American History

» Brian Tubbs - Teddy Roosevelt

In response to POV posted by pink101:

Good example. Do you think Howard Zinn is the only historian who brings this side of TR out? If so, you haven't read much in history. But this brings out a great example.

Zinn and his defenders often hold up his book and his perspective as the solution to an injustice. That "injustice" is that, without Zinn and his ilk, the "truth" BEHIND THE SCENES will never be told. We'll never hear about the "real" Teddy Roosevelt. When I hear that, I want to knock these folks upside the head and scream: "Wake up!" Every single history book that I've read - every single one!!!!!! - shows this other side of TR. Every single history book that I've read about the TR period shows that TR was an expansionist (if not an imperialist) and a war hawk. Every single one! Yet Zinn and his supporters run around claiming that only THEY show this side of TR. And they strut around like peacocks on EVERY single era of history, claiming that they are the sole voice of the people. It's HOGWASH!!!

» pink101 - Both Posts

In response to Teddy Roosevelt posted by BrianTubbs:
"... it doesn't bother me that Zinn appeals to the ordinary person...
I don't see Zinn representing the POV of the ordinary person..."
.
I don't see that as pertinent. It's not the point of view; but, the involvement that is important. POV is cultivated through enculturization and that includes the schooling we receive from our teachers. So, history education gets to be all important in developing an understanding of our social foundations. In fact, I don't think Zinn represents that POV. Instead, I think he expresses a different attitutde regarding history where attitude can be seen as an angle of approach--so to speak.
.
"He represents only SOME of the so-called 'ordinary' people.
.
If by represents you mean that he re-presents, then you are correct. Your example that every ordinary person cannot possibly be given equal time in any study of history is functional here.
.
"... If [you think Howard Zinn is the only historian who brings this side of TR out], you haven't read much in history."
.
No, I haven't read much in history. Generally, what I know has come to me from what I was given in public school and a little in college and some that I've caught from television and the movies. It's only recently that I've been interested enough to do some searching. Already, though, I have started to learn that history is taught in such a way that serves the interests of societal leaders. That, in particular, is why I'm here at this American History site. Obviously very few people are interested or we would have a great deal of participation. Perhaps some lurker will discover an interest.
.
In any event, the Theordore Roosevelt issue is only one of several issues that Zinn gives some focus. The title of his book gives us an idea that he is going to represent us with the roles ordinary people carried off in history--people who I can identify with. It seems that Zinn lays down a flow that moves through history. He shows the line that exists between powerful forces and common people. Certainly, Fischer lays down some eye openers as well; but, this thread is about Zinn. Maybe, I just never learned much in the past? Maybe most people are well aware of these things that seem to have passed me by? I'm not dumb and I can learn.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - It's HOGWASH!!!

In response to Teddy Roosevelt posted by BrianTubbs:
"...Zinn and his supporters run around claiming that only THEY show this side of TR. And they strut around like peacocks on EVERY single era of history, claiming that they are the sole voice of the people. It's HOGWASH!!!"
.
Someone needs to take you to task, Brian.
.
I may not be nearly as competent as you when it comes to calling up references and I'm certainly not as well versed as you are in making blanket statements against others like you've done here against "Zinn and his ilk"; but, I am not some dumb teenager kid in your classroom who you can control by giving me good or bad marks in your class. I'm sorry to have to make such a strong statement here; but, you have left little room for gracious interaction lately. You come on very strong.
.
For some reason, you have developed a particular distaste for Howard Zinn. What is it with you? I am about half way through his People's History of the U.S. and still have not been able to fault him on one single item. In fact, he brings a welcome focus that allows the reader to follow a particularly steady line that runs through history. What's HOGWASH is your ranting against Zinn.
.
If the only president he shows to be expansionist were Teddy Roosevelt, that would be the end of it; but, he shows a strain and "IT AIN'T PRETTY"!
.
If we, as American citizens, are to get a grip on our civil responsibilities, it is necessary that we understand our foundations--our history.
.
I don't have to wonder very much to come up with a suspicion about your point of view regarding America's wars of conquest and expansion such as the war against Mexico, the Spanish American War, the Filipino War, Korea, VietNam, and Iraq. These ALL--EVERYONE OF THEM--WARS appear to have been fought on behalf of the economic intersts of corporations. Where can we get a handle of America's reputation in the world as an imperialist power if there aren't historians like Howard Zinn to bring them to our attention? Or is it that you just belong to the sycophancy that sucks up to the big boys?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - More complicated than Zinn presents

In response to It's HOGWASH!!! posted by pink101:

Pink, based on all your comments about Bush, the Iraq War, corporations, greed, etc. - I know that you share common ground with Zinn on his interpretations of US history. I'm not surprised at all by that.

My BRIEF take on the wars you mentioned...

Was there a strain of greed present in the motives and reasons behind those wars? YES

Was that the MAIN reason we went to war in those cases? Zinn and you would say "yes," but Zinn only covers that dimension. He doesn't explain the OTHER dimensions - so he stacks the deck in favor of his interpretation.

A big example. A nation-state has to protect and safeguard its sovereignty and security interests. In doing that, it sometimes has to do things that other nations will find objectionable. I'm not as strict on this point as Machiavelli's The Prince, but I AM a realist. It's easy to sit here in the 21st century and throw rocks at decisions made in the past - which, in effect, put you in the position where you can throw rocks at the past.

For example...

Mexican War - This was at least partly justified on national security grounds IF you accept the validity of the Monroe Doctrine. Mexico's instability invited European intervention. Recall that the Mexicans were subdued by both Spain and France at different times in their history. And Mexico experienced severe civil war and unrest throughout most of its "independence." It is in the interests of the US to make sure its borders are secure and that its neighbors are STABLE. Why do you think we passed NAFTA in the 1990s? I have a lot more to say about this one - including bandit raids across our border and so forth.

Spanish-American War -- It's interesting that, on the one hand, you and Zinn want the focus on the People -- but then you ignore what the People were clamoring for (I mean the people collectively - all classes, not just the poor), and instead focus on the greedy corporations and THEIR motives. The American people (by a majority) supported the Spanish-American War for two main reasons: 1) they saw it as a war of liberation for the Cubans, who were suffering under Spanish brutality, and 2) they understood (correctly) that the European nations were already FULLY engaged in imperialism - and that the US would soon be relegated to second-class or even Third World status if it didn't catch up. The last point was WELL UNDERSTOOD by Teddy Roosevelt! It's a harsh reality, but it's reality nonetheless.

Filipino War - a MESS! Not enough time to get into that one here in this post, but we more or less STUMBLED into that one. Serious mistakes in the Phillippines and the assassination of McKinley at home helped us royally botch things there.

Korea - NOT a war of US aggression fought for economic interests. Can't believe that you, as a Korean veteran, would say that. I'll defer to you for your experience in terms of what was happening IN Korea during the war, but I know a thing or two about US foreign policy throughout the 20th century. The Korean War was instigated NOT by the United States, but by the North Koreans in concert with the Soviets. That is a historical fact! We were not the aggressors.

Vietnam - Too much to say for this short post. Two words, though: COLD WAR. Vietnam was a hot war in the overall Cold War - a test of resolve between East and West. Were there other factors? Yes. But the Cold War was the biggest.

Iraq - We've debated this one to death. All I can say is that if it were all about America's greed, why doesn't the Bush Administration just militarily seize and protect the oil fields and let the rest of Iraq go to the dogs? Given all the charges of cronyism leveled at them, they might as well. Their PR can't get worse. Let's just suck all the oil out and then leave the country. (Obviously, I don't believe that, but if Bush were as evil and greedy as you say, that's precisely what he would do - or should do if he were a smart Bad Guy).

» pink101 - It's The Economy Stupid

In response to More complicated than Zinn presents posted by BrianTubbs:
.
On my way out to pick my grandson up at Hope College in Holland; but, I'll get back to you. I can easily defend my position regarding Korea and VietNam and Iraq.
.
"It's the economy, stupid." I'm sure you've heard that before.
.
But, for now, Zinn DOES represent other interests as they were involved in these wars.
.
Your perspective is pro--economic interests--no doubt about that. It's easy to see.
.
So, here's some fat for you to chew on, Brian.
.
In the past, America has been looking for consumer markets to satisfy its ability to produce surplus goods.
.
Now that China is the main producer and America the main consumer, how long do you think it will be before the economic interests in China that are behind its economic expansion are going to conquer the United States like they've had us conquering consumer markets for us? It's time to get real and see that we are creating a monster that will bite us in the face. And, that monster is the force behind our nation's expansionist policies. Bush is their guide--on.
.
They aren't going to be so easy on us because they are a full blown fascist state. We're still a democracy and that weakens us when it comes to wars of agression. Right now, we're facing a broken military. We'll have to start up the draft pretty soon if Bush isn't stopped. Then, all hell is going to break loose.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - It's The Economy Stupid

In response to It's The Economy Stupid posted by pink101:

Your perspective is pro--economic interests--no doubt about that. It's easy to see.

My perspective in terms of foreign policy is pro-SECURITY interests, and the economy is certainly a part of that - but it's not the only part of it. One of the reasons, for example, that we assumed territorial control of the Phillippines was to set up NAVAL bases. Same with Hawaii, for that matter. We wanted to position ourselves as a Pacific naval power.

I disagree with the "It's the Economy, stupid." It's a shallow, very narrow perspective. But I do believe that the economy is important in that we're talking about the livelihood of people.

» Brian Tubbs - One-world socialist "utopia"

The only way to accomplish what Zinn wants (and what apparently YOU want) --- eradication of poverty, equal distribution of wealth, and diminished nationalism and religionism -- is to set up a one-world government AND economy. And that economy would, of course, have to be (to satisfy you and Zinn) socialist - or at least heavily tilted toward socialism. If you carefully read Zinn's writings (and I've read a LOT of his articles), this is what he's pushing for.

» pink101 - One-world socialist "utopia"

In response to One-world socialist "utopia" posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You have opened two pertinent points both for which you seem to fault Zinn. #1. The fact that you appear to believe that in order for us to be a military power we must have conquests and, #2. You seem to want to discount socialism off hand with no further ado in regards to its merits or liabilities--only that it must be an undesireable economic system.
.
The first--that we must express ourselves as a military power through conquests--seems to say that we must fight wars to express our military power. This is a philosophy about world leadership and it goes all the way down to the school bully who beats up on the weak and defenseless kids to make sure everyone knows to whom they should give their lunch money. It's the same idea that some patriarchal types work with when they beat their children and wife to ensure tranquility and dominance in the home. It works; but, a lot of people get messed up in the mix. I can talk about the masacres of war if you insist on defending it as a means of hegemony.
.
But, the point about having naval bases in the Pacific Ocean is that they were needed to make the consumer markets safe for America's big business interests. Every student of history soon learns that as the nineteenth century was coming to a close, our nation's productivity far outstripped our ability to consume. Big business wanted and sorely needed new markets if its investors were to be satisfied. American investors wanted doors opened to them and closed to the foreign competition.
.
There is a perspective in all of this that is lost when we start talking terrorism and other religion foreigners. As long as we can keep the focus on the terrorists we won't have to discuss the oil reserves and or the consumer markets.
.
I fully agree that we're in a world where competitive forces are beginning to line up--the east and the west--us and them whoever they are.
.
Capitalism and its spokespersons--of whom you seem to be one--have convinced Americans that democracy and capitalism are one and the same. Further, the point has been made for over a century that socialism is an inherent evil akin to the godlessness of communism. We must defeat those evils at any and every cost--no number of American fatalities is too high a price to pay to save capitalism. The real enemy is fascism. But, here you are faulting Zinn for being a socialist. How is that? What is wrong with socialism?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Coalitions and Factions

In response to One-world socialist "utopia" posted by pink101:

James Madison is probably one of the most brilliant political thinkers EVER to grace a national stage. He explained perfectly what happens in any kind of a democratic system. You get factions. And in order for one group to attain any kind of political power, they must put factions together into coalitions. Leading a democracy requires that you hold together different factions into a ruling coalition of sorts.

One of those factions is Big Business. And certainly, US political leaders have appealed to Big Business interests in justifying their foreign policy - THROUGHOUT American history. They've done this in order to bring Big Business into their coalition leadership. Consequently, it's easy for Zinn to ZERO in on - to FOCUS on - that one faction (Big Business) and how it has influenced US foreign policy over the years (and how others have been exploited or mistreated as a result).

To be sure, that perspective needs to be told. And much of what Zinn has to say is pertinent and appropriate in that light. If we don't learn from history, we fail ourselves. So...I appreciate that perspective being brought out. BUT...

It's only one perspective. It's only one faction. It's a BIG and influential faction, but it's not the dominant one. There are others. Zinn pays little mind to the others.

» Brian Tubbs - Socialism

I have two problems with socialism. Both are related, but here we go...

1. With capitalism, each person has an OPPORTUNITY to succeed, though for some it takes much more work than others. Go watch "The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith. Great movie. The character he portrayed (and it's based on a true story) had to overcome MANY, MANY more obstacles than most - but it was still possible for him (in spite of those obstacles) to succeed, to triumph. Socialism takes that away. It puts a glass ceiling on success. You can't aspire to riches or anything like that in a socialist economy. You're limited to how much you can attain. And those limits are decided FOR you - by others.

2. In practice, socialism requires enforcement. Human nature being what it is - some people try to cheat and/or take advantage of the system. Some won't work. Others will try to get more than they are entitled to. And on and on. In order to enforce socialism and truly manage the economy in a meaningful and effective way, you must have a BIG and POWERFUL government - and that government MUST be centralized. So, local autonomy is out the window. States' rights -- gone! You need an extremely strong, far-reaching, centralized NATIONAL government in place to enforce socialism. That leads you inevitably to totalitarianism - total control of society by the government. You say: "It doesn't have to be that way." It's ALWAYS been that way - whenever any decent size nation-state has converted to socialism, the government assumes total control over the society and the economy. This goes against every fiber of my being. I do not support that much power in the hands of government. Yet, it's inevitable with TRUE and I mean truly enforced socialism.