USA Today’s idea of American history

I was asked recently for my impressions of Of memory and our democracy by Colin Powell (USA Today). I presume the person asking wanted to know how I would react to such obviously cogent and convincing arguments put forth by such a preeminent thinking such as Mr. Powell. The thing is, once you read it objectively, you have to wonder whether he even wrote the damned thing at all. Or if it matters.

The article itself is a puff-piece mouthing oft-quoted myths that are readily absorbed by a cowed, brainwashed public. This is literary Soma (Aldous Huxley’s drug of the future from Brave New World); regular doses keep the sheep in line. It’s the kind of article that is regularly churned out, day after day, by a media ever-eager to show its loyalty to power.

I have to admit, I didn’t go into reading this article with a very open mind (as you’ve probably already noticed). I was already scoffing when reading the title, given Mr. Powell’s penchant for selective memory. It’s a propaganda piece in a propaganda paper, with Mr. Powell obligingly reciting the sanitized, abbreviated versions of American history that have been approved for public consumption.

I guess my main impression is that sentiments and words expressed in this article are just that: words. When you consider the source, you can’t help but see the whole article as a false palliative, intended to manipulate misplaced patriotism into support for a government that doesn’t represent any of the things mentioned. When someone calls Iraq and Afghanistan “front lines of freedom”, what can you do but call bullshit on it?

Mr. Powell paints a rosy picture of an America that doesn’t exist and never did. It’s this adherence to rosy visions, rather than reality, that lets the government do whatever it likes, even though it long ago strayed from its espoused ‘by the people, for the people’ stance. Believing in this type of pap is what allows it to get worse, rather than better. The basics of America are decent, but its government is at a massive disconnect with its own people — as long as those people don’t notice it and demand change, things will not get better. Once, the people did effect enormous change, but they have been asleep for a long time and the rights once won have eroded drastically.

But, let’s examine some of Colin’s article, shall we? He touches on many well-worn points of US propaganda, weaving them into a comforting womb of official history, safely insulated form reality.

Vietnam

“A day doesn’t pass when I dont think of them. Paying homage to the fallen holds a deeply personal meaning for me…”

As with most articles that touch on Vietnam, the expressed regret stays laser-like focused on the 60,000 or so American lives lost and never mentions the 4,000,000+ South-east Asians who died for having made the mistake of choosing a form of government not amenable enough to US needs.

I’m quite sure Powell isn’t talking about the Asians when he speaks of paying homage to the fallen. If he is so chagrined about death and the fallen, why has he spent the last 35 years of his career either representing or calling for war at all levels of government? He’s been an integral part of the US stamping it’s boot across the world’s face for decades — why does he never seek diplomatic resolutions that would spare lives? In the latest debacle in Iraq, he spent a year on the campaign trail, lying his face off to rustle up support for a new war — why do that if living with the loss of lives is so painful? Masochism … or insanity … or is he just full of shit?

Do you want a hint as to which one I would pick?

The forefathers

“Americans of every generation are ready to die for those inalienable rights”

Why is dying so fucking important? Thinking or speaking or writing or protesting for those rights is something that liberals and communists do, but dying is sanctifiable. Why? Because when you simply shut up, join the army and do as you’re told, you’d not endangering existing power structures; you’re not rocking the boat. Too much learnin’ is bad because you might find some problems and, heaven forfend, want to do something about it. You might even go so far as to convince other people that the rosy picture painted by their leaders doesn’t line up with reality at all.

And, as a black man, he’s got balls ignoring the fact that the Constitution put together by our holy Founding Fathers granted rights only to white, rich males (one had to have a certain amount of property in order to vote). Blacks? Nope — only 3/5 of a person according to the consitution. Indians? Not even mentioned. They didn’t exist, as evidenced by the many claims in history that America was ‘empty’ when Europeans got there. Women? Also didn’t exist politically.

But we believe all of these myths about the founding of America, as we are programmed to. Programmed to ignore that it was centuries of ensuing social struggle by millions of unsung heroes that got us the rights we have in America today. Programmed instead to idolize individuals, emphasizing the futility of group accomplishment without a charismatic leader.

I am not judging the forefathers. Read enough about them and you see that the country they founded was amazingly different from what had previously come in the form of government. Read their writings and you see that they were deeply educated about, interested in and conflicted over the decisions they were making. The solutions they made were far better than could be expected of those times. They were as moral as could be expected — and more.

I do not judge them because they did not come up with a solution most fair to all peoples. Nor do I sanctify them — in their writings is still precious little over the fate of the indigenous population, which underwent genocide. Black people and slavery suffer short shrift in their considerations as well, but this is mostly a combination of two things:

1. Such social structures are immensely hard to recognize as wrong, when they are so ingrained. Slavery and the position of black people was a fact of life throughout the white world. It is very difficult to think ‘outside the box’ and judge your own society in ‘real-time’. This does in no way excuse or absolve cruel acts done because of this societal blindness, but it offers an explanation of how otherwise enlightened-seeming men could, at the same time, hold such barbaric opinions.
2. There is also the distinct possibility that certain opinions and ideas are far too dangerous to express in any society. Read about the actual founding of the American republic and you will see the concessions made to the de-facto ruling class — those who were already wealthy at the time of the revolution. They had to be appeased — and appeasing them meant conceding to them societal constructs that would prolong their reign.

This does not make them bad men — simply fallible men, just as subject to blindness to issues of their times as we are today. But it is this fallibility that is deliberately wiped away in order to hold up mythic examples from the past. It is hoped that future generations will always have a more advanced and refined morality that allows them to judge the past. I have no doubt that people will look back on the ‘civilizations’ of today and condemn them for their savagery in ignoring the suffering in Africa so steadfastly for so long.

Civil war

Powell’s interpretations of the American Revolution and the American Civil War are laughable for anyone who has actually read about them — but they are the official version and are promoted as truth by and for ‘good citizens’. The Civil War, in particular, was primarily an economic war (as most are) and was, from beginning to end, never a moment in American history to be proud of and was *not* fought with any high-minded goals in mind — points that were acknowledged then, but have been wiped from the slate of history in order to provide a more palatable history lesson. Colin shows no hesitation in quoting Lincoln out of context when he said that the nation “shall have a new birth of freedom”, even though slaves would only, in reality, be free decades later. It can be cogently argued that it wasn’t until the 1950's that the 14th Amendment was enforced enough to lend weight to Lincoln’s statement.

Cold war and enemies

“Thankfully, our forces no longer face the prospect of war with the Soviet Union.”

Even the most cursory examination of the cold war that dominated global policy in the 20th century would tell you that this was never a possibility. When each side has over 10,000 nuclear weapons, the notion of using troops is ludicrous — all you have is a ridiculous detente that serves to drive the economies of both nations in ways that benefit certain industries in the short term and destroy millions of lives overall (both countries).

This type of statement is similar to the wild-eyed Senators who stride purposefully across the floor of the chamber, demanding of those who wish to avoid eternal war: “Would you rather fight them [terrorists] in Iraq or in New York??!!!??” Those with longer memories may remember Reagan’s wild statements that Nicaragua was within days marching distance of Texas or that the pathetic Libyan air force was a threat to US borders. It’s a remarkable achievement of propaganda that so many Americans perceive themselves under some form of imminent threat from evil abroad.

The notion of actually fighting land battles on American soil with Iraqis should elicit peals of laughter, but it doesn’t — enough people (including the ruling classes) are cow-like, nay, sheep-like, enough to let reason flee completely and aquiesce to the most militant, for fear of looking ‘weak on terror’. The fact that these statements hold sway over a terrified populace does nothing to relieve them of their essential nature: that they are bullshit with no relation to reality.

Russian democracy

“Today, we are cooperating with Russia’s evolving democracy”

This is another lovely one — it means that Russia’s treasure trove of resources has been forced open to the ‘free markets’ and private foreign investments (prerequisites for any sort of foreign aid) and this ‘cooperation’ means they are our friends now because, despite the fact that only powerful interests (Mafia) with no interest in the actual people’s welfare in Russia are running the show, funds are flowing in the proper direction (towards the US, as if I need to point it out) and they are, therefore, our friends. The fact that they don’t have much of a Democracy to speak of is irrelevant — they are an evolving Democracy and will be given time to, at some point, care for their people. This is secondary, however, to their role in globalization, which is to provide cheap, desperate, semi-skilled labor.

Dying is good

“the dream that inspires Americans to perform extraordinary acts of service”

Again, why are the only valued acts of service those of a military nature? Why is it that the greatest deed a person can do for their country is to die for it? Why is it that my agitation for rationality and equality within the US is typically seen as ‘rocking the boat’ and frowned upon and squashed, whereas some simpleton’s stepping on a boat and slaughtering dozens of innocent townspeople in Iraq for America is rewarded with a Silver Star?

Because when I use my mind to point out that our fearless leaders are lying to us and are working in their own best interests at the expense of ours, that is working against them — the simpleton, in doing exactly as he is told, is working for them. This pattern repeats itself everywhere — witness how FOX News, a network with no real claim to using the word News in their name, is the darling of our government — simply because they march lockstep with administration opinion.

Oklahoma City

But Colin’s not done pulling together many different threads of unrelated historical events:

“…168 empty chairs at the Oklahoma City National Memorial”

This is referring to the bombing carried out by Americans. You see how the juxtaposition would lead the less-informed to associate that bombing as having been carried out by foreign terrorists? Hell, more than half the country still believes Saddam himself ordered the attack against New York — despite the complete lack of evidence to support such outrageous claims. It’s not the people’s fault — they are constantly subjected to these types of allusions that trick the unwary into believing things that were never said, only insinuated.

Oklahoma City was carried out by Timothy McVeigh, an American. His story is also not so simple. He was neither stupid nor crazy. He was probably much better-read than an average American. He slaughtered 168 innocents in a federal building, but why he did it is something that any sane government interested in the welfare of its people would pay attention to. He did it because the government exacts too much control over its own people and he was starting a revolution. His solution is wrong — horribly wrong; to name it a solution is even wrong. The problem he was addressing, and stated rather eloquently, if you ever read any of his writings, exists and has gotten worse. There will be more Oklahoma City Bombings because the government does not consider that type of result bad enough to trade any power in order to prevent it.

Heroes

But the myth-making continues; reality is constricted, adjusted and honed until it is ready for public consumption. Points and ideas useful to the ruling classes are constantly reinforced until they are taken as truth, with no longer any need for substantiation. Heroes are made, despite the fact that all true advancements are the results of efforts of many millions of people. Heroes are easier to control — it’s only one image to maintain. And not everyone can be a hero, so not everyone need participate in society or even try to understand how it works, or, God forbid, try to change it. The world is too complex. Jessica Lynch is a hero-soldier. John Kerry is the solution to all the ills of a Bush administration. George Washington never lied. America is pure and good. Simple as that.

That is the idea. And it’s utter bullshit.