories about the massacres committed by our allies, and the US air war against Korean urban centers was utterly barbaric. The Gaza War was a picnic in comparison.
And the South was committing enormous massacres even before 1950, as was mentioned in the link above. Here’s the wikipedia version–
link
The Jay treaty did not address impressment, inter alia; Britain did not recognize naturalised American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still “British” — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens.
Yes there were some incidents of intentional genocide of native Americans, including at the hands of the US Army, but there’s no evidence I am aware of that the bulk of white settlers and traders gifting or trading blankets were aware the blankets were so infected. Also, the natives, in turn customarily gifted and traded those blankets. It’s arguable that combined syndrome or cycle and recycling of blankets was mainly responsible for the rapid decline of the native American population. Check Mondoweiss archives as this issue has been discussed at length before on this blog.
And, btw, Woody, I do remember the negatives in the history of America on Memorial Day. It’s also wise to compare US history, including its founding, with that of other nations and peoples.
“The Jay treaty did not address impressment, inter alia; Britain did not recognize naturalised American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still “British” — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens.”
The impressment issue concerned more than just this. It also concerned issues regarding America’s attempt to defeat British colonial trading rules. But even if Britain was 100% in the wrong on the impressment issue (and I would say that it was at least 51% wrong) that would not, in my mind, justify a war.
“Yes there were some incidents of intentional genocide of native Americans, including at the hands of the US Army”
The entire conquest and settlement of the continent was an act of genocide.
“but there’s no evidence I am aware of that the bulk of white settlers and traders gifting or trading blankets were aware the blankets were so infected. ”
There is clear evidence that I know of off, where the British purposefully spread small pox by way of blankets when they were occupying what is now Pittsburgh.
But it’s not just about infected blankets. (Although there were certainly those.) It’s about Europeans/Americans invading Native lands, killing their people and stealing it for themselves. Sometimes they did the “treaty” nonsense, but that was usually at the end of a long series of military engagements where the Natives were ruthlessly attacked, their land stolen and their food supplies decimated and their homes barbarically assaulted by the white military power in the service of the monied interests that coveted the Natives’ land. This was often occumpanied by clear statement by the whites that they indended to wipe out the Natives and/or their culture, by vile racists of the most disgusting sort. It was a couple hundred years of genocide. All of it: the “settlers”, the “Manifest Destiny”, the concentration camps, the Trail of Tears, the repeated Indian “Wars”, the reservation system, the long series of never-respected treaties, — all of it (and I would include such things as the use of Indian names for military vehicles and operations and sporting logos as a part of the genocide.) — was nothing but one giant act of genocide by successive European and American governments, military personnel and civilians. It was easily one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity.
Woody, most native Americans died from smallpox. If it’s true that in one incident the Brits intentionally spread smallpox via blankets, show me your proof. Anyway, that’s not an American-motivated incident. The preamble to the CPPCG states that instances of genocide have taken place throughout world history, but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations agreed to the CPPCG which defined the crime of genocide under international law. As so defined, and looking at post-WW2 genocide trials in Germany and Japan, no country can pretend ignorance of that international law. We both know that Hitler used the American wars against the natives to justify what he did, and, in confidentallyplanning his agenda, he is on record as saying, “Who remembers the Armenians?”
We could, for example, start tracking genocide with the biblical rendition of Joshua’s massacre of the Canaanites.
OTOH, it is consistent on your part to lump early American treatment of the natives with Nazi Germany’s policy or custom. The Americans were never brought to trial as the Germans were at Nuremberg, or the Japanese at Tokyo (if memory serves), yet those trials applied international law ex post facto. I think you’d agree that nobody has to ignore that little fact anymore to bring the current practitioners of genocide to trial. These days, not only is ignorance of the law no excuse, in this context, it would be a lying plea or claim. As I stated not too long ago on this blog (and was called an anti-semite for it by one commenter), I’d be happy if key US neocons and key Israeli leaders would be tried for crimes of predatory war and crimes against humanity–and hanged. They have less excuse than those tried for such after WW2. If memory serves, the US and Israel have not signed on to the ICC’s authority. There are internationally recognized limits to any state’s right to sovereign self-governance when that right meets the right of other groups or state’s to self-govern too. These crimes cannot legitimately cloak individuals of crimes committed “under color of law,” and to allow it, for example, would mean Jim Crow would still be fully alive here in America, and Goering’s defense at Nuremberg would have succeeded.
Citizen,
Smallpox was one of a number of diseases that wiped out about 90% of the pre-Columbian Native American population. Others were stuff like measles, cholera, mumps, etc.
But the genocide I’m talking about occurred to the 10% that remained. Even after the depopulation by the diseases, the whites comitted acts of genocide on the remainder of the population, in order to steal their land.
The entirety of the westward expansion of the whites, the “pioneers”, the “winning” of the west, all of it were part of an unceasing series of acts of genocide committed by Europeans and later Americans, until every square inch of the land was controlled by whites. Americans reduce it to a children’s game of “Cowboys and Indians” and American society revels in the genocide, not the least of which by things like naming sports teams with disgusting racist names like “Redskins” and logos like the Cleveland team.
Further, if you want to examine the proof of the incident at Fort Pitt, I’d suggest you do your own research. The Fort Pitt incident is pretty famous. If you don’t know of it, I would suggest that you look it up. If I remember correctly, the Native Americans who were forced on the Death March forced on them by Andrew Jackson (the “Trail of Tears”) were given blankets taken from a hospital where there was an outbreak of small pox raging.
Further, I do not really understand the point you are trying to make concerning the CPPCG, Lemkin, WWII, etc. I am not making a legal argument, whether things like whether this is an ex post facto application of law might be relevant. Rather, I am making a historical argument (i.e., that these things were acts which we wouldn’t hestitate to call acts of genocide today, even if that word was not known at the time.)
“…The entirety of the westward expansion of the whites, the “pioneers”, the “winning” of the west, all of it were part of an unceasing series of acts of genocide committed by Europeans and later Americans, until every square inch of the land was controlled by whites. Americans reduce it to a children’s game of “Cowboys and Indians” and American society revels in the genocide…”
This is ridiculous.
First off, American society hardly ‘revels in the genocide.’ It’s convenient to have the sentiment now, but we feel do bad about it, were starting to feel bad about it as long ago as Longfellow’s ‘Song of Hiawatha,’ and routinely extend extraordinary benefits to the surviving Indians.
Second, since there are surviving Indians, genocide obviously didn’t occur. In fact, the current Indian population of the United States is about what it was when we encountered the Indians. There’s considerable evidence that this population itself was only a remnant and that the original population had been ravaged by the diseases that had gone on before, but one might as well berate one’s cat for bringing fleas into the house as hold us criminally responsible for that.
Third, those Indians do in fact still hold extensive tracts of land. Much of Washington State, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, and Montana consist of Indian Reservations. If you don’t think Indians don’t exert authority there, just try getting out of line on the Navajo Reservation. Let me know how it goes…
“So the impressment of American sailors into the service of the King of England was not an important factor in leading to War of 1812?”
It was a reason given by the Americans, but I do not believe it justified war. A diplomatic resolution was proper, but that would have meant the Americans altering their behavior and addressing issues of their making which led to the impressments…”
Not really. In fact, the British largely ignored our efforts to obtain a diplomatic resolution.
More broadly, the United States at the time was simply having trouble getting people to take its sovereignty seriously. When we approached the French to establish diplomatic relations, they politely suggested some tributary arrangement might be in order. Of course, as the cause of the war indicates, the British simply ignored our claim to nationhood.
No nation needs to accept others simply flouting its sovereignty and seizing its citizens whenever they see fit. We didn’t, we fought the war, and thereafter, people recognized us as an authentic nation. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Both are true. Germany was attempting to avoid sinking US ships, but since US ships were determinedly shadowing German submarines and reporting their locations to the British, incidents were unavoidable. Look up the Reuben James among others. Somewhat ironically, joining the war against Nazi Germany was a big progressive cause at the time. It was those fierce bad conservatives and isolationists and the parents of today’s evangelicals who wanted to stay out. Try watching Sergeant York. It’s practically a progressive tract for war.
So, Woody, now you no longer suggest the whites knocked off all the natives in America intentionally, but rather 10% of them. That at least gives some perspective, rather than your earlier comment which suggest all whites who came to America were simply white racists, pumped up and willing to eradicate an entire native brown population for land. OTOH, you are right about the successful whites turning the whole ordeal into a game of Cowboys and Indians and yet romanticizing the Indians; certainly that describes the culture I grew up in after WW2. I realize you were not making a legal argument. I just wanted to point out that making something legal or illegal (right or wrong) definitely is used my humans historically to justify or rail against activity or non-activity that you and I would regard as immoral and unethical. My point again is, if Custer did not know what he was doing, or thought it justified, post 1945, Custer has no excuse at all and neither do the Zionists. Again, otherwise, one is in Goering’s camp. This of course is exceedingly ironical re Israel and the USA regimes post 1945.
“I don’t see how replacing the MP at Westminster with local propertied white males was much of a difference to the majority of people in the colonies/states. If they had outlawed slavery and extended the franchise to all, that would be different. “
Now this is typical of the absurdity of the ahistorical view of things.
You seriously expect people living over two hundred years ago to have anticipated your values and adopted them, and since they didn’t, you condemn them for it.
Five hundred years from now, some Woody Tanaka of the future will easily accept that you yourself should have been denied all rights. After all, you were a meat eater, or oppressed your cat, or whatever.
@ColinWright
A few points:
Genocide does not necessarily mean the complete annihilation or extermination of every single last member of a specific ethnic group or people, as you erroneously allege. Here is the UN legal definition of genocide:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Source: Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
link to hrweb.org
In whole or in part is the part needs emphasizing. Based on this, it’s completely fair to say that what was meted out on the Native Indians was absolutely and unequivocally genocide, no matter how you cut it. To boggle it down to a question of numbers, to say that only 30 or 40 or 50 percent were wiped out instead of 99%, is in all honesty quite appalling.
“…were starting to feel bad about it as long ago as Longfellow’s ‘Song of Hiawatha,’ and routinely extend extraordinary benefits to the surviving Indians.”
First, that’s a complete load of crap. First, for every Longfellow, there was probably 100 who shared the view of an anonymous reviewer in the New York Times who refered to ” the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race.” And by “extraoridnary benefits,” I assume you mean the rampant poverty, lowered educational opportunities and overwhelming unemployment that is endemic on reservations?
“Second, since there are surviving Indians, genocide obviously didn’t occur.”
What bull. The fact that the genocide was not complete does not lessen the fact that it was a genocide.
“Third, those Indians do in fact still hold extensive tracts of land. ”
Yes, as subjects to the United States. The white man in Washington makes the rules.
“In fact, the British largely ignored our efforts to obtain a diplomatic resolution.”
Because we refused to respect their rules regarding trade.
“Of course, as the cause of the war indicates, the British simply ignored our claim to nationhood.”
Because we couldn’t enforce it.
Again, I’m not saying that the British were in the right. I’m saying it’s not enough to fight a war over.
“So, Woody, now you no longer suggest…”
No, I never suggested. You read that into whatever I wrote.
“…all whites who came to America were simply white racists, pumped up and willing to eradicate an entire native brown population for land.”
With regard to “Manifest Destiny” and the Westward Expansion of the US, I think that “white racists, pumped up and willing to eradicate an entire native brown population for land” is probably a pretty fair description of what actually occurred. Although they probably wouldn’t have said “brown.” To those racists (as the racists in the ownership and business offices [and fandom] of the Washington football team would tell you) the color they attributed to Native Americans was “red” not “brown.”
“into a game of Cowboys and Indians and yet romanticizing the Indians”
I think the worst part about it is the connection with sports and the military, as if the only think the culture offered was war and fighting. In fact, that may be the most racist part, because it simultaneously truncates a culture to a single thing — fighting — and purpetuates the mythology-cum-lie that what occurred was just a fight between two foe, when the really was that it was a wholesale murderous slaughter by the whites against a Native population that did what it could to resist.
“My point again is, if Custer did not know what he was doing, or thought it justified, post 1945, Custer has no excuse at all and neither do the Zionists.”
Gotcha. Well, my point is that any reasonable person at Custer’s time would know that the Native Americans were human beings. As such, he had no reasonable basis not to know that what he was doing was a crime. That he lived in an evil society is no excuse, as I’m sure you agree.
“You seriously expect people living over two hundred years ago to have anticipated your values and adopted them, and since they didn’t, you condemn them for it.”
I didn’t condemn anyone for not adopting my values. (Why would I? They’re dead. It wouldn’t do any good so why waste my time?)
You really need to improve your reading comprehension and thinking skills. I’m merely saying that the motive to start the American Revolution was, for most Americans, irrelevant and not the righteous fight for freedom it’s made out to be. It made little to no difference in the lives of a slave or a woman or a poor white man whether the person who ran the government was a moneyed white man in London or a moneyed white man in Washington. The “noble cause” of the American Revolution was a fight between two sets of rich white guys over who would run the land.
We wanted to liberate the Canucks in 1812 and only now they slowly start to appreciate it. At least PM does.
I have serious about America having fought wars in the past for moral reasons. Which war was that?
Wars are inherently immoral.
So, German Lefty, what should the US have done when the Imperial Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? I mean, conceding Roosevelt had persistently tried to cut of Japan’s oil supply and we had been supporting China against Japan with our planes and volunteer pilots, and equipment, and US military trainers? And, ditto question when Hitler declared war on USA (which Roosevelt knew he would do as a military ally of Japan)?
@ Citizen:
I am not familiar with the details of WWII. However, if a country is actually attacked, then this country has a right to defend itself in an appropriate way DURING the particular attack. A “counter”attack on innocent people is not justifiable.
German Lefty, I don’t disagree with your stance on the right and also limits of a country pertaining to its own defense. Certainly, I deplore the way my own country’s leaders have turned to a policy model of “preemptive” and/or “preventive” war, which model, in my opinion, has been copied from Israel’s war policy, which my country has financed and covered repeatedly with de facto immunity from accountability. And it looks to me that this “special relationship” partnering is now setting up war on Iran.
“However, if a country is actually attacked, then this country has a right to defend itself in an appropriate way DURING the particular attack. A “counter”attack on innocent people is not justifiable.”
So we should have just beaten the Japanese back and then let them go on having their merry little way with the population of China?
I take it from your logic that the British and French declaration of war on Nazi Germany in 1939 was entirely unjustified? After all, Nazi Germany not only had not attacked them, but (entirely sincerely) hoped that they would stay out of it and let Germany enjoy her delicious Polish sausage in peace.
I deplore the way my own country’s leaders have turned to a policy model of “preemptive” and/or “preventive” war
Citizen, don’t forget the war of revenge in Afghanistan. Revenge isn’t self-defence either. Also, al-Qaeda is an international terrorist group. The Afghan people had nothing to do with 9/11.
@ Colin:
This certainly comes as a shock to you, but I am a non-interventionist, at least when it comes to military intervention. I am for a global abolishment of the military. Also, I think that countries have a responsibility to non-military intervention when another country commits human rights violations.
If Poland had explicitly asked UK and France for military support to defy German attacks on Polish soil, then this would have been justified, because that’s assistance in self-defence. However, (counter)attacks on non-combatants, e.g. bombing Nazi Germany, are unjustified. Also, a declaration of war is not a defensive act, but an offence. And I reject anything but self-defence.
I think what she is saying is that the fact that the Japanese attacked military installations in Hawaii didn’t give the US the right to vaporize cities filled with innocent civilians with atom bombs and incendiary raids.
Yeah, German Lefty, I think my country should have sent only a special forces unit into Afghanistan after 9/11, to hunt down al Quaeda. I fear we stayed there for the same reasons USSR were there so long. Too, the drug fields are very lucrative. The country is today responsible for 82 per cent of the global production of opium. Every year the Taliban makes around £100 million from the illicit trade by taxing farmers, supplying opium seeds and ensuring safe passage of the drugs across the country’s borders.
The Soviet-Afghan War resulted from USSR support for the Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. The Soviets and the PDPA worked together against the Islamist mujahideen resistance. The PDPA government was also supported by India, while the mujahideen resistance found support among a variety of sources, including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and many other nations involved in the Cold War. Interesting how things feed off each other, eh?
I think what she is saying is that the fact that the Japanese attacked military installations in Hawaii didn’t give the US the right to vaporize cities filled with innocent civilians with atom bombs and incendiary raids.
Yep, Woody. That’s exactly “what she is saying”.
By the way, while typing your username, I just realised what “woody” means. Why on earth do you call yourself that?
@ Citizen:
I think my country should have sent only a special forces unit into Afghanistan after 9/11, to hunt down al Quaeda.
If by “hunting down” you mean capturing them alive, trying them and sentencing them to life in prison, then I agree with you. However, if “hunting down” means killing, then no way.
Too, the drug fields are very lucrative. The country is today responsible for 82 per cent of the global production of opium.
Yeah, I remember that I once watched a TV report about the opium plantation in Afghanistan. Wow, 82 % is a lot.
German Lefty, yes, I meant capturing them alive if at all possible and trying them, and sentencing them to life in prison. Recall how Eichmann was obtained and handled?
“By the way, while typing your username, I just realised what ‘woody’ means. Why on earth do you call yourself that?”
It’s a nickname for, among other things, the given name “Woodrow.”
It’s a nickname for, among other things, the given name “Woodrow.”
Okay, that makes sense. However, Woodrow is a really strange name. Imagine a German would call his son “Holzreihe”.
Woody, surely you’ve tuned into Beavis & Butthead?
@ German Lefty
“However, Woodrow is a really strange name. Imagine a German would call his son ‘Holzreihe’.”
Well, the name is usually pronounced with the second syllable “borrowing” the d, so it comes out as “wood-drow” and not “wood-row” so the name’s odd origins are usually somewhat disguised.
“Woody, surely you’ve tuned into Beavis & Butthead?”
Was never a Beavis & Butthead, but I can guess why you bring it up. LOL.
Thank you, Mrs. Garcia! Best of luck with your campaign.
On another thread, Henry Norr, said that he not only sent Mrs. Garcia an encouraging e-mail, he also sent her a campaign contribution. I took this as a “put your money where your mouth is” challenge and sent her a contribution of my own. Anyone else?
Anyone know how to contact Mrs. Garcia?
The first link in her post. This is how some of us could “put our money where your mouth is”. In case you would be overenthusiastic, Florida has 500 dollar limit on individual donations (unless your first name is Sheldon, then 10 million dollars is the minimum).
Thank you Evelyn. We are right behind you. Speak the truth. Focus on the facts
Ms Garcia,
A problem I see in your statement. The Jews claim in Exodus they were enslaved yet in other Jewish literature they claim to have been slaves to no man. I’m not entirely sure if this is Talmud talk but I have seen it.
You may choose to accept that the Jews genuinely believe in the Exodus version but in reality IMO they believe the other version. And if you do accept the Exodus version please remember that slaves did not build the Pyramids. At least that comes from genuine archaeology not some Jewish fairytale.
Otherwise I am with you.
Ms Garcia might find this article useful–it posits that the Jews really do control the US mainstream media inter alia, but it’s all good for the whole world: link to blogs.timesofisrael.com
I imagine some of us here, and most Palestinians, would have a problem with such a POV enlisted in “repairing the world.”
Check out this clip by Joe Rogan. A bit profane but hits the nail right on its head:
link to youtube.com
Yep, Averroes, I wonder if Joe Rogan knows he’s walking in the steps of Smedley Butler? Unfortunately, he will be equally ineffective. One does not have to be smart, educated, empathetic, or politically astute–to vote and/or donate. Politicians and those who fund them actually count on this reality.
Hadn’t heard of Smedley Butler, seems very interesting though. I’ll check him out. Kinda reminds me of General Wesley Clark, sorta:
link to youtube.com
and this:
link to youtube.com
OMG, the BizPac Review article is so terrible. The author is either totally dumb or deluded.
a progressive, pro-Palestinian website
Pro-Palestinian? That’s not the correct term, because “pro-Palestinian” suggests that MW supports absolutely everything that Palestinians do, no matter what it is, including acts of violence.
the Palm Beach County Democrat digs herself an even deeper hole by reaffirming her anti-Israel views
Opposing certain actions of a country is not tantamount to opposing the existence of said country. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that the USA’s sanctions against Iran mean that the USA wants to destroy Iran.
her aggressive defense on Mondoweiss of the controversial belief that Israel is exercising “an illegal, immoral occupation of Palestinian territories”
There’s nothing remotely aggressive in Ms Garcia’s article. Besides, I think that occupation denial should be prosecuted, just like Holocaust denial.
in her own attempt to stifle free speech and intimidate those who take exception to her positions
Wow, the author totally twists Ms Garcia’s words.
I tell Ms Garcia the same thing that I wrote to Sigmar Gabriel when he called the situation in Hebron apartheid: We need politicians who dare to speak their mind, despite the risk of making themselves unpopular. Politicians should stand up for what is right, not for what is popular.
The regular commenters on BizPac Review are quite a crew; they not only refer to Mondoweiss as “a progressive pro-Palestinian” web site, but they all claim this site is filled to the brim with anti-semites and Nazis. It’s easy to post comments there; I suggest we do–I already did on the various articles there about Ms Garcia in none of which does BizPac Review actually quote the full statements revealing what Ms Garcia finds wrong with Israel’s conduct and the US enabling of it. I already posted some because only one person has posted there in defense of Ms Garcia, albeit a number of times. That person needs some support from us.
The regular commenters on BizPac Review are quite a crew
Oh, I haven’t seen the comments until now, because I hadn’t enabled JavaScript. I’ve already wondered why there were no comments.
this site is filled to the brim with anti-semites and Nazis
If this were true, I wouldn’t be here!
It’s easy to post comments there; I suggest we do
Yes, maybe I do that. Have to read the comments first.
in none of which does BizPac Review actually quote the full statements revealing what Ms Garcia finds wrong with Israel’s conduct and the US enabling of it
Right. I have noticed that, too. I mean, if the author bashes her for her views, then the least he should do is to state what exactly it is that he disagrees with.
“…If I remember correctly, the Native Americans who were forced on the Death March forced on them by Andrew Jackson (the “Trail of Tears”) were given blankets taken from a hospital where there was an outbreak of small pox raging…
You don’t remember correctly. First, the ‘smallpox blankets’ episode is largely a fabrication to begin with, and secondly, it had nothing to do with the ‘Trail of Tears.’
In fact, the ‘Trail of Tears’ is an interesting story itself. The US government rather logically wanted to send the Cherokee by flatboat down the Tennessee and up the Arkanasas — and a good many Cherokee went that way. They suffered about a 1% fatality rate. Not outstanding, but about average for a journey of that length at the time. Certainly the argument for deporting them at all was pretty flimsy — but the proposed execution of the deportation was humane enough.
The horrific death toll came among those Cherokee who were marched overland, and they were marched overland because their leaders insisted on it, and their leaders insisted on it because the US government would pay per diem for every Indian who was on the road for as long as he was on the road, and walking would take far longer than taking the flatboat. Those Cherokee who died on the ‘Trail of Tears’ died largely to line the pockets of their leaders — not to satisfy some quite imaginary bloodlust on the part of the US government. If it had been up to the US government, the Cherokee would have been deported allright — but there is no reason to expect many would have died.
So (as you hopefully can begin to see), it was real history, with all its twists, turns, and people grabbing for their piece of the pie — not some simple moral fable.