[p2p-research] gotta read this (USA in the past tense)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Our civil war was fought (in principle) for the freedom of a
> subject people--no other in world history has been.

Another one of those front-porch disputes. :-)

The Civil War is a complex topic. But there are alternative views on it:
  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125433
"Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue 
alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War 
Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were 
not getting them. The Congress at that time heavily favored the 
industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell 
is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather 
than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that 
the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the 
South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the 
Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to 
the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like 
the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern 
states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred."

Some suggest that had the USA cut the southerners loose decades earlier 
(slavery had been a big issue, like with the Missouri Compromise), slavery 
would have ended sooner and better on its own in the South. For comparison, 
has the US invasion of Iraq really produced any significant regime change 
(other than maybe for the Kurds)? It is hard to impose cultural change from 
the outside.

By the way, the British said they would free the slaves if they won the 
American Revolutionary war. Same trick as Honest Abe did, in that sense, 
except the British ultimately lost, and so the slaves were not freed. What 
does that make the US founding fathers fighters for? Freedom for themselves? 
Or slavery for others?

Similar concept to outlined here:
   http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080115131602AAsXADY
"southern states resisting BIG Brother dominating their affairs,contrary to 
the United states Constitution
slavery was smartly added by ole abe midway through the war to help 
northern's cause."

This is not to discount the resistance to the Fugitive Slave act and other 
moral sentiments in the North. The fact is, why not just let the South go 
its own way? What value was there in "preserving the union"? Are the 
Netherlands and Belgium that much worse off for having split centuries ago?

But the problem with splitting countries is that those in power in the 
government feel they lose power. They also loose taxable revenue and access 
to certain resources (though they may also loose problems).

With that said, almost anyone nowadays would feel repugnance at the southern 
claims of a violation of what they claimed was their human right to own 
property (human slaves). And, the whole war on the Southern side was a sham 
too, from another perspective:
  "Wing nuts are too stupid to win their fake Civil War"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/09/21/2009-09-21_wing_nuts_are_too_stupid_to_win_their_fake_civil_war.html
"""
Our Civil War was not about freedom or states' rights, as redneck
apologists have claimed for almost a century. In fact, a whole section
of the country was hustled from their bone marrow to their brainpans.
   Those hustled were the vast majority of the Confederate Army, the
"little people." They were conned by the plantation owners who
considered them no more than poor white trash.
   Even so, with a long social history of being looked down upon by the
slave owners and valued below their expensive chattel, the so-called
white trash class was full of believers quick to identify with those
above them in wealth, power and education. The trash was convinced of
their rightness, once the mythology got up a good head of steam, to the
point of suicidal obnoxiousness. These men actually thought that their
constitutional rights would be torn asunder if slavery ended.
"""

We will no doubt reprise this with AI rights too, at some point. :-)
   "Human rights for robots? We’re getting carried away"
   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1695546.ece

I could quibble about some of the other points; it's hard to sort out the 
value to the world of many US American actions against the self-servingness. 
Example:
   "The NED, NGOs and the Imperial Uses of Philanthropy: Why They Hate Our 
Kind Hearts, Too"
   http://www.counterpunch.org/roelofs05132006.html

You left out the genocide against the natives (something there was less of 
in Canada and South America). Also, much of US technological achievements in 
the last 60 years were built by taking in German scientists like Einstein 
(both Jews from before WWII and Nazis from after).

And then there is this:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

While one might look at more modern examples of US wars related to corporate 
interests, in the old days there was stuff like this in China:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_war

And the US has destroyed democracies around the world, too (Chile, Iran, 
etc.) plus undermined or restructured lots of other governments for reasons 
of corporate profits (though it is not the only country to have done so, 
Africa is in such a sorry state in part by meddling by lots of European 
powers too.)

But, in such a big and diverse country as the USA, it is hard to summarize 
neatly all these issues. There is a lot of truth to what you say. There are 
things to be proud of about the USA, like free speech, or as you suggest, a 
tolerance of diversity. There are many individual efforts to be proud of too.

Still, we can only hope the rest of the world does not judge the USA by the 
same standards the US government applied to places like Iraq:
* Corrupt elections -- check.
* Leaders who torture -- check.
* Mass imprisonment -- check.
* Human rights violations like denial of health care or large student loan 
indebtedness to enslave children -- check.
* The rest of the world rates it as the number one threat to world peace -- 
check.
* Past internal genocide -- check. (Though not so much recently.)
* WMDs -- check.

The USA's military doctrine is based on unilateral dominance and not mutual 
security. Until that changes, it's hard to say the USA is not putting the 
entire world at risk.

By the standards of many US Americans saying Iran or Iraq should be nuked, 
where does that leave us? Parody of the song popular in the 1970s:
  "Bomb Iran" song (from John McCain's joke)
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu29F8NfRvI
   "What Would Have Happened if the "Bomb Iran" Contingent had its Way?"
   http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/16-1

By the way, how did the lead get into the gas in the first place?
   http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman
   http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/
   "Just after World War I, American engineers made their choice. Putting 
profit above public health was nothing new for American industry, but it had 
never been done on such a massive scale and with such deadly results... "

*If* the USA has been an engine of innovations that matter (other than 
leaded gas and nuclear weapons), which of:
* genocide,
* profits from slavery,
* a lot of open land,
* protection by oceans,
* exploiting other countries,
* surviving WWII with an intact industrial base relative to the rest of the 
world, or
* taking in German scientists
is most to account for it? :-)

Still, at least the USA is in the top twenty for countries being perceived 
as corruption free, tied with Belgium and Japan at number 18:
   "2008 CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX"
  http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table
and eclipsing Saint Lucia.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucia

I don't know, is that really where the world will feel safe getting it's 
innovations from? Would you trust Saint Lucia to be in charge of the world's 
renewable energy technology? :-)

Granted, China is listed as #72.

Anyway, is the USA, within its borders, a fairly good country to live in for 
the wealthiest there? Well, yes, compared to some much worse countries in 
several areas like as regards kidnapping. Though even there:
http://peanutbuttercabal.blogspot.com/2007/04/poor-perfect-affluent-kids.html
"The Price of Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage Are 
Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids"
http://www.amazon.com/Price-Privilege-Advantage-Generation-Disconnected/dp/0060595841

Contrast with:
"Why are Dutch children so happy?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/netherlands/TGLE3TD55TSS41P97
"Why Dutch women don't get depressed"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/arts/06iht-happy.1.6024209.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sarah-sands/sarah-sands-dutch-women-dont-get-depressed-we-do-discuss-452483.html

Is the USA a bad place to be poor compared to most other industrialized 
countries? Again, probably yes.

From:
http://unschooling.blogspot.com/2009/04/britain-and-us-worst-places-for.html
"An UNESCO report places the UK an the US on the lowest places of a list of 
countries, looking to the well-being of children, and places the Netherlands 
on the top of the same list."

Is the USA a pretty bad country outside its borders (like global climate 
change issues or overthrowing democracies)? Yes, compared to most other 
industrialized countries.

So, could the USA do a lot better both inside and outside its borders? Yes, 
it would seem.

But it does not try to do better as a society. Why is that?

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/