| History Revisionism |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Throughout recorded history, a country's historians have
slanted their histories to reflect most favorably upon the
actions of their own nation.
And by the same token, the historian who deviates from this
practice is derogatorily put down as a revisionist and his work
dismissed.
As a corollary, if another nation's historians rewrite their
nation's history to reflect more the views of another nation's
perceived wisdom, these historians are praised.
This has occurred with Russian historians who in the 90's
have written differently about the communist years.
And has occurred with Japanese historians who in the 90's
have written differently about the events of the 20th century.
As for United States history, no one has dared to question
the official view of things.
For starters, nobody has questioned the divine right of the
Europeans to conquer the Aborigine peoples of the Western
hemisphere, in many cases to massacre and annihilate them -- men,
women and children -- or to transfer them in deadly forced
marches to undesirable locations; an early version of "ethnic
cleansing".
Nobody has raised a protest against the systematic violation
of the United States government's treaties with these people
(misnamed American Indians), nor against the nearly universal
rejection of their efforts to enforce the terms of these treaties
by U.S. courts.
We praise ourselves for being a country of laws, which are
to be enforced equally for all citizens.
We have a court system, ending in the Federal Supreme Court,
where the minutest nuances of these laws are endlessly argued.
We have advocacy groups for every imaginable cause, prodding
for rectitude on the narrowest points of wrongs or injustices.
But as for rectitude of the wrongs and injustices done --
and being done -- to the American Indian, nothing is being done
by anybody.
Treaties are the supreme law of the land, and yet when it
comes to our treaties with the Indians, we openly violate them
with impunity.
To be fair, the New York Times has often publicized these
cases, although without editorial comment on the outcomes.
And then we have the Monroe doctrine, warning other
countries to keep hands-off affairs in the Western hemisphere.
Conversely, we took it upon ourselves to meddle in the
affairs of other countries in this hemisphere when it suited our
purposes.
As recently as 1989 under President Bush, we undertook to
invade Panama and dispose its President, putting our puppet in
charge; and as far as we know, continue to occupy that country
with our troops.
(1993)
Monroe doctrine and gunboat diplomacy. Haiti, Spanish-
American war, Nicaragua, Cuba?, Mexico?, Costa Rica?, Panama,
As another "Veteran's Day" approaches -- November 11th --
we are reminded that this was originally "Armistice Day" in
commemoration of World War I, the war to save the world for
democracy.
Of course, we may ask why the United States got involved in
this war in the first place, which after all was an internecine
war between two blood related kingdoms -- the House of Windsor
and the House of Saxony (Prussia?).
Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria, was a prince of
the German House of .....
But ignoring this for the moment, what right -- other
than as victors -- did Britain, France and the United States have
to carve up Germany into pieces, to re-work the political
boundaries of Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, thus setting
the stage for World War II.
Again, we may ask why the United States got involved in this
second world war?
Granted, Hitler was a bad dictator.
But so was Stalin, who, together with his predecessors had
murdered 30 million of his countrymen, and ruled the survivors
through terror and repression.
Granted, Mussolini had invaded and conquered Ethiopia in
'33, a fact conveniently ignored for 8 years.
Granted, the Japanese had invaded China, a fact conveniently
ignored for 4 years.
Furthermore, it was Germany and Russia who jointly invaded
Poland and carved up the land between them.
So why Britain and France declared war on only Germany and
not also on Russia is for thei statesmen to explain and justify.
And then Russia invaded and conquered Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia; and invaded Finland.
Until Germany invaded Russia, both were equally guilty of
agression against their neighbors.
As the war clouds swirled around Europe, does anyone
reasonably argue that, after Germany had crossed the Channel and
conquered England, they would be able to cross the Atlantic and
conquer the United States?
As a matter of fact, Germany apparently did not feel it was
within their power to fully conquer and occupy France and its
colonies; and set up the Vichy puppet government to rule over
southern France and the French Empire.`
Regardless, after getting into World War II, why did we
agree to such a rotten peace after surrender that our government
felt compelled to maintain and strengthen our huge armed forces,
and to virtually occupy Germany and Japan until today.
Certainly, one will say, we had to be prepared for conflict
with the Soviet Union and its allies.
If this is so, then why didn't we take Churchill's advice,
and let Germany and Russia exhaust themselves on the steppes of
Russia, leaving the Western democracies strong to pick up the
pieces and impose a true peace accord on Europe.
If we had treated Russia as equally a bad actor as Germany
and Japan, we would have been spared the Korean War, the
Vietnamese War, the conquest of Cuba and Angola, the Philippines
insurgency, etc., etc., etc.