| | I would like to express thanks for the posts of Mike Hardesty, Scott Stephens, and Aaron on this thread. In particular, Mike Hardesty's grasp of history is impressive and sweeping, to say the least. Even his poetry is not that terrible.
If pro-war state objectivists like Kurt were to invest an honest reading of revisionist history--especially about WWII which serves as a model for all subsequent American military adventures--I think they would have a difficult time maintaining their enthusiasm for US involvement in that tragedy, and perhaps for subsequent crusades. Bad history is a toxic brew, because it encourages intoxicated believers to sustain misconceptions about ethics, economics, and politics. I write this with no disrepect intended; I know Kurt and others fervently believe that they stand for what is right.
However, if one were to accept uncritically the orthodox distorted history of the early industrial revolution--of capitalist sweatshops, and exploited child labor, and wage slaves, and greed run amuck--one would be hard-pressed to justify support for capitalism. How could one support a social system that promoted human suffering and injustice?
Similarly, pro-war conservatives accept uncritically the court history of American war-making and foreign policy, seemingly without troubling themselves about stubborn facts that prove the sanitized official account misleading. Such stubborn facts include, for example, abundant proof that Hitler's territorial ambitions were to the East; that FDR offered illegal assurances to the British and French on about three occassions in 1938-1939 that Americans would be fighting by their side if they chose to engage Germany; that Hitler offered peaceful accomodation to Britain on several occasions prior to and following Dunkirk which Churchill spurned; and that Pearl Harbor was anything but a surprise to FDR and his cabal.
Thanks again to Mike for his numerous refernces to history books that sound like worthwhile reading.
|
|
