A Journey to the Land of Make-Believe!

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it......Clearly a society that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."-Jean-Francois Revel

em-pire (em'pir') n. Abbr. emp. 1. A political unit, usually larger than a kingdom and often comprising a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority. 2. The territory included in such a unit. 3. Imperial dominion.

I stumbled on to this anti-American propaganda a few weeks ago and thought I'd give a few of my thoughts on the video and the larger problem it illustrates. As we progress further into this post-modern age of dis-enlightenment, I expect this kind of historical revisionism (cherry-picked facts mixed with half-truths and outright falsehoods wherever necessary to support a preexisting ideology) to become the rule rather than the exception. I also find it necessary to view garbage like this occasionally to remind myself that the political right does not hold a monopoly on idiocy. For anyone who couldn't stomach the entire video, it was made to promote Howard Zinn's book: "A (delusional) People's History of American Empire", appropriately released on April Fool's Day. I'm going to point out some of the problems with this video and the ideological movement behind it. This will be a long post because it's amazing how much misleading can go on in an 8-minute video. I also want to say up front that I am not writing this because of patriotism or because I believe that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. There are many historic examples of this. I am writing it because I view the Manichean, black/white view of the world presented in this video is every bit as dangerous as that espoused by many neo-cons who believe the United States is perfect, that we need to have war all the time, etc. In this respect, Zinn is merely the other side of the same ideological coin that looks to turn history and the current state of the world into a morality play with simplistic, ideological explanations for everything.

Now, on to the video itself. First, let's give a big round of applause to Viggo Mortensen for reminding us that people who make their living by portraying emotions on screen are not to be relied on for rational analysis of anything. (There are exceptions of course, but as a rule celebrity should not be confused with authority.) Second, am I the only one who thought the cartoon version of Zinn was a dead-ringer for Ron Paul? The first substantive issue I have with the video is, what is the motive behind it? Anti-imperialism? Pacifism? Anti-Americanism? This is a little easier to answer if we have some background on Mr. Zinn. First, the motive is probably not anti-imperialism because of Mr. Zinn's long history of support for Castro, who according to Zinn had "no bloody record of suppression" and other tools of the Soviet Empire (which WAS an empire in every sense of the word) and his reference to communism as an "exaggerated threat". The motive also cannot be pacifism given Mr. Zinn's gushing praise for Chairman Mao, who butchered more people than Stalin or Hitler (I guess it's okay as long as you keep it within your own borders) Regarding Mao's regime, Zinn stated it was "the closest thing in the long history of that ancient country to a people's government"(the people that survived that is) Also, Zinn is a Marxist, and Marxism is violent by definition. Redistribution of wealth can only be accomplished through violence. For example anyone wanting to "redistribute" my "wealth" will most likely have to either: a)kill me and take it or b) be killed by me while trying to take it. The motive we are left with is anti-Americanism specifically, and anti-capitalism generally.

Does the word "empire" fit or is he simply using it as a pejorative term? Well going back to the dictionary definition at the top of the page, let's look at some examples: Cuba, the Philippines, France, Germany, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Italy, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. All have been invaded by the U.S. (or had large U.S. military presences operating within them) How many fall under U.S. dominion today? Zero,as in zero. Secondly, how many empires take over countries then re-build them into independent states (and economic rivals to the "empire") at great cost to themselves? The answer here is also zero. So with this in mind I'm going to address some specific misleading points from the video. (I didn't notice any glaring lies in the video, Zinn saved these for the book, where they are numerous.)

The intro about the genocide of American Indians, and the actions with regards to Cuba and the Philippines are accurate and I have no problem with them. I'm not trying to gloss anything over here. The part about the Mexican-American war was also generally accurate, albeit presented in an over-simplified manner. However, they are most likely included to make the viewer think that the wiping out of the Indians is in some way related to later U.S. actions like entering World War 2. This is not explicitly stated, but planted in such a way that the viewer gets the impression that if the U.S. commited genocide in one instance that must be the driving force behind everything it does. We get to the major twisting of history once we reach the period beginning with World War 2 and the Cold War. Note the complete lack of any reference to the brutality of the Japanese empire or any consideration of how many lives an invasion would have cost both sides. We then come to the claim that the U.S. was trying to maintain it's dominance of Europe and nuclear monopoly right after World War 2. So, the U.S. strategy of removing it's troops from all the conquered European nations except Germany and rapidly demobilizing it's military is a sign of imperialism? The complete unwillingness to challenge Soviet domination of East Germany (or any other European nation for that matter) wasn't exactly the way an empire with military superiority and a nuclear monopoly either. It was only after the Europeans called for assistance that the NATO alliance was formed in 1949. Again, this is a far cry from the cartoon in the video showing the U.S. as an octopus trying to stretch across the world, with no mention of the U.S.S.R. This reversal of history is shown again with regard to Korea. Apparently the war was "not about fighting communism" but about "establishing a foot-hold in Asia". So apparently the two are mutually exclusive in Zinn's mind. Secondly, it's hard for me to see where the U.S. expansionism is here. Is resisting another power's expansion the same as imperialism? Perhaps only when it's done by a capitalist society. The Cold War followed this pattern a lot, communist expansion leads to American resistance which is then "imperialist", this kind of communist propaganda persists in a lot of people's worldviews to this day. Just the other day I heard the old Warsaw Pact referred to as a "military alliance". It boggles the mind. It seems to me like an "American empire" would have backed more groups that were doing the invading rather than those who were being invaded. But this kind of fact-twisting is necessary to tie all previous wars neatly into the overarching theory and make them seem exactly like the occupation of Iraq.

We then come to the shocking revelation that the Vietnam war had economic causes! I'm shocked. That would mean that that war was just like every other war in human history. Again, note the simplistic portrayal of a complex historical event as having a single simple cause that nicely dovetails into a preexisting Marxist view. And it was brutal? You're kidding me. Apparently the fighting c Who knew wars were brutal? I'm not trying to sound "pro-war" here, I view war as the second worst thing imaginable. Fortunately, partly through the work of Zinn and others like him, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam and Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were spared the fate of post-war Japan. Think of all the new phrases like "killing fields" and "year zero" that we wouldn't have gained in our lexicons. I don't say any of this to excuse U.S. behavior with regard to certain aspects of the way the war was fought (I'm not the one with the Manichean world view here.) But when the overall narrative presents one side of history and presents it as anything other than an indoctrination, I have a problem with that.

Note the simplistic A to B logic with regards to the first Gulf War. Events are portrayed as flowing together in a simple, logical, unambiguous fashion. There can be no extenuating circumstances or considerations not involving class struggle. If something happened involving U.S. involvement in the middle-east in the 40's and 50's then that must be directly causing the events of the early-90's. The CIA helped overthrow Mossadeq so it must be behind every event in that part of the world. (As an aside, the idea of Mossadeq as the "democratic leader" is greatly exaggerated. He had just dissolved the parliament, violating the constitution, and did away with secret ballots on his way to winning 99.93% of the vote. Yeah, that's a democratic election.) This is the nice thing about being driven by ideology, you get to mold the facts rather than let the facts mold you. This is probably why revisionist history is so popular at both ends of the political spectrum.

Then we mercifully come to the end with Viggo asking us "have we not reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way where we expand not our military power, but our humanity?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a reference to ingesting narcotic substances to me. (I'd like to study the subject of socialism to learn when it first became infused with new age psycho-babble like this) I can only conclude that he means we must embrace socialism. I'm sure he means "real" socialism, the kind that exists only in utopian fantasies that inhabit some theoretical plane in the far-flung reaches of the imagination and produce equality and happiness; not the "phony" socialism which exists in the real world and has almost always produced misery and famine. So in conclusion, I can't help but feel sorry for the people duped by this world-view, particularly kids being forced to "learn" this in schools. I think anyone watching this should ask themselves, "What would the world look like if there had never been a U.S.A.?" What kind of places would Europe and Asia be? So, now I'm going to read the book this is based on (once I can get a copy from my library, because God knows I'm not spending any money on this stuff) and will probably post a few thoughts on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short next time. I've only thumbed through a previous edition of the book and saw a few statements about historical events that were the exact opposite of the truth. So I should find it interesting. (For anyone looking for a more eloquent response to stuff like this video, especially with regards to the Cold War and the concept of U.S. imperialism I would recommend reading the book How Democracies Perish, by Jean-Francois Revel or checking out one of his articles on Anti-Americanism at the link above.)