The word anti-American is thrown around here constantly. Myself and others have been called anti-American for many reasons. However, it seems even the slightest bit of aversion towards America can set off the pro-U.S forces on politics.ie. Take for example, the thread about the marines urinating on supposed Taliban fighters - no weapons, no shoes, some fighter's, eh? Immediately, people started saying things such as "oh, the left will be attacking America now, watch them." It really struck me that these people were quickly denouncing the people who they thought were about to start condemning the action, but were not condemning the action itself, because the young boys were up against savage barbarians. I also have no intention of pointing out the good things America has done and I openly admit I am not planning to be objective.
Anything, no matter how timid, about America's foreign policy and you're labelled anti-America. It is actually quite tantamount as when Israeli's label anyone antisemitic if they attack Israel's actions.
So, I just want to give a few examples of why I am anti-American regarding their foreign policy. The idea of America is beautiful and the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the most profound piece of writing I have ever read and something that should be followed by everyone. I also think the system of government they have over there is the greatest on the planet: States' Rights and their 3 Branches of government. That said, their history is one of the most viscous of all time and their lust for economic lebansraum after 1776 and today is really quite sick and has been detrimental.
One of the most obvious things to have apoplexy about regarding America is slavery. The destruction of African's in America and the contradictions from the founders is truly remarkable. When I think of a way to sum up slavery in America, I think of George Carlin at a comedy gig who said something along the lines of: "We had founding fathers in this country who owned slaves and wanted to be free. They owned slaves and wanted to be free. Think about that." What he said is most certainly correct. The slave trade in America was one of the most repulsive things about the country's history.
There can be no excuses that this was all a matter of "sure, it was the thing to do back then." That is not a palatable excuse, at all. George Washington, who owned a myriad of slaves, refused Blacks who wanted to serve in the army for freedom. Thomas Jefferson actually blamed the King of England for transporting slaves to America and wanted to implement a paragraph in the Declaration of Independence about it, but besides obvious contradictions by Jefferson wanting to end slavery, given he himself owned many while also raping some, many rich white men did not want the paragraph included because they did not want the nefarious trade to end. Hence, the paragraph was left out.
When the Constitution was drawn up in 1787 in Philadelphia, most of the 55 men had slaves, government bonds, land etc. There was no one to represent the poor and certainly no one to represent slavery. This is not me on some lefty rant, it is a simple fact that the founder's of America were elitist who made a mockery really of the term "we the people." In fact, Thomas Jefferson wanted to deport all blacks back to Africa. Abraham Lincoln also shared this warped ideology. Destroy their history, language and life, then throw them back to Africa when done. The two great egalitarians of American history.
And so we go on further. In 1808, the importation of slaves was made illegal. Yet, John Hope Franklin estimates that around 250,000 slaves were imported illegally before the Civil War. A frightening figure, but nothing really shocking. Whilst I am only being terse there is no real need to go through examples of what slavery was like. So, straight to the fallacy of Lincoln: "Lincoln freed the slaves."
In the book
Team of Rivals which "inspired Obama" I was amazed reading at how Lincoln thought slavery was egregious, but how he thought blacks were inferior to whites. Like all American tales, they are normally perfidious regarding the truth. Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery. He went to war to preserve the union. That is a matter of sheer fact. Lincoln even basically admitted it himself in a few speech's. In southern Illinois, two months after saying in Northern Illinois that "all men were created equal", on his campaign trial in 1858, Lincoln told the audience "I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office(sorry Obama)
nor to intermarry with white people...." A truly repulsive thing to say, so much for wanting to free the slaves. If that is not enough proof, Lincoln responded to General Henry Halleck, a staunch racist and critic of Lincoln. Lincoln reassured him that his plans were solely for preserving the Union: ".... my paramount struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it....."
So much for those American values and that gentlemen Lincoln who had the best interests at heart of the slaves. Hundreds of thousands died in a bloody Civil War and the reason it was fought is used as propaganda by American historians and their media. Emancipation Proclamation? Oh yeah, you're free, free to get no work based on your color and free to become homeless and destined for a life of crime, prostitution, etc.
So, then we have another race that was hated by American's. The Native Americans. John Quincy Adams, looking back at his past and America's admitted that: "That hapless race of Indian's which we are
exterminating without mercy and with perfidious cruelty." The philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville said: "America exterminated the Indian Race, without violating one principle of morality in the eyes of the world."
Right after 1776, America had set its sights on western expansionism, or American Lebansraum. The Indian's had to be either crushed or accept what was happening. It is quite amazing that most Indian's actually fought on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War. Something many American's never forgot or forgave. When Jefferson purchased Louisiana, he hoped that the Indian's would move westward. He wanted them out of the way, but also wanted them to trade with. He hoped they would abandon(among other things) hunting and come to "civilization." The word civilization os key and will be used by future American President's as reasons for invading countries to civilize them. That type of talk goes right up to today's world. We're over there to bring them democracy now.
Andrew Jackson, as Newt Gingrinch recently pointed out had a simple philosophy: If the enemy doesn't succumb to your demands, you kill it! That's exactly what Jackson did. A hero of the 1812 war, Jackson was a brilliant war leader, but also hell bent on expanding America, as the founder's intended. After the War, Jackson wanted to take Florida into the Union. Of course, there were a plethora of slaves in Florida and Indian's who were only destined to attack America and endanger it's security. The phrase today would be that "Florida is harboring 'terrorists' who hate our freedom." So Florida became part of the Union but Jackson didn't stop there. His hatred of the Indian's knew no bounds and brought before Congress years later the Indian Removal Act. Indian's were soon forced westward. Later on, they would be moved again by the egalitarian forces of the United States. Again, just short terse examples of American expansionism and their treatment of different races.
America's treatment of other countries was remarkable. Soon, Mexico was the next target. Although Mexico fired first, according to Colonel Hitchcock, a professional soldier and graduate of the military academy, he said that America wanted to invade Mexico before and even Lincoln had challenged the government to provide evidence that Mexico had killed American soldiers. The most likely reason they wanted the war with Mexico was for California. Even the Whig's who were against the war, wanted California. Whatever the reasons, America had the god given right to do so. The New York Herald said that America was going to "regenerate" the people of Mexico and "civilize" the country. There's that word again. The Congressional Globe in Febuaray 11, 1847 said that American expansionism was "the destiny of the white race" and "the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon Race." The American anti-slavery Society said that the war was solely for "perpetuating American slavery." The war was savage and there was brutality on both sides, but rape and murder was a forte of American troops. The most sickening example of the arrogance and contempt of the American's comes from a Naval Officer called Revere, who gathered Indian Chief's in California to tell them that America owns the land and that if they aqcuaise, they will be free to live. However, Revere warned:"... but you are indolent.... if you are lazy..... you must become extinct.. We shall watch over you, and give you true liberty." The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalyo was signed February 1848, which gave America half of Mexico. The Texas boundary was set up at the Rio Grande. The U.S paid Mexico $15 million.
America's fixation with Cuba is not a new thing. It has been an idiosyncrasy of America's for over a century. Winston Churchill wrote that the thoughts of black's running Cuba after they kicked out the Spanish during their war of Independence would lead to another "black republic." It was a "grave danger." The American's obviously agreed. Congress passed the Teller Amendment Act pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. America, of course, later invaded and the Cuban's welcomed them, hoping they would guarantee Cuban independence. War drum's and jingoism went out and John Hay, the American Secretary of State, called the American Spanish war a "splendid little war."
After the Cuban occupation, at least 80% of Cuba's export's of minerals were in the hands of American's. United Fruit moved into Cuba and purchased nearly 2,000,000 acres of land at 20cent's an acre. The Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901 was incorporated into the U.S Constitution . The amendment gave the U.S the right to intervene in Cuba. This caused widespread indignation among Cuban's and many protested. But America had got its way in the end. It had expanded its economic Lebansraum and also its military dominance. General Leonard Wood wrote shortly after to Theo Roosevelt(another vehement racist and madman): "There is, of course, little or no Independence left in Cuba under the Platt Amendment." The Spanish American war then lead to the U.S military forces taking over Puerto Rico. The Hawaiian island was also annexed by joint resolution of congress in July of 1898. Following the peace treaty with Spain in December of 1898, the U.S bought Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
The purchase of the Philippines was quite bizarre because it involved a President as insane as George Bush junior. President McKinely told Ministers he did not want the Philippines, but God had told him, among other things, it would be "cowardly" to give them back to Spanish. They(the natives of the land) were "unfit for self government." They need to be "civilized" and be uplifted so that the U.S could "Christianize them." "And then I went to sleep and slept soundly." A true inspiration to George Bush and God certainly does "Bless America."
In the Senate, Albert Beveridge said in June 9, 1900: "The Philippines are ours forever.... We will not renounce pur part in the mission of our race." The Anti-Imperialist League was a group of people - rich, middle class mainly - who were as the name name suggests/ They published letter's of soldiers during the Philipino war. Many of them bragged about killing local villagers and burning local villages. One volunteer stated: "....all we wanted was to kill nigg**s." Now, this is not denouncing all American soldier's, but look at the sentiments of some soldiers and their leaders, they are identical, except the leaders have a much more eloquent tone to their racism.
So that is American expansionism and their mad actions up until 1903. Skipping to after WW2, let's take Iran. In 1953, Iran was a pro-secular democracy lead by Mohammad Mosaddegh. A conservative government tried to nationalize their own natural resources. Because of that, the British and American's staged a coup which overthrew the Mossaddegh government and placed them with the Shah, a malign vicious dictator. The Eisenhower administration later on said that American actions in the middle east is fueling anti-Americanism.
In Guatemala, 1954, America installed a dictatorship after a coup against the democratic government. It was Guatemala's first experiment with democracy and it had been going strong for ten years. Guatemala was a left wing government before the coup, but it was not a communist government or wholly socialist. However, the government at the time had been working for the best interests of the people. The U.S ambassador in Guatemala said that the government is trying to aid: "The workers and the peasant's in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign corporations." So, Guatemala had to go and a brutal dictatorship was installed. Right up until Reagen it was supported by the states and even the U.N admitted that it was one of the worst countries in the world for human rights abuses.
Whether it was democracies in the middle east or Latin America that were not on board with America, made no difference. Their economic lebansraum plans could not be stopped. Rather than go through all of the crimes of each dictatorship, let's list a few others America supported all in the name of spreading democracy:
Somoza dictatorship
- Juan Vicente Gomez dictatorship in Venelzula
- President Suharto Indonesian dictator
- Diem, Vietnam
- Batista, Cuba
- Noriega, Panama
- Ceausescu, Romania(communist)
- Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan dictator
- Saparmount Nizazov, Turkmenistan dictator(Islamic-Communist, the two evil's combined) I really suggest people do a quick wiki of him if you never heard of him before
- Teodor Obiang, Guinea dictator who received medals of honor from George Bush in 2002
When not overthrowing countries or supporting dictator's, America gets involved and tries to intervene to bring peace and stability and "democracy" to the region. Just as they did in Vietnam. A war that was not in any way relevant to America's national security of interest. They undermined democracy in the region by disregarding elections, fearing communist victory and decided they would being the democracy they was acceptable to them.
More bombs then all of world war 2 combined were dropped on Vietnam by America. They absolutely destroyed the country with impunity. They filthy, nasty, capricious and criminal soldiers off their heads of drugs and everything else went on rampages killing civilian's, raping them and torturing them. Still, to this day, in the 21st century, children are being born with deformations from the chemical attacks used by the American's. Then, the leader of the free world, whilst undermining black citizen's, shot dead protester's at college campuses because they were against the war. No dissent indeed, just as the American's banned protests during the Spanish American war too.
Where was Dick Cheeny for example in all of this? Bill O'Reilly as a media hawk example? They were sitting on their arse in college or elsewhere saying "send the blacks over and the poor whites." Just as the elites and rich did during America's foundations, they used the poorest in society to fight their wars. Just as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X pointed out: The Vietnam war was a white man's war. But hey, America sure showed it was tough, huh?
Skipping Reagan's crimes(denounced also by the world court for Nicaragua), another gargantuan criminal, the sanctions on Iraq were what they were: Genocide. Saddam was a madman(who America took off the nations supporting terrorism list in 1982 so they could trade with him) but in the interest of history, we have to look at what America did. The U.N sanctions are ostensible. Verily, it was American and British sanctions on Iraq.
U.N diplomats, Denis Halliday(who called the sanctions genocide, a fine Irishman) and Hans von Sponeck both state that the sanctions were having detrimental affects on the Iraqi people and obviously, they were genocidal. What did Madeleine Albright have to say about whether the sanctions would kill thousands of children? Well, she basically held a Machiavellian policy of: The ends justify the means. These sanctions fueled anti-American to unseen proportions. They also strengthen Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden then talked about these sanctions and made key points about them:
Then, we have the Iraq war today, based on even more lies: WMD, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and we're building a democracy. The death toll in Iraq ranges from 100,000 to over one million. Iraq has become a Islamic tyranny now(but they have elections, supposedly) were women cannot go to college anymore. Also, a rather sick and disturbing new trend is the amount of rapes that are happening, not just male on female but male on male. But hey, Saddam was bad so they should be happy. They just can't accept democracy, but we're going to stay here until they do. And they hate us because we're free.
After 9/11, the American government told Pakistan to halt all food convey's to Afghanistan until the Taliban handed over Osama Bin Laden(which they repeatedly asked evidence for). These sanctions on Afghanistan again, were draconian and only shows America's contempt for human life.
America has no interest in democracy building or saving Kurds in the middle east. If that was the case, why did the great liberal hero Bill Clinton augment weapons supplies to Turkey in 97, 80% of Turkey's arms were from America at this time, when they were exterminating their Kurds? Why did America support Columbia in the 90's when it had the worst human rights record in Latin America?
How many dictatorships have to be supported before you get it? How many people have to be exterminated before you get it? Not everyone is anti-American because they're left winger's. Not everyone is anti-American because they hate the American system and way of life. Most people are anti-American because they are complete and utter savages, looking out for their best interests, just as the founding fathers wanted them to.
The quote bu Thomas Jefferson "Commerce with other countries, alliance with none" is completely out of context. Jefferson mean't commerce with other countries, yes. But if it is in America's interest in take them over because they're a threat or because America needs to expand, he saw it as game ball.
America was founded as an imperialist empire. There is no doubt about that. They even wanted to take over Canada and tried to before 1776. America only recognized Canada's existence after WW1 and the reason they gave up trying to annex them was because Britain would again, go to war over it.
So, that are a plethora of other reasons is why I am anti-American. Not the most articulate post but just getting the rudiment's out there is enough. I am sure there are others on here who could add or expand on some of the things I said. i could have started a whole thread just on the Indian's or slavery or Latin America, but a brief history I thought was suffice.
If I could recommend a few books about this subject I would recommend:
A people's history of the United States
A people's history of American Empire
Hegemony or Survival
Rouge States
The first two by Howard Zinn and the other two by Noam Chomsky.
76Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by bluefirelog
