American History

» iowarch - Both Posts

In response to Both Posts posted by pink101:

Sorry, I had to use your own words to make my point: In practice, socialism requires enforcement.( Remove socialism and replace with any form of government) 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.( As is the case in any other form of government) 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.( And what part of Democracy or any other government doesn't do the same?) 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. ( Excuse me, but any hierarchical organization reguardless of what form it is centralizes its operation, so you are talking about three seperate organizatins that fit into the same organization, Federal, State and Local, all are hierarchical and all contribute to total control of you, the masses) If you want it less than that you should argue for anarchy, everybody does what works for them, but then anything that requires something to be highly organized that doesn't happen, kiss of death to the internet, the cell phone, the electric grid, the food supply as we know it, and everything.
I don't have the answer for you as to what works and gives everybody what they want, that just doesn't happen or there wouldn't be a discussion/arugument here. Instead of moving towards opposite poles to increase the ultimate happiness of each different group, why don't we try and find what works for the betterment of all, which was what the Bill of Rights was all about when the people decided the Constitution didn't adequately answer all their problems. Compromise seems to be a word that escapes politics today and it gives us the grid lock we have faced for a number of years already.

-- posted by iowarch

» pink101 - Both Posts

In response to Both Posts posted by iowarch:
.
Okay.
.
All government requires enforcement. The very word, government, implies the idea of govern which, in turn, explicits laws and rules of law. Every government includes groups (police and the courts) the purpose of which is to enforce the rules.
.
These blathering arguments about socialism requiring big government and totalitarian control of the people are nothing more than the stumblings of those who have been trained into thinking capitalism is something for the people. It is a system of economics based on investments that get returns. And, anyone who doesn't think capitalism doesn't promote lobby groups that get the legislative powers in motion to produce so-called sweetheart laws is ignorant.
.
What you're talking about is laissez faire or, the doctrine that government should not interfere in commercial affairs.
.
And, it is capitalist bull roar to claim that has something to do with capitalism.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Daniel Flynn on Howard Zinn

In response to Daniel Flynn on Howard Zinn posted by pink101:

Pink, there you go with strawmen again. I want you to SPECIFICALLY address the points raised by Messrs. Praeger and Flynn.

Take these by Flynn...

Through Zinn's looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history's bloodiest state-sponsored killings, transforms into "the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people's government, independent of outside control." The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were "welcomed" by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a "terrorist group" that "seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua." Castro's Cuba, readers learn, "had no bloody record of suppression."

What Flynn says here about Zinn's characterizations is absolutely correct. And anyone who is even REMOTELY fair-minded and objective should immediately see some PROBLEMS with these characterizations. For someone to say that Castro's Cuba "had no bloody record of suppression" doesn't deserve to be respected as a credible historian.

And then there's this example cited by Flynn...

In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton's crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this "violent crime continues to increase." It doesn't. Like much of Zinn's rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

And then Flynn's assessment of Zinn's treatment of the Founding Fathers is SPOT ON! I remember reading that myself in Zinn's book and thinking: "What on EARTH are you talking about?" Were there a FEW self-serving men in the founding era? Sure. But this idea that the whole motive behind American independence was to cut ties with British creditors is laughable to say the least. Was that a side benefit to some of the revolutionaries? Yes. But if economic self-interest was their motive, I can PROVE to you, Pink, that the leading Founders had many opportunities for such advancement during the war that they did NOT take!!! The cause of American freedom and independence was of higher value to them than lining their own pockets. Zinn, of course, doesn't see that.

I frankly object to your wave-off of Flynn, without responding to some of his more significant points. It makes YOU look bad, Pink. Reduces YOUR credibility.

» Brian Tubbs - Flynn's bottom-line assessment

It's hard to argue with Daniel Flynn's bottom-line assessment of Howard Zinn. Read this carefully. Do not skim it.

The profit motive certainly is central in numerous major events in American history. The discovery of gold at Sutter's Fort in 1848, for example, is undeniably the primary reason-alongside the favorable outcome of the Mexican War-for the subsequent population explosion in California. Prior to the discovery, less than 20,000 Americans trekked westward-many of them Mormons escaping persecution. By 1860, that number had exploded to almost 300,000, with more than two-thirds of overlanders going to California-a place that had generally been forgone by travelers in favor of New Mexico, Oregon, or Utah prior to the Gold Rush. The Gold Rush is one of several occurrences in American history that conform to Zinn's overall thesis. This is hardly proof of the validity of this rigid worldview. For every major figure or event that was motivated by economic interests, there are scores that were not. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

To question Zinn's method of analyses is not to say that economics does not influence events. It is to say that one-size-fits-all explanations of history are bound to be wrong more than they are right.

These words, Pink, are not the ramblings of a - how did you put it? - "a forceful faction" bent on - what was it? - "control" or some nonsense like that. No, these words are ACCURATE. Flynn sums up Zinn nicely.

» Brian Tubbs - Zinn's Omissions

From Flynn's article...

More striking than Zinn's inaccuracies-intentional and otherwise-is what he leaves out.

Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate all fail to merit a mention. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are entirely absent. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers. While Zinn sees fit to mention that immigrants often went into professions like ditch-digging and prostitution, American success stories like those of Alexander Hamilton, John Jacob Astor, and Louis B. Mayer-to name but a few-are excluded. Valley Forge rates a single fleeting reference, while D-Day's Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles are left out. In their place, we get several pages on the My Lai massacre and colorful descriptions of U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

How do students learn about U.S. history with all these omissions? They don't.

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!

» Brian Tubbs - Response to iowarch

In response to Both Posts posted by iowarch:

It seems you're responding to me, even though your post says it's a response to pink101.

I will be brief. All government involves a measure of control. But, with all due respect, I don't think you're taking the time to understand the context of what I'm saying. Consider our present system of government and economy - our present system here in the United States. With me? I'll assume you are. Okay, so considering our PRESENT system, think about the amount of freedom available to the American people. Alright?

Now, Pink is saying that we should consider moving away from capitalism and toward socialism. That would require a CHANGE - a transformation of our system. And THAT would require the GOVERNMENT to get BIGGER, STRONGER, and MORE intrusive than it is now.

Consider what Chavez is doing in Venezuela. Anyone who says that the Venezuelan government is smaller and LESS intrusive under Chavez (than it was under his predecessor) is an IDIOT!!! There's no nice way to put that, so I'm not going to try. Chavez is making himself a dictator as he transitions Venezuela toward socialism. The same dynamic happened in Cuba under Castro. Same thing in North Korea. Same thing in Maoist China. And on and on.

Any time a country has transitioned from capitalism to socialism, it has inevitably led to totalitarianism. That's a historical fact.

That's what I'm trying to get Pink to see - and I guess you, it seems, as well.

» iowarch - response to Brian

In response to Response to iowarch posted by BrianTubbs:

As far as I am concerned it is all a matter of degree. Repression can come from any form of government and freedom is very elusive reguardless of who is in power. That is the magic word of course: "power". There are lots of ways this happens, it just depends on where you are at in the food chain as to if you are being marginalized by the status quo and eaten or at the top of the food chain; at any time the tables can turn. Take a relatively simple example, unions and organizing for instance. Once the union is in place and seniority rules it takes a lot of convincing to keep the old timers from saying we want to keep all the benefits for ourselves and we will sacrifice the new guys to the company and allow a two tier system to exist with old guys getting more than new guys in wages and benefits. So something that starts out egalitarian turns into every man for himself in a quick hurry.
I for one can understand Chavez in reguard to what he is doing, I can also understand why Castro did what he did. The United States, when dealing with countries with oil reserves, has a tendency to push people around till they get what they want, that is what happened with both of these countries. Once Castro overthrew the government in Cuba he went looking for the best deal he could get and he wasn't mincing words. The Russians were dealing with him and if we had offered a better deal he would have been in our pocket. We decided to play hard ball, Castro nationalized the refinery capacity in Cuba end of story. Cuba sold sugar to Russia, Russia sold unrefined oil to Cuba and they took care of the rest. Venezuela, same deal, we keep screwing with the government over throwing this one for that one, throwing money around to get a coup going, well Chavez might be dumber than a box of rocks on some levels, but he knows full well everything that happened in the past did nothing for the poor in his country but kept them poor. He wants to change that, and maybe those who were skimming and double dealing are going to take it in the shorts, but if they are out of the loop maybe, just maybe some of this money can filter down to the poor people. You know, the ones that voted Chavez in inspite all our complaining about voter fraud. Seems we should take care of our own voter fraud before we go out on a limb fooling with other governments and their way of doing things. I would also suggest the term idiot is not appropriate, Chavez knows he doesn't need the US as a market for Oil, the Chinese will be happy to take all the oil he has to offer. If anything should happen to Chavez, you can bet we will have had something to do with it. As far as turning things into totalitarian states, if we quite screwing with these governments they tend to right themselves without all the totalitarianism you complain about. I see you didn't mention Vietnam, which managed quite well to get over its being nasty to its own people when we stayed out of their affairs for a number of years. People are thriving there and doing much better without us running rough shod on the place and all the while we were dreaming of the oil reserves in the Gulf of Tonkin and the South China Sea. Seems that oil is at the bottom of most of our totalitarianism in our reguard to the rest of the world. Maybe we need to kick the habit and things around the world might start to heal themselves without our intervention and fear of bad things happening because we didn't handle it ourselves. Seems we cause most of the bad things that happen in the first place, so maybe our staying out of the mix will only make things get better,faster, who knows!

-- posted by iowarch

» pink101 - Daniel Flynn on Howard Zinn

In response to Daniel Flynn on Howard Zinn posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I frankly object to your wave-off of Flynn, without responding to some of his more significant points. It makes YOU look bad, Pink. Reduces YOUR credibility.
.
While I applaud the focus Zinn puts on American history, I am not claiming him to be my hero.
.
And you can quote right wing nuts like Flynn and Praeger all day long; but, my credibility is not based on the idea that Zinn is not guilty of bias. Everyone has some slant and yours appears to be in favor of a conservative perspective from the American South. In other words, it looks like you want to protect the South and its well known prejudicial conservativism.
.
But, let me get this straight. Are you trying to convince your readers that American experience is not about the struggle between the haves and the havenots and that Zinn is wrong for bring that perspective to the forefront? In fact, that Zinn is so wrong he should be discounted--that his book should be removed as required reading wherever it has achieved that status?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - response to Brian

In response to response to Brian posted by iowarch:
.
Good points you make.
.
Have your read John Perkins', Confessions of An Economic Hit Man? http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Econom...
.
His book details quite a bit on the recent history of American interference in the operations of foreign governments. And, it is--probably--one of the best exposes' on the way we have interfered with the sovereignty of places like Venezueala, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. These situations are coming to the surface. The recent movie, The Good Shepherd, with Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, and Robert DeNiro is q chilling expose on the shadow government that controls our foreign policies. It's a must see.
.
I

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - American South

In response to Daniel Flynn on Howard Zinn posted by pink101:

Everyone has some slant and yours appears to be in favor of a conservative perspective from the American South. In other words, it looks like you want to protect the South and its well known prejudicial conservativism.

You're full of it, Pink. In other words, you just called me a racist. No matter what I say, you keep dragging me back into this CARICATURE you have for me and any other southern-born conservative. I'm sick of it.