I don't think that’s entirely true, Carl. Yes, the struggle for a better life
is always going on in one form or another. But there have been periods of peace
or prosperity, a relative term, but we’ll leave that alone for now, usually not
both at one time, and usually not terribly long, and usually not unbesieged by
other problems.
There have always been those ready to stomp on those they think are so-called
beneath them, those who bask in their made-up glories of marching off to war.
But we have had leaders who were against all of that and, while far from
perfect in every respect, did make efforts to keep peace, reestablish peace
when it had been broken, offer a better life to all. Were they successful? In
large measure, no. But, speaking of fairy tales, no one has a magic wand,
either.
I think of the period following WWII, that horrible war after the War that was
supposed to end all wars, a period that, again, was far from perfect. As I’ve
written before, a core maker in a foundry in Ohio could afford to send his kids
to university, a private one, own a home, eat well, have a car, go on a
vacation or two Much of the working class was at the same time part of that
solid mass called the middle class, including, if I read your posts correctly,
your parents.
Often, I think the American tradition of dissatisfaction, of always wanting
more, keeping up wit the Joneses, the tinges of envy, have contributed to the
widening divide between the bottom and the top. Of course, the biggest
contribution has been from the unbridled greed of the upper small percent.
Even the leaders who have done much for the people, have black marks on their
records. We often say it is a big mistake to look for a savior, for that knight
on the white horse to swoop in and fix everything, the way Trump is talking
today. So we can’t look back at leaders who have done much good, maybe even
more good than bad, and castigate them, condemn them, want to remove their
names from public places, etc., because they made mistakes, because they were
wrongheaded about other causes we believe in and we might wish they had
addressed, either in a better way or even at all.
I repeat, I’m no happier than you and so many others, both on this list and
off, about the choices we’re faced with in the current political climate. But
if we’re expecting perfection, we will always be sorely disappointed.
On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Both Democrats and Republicans point back to those, "good old days"
when America was strong, productive and at peace. The problem with
that story is that it is a Fairy Story. Ask yourselves just when were
we basking in those Glory Days? The answer, if you come from working
class parents, is, Never!
The list of American wars is far too long to post here, but you can
spend a great deal of time looking at the American Wars by entering:
List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia.
Do not forget that America fought many wars with Indian Nations, which
we call by several condescending names like Indian Uprising.
Go wandering through the list and then report back and tell us when we
were a Peace Loving Nation.
And this list does not cover the behavior of our Peace Loving Nation
toward its own people. The struggle between working class and the
upper class has been an ongoing War. We call the battles fought
between Labor and Establishment by names such as, Strikes. But it is
a confrontation, pitting working class people against the
Establishment's bully boys. The fact is that Peace has never existed,
outside our History Story Books, full of make believe history.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Slavery, Endless War, and Presidential Politics
Published on
Thursday, July 28, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Slavery, Endless War, and Presidential Politics
by
Robert C. Koehler
Iraqi army soldiers look on as U.S. soldiers discuss movement techniques
and
squad-level tactics at a training area on Camp Taji, Iraq, March 24, 2015.
(Photo: U.S. DoD)
As I watched “unity” take hold of the Democratic Party this week, the
believer in me wanted to be imbibe it — bottoms up.
Michelle Obama ignited the crowd. “That is the story of this country,” she
said. “The story that has brought me to the stage tonight. The story of
generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude,
the sting of segregation, who kept on striving, and hoping, and doing what
needed to be done.”
And the Big Party opened its arms.
“So that today, I wake up every morning in a house that was built by
slaves.”
Slaves?
Wow. I can remember when we didn’t talk like this in public, especially not
on a national stage. Acknowledging slavery — at a profound level, in all
its
immorality — is so much deeper than simply acknowledging racism, which can
be reduced to the behavior of ignorant people. But the ownership of human
bodies and human souls, total control over people’s lives and the lives of
their children, was inscribed in law. And such ownership was a core
principle of the “greatest country on earth,” embedded in the economy,
embraced by the Founding Fathers with no questions asked.
This isn’t just “history.” It’s wrong. Indeed, the United States of America
came into being with a damaged soul. That was the implication packed into
Michelle Obama’s words.
But no more, no more. The wild cheers she received when her speech ended
seemed to acknowledge a long-, long-delayed public desire for atonement.
We’ve become a country that can acknowledge its wrongs and right them.
And electing Hillary Clinton as president — the message continued — would
be
a further step along this journey toward full equality of all human beings.
The Democratic Party has found its unity and stands for what matters.
If only . . .
I can take the infomercial aspect of all this — the pumped fists, the roar
of victory, the clichés of American greatness emanating from one speech
after another, even the endless media reduction of democracy to horse-race
stats — but I am a long way from being aboard the Hillary bandwagon. And
despite the lurking specter of Trumpenstein, I remain unconvinced that this
year — come on, man, this year — the candidate of the lesser evil is the
one
I have to vote for.
And I’m not even speaking as a rebellious Berniecrat.
While I remain in awe of what the Bernie Sanders campaign has accomplished
in the past year, even Bernie has not articulated, and fails to embody, the
fullness of the revolution that has propelled his candidacy beyond all
expectation.
“It’s no secret that Hillary and I disagree on a number of issues. That’s
what democracy is all about!” Bernie said on the opening night of the
Democratic National Convention, standing solidly for real political even
change as he called for party unity and endorsed Hillary.
He also said: “This election is about ending gross levels of income
inequality” and called for serious Wall Street reform, containment of the
billionaire class, free state college tuition and the expansion of various
social programs.
What he failed to call for is, at the very least, a discussion of the
disastrous consequences and hemorrhaging costs of the American war machine,
which is the primary cause of the nation’s social impoverishment.
What I’m certain of is that the revolution Sanders has fomented is
grounded,
in the hearts of his supporters, in the transcendence of war as much as it
is grounded in the hellish wrongs of racism and slavery. This wrong is not
only part of the deep past, beginning with the conquest of and genocide
against the continent’s original inhabitants, but it is alive, economically
entrenched and wreaking planetary havoc today. And we can’t even talk about
it.
Over the past quarter century, neocons and military-industrialists have
vanquished Vietnam Syndrome and the public opposition to war, achieving the
solidification of endless war.
“There was significant opposition to the First Gulf War — 22 senators and
183 reps voted against it, including Sanders — but not enough to stop the
march to war,” Nicolas J.S. Davies wrote last October on Huffington Post.
“The war became a model for future U.S.-led wars and served as a marketing
display for a new generation of U.S. weapons. After treating the public to
endless bombsight videos of ‘smart bombs’ making ‘surgical strikes,’ U.S.
officials eventually admitted that such ‘precision’ weapons were only 7
percent of the bombs and missiles raining down on Iraq. The rest were good
old-fashioned carpet-bombing, but the mass slaughter of Iraqis was not part
of the marketing campaign. When the bombing stopped, U.S. pilots were
ordered to fly straight from Kuwait to the Paris Air Show, and the next
three years set new records for U.S. weapons exports. . . .
“Meanwhile, U.S. officials crafted new rationalizations for the use of U.S.
military force to lay the ideological groundwork for future wars.”
And Barack Obama’s military budget is the largest ever. When you factor in
all military-related spending, Davies points out, the annual cost of U.S.
militarism is over a trillion dollars.
Before the value of this spending is addressed, the fact of it has to be
acknowledged. And no presidential candidate without the courage to do at
least this — open a discussion about the costs and consequences of war —
deserves my vote, or yours.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Robert C. Koehler
Skip to main content
//
• DONATE
• SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, July 28, 2016
• Home
• World
• U.S.
• Canada
• Climate
• War & Peace
• Economy
• Rights
• Solutions
Slavery, Endless War, and Presidential Politics
Published on
Thursday, July 28, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Slavery, Endless War, and Presidential Politics
by
Robert C. Koehler
• 27 Comments
•
• Iraqi army soldiers look on as U.S. soldiers discuss movement
techniques and squad-level tactics at a training area on Camp Taji, Iraq,
March 24, 2015. (Photo: U.S. DoD)
• As I watched “unity” take hold of the Democratic Party this week,
the believer in me wanted to be imbibe it — bottoms up.
• Michelle Obama ignited the crowd. “That is the story of this
country,” she said. “The story that has brought me to the stage tonight.
The
story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of
servitude, the sting of segregation, who kept on striving, and hoping, and
doing what needed to be done.”
• And the Big Party opened its arms.
• “So that today, I wake up every morning in a house that was built by
slaves.”
Slaves?
Wow. I can remember when we didn’t talk like this in public, especially not
on a national stage. Acknowledging slavery — at a profound level, in all
its
immorality — is so much deeper than simply acknowledging racism, which can
be reduced to the behavior of ignorant people. But the ownership of human
bodies and human souls, total control over people’s lives and the lives of
their children, was inscribed in law. And such ownership was a core
principle of the “greatest country on earth,” embedded in the economy,
embraced by the Founding Fathers with no questions asked.
This isn’t just “history.” It’s wrong. Indeed, the United States of America
came into being with a damaged soul. That was the implication packed into
Michelle Obama’s words.
But no more, no more. The wild cheers she received when her speech ended
seemed to acknowledge a long-, long-delayed public desire for atonement.
We’ve become a country that can acknowledge its wrongs and right them.
And electing Hillary Clinton as president — the message continued — would
be
a further step along this journey toward full equality of all human beings.
The Democratic Party has found its unity and stands for what matters.
If only . . .
I can take the infomercial aspect of all this — the pumped fists, the roar
of victory, the clichés of American greatness emanating from one speech
after another, even the endless media reduction of democracy to horse-race
stats — but I am a long way from being aboard the Hillary bandwagon. And
despite the lurking specter of Trumpenstein, I remain unconvinced that this
year — come on, man, this year — the candidate of the lesser evil is the
one
I have to vote for.
And I’m not even speaking as a rebellious Berniecrat.
While I remain in awe of what the Bernie Sanders campaign has accomplished
in the past year, even Bernie has not articulated, and fails to embody, the
fullness of the revolution that has propelled his candidacy beyond all
expectation.
“It’s no secret that Hillary and I disagree on a number of issues. That’s
what democracy is all about!” Bernie said on the opening night of the
Democratic National Convention, standing solidly for real political even
change as he called for party unity and endorsed Hillary.
He also said: “This election is about ending gross levels of income
inequality” and called for serious Wall Street reform, containment of the
billionaire class, free state college tuition and the expansion of various
social programs.
What he failed to call for is, at the very least, a discussion of the
disastrous consequences and hemorrhaging costs of the American war machine,
which is the primary cause of the nation’s social impoverishment.
What I’m certain of is that the revolution Sanders has fomented is
grounded,
in the hearts of his supporters, in the transcendence of war as much as it
is grounded in the hellish wrongs of racism and slavery. This wrong is not
only part of the deep past, beginning with the conquest of and genocide
against the continent’s original inhabitants, but it is alive, economically
entrenched and wreaking planetary havoc today. And we can’t even talk about
it.
Over the past quarter century, neocons and military-industrialists have
vanquished Vietnam Syndrome and the public opposition to war, achieving the
solidification of endless war.
“There was significant opposition to the First Gulf War — 22 senators and
183 reps voted against it, including Sanders — but not enough to stop the
march to war,” Nicolas J.S. Davies wrote last October on Huffington Post.
“The war became a model for future U.S.-led wars and served as a marketing
display for a new generation of U.S. weapons. After treating the public to
endless bombsight videos of ‘smart bombs’ making ‘surgical strikes,’ U.S.
officials eventually admitted that such ‘precision’ weapons were only 7
percent of the bombs and missiles raining down on Iraq. The rest were good
old-fashioned carpet-bombing, but the mass slaughter of Iraqis was not part
of the marketing campaign. When the bombing stopped, U.S. pilots were
ordered to fly straight from Kuwait to the Paris Air Show, and the next
three years set new records for U.S. weapons exports. . . .
“Meanwhile, U.S. officials crafted new rationalizations for the use of U.S.
military force to lay the ideological groundwork for future wars.”
And Barack Obama’s military budget is the largest ever. When you factor in
all military-related spending, Davies points out, the annual cost of U.S.
militarism is over a trillion dollars.
Before the value of this spending is addressed, the fact of it has to be
acknowledged. And no presidential candidate without the courage to do at
least this — open a discussion about the costs and consequences of war —
deserves my vote, or yours.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
/author/robert-c-koehler
