A later bureaucrat, trapped in that contradiction, was John Wesley Powell who writes, in a candid comment rare for a gov't official, in his 1873 report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs: His methods of warfare are such that we cannot cope with him without resorting to means which are repugnant to civilized people . . ."

". . . the more educated you are, the more indoctrinated you are. After all, propaganda is largely directed towards the privileged." -Noam Chomsky

There is nothing in a theory of differential development that provides moral cover for acting like Al Capone.  There isn't even any necessary suggestion that a country or culture is morally superior because they have excelled beyond their neighbors technologically.  It should be judged with some detachment.

But, in 1945-53, as we worked our way through these things, we need not have seen ourselves as on top of the food chain because of our religion.  We could attribute it to our political system, or to chance, luck, and geography.

I sometimes wonder what the world would look like if North Korea had not invaded South Korea.  That, and the subsequent Chinese involvement, seems to have set our country on a long tragic overreaction.  And a lot of people have been hurt in the process.  

But the bottom line is, I don't think American post-war imperialism was wholly unjustified, largely based on religious reasoning, or racist in nature.  It was much more a consequence of the trauma we had been through, the fact that the Eurasian oil fields fell the Soviets, that we lived in a nuclear age, and that Communism appeared totalitarian, threatening and expansionist in that period of time.  We didn't have the luxury to abstain from acting on a global scale, with less powerful nations as pawns in the game.  We just didn't need to do many of the things we did.  And many of the things we did, we did because of racist assumptions, or based on legacies of Manifest Destiny.  

The history of U.S. imperialism is complex.  I just don't want it to be reduced to some kind of reflexive self-importance or religious/nationalist ideology.  That doesn't do it justice and leads to an inevitably nails-on-chalkboard anti-Americanism that may be suited for some classrooms, but has no place in electoral politics.

For others, delving too deeply into this or that event in the past of the US, especially for those who may be experiencing the beginnings of some discomfort, perhaps initially politically motivated, dislike of this politician, admiration for another, but that has somehow begun to undergo a bit of creeping, spawning a creepiness that the new thinker may simply not be emotionally capable of withstanding.

And there is also the delicate question of what is meant by "America."

Predictably, I will quote from an old blogrant:

There is a popular fallacy loose in the United States, that "America" means the guy at the convenience store counter, the family who lives next door, the people buying popcorn at the Magic Johnson Theatre, the girl who took your lunch order, your child's teacher.

America, some mistakenly believe, is apple pie and spring festivals and face painters and clowns and Hollywood spectaculars. It is not skateboard tournaments and liberty and justice for all.

Wrong.

America means mega-corporations who make large amounts of money from the blood and sweat and bones of those listed above, and millions of others all over the world, most of them living lives of worse misery than any of the above can even imagine.

America means death squads, brutal hordes of torturers and sexual predators, hopped up and let loose on half-starved populations with no defensive weapons to speak of, save what they can steal or cobble together as the tanks roll down their street.

America means marvelous new landmines who can blow children to bits from an exciting 300 meters.

America means microwave pain rays, to cook the flesh of any who would dare oppose BTK as foreign policy.

America means murdering journalists, and forcing anyone who mentions the fact to resign.

America means that if you are poor, you are fucked, and if you are not rich, you are about to be poor.

America means that your serious disease, your horrific injury, is a terrific business opportunity for rich men who want to be richer.

America means sending people to Syria to be tortured, and then criticizing human rights in Syria.

America means occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond, to one degree or another, funding Israeli occupation of Palestine, while decrying Syrian military presence in Lebanon.

And the list goes on.

To oppose any of this is to be anti-American. A terror apologist. With the terrorists. An obstructionist, a rejectionist, a conspiracy theorist, anti-business, socialist, a terrorist.

And to be anti-American is not pragmatic.

nerdified link

Today, I would also add that to be anti-American is to be not business-friendly.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

Whether the argument was framed by American or Russian propagandists, it will contain validity and should not just be dismissed.  And I don't dismiss classical Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist arguments.  I merely call them leftist anti-American arguments.

There is a natural tension between politics and academics.  This is a political blog, not a theoretical and historical seminar.  So, things do not line up perfectly, and I acknowledge that.  However, there are certain arguments that are anti-American to the extent that anyone promoting them will alienate the vast, vast majority of the electorate.  That, in itself, is no reason to shout them down or dismiss them, and I don't.  However, in this case, I think these arguments to be both wrong and impolitic.  And I am debating them.  Not dismissing them.  I never said Ductape's diary had no validity, did I?  I said it should be critiqued and the exercise of critiquing it will help people internalize its value and its salient points.  Nonetheless, the KGB couldn't have done a better job of stirring the heartstrings or people will far left inclinations.  It's still rank propaganda.

Nowhere have I said anything that would contradict Twain.  

What I said was that if you do not see the depression and WW Two as essentially redefining elements in American history then you can easily interpret our Cold War policies as mere continuations of religious and racist policies from the 19th-Century and if you do that it  will result in usually strident left-wing critiques that do, in fact, parrot Cold War Soviet propaganda.  

You can disagree with my argument, but it isn't a dismissive argument.  It's an argument.

The link you provide shows very clearly that Man Eegee made the statement "And I am not even Muslim" (in caps). DTF is quoting (reposting, actually) Man Eegee's diary. You can tell that it's a repost of Man Eegee's diary is because DTF states that he is reposting Man Eegee's post. Not only that but he links to it, just like I've done in the quoted passage below.  

" ManEgee has said all this so much better, and my regular readers will be relieved to know, with greater conciseness and brevity than I am capable of even when ordering pizza, that I will take the astonishing and uncharacteristic step of shutting up so you can listen to him."

Just to be super-Cristal clear, the repost from Man Eegee (which I must say is one of the more brilliant pieces of writing I've seen) begins with the words

"Over the past couple of days, I've learned a few things about myself:" and continues from there onwards.

Not only that, but DTF then says "Thanks to Man Eegee for permitting this repost" -- with yet another link to its initial appearance the previous day on Latino Politico

Refusing to vote for the greater of two evils is not an adequate alibi -- poco
In Flight

It does seem odd, however, that I would not recall a discussion about religion with you or anyone.

When you repost the link I asked you about above, could you also refresh my memory about these private conversations? Were they by email? private message on another forum? What nicks were we both using?

I would really appreciate it, and you may also feel free to email me at DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

However, if there was a general perception that he was muslim and he did nothing to correct that, in view of the invective that was tossed around, don't you think that is a little disingenuous?

No. Mind you, I have no clue whether he is, or is not a Muslim, but I'm sure you noticed in rereading the threads that not only Muslims were very offended by what was posted on the front page. I have been in situations where I have allowed others to assume (if it was able to be assumed) that I was a member of whichever group was being persecuted at the moment, such as gays... I just called that solidarity or standing with someone.

I don't know enough about Islam to even allow anyone to assume I am a practicer of the religion, but if I did I wouldn't mind being Sparticus myself.

I find it interesting, though, that so much of the reaction to Ductape and his words seems to be informed by his presumed religion and foreign-ness. Thus you get statements about "Well look at what Muslims do", when there has been no mention of religion, or the "Love it or leave it, go back where you came from" type stuff, when for all we know he could have been born an Irish Catholic and raised in Milwaukee. And I think that if he had been, and that was well known, that the reaction to his words would be much different. I find that sad.

Look, it's hard enough mounting a fight against the Bush government. It's depressing to feel so helpless. Ductape comes along and tells us we're no better or different than the extreme right wing. To me, he's not trying to spark discussion, he's trying to destroy our hope. Destroy hope, and you destroy the only chance the world has of seeing American Fascism reversed.

I don't think he said that we were no better or different than the extreme right wing. Although some of us (general us, not bootrib us) aren't, in my view. I think that should be a point of discussion, though, and should be soon... because in order to build a strong enough foundation to move this country away from the path that it is on, there needs to be a level of trust and understanding and acceptance of others that is just not there yet, even on much of the left.

I don't think he is trying to destroy hope, he speaks with too much love of Americans both where he lives and the people he comes across on the blogs who are doing things to make a difference - that includes most everyone here, I think. But I do understand how some people can read the same thing and take away vastly different things. I take away a need to look deeper at ourselves, our policies, beyond the Iraq occupation, beyond Bush, and beyond just the current crisis.

These little windows are too small for me to make complete, continuous sense, but I hope I got some of what I am trying to say across.

Human rights, politics, social issues and food!
Human Beams Magazine

There is a fine line between reading something someone has written on the web at face value and, in some cases, having the ability to give context to the writing due to the interactive history between one and the author.

You, and others who are angry at Ductape's diary, I suspect, read this piece at a polar opposite mindset than I did.  You write, Ductape comes along and tells us we're no better or different than the extreme right wing.

I didn't get that at all.  Perhaps it's because I've read more of him over the past year.  I know that his cryptic style buries his points in descriptive language that is enough to cause one vertigo, but throughout the rantatas, the news links from obscure sources, the occasional hilarity, there is what kansas and others in this thread have mentioned - a plea for a better way.

I didn't get angry with this post in the sense that I felt targeted, because of this

While I recognize that there are a small minority of individuals in the US, as well as US nationals outside of it, who are sincerely in favor of reform, of modernization and advancement,

I think that 'small minority' includes the vast majority of people at this blog.  I don't consider you, or anyone who interacts here to be a member of this group he rants about:

They just keep prattling on about insurgents and cutting and running and imposing their wills and bringing stability and security to lands they are blowing up, or paying someone to blow up and whether people protecting their children from men with guns sent to kill them should be "pardoned" for their failure to kneel meekly and place their own and their little ones' heads on the block, murmuring last words of gratitude for the privilege.

Each time I read one of these rants, which are similar to verbal slaps by others like Gilroy or Madman, I am forced to evaluate where my principles lie and challenge myself to grow/learn a new way if need be.  I think it's healthy, and I'm sad to see an increasing mentality of 'drawing a line in the sand' by people whom I respect here.  We are not always going to agree and the more we all choose to marginalize voices who don't tow the BlogParty Line, the bigger the echo chamber we'll create.

I have the utmost respect for everyone here because even though we are only able to communicate via the written word, we manage to do it well most of the time.  With respect to your opening about the cartoon issue, I will be happy to talk with anyone about that at anytime.  My email address is listed below, and I have a blog that I muddle my way through everyday.  I don't think this is the appropriate thread, but I can respect the fact that perhaps for some this is all just an extension of unresolved feelings.

We are condemned to kill time, thus we die bit by bit - Octavio Paz / Latino Político