Hi Dave,

Great questions, and I'll try my best to speak to them, but I'd invite
anyone else on the list to help out, providing they're willing to deal with
these in decent way and leave the invective at home.

>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 think, in the field of U.S. foreign policy at least, there's been a
conservative trend for the past generation, at least--basically since the
Vietnam era.  During the 1960s, the "New Left" emerged with a great deal of
excellent work critical of American imperialists and stressing the
materialist motives of U.S. policymakers.  Now, especially since the "end"
of the Cold War a decade ago, the histories tend to be triumphal.  I'd
never say they were useless, since it's essential to understand the way
that establshment intellectuals think.  But I would always suggest reading
these people--whether historians like John Gaddis, or the establishment
types who write for FOREIGN AFFAIRS, or the diplomatic correspondents for
major media--in conjunction with critical work from Chomsky, Kolko, many of
the Z Magazine gang, a couple of people at The Nation [alas, a decreasing
number there] and other alternative media.  But I wouldn't suggest
discarding their work at all.  Most of the time, it's intellectually
honest, though in my opinion just plain wrong!  It's crucial to see how the
state and its myrmidons think!


>
>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?

        Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and so forth. I think American foreign
policy has been remarkably consistent for a long long time now [think about
the "conquest" of the New World, the use of slaves, genocide of Indians
etc] so the parallels go further than Vietnam and Latin America.   As for
that, there are similarities: both started as "counterinsurgency"
operations that snowballed; both involved the extensive use of state
terror; both caused untold misery and destruction.  And, yes, I think the
lessons of Vietnam did make it harder for Reagan and Bush to do more, but
I'd add the caveat that the American military, also aware of Vietnam, had
no great interests in fighting in Nicaragua, El Salvador, especially Cuba.
The civilian "cowboys" are almost always more dangerous than the guys in
uniform; they have bigger goals, like global economic hegemony--that's the
way the military-industrial complex works.

>
>
>3)  In _American Power and the New Mandarins_, Chomsky suggests that
>intellectuals are particularly responsible for opposing atrocities
>committed by their nation, since they have disproportionate access to
>resources and they are (in theory) more articulate than the general
>population.  He now regularly states that the idea of "speaking truth to
>power" is completely useless, since the powerful already know what they
>are doing and aren't interested in being lectured about it.  I do not
>perceive a contradiction, necessarily, but it would appear that he is
>recommending an emphasis on reaching the depoliticized populace instead of
>trying to get the leadership to change its course--exactly the approach
>that led to success in the Civil Rights movement, and to less success with
>the anti-Vietnam War movement.  This makes sense to me when I look at Nazi
>Germany, where the populace bought the lies of the leadership and made the
>Holocaust and the Nazi war machine a reality.  Opposition from a public
>able to engage in critical, independent thought would have relegated the
>Nazi dreams to the circular file.  Such an independent-minded public seems
>to be Chomsky's favored method for ending U.S. violent hegemony.
>  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?
>
>

        First, I'd recommend that everyone read that essay. It should be required
to participate on this list!  As for the question, I'm not claiming to be
in Chomsky's league, or his shoes, but I suspect he'd advocate speaking
truth to everyone.  Clearly, we don't have access to the major media
centers [and "our" media, like Pacifica, is of questionable reliability
anymore] so we're not going to get through that way.  And those in power
are pretty well aware of what they're doing, so anything "we" point out to
"them" isn't going to make a difference.  Still, anytime we have a venue,
it's important to tell people what the real deal is.  I like to speak in
the community for this reason. I've spoken to the "usual supects"--campus
radical groups, labor, Greens, etc.--plenty, but I also speak to church and
school groups whenever I can.  I don't buy this media crap about how
"conservative" this country is.  I've spoken to church groups here in Texas
who were very responsive to what I said [no, not just Unitarians!].  So
spread the word, at the water cooler at work, in between pitches at the
Little League game, while getting a hair cut, etc.  I think you'll be
surprised at how many people are sympathetic.  Obviously, no revolutionary
change is imminent, so we have to talk with people and give them our rap
and in time, more people will listen to it and be persuaded.

        Thanks for the questions.  I appreciate the chance to contribute, but I'd
like to hear what others [especially non-academics] think.  In the end, if
anything is to change, it won't be professors leading the charge!

Thanks,

Bob Buzzanco





>Dave W.
>
>"... for if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass
>of human beings ... would learn to think for themselves; and when once they
>had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged
>minority had no function, and they would sweep it away." - Emmanuel Goldstein
>
Bob Buzzanco
Associate Prof. of History
University of Houston
Department of History
Houston, TX  77204-3785
[log in to unmask]
http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/buzzanco.htm
713.743.3093
713.743.3216 [fax]
[log in to unmask]