People ask me, "why do you not like living in the USA?" This chatauqua is an attempt at answering that question.
As a Queer, I look at the world differently from the average heterosexual person.
As a Queer, I am denied certain of our "unalienable" rights, the most well-known of which is the right to get married.
Due to my having undergone gender reassignment, I am not completely classified 100% as a "woman". Texas, for example, bases your gender on chromosomes - even the International Olympic Committee gave that up in 1985. Yet Texas plods along in the '50s, or so it would seem. U.S. Appellate court case precedents (Ulane v. Eastern Air Lines) specifically exempts transgendered people from Title VII protection.
So of course, my first thought is: if I am clearly not a man but not - in the eyes of the law, anyway - a woman, then why do I have to pay taxes?
I think about these things all the time. But instead of getting mad, I try to understand them in an objective manner. Why does the government fear Queers so much? Why do certain religious groups in the government feel they have the right to make their beliefs governmental policy? And why do these religious groups believe that homosexuality is a sin so horrible they would classify us as non- or second-class- citizens?
Religion-based Homophobia
There are a number of sites on the internet that have outlined the canard that posits "The Bible prohibits homosexuality". One excellent example is The Virtual Church Of The Blind Chihuahua.
Yet the homophobes persist. Most recently we have the "Reverend" Jimmy Swaggart stating to a Christian congregation in Louisiana, "I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."
Now why God needs Jimmy Swaggart to get an "update" on the status of the life of a gay man is beyond me. My understanding of God is that God will know that they guy is dead before Swaggart will, but hey, I'm a Queer, what do I know?
And the worst part of this story is that the people in the congregation applauded him. They applauded him!
Shortly thereafter, the voters of the state of Louisiana decided to outlaw gay marriage. And they celebrated that they had done this, that they had denied the same rights to Queers that they themselves enjoy.
Swaggart is the cut from the same cloth as Bush, Meese, Falwell, and all the other homophobic "God is on our side" people who were or are in charge of this country. They are the same thing as the "vein of intolerance" that flows through this great country, and when you ask "how did these people get into power?", you find that since we live in a democracy, i.e., since the government of the United States of America is allegedly indicative of the people, then the only conclusion which you can draw is that Americans are homophobic, and this homophobia is due in large part to the teachings of the predominant religion - which is Christianity. The second-most prominent religion in the USA, that is to say, Judaism, has the Orthodox, Chasadim and Lubavitch movements (also known as the "Frum"), and the Frum movements all arrive at the same conclusion as the majority of the Christian denominations - homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals are sick people. Due to their Christian / Frum programming, the majority of Americans feel that homosexuality is so severe a sin that we should be denied the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.
This thought process has lasted in this country for almost four-hundred years. It began when the first "pilgrims" landed in Plymouth Rock. They called themselves Puritans (as in "pure people"). You can read about the similarities to the Puritans (then) and the homophobic citizenry/government (now) here.
Sadly, this "we know what's good for you and we're going to make damn sure you play by our rules" attitude affects Queers as well as other people. It affects people in other countries. It affects those who do not pursue "the American way of life". There is no doubt in my mind that homophobes derive schadenfreude from the pain they inflict upon others.
How so?
Once the idea set in to these people that they knew what was best for everyone, it didn't stop at America's borders. These people felt that we ought bring their system to everyone else. How best to do that? War.
Warmongers
The term "monger" is a British term. For example, in England, if you want to buy some hardware, you go to an "ironmonger". If you want to buy some fish, you go to a "fishmonger".
The term "monger" is a very old term (from "Olde English") that denotes a "salesperson" or "vendor" or "peddler".
So the term "war-monger" literally means "war peddler".
Now the USA is the top country in the world to start serious wars. I don't mean "skirmishes", I mean WAR.
You ask any Queer if Swaggart's declaration is a declaration of war against homosexuals. They'll probably agree.
Since the two world wars - which I won't include here due to their very global nature - the USA has been engaged in a number of wars of ideology. For example, Korea, VietNam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (version 1), Iraq (the sequel), The War On Drugs, The War On Terror, and now, it would seem, The War On Homosexuality.
Korea
Was The Korean War worth the 54,256 dead Americans (according to this site) or the predictably much smaller 33,651 number (DOD statistics)?
The DOD claims the Korean war required American intervention because President Truman decided we should "help" the South Koreans. There was no Congressional Review, there was no lengthy debate. On the same day that the U.N. denounced North Korea's actions (they invaded South Korea), Truman first evacuated Americans and sent ammunition, then (in the DOD's own words) "sanctioned the use of American air and naval forces below the 38th parallel", and the following day Truman "extended American air and naval actions to North Korea and authorized the use of U.S. Army troops to protect Pusan". Due to pressure from MacArthur, "on June 30 he told MacArthur to use all forces available to him (to protect the Seoul region)".
Why did Truman do this? To stop communism. Communism, it seems, is un-American. And we know better.
VietNam
Strangely enough, there is no official DOD site for VietNam. Who knew? Seems to me that the DOD would like Viet Nam to simply go away.
But Viet Nam will not go away from the hearts and minds of a large segment of the voting population. Because we lived through it. Because we will never forget the atrocities we saw daily on television, or the horrors we have heard from the veterans that lived through it.
Viet Nam started as a "police action". Kennedy was loathe to start another war after Korea, so he simply called it a "police action". Ask any of the family or survivors of the 58,000 people that died in Viet Nam if it was a "police action". Ask any Viet Nam veteran if they were engaged in a "police action".
It was a war. It was not a "police action". The people that died there were soldiers (and support personnel, no slight intended). The people that died there were not "police".
Why did Kennedy start the Viet Nam war? To stop communism. "The domino theory", and all that. Why worry that the various Asian countries would "fall" to communism? Because communism is not our way of life, and we know better.
Grenada
Grenada is a very sad story for true democracy. A great analysis of what happened can be found here.
Grenada was suffering before 1979 due to their Prime Minister's "eccentricities" (belief in aliens being one of them). A bloodless coup ensued, and the person that arranged the coup, Maurice Bishop, was inspired by revolutionaries such as The Black Panthers and The New Left.
The Grenadians loved Bishop. He reduced the number of illiterate Grenadians, instituted free health care, and got the economy going. Castro, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela were very impressed, and Castro even supported Bishop's actions with Cuban workers and medical personnel.
Then in 1983 the "Bishop Socialization Experiment" was overthrown in a bloody coup by a hard-core marxist.
President Reagan, who had considered Bishop an enemy for years, used the 1983 coup as an excuse to invade. Grenada, in the author's words, "was about the size of Martha's Vineyard and had a population that couldn't fill the Rose Bowl". So Reagan, to ensure success and to minimize American casualties, threw 10,000 troops at Grenada. That's about one American soldier for every five Grenadians!
Why did Reagan invade Grenada? To stop communism / socialism. It would seem socialism is very anti-American, just like communism is. Where's McCarthy when you need him? We know better.
Panama
Panamanian ex-dictator Noriega was allegedly involved in running drugs. I would place a high degree of certainty on this, because in all likelihood 90% of Central and South American governments, military and police are allegedly involved in running drugs. Who cares? It's their country. Our laws extend to our borders, our airspace and our maritime "control areas". Our laws do not extend to Panama.
President Bush Sr. decided to indict Noriega on drug-running and money-laundering in 1989, shortly after he took office. Never mind that these "crimes" were crimes in America. And never mind that, when President Bush was running the CIA, Noriega was one of our "staunchest allies" and was trained by the CIA. Bush felt Noriega "had to go". Not very American, that, running drugs, laundering money, etc.
Bush Sr. indicted Noriega under American law and demanded that he surrender. Noriega, predictably, refused. Bush Sr. told the military "go in there and get him". The excuse was that Noriega was a sabre-rattling dictator and "the people wanted him out". So we invaded and took Noriega. A friend of mine was on the team that - in his own words - "went in there and got him". My friend worked for FinCen at the time. FinCen is part of the IRS CID (Criminal Investigative Division) and who do you think the first non-military people were in Panama after Noriega surrendered? The IRS. They went into the banks - with military "backup" (i.e., with a guy that pointed an M-16 to the head of the bank manager) to see which Americans had Panamanian accounts. Until they went in there, Panama had bank secrecy. That ended when the IRS got there. So much for respecting the law of foreign governments!
Why did Bush Sr. invade Panama? Ostensibly, it was to stop the flow of illegal drugs. We know better. In reality, it was to get even with his old "friend" that told him "get stuffed" when Bush demanded bank information on Americans, which Bush eventually got anyway.
Iraq (version 1)
Here's another President Bush Sr. ex-buddie that did what he wanted to and not what Bush wanted.
Saddam Hussein, megalomaniac that he is, decided that Kuwait, a sovereign entity recognized by the UN, was "originally a part of Iraq" (he used some blathering excuse about it being the long-lost province, etc.) and invaded Kuwait. The usual pattern of looting, robbing, raping, and "pillaging" Kuwait and the Kuwaitii then occurred. Seems the Iraqi people thought along centuries-old lines of behaviour just like he did!
This destabilized the oil market, because of course the first thing ol' Saddam did was to seize control of Kuwait's significant oil industry. This also added considerable shipping capacity to Iraq's "territory", along the north end of the Persian Gulf, increasing their shoreline by about 400%.
Bush Sr. decided that Kuwait needed to be "liberated". He made a "deal" with the Kuwaiti monarchy wherein Bush Sr. would liberate Kuwait, and in exchange for that, the Kuwaiti monarchy would hold free elections. I.E., American-style democracy would be implemented. Because we know better.
So Bush Sr. sent many, many divisions of American soldiers into Kuwait, after bombing the snot out of it for months. In all, the ground fighting lasted about a week. Seems that Iraqi soldiers (and civilians) had no problem being criminals until the Americans got there, and then lost all taste for "regaining the lost province".
Bush Sr. never toppled Saddam in the Iraq war version 1. He felt it would "destabilize" the country, and rightfully so. Most Americans with whom I spoke at the time were disappointed - I heard comments like 'why didn't we go in there and kill the guy?" (I have to admit I may have said this, too. Now my viewpoint is much more enlightened.)
Of course, the Kuwaiti monarchy lied. After we liberated their country, they issued an edict "placing all democratic reforms on hold". I mean, come on, do you really think a monarchy that ran the country like their own private club were going to actually institute democracy?
Why did we "liberate" Kuwait? To free the Kuwaiti people which happened. And to institute American-style democracy, which never happened. Seems the Kuwaiti monarchy knew better.
Iraq (the sequel)
President Bush Jr. - now this is a really egocentric Puritan if ever there was one - was pissed off. Saddam, who was still in power when Bush Jr. took office, said bad things about his Daddy. Bush Jr. actually told a bunch of right-wingers at a fundraiser, "Saddam tried to kill my Daddy". (God, did the media have fun with that.)
Bush Jr. wasn't about to let Saddam stay in power. The claim that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which was ostensibly made by the CIA has never been proven. Saddam was not a threat to anyone but his own people, which didn't have the courage to oust him themselves. Horror stories have abounded regarding the behaviour of Saddam's two sons, e.g., rape, torture, shootings in the streets. Saddam himself drained an entire wetlands area, killing the agribusiness of an entire region of people in Iraq, simply because he thought one of them tried to hurt him in some way (assassination attempt, civil disobedience, etc.)
Saddam and his family are clearly not nice people. My point is - how does this affect America? Why is it OUR problem?
Bush Jr. used the "WMD excuse" to invade Iraq. As you surely know, Saddam's two sons, both of whom were true psychopaths by anone's standards, are now both dead, and Saddam is in U.S. custody.
And this means....? This helps America because?
The war and the subsequent destabilization of the Iraq regime have left over 1,000 American soldiers and support staff dead. Many more thousands Iraqii have been killed. The Shiites in the country are now destabilizing the "appointed/elected" government to the point where the newly-installed regime will not be able to control the country, and the regime will fall.
In short, everything we did in Iraq - except, of course, putting Saddam into an American jail like his kindred spirit, Noriega, for "being not such a nice guy" - is a failure. Can you say "Viet Nam"? How could this happen again, how could we have another Viet Nam, when so many people that lived through the Viet Nam era are still alive and voting?
Why did we invade Iraq a second time? To oust Saddam because he was a "threat", and to institute American-style democracy. Saddam was no threat to America, and the democracy 'experiment" will fail. The Iraqii do not want democracy. We gave it to them. They will throw it away. When someone gives you something, you have no idea what it is worth. Had the Iraqii fought for their independence, they would not behave as they are doing now.
The War On Drugs
Now this war is a joke. Period.
I grew up in the center of Chicago. I live in a major city center. I walk 500m to a diner for lunch. In that 500m there are people that deal drugs. I am certain that, for enough money, can get anything I want (I have never asked, but of this I am certain). Speed, coke, meth, crack, you name it, I probably can get it. Pot is so tolerated here that if the police catch you with it they take it away from you and they keep it!
America has spent countless billions fighting a non-existent war. Drugs are a medical problem, a social problem, not a problem that dictates that we "go to war". If someone is an addict, they are sick - they are not at war with our society.
Witness the legalization of pot in the Netherlands, in Canada, and it's tolerance in most major European states.
Witness the forward-thinking of such democracies as England, the Netherlands and Switzerland, where heroin addicts sit before a tribunal of doctors who, once they are convinced that the addict really is an addict, prescribe heroin legally - and for free - to the addict. This seriously reduces street crime.
In New York, dealing heroin is a life sentence in jail. LIFE. For selling medication. Yes, it's addicting - you think percocet isn't? Percocet is legal. Why not heroin?
In America, over 400,000 people were sentenced to jail last year for marijuana. Not just dealers - users. How ridiculous is that? Very.
The government has persecuted thousands of pro-pot advocates, most notably Peter McWilliams, and medical marijuana movements. Peter McWilliams died because he couldn't tolerate his AIDS medicine, which caused nausea, and the government demanded that he take urine tests so that the judge - who was about as right-wing as you could get - could be assured that Peter wasn't using marijuana. And Peter's marijuana prescription came from a doctor! It was legal! You can read Peter McWilliams' story here.
The government and the DEA have used anti-drug laws to seize property of innocent people, like the woman that was carrying $90,000 in cash from the sale of her house (she grew up during the depression and didn't trust banks). They simply took her money, and told her "you want it back? sue us". She never did get much, if any, of it back.
The government has taken away the medical licenses of doctors for "over-prescribing" OxyContin, which in some circles is called "hillbilly heroin". The doctors that lost their licenses were running Pain Treatment Centers, where people (like me) that suffer from chronic pain can get the medication - legally licensed and prescribed - that they need. Now these doctors are either in jail or no longer able to practice medicine, and their patients are hurting. And it was all legal. This is the reason I don't use medicine for chronic pain. Even though I am in chronic pain, I simply "tough it out" and live without the medicine. While it sucks, it's better than going to jail.
The U.S. government has sent troops and countless more billions in aid to Colombia and other South American countries to fight "the war on drugs". Hasn't affected the street availability much from my viewpoint. If you grew up in a major metropolis, you'll know that is the case.
Why did America start the War on Drugs? Because drug use is anti-American and is a 'threat" to our people. Which we all know is bullshit. My therapist tells me that alcohol is the most addictive substance known, even worse than crack cocaine. Yet alcohol is legal.
The War On Terror
This is the U. S. government's response to 9/11. Instead of sending out a "hit team" to go waste Bin Laden - which any family or survivors of 9/11 would like to do - the U. S. government decides to impinge on all of our freedoms. Their response to 9/11 is The Patriot Act. The title of this implies that if you don't subscribe to it, you're not a patriot.
Well, I'm about as pro-Constitution as any woman can be. And I side with many of our founding fathers who posited "if it's not illegal, it's legal" - which is why I am a Libertarian. So I guess I'm about as "patriotic", as that term may be construed, as any woman can be. And I think the Patriot Act is the biggest encroachment on our individual liberties that I have ever seen.
The Patriot Act, for example, gives any public officlal - using the police, FBI, DEA, or whomever - the right to come into your home and "sneek and peek" and leave without ever having notified you. The government could have come into your home today, for example, and if you didn't have an alarm or catch them on tape, you'd never know it. And they are specifically exempted from the Freedom Of Information Act in being compelled to notify you of this.
And this helps us fight the war against terrorists ... how?
You want to fight a war on terror, you've got one of the best trained military in the world, go send a sniper to waste the terrorists. Don't come into my home and check out my CD collection. That won't fight the war on terror.
And even killing terrorists over there won't stop terrorism in the U.S. Witness the middle east situation. Israel kills a terrorist and five minutes later a new terrorist has taken over the job of the old one. Israel knows the only way to avoid being a terrorist statistic is to put up a huge barrier between the terrorists and you, and keep them away from you. "You want to terrorize someone - go terrorize someone else."
Why did America start the War on Terror? Because 3,000 innocent people lost their lives in 9/11. 9/11 was a very sad incident, and I truly empathise with the surviving family of the people that were lost. But Bush Jr. is fighting the War on Terror on American shores - against Americans - when he should be protecting Americans. Instead of protecting Americans, he is harrassing and prosecuting Americans. So even though he is allegedly doing it to "protect America", he is going about it the wrong way.
My approach
I would approach running the government an entirely different way.
As you may know, I'm a big fan of Switzerland. They are neutral, they don't send Swiss military personnel out to fight other people's wars or to solve other people's problems (one exception: Switzerland sends military personnel to the Vatican to guard the Pope, but that's it), they have a better democracy than we have because the people have the final say in who's running the country 24x7, not just every two/four/six years, they have personal privacy, they have personal safety, they have the lowest crime rate of any industrialized country, and they have an enviable economy.
Why don't we? Why aren't we like this?
I would immediately return all American military and support personnel to the U.S. and place them on the coasts, on the Mexican and Canadian borders, in the airports, and in the ports.
Right now a terrorist could load a nuke into the trunk or on the undercarriage of a BMW and ship it to New York. Presto - no more New York. What is the government doing? Inspecting our apartments!
How do you think they get drugs into this country? Through the ports and sneaking them across the border. That would stop. Flat-out stop. Want to stop illegal drugs? Guard the borders and the ports, not Baghdad.
I would have military personnel armed with surface-to-air missles on the tops of every major skyscraper in every major city. Fly a plane into a building? I don't think so! I was working in downtown Chicago on 9/11. I left work at about 3:00pm. The entire 'loop' and downtown area was deserted. I rode my bicycle about a mile before I even saw a car. It isn't like that even on a Sunday! Did Mayor Daley have the National Guard on the roofs of the Sears Tower (which, if it collapsed, would have crushed me) or the Hancock building with surface-to-air missles? While I cannot accurately answer that question, if he didn't, he's a moron - and Mayor Daley is no moron.
I would demand a Constitutional Convention to implement direct democracy - like the Swiss have - so that the people could vote out laws that don't make sense and so that the people could vote out politicians that lie.
When I go to Switzerland, I see military personnel armed with machine guns walking around the airports. I feel 100% secure. Period.
When I lived in Switzerland, if someone got killed, it was nationwide news. There was never a terrorist incident, and as far as I know, there never has been one. I've seen military personnel chasing someone on the streets - and other people have seen that too, including criminals. (I don't know why the Swiss military was chasing someone, or what they allegedly did, but I wouldn't want them chasing my ass!) Every ten years or so some idiot tries to rob a bank. They are usually killed in the process. If they survive, they go to jail with no possibility of parole for a very long time, and I'm certain that Swiss jails are not country-club establishments. I've never heard of anyone actually getting away with any serious crime. And Switzerland has the lowest bank failure rate of any country anywhere.
Contrast that to Chicago, where about 700 people were murdered in 2003. A city of roughly the same metropolitan population (including the "collar" suburbs) as all of Switzerland, with maybe 350 times the murder rate. When I stored my stuff in Chicago, the warehouse in which I stored it was robbed. I filed a police report. No one ever investigated.
Where would you prefer to live?
Summary
When you couple the religious fervor by which the government "regulates" citizens with the manner in which the government sells the concept of a war to it's people, you get "puritan war-mongers".
And the sad thing is, the American people continue to elect these puritan warmongers.
The Puritans
(NB: thanks to Daniel N. Paul for this text)
Who Were the "Savages"?
The myth of the fierce, ruthless Indian savage lusting after the blood of innocent Europeans must be vigorously dispelled at this point. In actuality, the historical record shows that the very opposite was true.
Once the European settlements stabilized, the whites turned on their hosts in a brutal way. The once amicable relationship was breeched again and again by the whites, who lusted over the riches of Indian land. A combination of the Pilgrims' demonization of the Indians, the concocted mythology of Eurocentric historians, and standard Hollywood propaganda has served to paint the gentle Indian as a tomahawk-swinging savage endlessly on the warpath, lusting for the blood of the God-fearing whites.
But the Pilgrims' own testimony obliterates that fallacy. The Indians engaged each other in military contests from time to time, but the causes of "war," the methods, and the resulting damage differed profoundly from the European variety:
- Indian "wars" were largely symbolic and were about honor, not about territory or extermination.
- "Wars" were fought as domestic correction for a specific act and were ended when correction was achieved.
- Such action might better be described as internal policing. The conquest or destruction of whole territories was a European concept.
- Indian "wars" were often engaged in by family groups, not by whole tribal groups, and would involve only the family members.
- A lengthy negotiation was engaged in between the aggrieved parties before escalation to physical confrontation would be sanctioned. Surprise attacks were unknown to the Indians.
- It was regarded as evidence of bravery for a man to go into "battle" carrying no weapon that would do any harm at a distance-not even bows and arrows. The bravest act in war in some Indian cultures was to touch their adversary and escape before he could do physical harm.
- The targeting of non-combatants like women, children, and the elderly was never contemplated. Indians expressed shock and repugnance when the Europeans told, and then showed, them that they considered women and children fair game in their style of warfare.
- A major Indian "war" might end with less than a dozen casualties on both sides. Often, when the arrows had been expended the "war" would be halted. The European practice of wiping out whole nations in bloody massacres was incomprehensible to the Indian.
All this describes a people for whom war is a deeply regrettable last resort. An agrarian people, the American Indians had devised a civilization that provided dozens of options all designed to avoid conflict--the very opposite of Europeans, for whom all-out war, a ferocious bloodlust, and systematic genocide are their apparent life force. Thomas Jefferson--who himself advocated the physical extermination of the American Indian--said of Europe, "They [Europeans] are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of labor, property and lives of their people."
The Native American Holocaust
By the mid 1630s, a new group of 700 even holier Europeans calling themselves Puritans had arrived on 11 ships and settled in Boston-which only served to accelerate the brutality against the Indians.
In one incident around 1637, a force of whites trapped some seven hundred Pequot Indians, mostly women, children, and the elderly, near the mouth of the Mystic River. Englishman John Mason attacked the Indian camp with "fire, sword, blunderbuss, and tomahawk." Only a handful escaped and few prisoners were taken-to the apparent delight of the Europeans: "To see them frying in the fire, and the streams of their blood quenching the same, and the stench was horrible; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to God."
This event marked the first actual Thanksgiving. In just 10 years 12,000 whites had invaded New England, and as their numbers grew they pressed for all-out extermination of the Indian. Euro-diseases had reduced the population of the Massachusett nation from over 24,000 to less than 750; meanwhile, the number of European settlers in Massachusetts rose to more than 20,000 by 1646.
By 1675, the Massachusetts Englishmen were in a full-scale war with the great Indian chief of the Wampanoags, Metacomet. Renamed "King Philip" by the white man, Metacomet watched the steady erosion of the lifestyle and culture of his people as European-imposed laws and values engulfed them.
In 1671, the Puritans had ordered Metacomet to come to Plymouth to enforce upon him a new treaty, which included the humiliating rule that he could no longer sell his own land without prior approval from whites. They also demanded that he turn in his community's firearms. Marked for extermination by the merciless power of a distant king and his ruthless subjects, Metacomet retaliated in 1675 with raids on several isolated frontier towns. Eventually, the Indians attacked 52 of the 90 New England towns, destroying 13 of them. The Englishmen ultimately regrouped, and after much bloodletting defeated the great Indian nation, just half a century after their arrival on Massachusetts soil. Historian Douglas Edward Leach describes the bitter end:
The ruthless executions, the cruel sentences...were all aimed at the same goal-unchallengeable white supremacy in southern New England. That the program succeeded is convincingly demonstrated by the almost complete docility of the local native ever since.
When Captain Benjamin Church tracked down and murdered Metacomet in 1676, his body was quartered and parts were "left for the wolves." The great Indian chief's hands were cut off and sent to Boston and his head went to Plymouth, where it was set upon a pole on the real first "day of public Thanksgiving for the beginning of revenge upon the enemy."
Metacomet's nine-year-old son was destined for execution because, the whites reasoned, the offspring of the devil must pay for the sins of their father. The child was instead shipped to the Caribbean to spend his life in slavery.
As the Holocaust continued, several official Thanksgiving Days were proclaimed. Governor Joseph Dudley declared in 1704 a "General Thanksgiving"-not in celebration of the brotherhood of man-but for [God's] infinite Goodness to extend His Favors...In defeating and disappointing... the Expeditions of the Enemy [Indians] against us, And the good Success given us against them, by delivering so many of them into our hands...
Just two years later one could reap a £50 reward in Massachusetts for the scalp of an Indian-demonstrating that the practice of scalping was a European tradition. According to one scholar, "Hunting redskins became...a popular sport in New England, especially since prisoners were worth good money..."
Now I personally have always felt that racism, bigotry, chauvinism, fundamentalism, homophobia and transphobia were all the same thing. I found a quote of a true American hero, Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), here.
Franklin wrote the following after a large group of innocent Indians were massacred because of the actions of others from another Tribe:
"If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians?
"It is well known that Indians are of different Tribes, Nations and Languages, as well as the White People.
"In Europe, if the French, who are White People, should injure the Dutch, are they to revenge it on the English, because they too are White People?
"The only Crime of these poor Wretches seems to have been, that they had a reddish brown Skin, and black Hair; and some People of that Sort, it seems, had murdered some of our Relations.
"If it be right to kill Men for such a Reason, then, should any Man, with a freckled Face and red Hair, kill a Wife or
Child of mine, it would be right for me to revenge it, by killing all the freckled red-haired Men, Women and Children, I could afterwards any where meet with."
Emotional Plague
In the 20s William Reich created a term called the problem of "emotional plague" (he combined "warmonger logic" together with "Puritan logic"). And there is no alternative to this emotional plague, to these warmonger and Puritan versions that evidently affect the North-American government but also characterize dictatorships.
Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible", about the 1692 witch-trials in Salem, Massachusetts, was written in 1953 at the height of the McCarthyite anti-communist crusade.
(YSH note: little has changed to this day - just replace "anti-communist" with "anti-terrorist" and you get The Patriot Act.)
Carl Mirra, who teaches teaches American Studies at the State University of New York College at Old Westbury, seems to think that America is not a "Puritan Warmongering" state. Excerpts of his web page are shown below. Note the religious fervor of his views - that may explain why he is defensive about the term "Puritan".
"Chosenness, or the belief in being selected by God to lead the world, permeates early American history.
"The theological foundation of the Plymouth Colony is a familiar story, yet it is worth briefly repeating to illustrate how deeply embedded divine election is in the American psyche. For Puritans fleeing English persecution, the journey to the New World was an exodus, complete with its own traumas and myths. After arriving in the New World, it was viewed as the Promised Land and properly named New Canaan. America became the new geographic homeland of God's covenant. "The Lord make it like that of New England, for we must consider that we shall be as a City on a Hill," proclaimed Governor John Winthrop.
"This theology was quickly bound to violence and massacre. When tension erupted into war with the Pequot in 1636, it was a matter of the elected souls fulfilling God's plan. Take, for instance, William Bradford's account of the burning of a Pequot village: "it was a fearful sight to see them frying. . .but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and we gave the prayers thereof to God, who had enclosed the enemies in [our] hands." Around the same time, Winthrop welcomed the small pox epidemic among Amerindians as a sign that, "God hath consumed the Natives." From the start, atrocity and violent conquest are conflated with God's will on America's shores.
"America's self-proclaimed status as God's favored nation gradually climaxed in the Great Seal of the United States in 1776: "God has blessed this undertaking, a new order from the ages."
"President McKinley's alleged explanation for conquering the Philippines in 1898 is an unequivocal example of this divinely-inspired imperialism. "I went down on my knees and prayed," McKinley dramatically explains, 'and it came to me.'
"After the trauma of September 11, President Bush breathed new life into this centuries-old imperial theology. The
World Trade Center catastrophe revived religious vocabularies of superiority with increased vigor. Bush, who considers Jesus the philosopher who most influenced him, issued a "crusade" against the perpetrators."
(YSH note: and we all know where this "crusade" got us: Iraq.)
Mirra continues, "We cannot blame Bush for relying on the durability and vitality of chosenness theology.
"While the American public finds comfort in Bush's mythic theology, they are not warmongers.... In any event, seemingly antiquated notions that America is God's divine providence remain central to George W. Bush's war talk.
"It is precisely this brand of religious inspiration that informs Bush's imperial theology."
Mirra seems to find justification in his Puritan Warmongering in every little thing. He writes, "Placing the Seal on U.S. dollar bills alongside the slogan, "In God We Trust" further imprints the feeling of divine election on the American character. Recall that one founding father preferred that a portrait of Moses parting Red Sea serve as the nation's Seal. America's founders assumed it was their right and duty to spread God's will and forge a new order for the ages."
I disagree.
For example, there are those who blanch at Miller's revisionism in The Crucible:
Arthur Miller's take on the Salem Witch Trials, for instance, was prompted not by a desire to retell with painstaking accuracy the history of a horrific event. Instead he wanted to create a political allegory on the 1950's McCarthy hearings. When Miller creates the hero John Proctor (in his mid-thirties, handsome, and strong in the play), and when he created the antagonist, Abigail Williams (seventeen, beautiful, and seductive in the play), he sets up his audience to soundly condemn the irrational Puritans for not believing an honest farmer that the seductive harlot is duping them all. What Miller fails to point out, however, is that John Proctor was actually sixty and Abigail Williams was eleven years old.
Millers revisionism doesn't detract from the true idiocy of the witch trials. The facts, however, make one wonder how difficult it would have been to discern the honesty of the accusing girls when their main accuser was a child molester.
Not Much Has Changed
I quoted the previous historians - slanted as they may be - so that the reader would get an idea of how little things have changed.
If I re-quote earlier quoted texts as well as current thought processes in existence today, I think you will find disturbing parallels.
Then
Professional soldier Capt. John Mason: "[The Native American's] feeble manner...did hardly deserve the name of fighting."
Now
If a boy or man does not want to fight, he is considered effeminate and "a girl".
Then
John Underhill spoke of the Narragansetts, after having spent a day "burning and spoiling" their country: "no Indians would come near us, but run from us, as the deer from the dogs." He concluded that the Indians might fight seven years and not kill seven men. Their fighting style, he wrote, "is more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies."
Now
Queer bashers hunt us down because they know we do not like to fight. They laugh at cat fights between gay men or between lesbians in bars. They viciously murder transgendered people because they feel that the transgendered victim will not fight back.
Then
Quoting professional soldier Capt. John Mason: "To see them frying in the fire, and the streams of their blood quenching the same, and the stench was horrible; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to God."
Now
The congregation applauded when Swaggart said "I will kill (a gay man)". The Louisiana electorate was jubilant that they had banned Gay marriage. All of these people feel that God is on their side.
Then
William Bradford, head of the Puritans, commented on his people's "notorious sin," which included their "drunkenness and uncleanliness" and rampant "sodomy"...
Now
Jimmy Swaggart has been accused by one of the prostitutes he solicited of "being interested in how tight my ten-year old daughter was, if she had pubic hair, and if she had started to grow breasts". Swaggart has been pulled over for DUI's in the past, as well.
Then
Governor Joseph Dudley in 1704 declared a "General Thanksgiving"-not in celebration of the brotherhood of man-but for [God's] infinite Goodness to extend His Favors...In defeating and disappointing... the Expeditions of the Enemy [Indians] against us, And the good Success given us against them, by delivering so many of them into our hands...
Now
Bush pulls up onto an aircraft carrier in an F-16 and tells the crew that "God is on our side".
Then
Douglas Edward Leach describes the bitter end of the Native Americans: "The ruthless executions, the cruel sentences...were all aimed at the same goal-unchallengeable white supremacy in southern New England."
Now
Evangelists will use whatever means necessary to bring all people to Christianity. They invite Jewish children to "picnics" where they are baptized without their parent's knowledge.
Then
Puritans called the Native Americans "bloody savages".
Now
Rev. Jerry Falwell told CBS's 60 Minutes program that the Prophet Mohammed was a "terrorist." Other senior evangelical figures had earlier voiced similar attacks. Pat Robertson, of the 700 Club, said Mohammed was a "killer" and a "brigand," that Islam was inherently violent, and that the Koran preaches violence. Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention called Mohammed a "demon possessed pedophile." The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and head of Billy Graham Ministries Inc., and who led the prayer at President Bush's inauguration, repeatedly denounced Islam, calling it "a very wicked, evil religion."
So how much has changed in more than 300 years? Not Much.
Partial List of American Global Military Interventions
The following is a PARTIAL list of American military interventions (including police actions, troop support, bombings, and of course, war) since 1953, thanks to Zoltan Grossman. This list does not include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, noncombat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities.
IRAN - 1953 - Command operation - CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM - 1954 - Nuclear threat - Bombs offered to French to use against siege.
GUATEMALA - 1954 - Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat - CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT - 1956 - Nuclear threat, troops - Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON - 1958 - Troops, naval - Marine occupation against rebels
IRAQ - 1958 - Nuclear threat - Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA - 1958 - Nuclear threat - China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA - 1958 - Troops - Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM - 1960-75 - Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats - Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA - 1961 - Command operation - CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY - 1961 - Nuclear threat - Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA - 1962 - Nuclear threat - Naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS - 1962 - Command operation - Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA - 1964 - Troops - Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA - 1965 - Command operation - Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - 1965-66 - Troops, bombing - Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA - 1966-67 - Command operation - Green Berets intervene against rebels.
CAMBODIA - 1969-75 - Bombing, troops, naval - Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN - 1970 - Command operation - U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS - 1971-73 - Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; 'carpet-bombs' countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA - 1973 - Command operation - Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST - 1973 - Nuclear threat - World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE - 1973 - Command operation - CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA - 1975 - Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA - 1976-92 - Command operation - CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN - 1980 - Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing - 8 troops die in plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA - 1981 - Naval jets - Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR - 1981-92 - Command operation, troops, advisors - Overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA - 1981-90 - Command operation, naval - CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON - 1982-84 - Naval, bombing, troops - Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS - 1983-89 - Troops - Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
GRENADA - 1983-84 - Troops, bombing - Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN - 1984 - Jets - Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA - 1986 - Bombing, naval - Air strikes to topple nationalist government.
BOLIVIA - 1986 - Troops - Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN - 1987-88 - Naval, bombing - US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA - 1989 - Naval jets - Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS - 1989 - Troops - St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES - 1989 - Jets - Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA - 1989-90 - Troops, bombing - Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA - 1990 - Troops - Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA - 1990-91 - Troops, jets - Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Israel.
IRAQ - 1990-? - Bombing, troops, naval - Blockade, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq; no-fly zone, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT - 1991 - Naval, bombing, troops - Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES - 1992 - Troops - Army, Marines deployed against antipolice uprising.
SOMALIA - 1992-94 - Troops, naval, bombing - U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA - 1992-94 - Naval - Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA - 1993-95 - Jets, bombing - No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI - 1994-96 - Troops, naval - Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA - 1995 - Bombing - Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO) - 1996-97 - Troops - Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA - 1997 - Troops - Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA - 1997 - Troops - Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN - 1998 - Missiles - Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be 'terrorist' nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN - 1998 - Missiles - Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ - 1998-2005 - Bombing, Missiles - Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. Bush declares war, hostilities ongoing. Over 1,700 American soldiers dead.
YUGOSLAVIA - 1999 - ? - Bombing, Missiles - NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
This page was last updated on / Dernier mise à jour sur 2008/03/29
Copyright / Marque Déposée 2008, T'Surakmaat (aka Yvette Seifert Hirth).
All rights reserved under the Berne and Paris copyright conventions - Reproduction prohibited
Tous les droits de l´auteur réservé au dessous des regles des conventions de Berne et de Paris - Réproduction interdit