At 16:24 27/03/00 -0500, David Witbrodt wrote:

Hi Dave.  Although I'm not Bob, I thought I'd have a go at some of your
comments, perhaps adding a different cultural perspective.

>1)  Do you feel that mainstream/orthodox historians adequately construct a
>usable picture of U.S. history, in spite of "patriotic" bias?  Or, do
>their omissions and misrepresentations of material lead to a picture that
>is pretty much useless, a picture which ought to be discarded (except to
>be studied the way we study the output of Soviet or Nazi "scholars")?

I'd talk about Australian history here by saying that it's a history from
the perspective of the winners - who are the ones who write histories
anyway.  It is useful because of its patriotic bias, in that we can see why
history is important by the effects it has on the present.  We know that a
lot of what was written in Australian history is fantasy, but can see how
this fantasy creates out present.

For example, up until very recently, mainstream history never mentioned
massacres of our indigenous population during white settlement.  There was
a very serious attempt made at genocide here, and it's part of who we are -
but it was suppressed.  It still is - no-one's willing to talk frankly
about what happened here.  I suspect we share this with you in the
US.  Without understanding the events of the past, we've no way of ensuring
these events aren't repeated.

>2)  I have often heard/read Chomsky suggesting that Reaganite policies
>toward Latin America in the early 1980s were virtually identical to
>Kennedy policies toward Vietnam, except that a significant part of the
>population opposed Reagan and drove his foreign policy underground.  Could
>you suggest some books on each period that one could use to make the
>side-by-side comparison suggested by Chomsky?  How literally do you think
>Chomsky means such statements?

While I can't suggest any books, I think he means these statements
literally.  The methods used differed in ways, but the aims were the same -
evil "communists" were about to "take over" a country, and the US had a
duty to stop the spread of "communism", whether in Asia or South
America.  The policies Chomsky mentions include invasion, economic
blockades, and propping up (or creating) puppet regimes.  I get the feeling
that Chomsky's not one for hyperbole.

>   My question, then, is what phenomena in history--efforts of individuals,
>protest movements, labor struggles, political reforms, etc.--do you view
>as having been most effective?  A related question would be:  What
>approach do you recommend for today, since the problem of an enabling
>populace is as much a problem for contemporary Amerika as it was in Nazi
>Germany, in my view?

This is an interesting question.  Success would be judged by its effect
rather than the number of people involved, I presume.  By that basis, I
can't think of much that has been a success - typically we've had delaying
actions.  I'm not sure that this is representative of dissent globally - or
even locally.  It's just my impression.  I mean, we've had feminists around
for years (the suffragettes being very early ones) and look at the
results.  Feminism generally has been co-opted by capitalism, so that
someone who supports Margaret Thatcher could call herself a feminist,
although Thatcher's policies were generally anti-women.  I think we're
seeing this with racists as well - the capitalist answer to stopping racism
is not that we're all equal, it's that you should ignore the colour of the
hand that's giving you money.  So while I suppose you could see perceived
decreases in sexism and racism in western civilisation (and the perception
of more opportunities for women and non-anglo types), it has to be seen in
the broader context of the co-option of entire movements to serve capital.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on your questions.

Regards,

Alister Air