Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Your viewpoint is always interesting and colorful, Stephen! I must confess not being familiar with the historians you cite, but they would make for a good reading list.
The only Lackoff I have read was a strategy tract on how Democrats should craft better talking points. His main theory was that conservatives were like strict fathers, and liberals were like families that had equally strong fathers and mothers. Some time later, his liberal think tank shut down. Still, given Obama's two wins, maybe someone was listening :) To me, he was not nearly as interesting as Chomsky, who challenged a great many of my assumptions and exposed a great deal of propaganda.
And he was apparently poisioned with a product from Biopreparat
So your family suffered from these weapons. I know it's hard not to fall into conspiracy clichés, but this reminds me what Chavez claimed after he got cancer. He clairly accused the CIA to poisoned him and others latin americains political leader. A technology to weaponise cancer or something like that. I guess it's easier than fomenting Coup d'Etat these days.
Back on topic, I wonder how much freedom one could expect when the State apparatus is under paranoid control. There're a lot of countries ruled by such attitude. US are one of them. And for what I understand, the level of paranoia was always at a very high rate in the power circles. Lately I watched C. Eastwood movie 'J. Edgard'. I was very surprised to note how high Hoover was in this psychological state.
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
Mainstream history is generally more reliable and scholarly, but will also rarely vary from accepted narratives. Thus it fulfills its function of justifying the current power structures.
I would echo Stephen's observation, that good, reputable historians are peer-reviewed, and they would not risk their reputations by selective omission of inconvenient facts or purposeful distortion, in order to present a particular point of view, whether they are "mainstream" or not. Reputable historians are not shills for the "current power structures."
Historians and writers such as William shirer, Hannah Arendt (already mentioned) Francis Fitzgerald, Barbara Tuchman, Alistaire Horne, Max Hastings, Isaac Deutscher, Louis Fischer, Isaiah Berlin, Basil Liddel-Hart, the current dean of Russian studies Robert Service, and many others too numerous to mention here, have never demonstrated in their writings a tendency to justify the current power structure. In fact, just the opposite, many of their works have been critical of the power structure's interpretation of events and consequent actions, from the folly leading up to World War I to Vietnam.
Nevertheless, if their works occasionally coincide with the mainstream narrative of the power structure, it is because good research into primary source material and proper historiographical methodology lead them to that conclusion. It is not a function of shilling for the power structure. Inconvenient as it may seem to some, there are times when the power structure has it right. I know this fact bedevils congenital conspiracy theorists, but there it is.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
There're a lot of countries ruled by such attitude. US are one of them. And for what I understand, the level of paranoia was always at a very high rate in the power circles. Lately I watched C. Eastwood movie 'J. Edgard'. I was very surprised to note how high Hoover was in this psychological state.
Uhhmm, No.
Clint Eastwood is not a reliable narrator. He is a rapidly becoming a self deluded actor /director who talks to chairs in national TV. The library is better place to get an idea of who Hoover was and how he influenced the US. Clint Eastwood made a couple of passible films about jazz musicians, but he does not have the right stuff to take on US politics with any accuracy.
It would be a rather unsophisticated claim that historians would purposefully disfigure their work to conform with the wishes of the power structure, and I did not make it. Yet I find it hard to believe a student of history could not note that history in prior societies has fulfilled the function of supporting or justifying the power structure, and to suspect a similar phenomenon in our own. Even scientists, in the course of their work, have fulfilled this function through unconscious bias (as Steven Jay Gould documented). It is hardly a conspiracy theory--which, by the way, is as cheap an accusation as they come. Those who share these blind spots would probably not be particularly interested in discovering them. To me, there is nothing more fascinating.
I think it may be interesting since (Bill's quote)"we are discussing Lenin and the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, so naturally we focus on their ideology and the implementation of their program and grip on power.", to look at how the U.S. Administration reacted against the threat in his own house. (Also we remain OT) Echoed somehow to what happened after 9/11?
Ha, and this is for estebanana, please have a look at it and tell me if it's better than that crappy Eastwood movie
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
ORIGINAL:mezzo So your family suffered from these weapons.
Naturally, I can´t state this with absolute certainty. And it is weird somehow how I have never discussed this with my family ( to not needlesly unsettle) and mentioned it to 2 or 3 persons or so over all these years only to now trombone it on the internet. Strange as I am.
I suspected Biopreparat in play for the results of the autopsy that we had ordered. ( There appeared quite some fitting to a weapon produced in those laboratories that I had read of years before.) Also it made sense after the fact, recalling how my brother´s body felt stiff like wood while I touched him at the shoulder when layed out. Further suspecting American machination as employing background, for my doubts on KGB´s ability to monitor talks in US embassies.
Anyway, Bill is right saying that "at times power structure has it right". As seldomly as such case appears, it seems to occure eventually in the ways officially declared. Admittedly, to my surprise.
Yet, such won´t change much on the fact that the least of affairs are actually going on in ways officially spread, and that too often than not ordinary rip-off and evil is what steers the action. All but sincere striving of democratic forces to say the least.
... Man, how I would had wished the temporary quarrel between Germans and Swiss this year would had led to realizaion of the threat to unveal top German politicians´ secret accounts in the neighbouring country, and see from there an avalanche roling on international representative scum and fake. A daydream ...
For once people´s unbreakable belief in authority to come to an end, so that actual concerns about integrity and transparency could lead to uncomparable degree of sincerity and reasonable proceed. Even juts higher obligation to pretend would already be helping somewhat.
Which we could be urgently needing, at ecologically two before twelve.
For, what seems more than foresseable is that with the corruption of unauthentic leadership in place we will be having the ecological break down sooner than people dared to dread. Very soon, I fear.
Naturally, I can´t state this with absolute certainty.
Of course, that's the avantage of these methods if they're really in vigor. One can't prove anything. Statements fall undoubtdelly into conspiracy theories.
One famous case is the illness of Bob Marley, rumors, hoax...Openning dates of CIA' archives about JFK murder have been posponed...not to mention 9/11. Or even Arafat's exhumation. But in the end, History will tell.
However, poison has always been an effective weapon in History. Historical novels are full of these stories e.g Druon's 'The cursed Kings'
A good book I read recently is Umberto Eco' The Prague Cemetery
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
It would be a rather unsophisticated claim that historians would purposefully disfigure their work to conform with the wishes of the power structure, and I did not make it. Yet I find it hard to believe a student of history could not note that history in prior societies has fulfilled the function of supporting or justifying the power structure, and to suspect a similar phenomenon in our own.
You are absolutely correct that historians "in prior societies have fullfilled the function of supporting or justifying the power structure." There is no greater example than the Soviet Union, whose historians towed the party line and were really nothing more than hacks in the service of the state. There are other examples, of course, but that is the most prominent in modern history.
I read your comment to suggest that historians today, in the West and what we call the more liberal world, more or less unconsciously justify the current power structure as part of what Antonio Gramsci (the Italian communist theoreticion) would have considered the overall cultural hegemony by which the ruling class imposes its values on the rest. (By way of digression, Chomsky echos many of Gramsci's ideas, although I find Gramsci a much more incisive and interesting intellectual than Chomsky.)
This idea that historians (even if unconsciously) are part of the overall social-construct of cultural hegemony imposed by the power structure does a disservice to historians. They are not blind to the power structure. To suggest that they are (witting or unwitting) justifiers of the power structure is to deprive them of agency. It suggests that they are simply acted upon, rather than agents acting in their own right. Antonio Gramsci (and Chomsky) notwithstanding, there are too many examples that suggest otherwise.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Of course, that's the avantage of these methods if they're really in vigor. One can't prove anything. Statements fall undoubtdelly into conspiracy theories.
One famous case is the illness of Bob Marley, rumors, hoax...Openning dates of CIA' archives about JFK murder have been posponed...not to mention 9/11. Or even Arafat's exhumation. But in the end, History will tell.
However, poison has always been an effective weapon in History. Historical novels are full of these stories e.g Druon's 'The cursed Kings'
A good book I read recently is Umberto Eco' The Prague Cemetery
What amazed me during the days of Araft´s passing away was how no voice of suspecting was raised anywhere ( certainly not as reflected through German media ). I was in disbelieve about this most flashy case of "die to demand" ( that we had seen so routingly with all those Noriegas, Marcos, Idi Amins Honnekers etc.) and the concertated silence around it. ... Even among Palestine people; could it be?
And 9/11: Never have I seen such blatant neglecting by major press. Their docu contributions against overwhelmingly lucid `conspiracy´ videos assembled by the people have been the example of weakest reasoning ever.
The minute my sister called me on the phone telling me to switch on my TV, hysterically whooping that this was an attack of retarded against the whole of the civilized world, I immediately expressed my impression of a Reichstags burning going on there in Manhattan. Things were just too incosistently coming about for a most defence prepared locale worldwide.
At that time it was impossible to utter this impression loudly in public ( I was hesitating to say so to American friends), but I agree with you in that the truth may be revealed sometime. However seeing other examples like of thousands killed in Nevada without recognition until today, 9/11 might be taking its time.
How I envy blue eyes though, where unsightliness automatically vanishes as conspiracy theory. Leaving things as labelled. Bakers baking bread, police arresting criminals, and financial ministers managing finances for the people. How relaxing and soul saving is that.
If not born there too next time, I´ll be quitting the darn incarnative hopping for good.
How I remember the times of Cold War and how hard-working demagoges had turned terms like "communist" and "Russian" into the epitome of evil to the vast majority in the western world. Really, there would splash sort of satanic waves through crowded rooms if you used any of these terms. As if you had just revealed to be an AIDS infected pederast working in a kindergarden or so.
As an outsider to the discussion, the terms "capitalist/consumer" is now being used by many the same way... more than satan or sex offender more like DESTROYERS OF THE ENTIRE PLANET... At least thats how it reads. No worries though, our chem spray via commercial jets should clear your head and align your thoughts properly to the NWO movement soon enough.
Bill, I am glad we have some common ground--for a moment, I thought you were dismissing all that I have said here as a conspiracy theory. It is simply sociology. Historians, no matter how heroic, do not operate in a vacuum. Their inherent biases as well as the permitted topics of discussion are going to make some conclusions impossible (or ignored). This can hardly be disputed, although it is an open question whether it has significant effect.
This does not deprive historians of agency, it simply puts them into their context as human beings who were socialized and act in an interdendent group. Scientists are at least as objective, and even their work is often constrained by their particular era and group identities. It does not diminish their accomplishments or impugn their integrity, but it does expose them as human beings, not automata.
Bill, I am glad we have some common ground--for a moment, I thought you were dismissing all that I have said here as a conspiracy theory.
Miguel, I would never dismiss your ideas as the product of a conspiracy theorist. In fact, though we no doubt disagree over many things, I appreciate your thoughtful approach and defense of your positions. What I think you are referring to is an observation I made earlier:
"Inconvenient as it may seem to some, there are times when the power structure has it right. I know this fact bedevils congenital conspiracy theorists, but there it is."
I was not referring to you, but I was referring to those of a certain mindset who view all U.S. (and Western) government activity as nefarious and underhanded, and that any attempt to objectively prove it otherwise is part of the overall conspiracy to protect the plot. There are those who believe that, and my comment was meant for them.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
I have not had the misfortune of running into that particular discussion, although conspiracy theories are no doubt quite popular.
I thought our own Richard had a delightful anecdote about working on some top secret device and seeing it in toy stores while it was still classified (hopefully he will retell it and correct my paraphrase). A failed conspiracy!
... those of a certain mindset who view all U.S. (and Western) government activity as nefarious and underhanded, and that any attempt to objectively prove it otherwise is part of the overall conspiracy to protect the plot. There are those who believe that, and my comment was meant for them.
Cheers,
Bill
If only you were just as routingly prepared to eye your cemented trust in label correlation.
I am still waiting to hear of your ways of fading out a giant clearing away of eastern Block states properties. Instead of claims about "objectively proving conspiracy" how about actually letting us know about how you are able to maintain a view of integrity to western fractions who threaded the biggest one-coup embezzlement of people´s property in history?
Be so kind and inform us about how it stays clear to you that specially American players were not aiming at the mafia installation and resource appropriations with the perestroika and ending of the USSR? And how come we never even heard of their protests of decency against these blatant ongoings during their engagements and assisting with the unroling of the SU.
Please help us finally to understand your ways of objectifying and to in the end comprehend how U.S. (and Western) government activities are not nefarious and underhanded despite all of history.
I at least would like to sleep just as carefree as an enlightend and trusting mind like yours must.
So, come on now; attempt to proving decency of a long trusted policy shouldn´t be that hard, should it. Tell us how those paving stones of blatant lobbyism, exploitation, irresponsible environmental destruction, coups and coups d'etat, assasinations and sabotaging have been force majeure whilst the official agents innocent, goodwilling personalities of integrity.
ORIGINAL: Ruphus Instead of claims about "objectively proving conspiracy" how about actually letting us know about how you are able to maintain a view of integrity to western fractions who threaded the biggest one-coup embezzlement of people´s property in history?
Im not him, but i think i can serve an answer thats better than what he would have answered: Because they won the war and are the biggest power currently on earth. Nothing to do with wisdom or truth. The sheer military & financial power makes a statement from the US goverment become a definition. Power defines truth. In our world, that is. Conversely, every criticism on it can only be wrong and injustified, because the US or West already prevailed and, thus, has made their standpoint become the truth of the matter. I would refrain from conspiracy theories. They belittle all those atrocities, which you can take notice of in all public media. Provided a neutral standpoint of course, and not one that is predefined by the current powers.
... those of a certain mindset who view all U.S. (and Western) government activity as nefarious and underhanded, and that any attempt to objectively prove it otherwise is part of the overall conspiracy to protect the plot. There are those who believe that, and my comment was meant for them.
Cheers,
Bill
If only you were just as routingly prepared to eye your cemented trust in label correlation.
I am still waiting to hear of your ways of fading out a giant clearing away of eastern Block states properties. Instead of claims about "objectively proving conspiracy" how about actually letting us know about how you are able to maintain a view of integrity to western fractions who threaded the biggest one-coup embezzlement of people´s property in history?
Be so kind and inform us about how it stays clear to you that specially American players were not aiming at the mafia installation and resource appropriations with the perestroika and ending of the USSR? And how come we never even heard of their protests of decency against these blatant ongoings during their engagements and assisting with the unroling of the SU.
Please help us finally to understand your ways of objectifying and to in the end comprehend how U.S. (and Western) government activities are not nefarious and underhanded despite all of history.
Thank you, Ruphus, for your comment, and particularly for the final sentence, quoted above. You have just confirmed my observation about those of a certain mindset who view all U.S. (and Western) government activity as nefarious and underhanded.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
I am still waiting to hear of your ways of fading out a giant clearing away of eastern Block states properties. Instead of claims about "objectively proving conspiracy" how about actually letting us know about how you are able to maintain a view of integrity to western fractions who threaded the biggest one-coup embezzlement of people´s property in history?
Ruphus, you must learn a few basic rules governing discussion and debate. You cannot just make charges such as that quoted above, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and then demand that they be refuted. You are the one making the charges, Ruphus. It is up to you to offer evidence supporting those charges. It is certainly not up to me or anyone else to offer evidence refuting your charges when you have offered none supporting them. When you offer evidence to support your charge that with the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the U.S. and Western governments "threaded the biggest one-coup embezzlement of people's property in history," we will then be able to evaluate your evidence and determine its validity.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
You guys are still going at it! Questioning American freedom turned into a discussion on Russian history. As you all know, Russia was not a true communist state anymore than America a true capitalist system. America is a corpratocracy. A little common sense is in order here, if the market dictates that 48000 people die for lack of health coverage, that a large group of people can't pay their pays while working 2 jobs, that an employer has total control over an employee's financial and physical well being, that a small privileged group of people can crash the market with no consequences - and even be bailed out - then there must be something wrong with the market. It's really that simple.
Ruphus, you do not expect a real answer, don't you? Prob is that you not asked the pertinent questions. You surely notice how much some people could be verbose on specifics matters and at the same time very quite on others one (even if they're inter-connected).
One could write tons of sentences on how bad is the Political Police. On why this is synonym of coercitive regime like USSR, Cuba, China or North Korea. On inhuman atrocities lying behind that lack of freedom. Futhermore if that verbosity reinforces his strategic demonstrations. But at the same time, he could become very quiet if one recalls him that a sort of infamous Political Police stands also in his own camp. For me the Palmer raids i mentionned earlier sounds like political police activities (even if limited in the time). Also Kissinger's endorsement of Condor operations in the late 70's sounds equally repellent in term of Human rights.
So Ruphus if you really want some enthusiastic answers to your questions, you have to ask more for how bad is the political police in Cuba, rather than how deep Kissinger' involvement in the death squad assassinations was...
Hope you get the idea.
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
Yeah.....well..... glass houses and not throwing stones and all that.
I think everyone here is complicit in some type of omission of registering complaint against power, no matter what country you live in. I get it why the US is often singled out, but not everyones hands are clean. Not that I would go into naming the issues, because I won't. But I have t agree with Bill that you can't level accusations without a modicum of proof.
The Spanish judge who nailed Pinochet, Judge Garzon did not just sit in his office wagging hi finger, he compiled a case and pushed it forward through the legal system. You can complain about 'political police harassment' and how the silent are complicit with power, but in the end Judge Garzon got his man. Justice was served.
In Garzon's case he worked for power to be discursive, remember I mentioned Gramsci and his maxim that 'power is non discursive' ? How do you get power to enter into a dialog, to be discursive? Instead for throwing up ones hands and blaming, how can one take up the challenge through artful discourse and draw it out. Via skillful means one can get more answers.
The US is not always out doing nefarious shiet around the globe either. We have a pretty bad track record in Central America, for example, which goes all the way back to United Fruit enforcing a corporate puppetry of governments or at very least fomenting corruption and control at a national level. Although that happened we do also have men of integrity like Jernigan who say enough is enough. The ones who say I won't kill for the kings shilling don't get heard from enough.
I won't enumerate on the good things the US does in the world, but it does wrankle my skin, and I'm not much of patriot, to have my country dragged down because it is implied we are complicit with power through silence. If I went after England and listed all the dirty laundry I wonder how long before Simon or another Englishman would get irate?
ORIGINAL: estebanana I won't enumerate on the good things the US does in the world, but it does wrankle my skin, and I'm not much of patriot, to have my country dragged down because it is implied we are complicit with power through silence. If I went after England and listed all the dirty laundry I wonder how long before Simon or another Englishman would get irate?
I'm not sure if you are responding to my post specifically? I certainly did not mean to imply that only American society is controlled by its elite; I would say that it almost true, by definition, of any society.
The US Fruit situation should probably not be looked at as an exception, but rather an exemplar for how big-time capitalism works. Isn't the middle east about the same deal?
As far as Richard and his ilk, perhaps the most famous would be Smedley Butler, who wrote, "War is a Racket" after a career as an enforcer for US commercial interests. He was perhaps most remembered for being involved in a possible plot to overthrow Roosevelt! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Ruphus, you do not expect a real answer, don't you? Prob is that you not asked the pertinent questions. You surely notice how much some people could be verbose on specifics matters and at the same time very quite on others one (even if they're inter-connected).
One could write tons of sentences on how bad is the Political Police. On why this is synonym of coercitive regime like USSR, Cuba, China or North Korea. On inhuman atrocities lying behind that lack of freedom. Futhermore if that verbosity reinforces his strategic demonstrations. But at the same time, he could become very quiet if one recalls him that a sort of infamous Political Police stands also in his own camp. For me the Palmer raids i mentionned earlier sounds like political police activities (even if limited in the time). Also Kissinger's endorsement of Condor operations in the late 70's sounds equally repellent in term of Human rights.
So Ruphus if you really want some enthusiastic answers to your questions, you have to ask more for how bad is the political police in Cuba, rather than how deep Kissinger' involvement in the death squad assassinations was...
Hope you get the idea.
...or you could ask about French actions in Algeria, Morocco, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Polynesia...hope you get the idea.
Could it be that, as Estebanana says, we are all guilty?
It wasn't my superior moral fiber and discernment that turned me against the war in Central America. It was the blood on my hands that sickened me.
But, ironically, that little war had a significant effect for good. This was before Ollie North and his merry band of pranksters who thought they had covered their financial tracks by dealing only in American Express Travelers Cheques (!!!) The war I was in was during the American escalation in Vietnam, so it didn't get much ink in the press, or the history books.
I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1961, the year of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the building of the Berlin Wall. I checked with my draft board before heading off to Mexico all summer. They said I was both a graduate student and a university instructor, so I coulden't possibly be drafted. When I came back in September, I had a draft notice, and was late in reporting to be inducted. There was no telephone, radio, newspaper, etc. in the jungles of Yucatan and northern Guatemela. I didn't like the Army, but having grown up in the military, I knew how to be a good soldier. l met a lot of people I would not otherwise have come into contact with. I hated it, but it was a useful education.
About six weeks before I got out of the Army, a man came and interviewed me in Spanish, my second language since childhood--presently grown a little rusty from disuse. He recruited me to be trained to be an officer, and to train and lead troops in the combined Honduran and Nicaraguan force being organized and supported by them and the USA to combat Cuban infiltration into the Indian population on the east coast of Central America. Sounded like a noble cause to me--and an adventure. I was 23 years old.
After a year of training and a year of war in the jungle, I went to the CIA station chief in Managua with my resignation. He asked me if I thought the U.S. Government was evil. I told him I thought almost everybody in the U.S. Government that I knew of were great people trying to do their best. But like any large bureaucratic organization, it tended to screw things up once in a while. And in the process of screwing things up, we were making the political situation worse for U.S. interests. But the reason I was quitting was that we were doing evil.
"So, now you're not just a military son of a bitch, you're a political genius, too?"
"It doesn't take a political genius to see what's going on here. Instead of weakening Soviet influence--more accurately Cuban influence--we're strengthening it. When I started training for this, you hardly heard about the Sandinistas. Now they're growing stronger by leaps and bounds, recruiting people we have screwed over. We're driving them into the arms of the Sandinistas because our actions are unjust and evil."
"So you think the Sandinistas should be left to run rampant?"
"We're their greatest motivation for recruitment."
In the end the Sandinistas grew strong enough to lead to the overthrow of the Somozas in Nicaragua, which must be seen as a benefit to mankind. When they lost an election, they stood aside. They have since been reelected in elections generally seen as free and fair.
As I have said, I derive some satisfaction from my little role in the Cold War. I agree with Larisa, who lived there, that the Soviet regime were "a bunch of evil bastards"-- about the only time I have ever heard her swear.
Does it expiate my guilt over Central America? Not in my dreams.
Since the recent election in the USA I had resolved not to talk politics, but I was caught flatfooted when someone suddenly asked, "Did you vote for X?" I had failed to resolve to lie and claim I had not voted. i have been vilified for my vote face to face in language that would have led to a fist fight 50 years ago in Texas. In my father's youth and my grandfather's maturity, you would have been called out to defend yourself with a pistol, if someone talked to you the way a few people have talked to me. On the internet it's worse. People justify themselves by demonizing others.
Which is more noble, to make speeches and point fingers at others, while we are all guilty of sins of commission or omission, or to roll up our sleeves and try to do something about the situation in our home country or in the world? Yes, it is important to point out abuses--where they occur. It is just as important not to demonize our fellow humans on shaky evidence. Can we make ourselves virtuous by blaming someone else for the world's evils?
I don't think so. Not when there's work to be done at home.
My question was not rhetorical. I am seriously interested in how Bill put away with the looting of the Eastern Block. He must obviously have found a way for himself to delcare the happenings none-existent or none-connected / none-aware to the western figures involved.
I see conservative viewpoint as a fading out method like no other ( except of religion, which it usually comes bundled with anyway) and with the above example of Bill´s interpretation I would like to understand the method of discrepancy between isolate fact collecting and neglection of yet most simple and obvious reality.
I am truely interest in learning how a brain manages to fool itself so blatantly. ( In the same way that I explored on the same principle with psycho-somatic phenomenons.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
I have t agree with Bill that you can't level accusations without a modicum of proof.
I don´t know if I could find of those over two decades old SPIEGEL reports on US instigations and shares on Russian mineral resource privatisations. ( Lesser even currently with dial-in conncetion.)
But isn´t it ridiculous to ask for proof of the embezzlement of Russian states resources and infra structure? Is that really unknown of to anyone here?
If so: If having completely missed out on happenings during unroling of the USSR, have you not at least ever wondered hwo came that there popped up Russian billionaires within no time? ( Some of the types, I claim, that not long before asked me outside Russian hotels in the dark whether I could be selling my jeans, or whether having some western chewing gum with me at least.)
Now, if we agree on the undeniable fact of what happened with the most valuable of Russian states properties: Do you think it still baseless if I ask Bill about how he explains to himself how Americans who were in midst of the expropriation uttered not slightest of protest against the looting?
Or in the fewest: How and why he thought the US-party had not noticed the most astounding of settlements?
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
The Spanish judge who nailed Pinochet, Judge Garzon did not just sit in his office wagging hi finger, he compiled a case and pushed it forward through the legal system. You can complain about 'political police harassment' and how the silent are complicit with power, but in the end Judge Garzon got his man. Justice was served.
I freely admit to be lousy in rhetorics and diplomacy. Me quit these abilities during the ettiquette of upbringing and never managed to regain. - In contrast to my dad who was outstanding in conveying critical contents with respect to listeners´ concern.
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
we do also have men of integrity like Jernigan who say enough is enough.
Every nation has. Even among the brutes of the SS there happened decent souls of officiers who undermined orders and let victims get away.
This isn´t about "us" and "them" anyway.
It is about willing ignorance of injust, for deemed or received personal career / benefit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
... , to have my country dragged down because it is implied we are complicit with power through silence. If I went after England and listed all the dirty laundry I wonder how long before Simon or another Englishman would get irate?
He shouldn´t.
You dissappoint me a little bit, Stephen. I thought of more intellect than of the simplicity for patriotism. An intellect like yours should have left national crutch behind.
But if you need it: What will you do with the US post WWII policy until today as the distinctively most destructive and unethical internationally? Will all the known US plots accross the globe have to be none-existent?
I think it self-evident that there is no "we" and "them" with national policies of governments that are not of the people. A fool who´d identify himself with the doings of plutocracies.
International Affairs of the US and Americans are two completely different matters. The first ( naturally with some exclusion like last time with attitudes of Truman or Carter, but in the end presidenst are basically industrially instructed figures anyway) being the strategic evil per se, whilst the second just like much of fellow men being liekable people, if not even personally to me often times adorable characters with their friendliness, gift of humor and basically tolerant ways.
I have a lot of sympathy for what I experience as American folks, which was impossible if US policies and population presented the same instance. -
Returning to my questions: I think that we vastly agree in that Bill should have no difficulty with telling us how he imagines the US delegates and their background agenda and action in respect of the lootings during the ending USSR.
Logic tells me that he just has to be cherrishing one of the varieties that I listed as potential answers. Yet, if he´s got something in between or even completey else I be all ears.
...or you could ask about French actions in Algeria, Morocco, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Polynesia...hope you get the idea.
Exactly Richard. French employed controversial methods in Argelia and Indochine wars. They achieved high skills in urban guerilla fields, they used systematical tortures to obtain information, 'dirty' actions against civilians (assassinations) suspected of collusions with ennemy. To summarize, they perpreted war crimes, violated the basic Human rights, did not respect war conventions at all. All these events were concealed and denied by the Govermnent of course (at that time and for many years later). When these thematic popped up in recent actually, they appeared to be very polemical. It's not something schoolar historical manual would teach anytime soon I guess.
So some french army officier were higly skilled in these dirty war methods. And naturally, their knowledge has been used in theoritical purpose. For those interested in the matter, they could watch Marie-Monique Robin documentary, The Death Squads: The French School.
(quote from wikipedia article) : "In this documentary she claims that counter-insurgency tactics used during the Algerian War (1954–62), including extensive use of torture, had been taught to Argentine security forces. The security forces later used them during the Dirty War in the 1970-80s and for Operation Condor. She received an award for "best political documentary of the year" by the French Senate in recognition of this investigation."
quote:
Could it be that, as Estebanana says, we are all guilty?
Yes we are, but it's not a mobile to denied such actions. Focusing only on opponent shiat activities and looking at ours as not that serious coz "at times power structure has it right" ", it's not an ethical historical approch (not to mention sacrosanct objectivity).
quote:
The Spanish judge who nailed Pinochet, Judge Garzon did not just sit in his office wagging hi finger, he compiled a case and pushed it forward through the legal system. You can complain about 'political police harassment' and how the silent are complicit with power, but in the end Judge Garzon got his man. Justice was served.
Justice was served. Yes! but not in his globality. Condor operation was not only a chilean affair. It implies 4 or 5 different contries. Murders were perpetrated in an international scale and not only in Santiago's streets. Letelier was murdered in Washington with at best only the US administration silent as support. Declassified CIA documents are not available for the most compromising one. These secretives measures prevent to establish proof for eventual lawsuit. But as I said ealier, History will do his homework. It's certainly not a good consolation for those families who cannot cry under their relatives or friends graves...But still, better than nothing.
quote:
I won't enumerate on the good things the US does in the world, but it does wrankle my skin, and I'm not much of patriot, to have my country dragged down because it is implied we are complicit with power through silence. If I went after England and listed all the dirty laundry I wonder how long before Simon or another Englishman would get irate?
I'm not sure to get excatly what you mean here. Why should someone be pissed off by such crtitical comments? An Italian expressing his desagreement against Berlusconi politic is not going to be taxed of being anti-patriotic at all. At least this does not happen in Europeans democratic countries. Same in France, nobody is gonna pointing his finger at me as an Anti-french if I desapprove foreign political gov. actions. Same in Spain and in England I guess. It's weird to being registred as anti-patriotic or as anti-US if you dare to expose your critical views against the Foreign US policy...
quote:
My question was not rhetorical.
Ok, good luck then
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan Could it be that, as Estebanana says, we are all guilty?
In the Jose Ramirez thread there was this guy who could not distinguish between a state and its inhabitants. Above comment seems to go into the same direction and make people responsible for the actions of states. Maybe one should remember that what the states want and what the people want do not neccessarily coincide. This contradiction is what makes people go desperate leading to depressions during/after wars for example. Again, law and the threat of punishment (deserter) make sure, that people follow the orders and execute whatever is on the agenda. [Often times soldiers will mention the pre-text that they were only the ones who executed the orders, not the ones who gave them.] There is little what an individual can do about it and as long as a critical mass quits serving the interests of states, there will be always superior mechanisms (=more power) of states. To say that all are guilty, you have to ignore everything what i just wrote. Sorry, i feel exactly 0 guilt, I dont identify myself with any state let alone military organization and only because i dont have the opportunity to do something else - because freedom is always defined in boundaries, relative to what the state wants, not absolutely - doesnt mean that what im doing is also what i want to do.
Oh and Stephen, of course it makes sense that if England (or any other contry) has dirty laundry (assuming it for a moment) that this totally improves the image of the US totally makes sense
I am seriously interested in how Bill put away with the looting of the Eastern Block. He must obviously have found a way for himself to delcare the happenings none-existent or none-connected / none-aware to the western figures involved.
Please re-read my post above, Ruphus, pointing out that it is not up to me or anyone else to prove a negative. You are the one making the charge of U.S. and Western government complicity in the looting of Russia and Eastern Europe, and it is your responsibility (having made the charge) to provide evidence supporting it. So far, you have not provided any evidence at all to support your charge. And your mention of a "Der Spiegel" article you read somewhere but can't find, is no evidence at all. No one denies that assets have been looted in Russia and Eastern Europe, and there is a lot of evidence that those assets have been looted by Russian and Eastern European oligarchs and thugs. But your contention that U.S. and Western governments were complicit in instigating and carrying out the looting requires evidence.
Who are the "Western figures" you claim were involved, and what was their role? How were they connected to U.S. and Western governments? When you provide some solid evidence, Ruphus, we can review it, determine its validity, and respond.
Miguel, your reference to General Smedley Butler brings up an interesting figure for sure. A highly-decorated Marine general (he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor twice), Smedley Butler did indeed rail against American imperialism in Central America. Regarding your reference to the plot against President Roosevelt, as I recall there was a group who plotted against Roosevelt, and they wanted Smedley Butler to lead them. Butler, however, refused to meet with them. I do not think he was involved in the plot, as he refused to meet with those who were involved and wanted him as a leader, and I don't think he was ever considered part of the plot.
American intervention in Central America must be understood as more than just protecting business interests (United Fruit), although that was a major concern. It really was the result of the Monroe Doctrine (which claimed Central America and the Caribbean as an American sphere of influence) and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (which was aimed at European powers, and claimed America would intervene in Central America and the Caribbean if there was a threat of European intervention in the region). It was precipitated by the Venezuelan crisis of 1902. Venezuela had reneged on its debt payments to European powers, and, as creditors, Britain and Germany sent warships to blockade Venezuela and collect their debts by force, if necessary. Roosevelt intervened and defused the crisis.
Subsequent to the announcement of the "Roosevelt Corollary," the U.S. intervened in Santo Domingo in 1905, and Haiti and Nicaragua later, primarily as a result of those countries' refusal to honor their debts to the European powers. One of the first things the U.S. did after intervention was to take over the customs house, collect the duties, and make sure the country began repaying its debts. To be sure, this was not a policy based on altruism. It was done out of U.S. national interest to keep the European powers at bay. My point is that American intervention in Central America and the Caribbean is a little more nuanced than just to protect United Fruit.
Richard, Although most of my career was in Southeast Asia, I was involved in Central America some time after your experience. I was assigned to the American Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras from April 1979 until April 1981. Three months after I arrived, the Sandinistas overthrew Somoza and took power in Nicaragua. Most of us in the Embassy were very glad to see Somoza go, and there was hope that the Sandinistas might reject some of their Marxist ideas once in power and open up the political system in Nicaragua. The U.S. was ready to provide them aid. (Under the Carter Administration, there was an immediate tranche of $75 million dollars that would have been made available, had the Sandinistas opened things up.)
Alas, it was not to be. The Sandinistas increased both political and economic repression. They confiscated most private property, nationalized the banks and major businesses, and they refused to accommodate even moderate businessmen. The reason they lost the subsequent election you mentioned was because they had driven the economy into the ground. Part of that was due to U.S. pressure and support of the Contras, but a large part was simply a result of their economic program. As soon as they announced nationalization of the banking system, any Nicaraguan with brains shipped his money to Miami banks. And the Sandinistas did not welcome foreign investment, thus cutting off any possiblity of income and jobs that creates. Thus, the economy went downhill fast and stayed there.
There were many of us who had hopes for Nicaragua after the overthrow of Somoza. That those hopes were not realized was not due to those, such as myself, who remained Foreign Service Officers. Many of us did not agree with U.S. support of the Contras, but we did not see Nicaragua's salvation in the Sandinistas either. Your resignation from your position because you did not agree with U.S. policy was admirable and honorable, Richard, and it suited your personal circumstances. But that does not mean that those who continued to carry out U.S. government policy were any less admirable and honorable, and devoted to both the U.S. national interest and the interest of the countries involved. We all make our decisions and commitments, and in most cases one is neither more nor less admirable and honorable than the other. And I'm sure you will agree that there can be multiple legitimate takes and ideas on the best course of action the U.S. should pursue as well.
As a side note. When the Sandinistas took over in July 1979, many of Somoza's Air Force crews flew their planes to Tegucigalpa for refuge. After several months of negotiations, an agreement was reached whereby the Sandinista air crews could come to Tegucigalpa, take possession of the aircraft, and fly them back to Managua. The only hotel worthy of the name in those days was the Hotel Maya, located in the center of Tegucigalpa. Several of us would retire to the Hotel Maya bar after work and have a few beers. When the Sandinista air crews showed up to claim their aircraft, they naturally stayed at the Maya. There were three evenings when several of us from the American Embassy were drinking at one end of the bar and the Sandinista air crews were drinking at the other end. Neither spoke to the other (other than "buenas noches"), as protocol on both sides would not have countenanced fraternization, but it made for one of those odd moments one occasionally experiences in the course of one's duties.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
I do not think he (Butler) was involved in the plot, as he refused to meet with those who were involved and wanted him as a leader, and I don't think he was ever considered part of the plot.
quote:
Not at all--he immediately denounced it. I said "involved" because there is question as to whether there ever, indeed, was a plot. His biographer apparently believes it was a prank played on Butler.
quote:
American intervention ... It really was the result of the Monroe Doctrine (which claimed Central America and the Caribbean as an American sphere of influence) and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
quote:
Yes, the US has long considered South America to be its dominion. I would not be surprised if the rest of the world would say this is "nefarious and underhanded", especially when it is couched in propaganda and doublespeak and achieved via death squads and propping up dictators.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread