PDA

View Full Version : American Leftists Betray Their Own Heritage


PittsburghAfterDark
07-06-2006, 06:24 PM
Today's anti-American leftists betray their own radical heritage
By Michael Medved
Tuesday, July 4, 2006

Today?s militant leftists not only spread lies about America?s present but generate even more damaging distortions about the nation?s past ? and in so doing differentiate themselves from the radical idealists of yesteryear.

Contemporary followers of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill view the entire American experience as a disgrace, even a crime. They stress the nation?s guilt in committing ?genocide? against Native Americans, enslaving millions of Africans, stealing Mexican land, despoiling the pristine environment, oppressing working people everywhere, and blocking progressive change with an imperialist foreign policy. One Jake Irvin of Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington recently told the Wall Street Journal: ?My political belief is that the U.S. is a horrendous empire that needs to end.?

In contrast, the radicals and revolutionaries of the past cloaked themselves in patriotic symbols and proclaimed their desire to call the nation back to its own highest ideals. From Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas to Paul Robeson and Abbie Hoffman, these agitators proudly quoted Jefferson, Lincoln, or Tom Paine, and agreed with the nation?s mainstream that Americanism (at least as they defined it) represented the ?last, best hope of earth.? Even the Communist Party USA unblushingly honored national heroes: when they dispatched their fighters to support fellow Stalinists in the Spanish Civil War, the volunteers called themselves ?The Abraham Lincoln Brigade? not the ?Vladimir Lenin Brigade.? Stalin?s personal friend Paul Robeson achieved mainstream popularity with his ?Ballad for Americans,? treating the Revolutionary War as a heroic struggle ? not a malevolent conspiracy by greedy slaveholders (as it?s often portrayed today).

Despite his personal dalliance with the Communist Party, composer Aaron Copland crafted loving tributes to the American spirit, achieving vast popularity with works from his nationalist period (?Appalachian Spring,? ?A Lincoln Portrait,? ?Rodeo,? ?Billy the Kid?), inventing a distinctive musical language of pioneers and open spaces without nods to multiculturalism or self-pity. Woody Guthrie, another embattled radical, proudly penned ?This Land is Your Land,? an unblushing love song to his native soil.

Today?s radicals feel embarrassed by the leftwing flag-waving of 70 years ago, and insist that Americans should feel guilty rather than proud of their nation?s past and its role in the world. Cindy Sheehan, who became a worldwide celebrity by exploiting her son?s combat death in Iraq, recently posted a heart-rending rant on Michael Moore?s website, declaring: ?I often have to ask myself why we, as Americans, so blindly follow our leaders down this path of violent destruction, and it has always been so. From the genocide and virtual extinction of our native population to dehumanizing black people so they could be used as human chattel and still be oppressed, even today, to still be the only so-called ?civilized nation? that executes people?Before we can change the world we have to look in our hearts and change ourselves. Before Casey was KIA in Iraq I led the life of rampant consumerism that wreaked havoc on my soul and the environment.?

Her personal guilt conforms to Colorado University professor Ward Churchill?s belief that the people who died in the World Trade Center could rightly be classified as ?little Eichmanns? who deserved their violent, painful demise. Like Sheehan, he goes back to America?s ?original sins? ? maltreatment of Indians and enslavement of blacks- to argue against any sense of pride or patriotism for what this nation accomplished.

This negativity about the past directly threatens the nation?s future: spreading the idea among the younger generation that the entire American project isn?t worth sustaining or defending. Of course, the idea of conscious ?genocide? again Native Americans is absurd ? despite Cindy Sheehan?s claims of ?virtual extinction of our native population? there are more self-identified Indians alive today than a hundred?or even two hundred ? years ago.

Moreover, the assimilation and massive intermarriage with white people (even Bill Clinton claimed to be ?part Cherokee?) erased far more self-identified Indians than the relatively rare (but undeniably loathsome) massacres by whites. Concerning slavery, Americans never invented it or instituted it ? we inherited it, and with such great discomfort that anti-slavery activists were far better represented among the founding fathers (Franklin, Adams, Hamilton) than those who made an active case for slavery. David Brion Davis, the Yale professor who?s written magisterially about the history of the peculiar institution, makes clear the positive role of the American Revolution and its ideals in giving life (after many millennia of slavery) to the abolitionist movement around the world that ultimately put an end to this savage oppression. The United States, in other words, played a unique, prominent role in ending the institution, but played no role in establishing it.

These arguments matter because a nation embarrassed about its past, apologetic about its very existence, is a nation unable to defend itself from its enemies. The Fourth of July offers a unique opportunity to tell true stories about the land we love: not as a flawless paradise, but as a uniquely blessed haven that has provided more opportunities for more disparate populations than any nation in human history. In terms of our role in the wider world, one need not defend every decision by past leaders to recognize that no country has ever benefited the rest of humanity as consistently and abundantly as the United States.

In other words, the best response to America bashing radicals involves celebration, not castigation ? an emphasis on joy, gratitude and pride rather than guilt and despair. Among other things, it?s simply more fun to be a patriotic American than a doom-embracing, ?anti-imperialist? internationalist. There?s not better occasion than the anniversary of our independence to emphasize our uniqueness and, yes exceptionalism ? to light a few firecrackers, eat some cherry pie, and join our neighbors in rejoicing in the Glorious Fourth.
Link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2006/07/04/todays_anti-american_leftists_betray_their_own_radical_heritag e)

Nathan Brazil
07-06-2006, 06:50 PM
"He who controls the past controls the future".

I can't remember if that was Lenin, Stalin, or Orwell.

AlonzoMourning23
07-06-2006, 07:52 PM
Our country was anything but a passive supporter of slavery, and no one is suggesting we invented it or that we unanimously supported it without second thought. The issue with natives goes well beyond simply killing them, we did many other things such as forced relocation. The author brushes over our past.

One of my favorite singers is Phil Ochs, which is the pic in my avatar. In many ways Ochs was similar to Guthrie and, though very different, I tend to think Ani Difranco is the closest to that mold in modern music. They'd all be what you call "radical left" (though I tend to reserve the term "radical" for insane and the term "far" for rational just on the far end of their political viewpoint), and this authors understanding of the far left is lacking. Especially how he characterizes "this land is your land", which was in response to "God bless America". It was not a song about love of country, instead it was a song about how this country belongs to the people, and the people are what is important. Some versions (he had many) of this song made it more explicit than in others. In the original version these verses were included:

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me.....

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;
And on the sign there, It said, 'NO TRESPASSING.'
But on the other side, It didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.


Yes, it was a patriotic song, but to the principles and the people, the common man. It was not the form of patriotism it's often misinterpreted as. It was a protest against what this nation is, and a praising of what it is supposed to be.

In Och's "the power and the glory", which he held to be his greatest song, he said this:

Here is a land full of power and glory
Beauty that words cannot recall
Oh her power shall rest on the strength of her freedom
Her glory shall rest on us all.....

Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of her poor
Only as free as the padlocked prison door
Only as strong as our love for this land
Only as tall as we stand



That sums up the basic principles of the far left, then and now.

Our power is not based on military might. What we are now is not something the left fights for, but what we can become. In every victory for liberalism (back to the freeing of slaves and further back to enshrining the principles of free expression), there are always other problems that need to be tackled. Liberalism never stops and says "this is good, let's keep it like this". All that we have accomplished, all the principles our nation was founded on, they're all for naught if we don't live up to, or even exceed, them. We are not great for existing. The people already mentioned, their contemporaries, and all those who are influenced by them, they didn't defend what we had to keep it as such, instead they strove to protect our future and what we could become. The foundation of this nation provided the hope of such future achievements.

Liberals have also argued two thing simultaneously. One, that we have the potential to be a beacon of hope for the world, not that we are, but we can be. Second, that countries should decide their own path, we should not force them down our path. As a free nation we should allow others the freedom to choose their own road, as long as the people of that nation support that path.

Flag waving has been hijacked by conservatives as support of the government, instead of the principles upon which it is founded. In reference to false patriotism, Samuel Johnson once said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", and that's true to this day. The ones who need to make a point of their patriotism are the ones who often pay the least attention to this nations ideals, and the ones who are most harmful to this nation as a whole.

Athena
07-07-2006, 10:14 AM
The United States were never united by political philosophy.??Hamilton and Jefferson stood as opposits.??Quakers befriended native Americans and stood against slavery.??That is one reason for repeatedly refering to Greek and Roman classics.??As democracy is an ideology that was never fully manifest in the United States.??US citizens know more about the bible than political philosophy and all the debates of what "should be", even if they are atheist and don't study the bible, because the only thing they all discuss is religion.??They do not have the literacy to discuss political philosophy, and this is always what kept the US a torn nation, and divided by self interest.??

However, from 1840 to 1958 public education was used to Americanize immigrants and unite the US by culture. Since then, the effort to unite the US by culture has ended, and their social divisions are so severe they have become as reactionary as Germany was before Hitler and the Nazis. The conditions are ripe for a dictator, because the nation is so torn.

dsanthony
07-23-2006, 07:21 PM
I'm no fan of Medved, but he's right on here. In the 60's the Dem Party was radicalized, and lost the support of much of the working class in America. Nixon's success with "the silent majority" disgusted by the radical 60s were Regan Democrats in the 80s. The Dems have abandoned the traditional base of their party--the working class--the grant their noblesse oblige to any and all "victim" groups. The working class refuses to be a victim group. Only by hiding their true beliefs and agenda can the Dem party maintain the 48% of the national electorate they now hold.

Buck Laser
07-23-2006, 07:48 PM
Yup. They did all those nasty unamerican things in the 60s like passing a civil rights act, a voting rights act, equal housing and employment opportunity. Shit, we'll never be able to keep the n******s down now.

Nathan Brazil
07-24-2006, 07:34 AM
Yup.??They did all those nasty unamerican things in the 60s like passing a civil rights act, a voting rights act, equal housing and employment opportunity.??Shit, we'll never be able to keep the n******s down now.


Civil Rights Act...the act that denied the civil rights of the majority of Americans to run their own businesses.

Voting rights act...which eventually led to a ban on requiring ID at the polls and allowed illiterates to vote. Wonderful idea. No wonder Democrats still win elections.

Equal Housing...denies the civil rights of people owning rental properties to control who they do business with. Wonderful bit of socialism there.

Employment Opportunity...again, if you don't own the business, you shouldn't have a say in how it's run.

What part about being free bothers you, or is it the whole concept?

dsanthony
07-24-2006, 08:27 AM
Yup.??They did all those nasty unamerican things in the 60s like passing a civil rights act, a voting rights act, equal housing and employment opportunity.??Shit, we'll never be able to keep the n******s down now.


You've got a selective memory. You're forgetting the welfare state, the riots, and the influx of socialist radicals like Kerry into the party apparatus.

Buck Laser
07-24-2006, 10:07 AM
Yup. They did all those nasty unamerican things in the 60s like passing a civil rights act, a voting rights act, equal housing and employment opportunity. Shit, we'll never be able to keep the n******s down now.


Civil Rights Act...the act that denied the civil rights of the majority of Americans to run their own businesses.

Voting rights act...which eventually led to a ban on requiring ID at the polls and allowed illiterates to vote. Wonderful idea. No wonder Democrats still win elections.

Equal Housing...denies the civil rights of people owning rental properties to control who they do business with. Wonderful bit of socialism there.

Employment Opportunity...again, if you don't own the business, you shouldn't have a say in how it's run.

What part about being free bothers you, or is it the whole concept?

So you like it when one group of people can legally deny rights to others. I guess that doesn't surprise me a bit...I'm sure you can find some ways of your own to keep the n*****s down.:P

Buck Laser
07-24-2006, 10:09 AM
Yup. They did all those nasty unamerican things in the 60s like passing a civil rights act, a voting rights act, equal housing and employment opportunity. Shit, we'll never be able to keep the n******s down now.


You've got a selective memory. You're forgetting the welfare state, the riots, and the influx of socialist radicals like Kerry into the party apparatus.

Where were YOU then, boy? I was there, and the riots, radicals and shit you go on about were a very minor part of the scene. Instead of a selective memory, you seem to have a propagandized memory...if you actually remember it all.

Nathan Brazil
07-24-2006, 11:38 AM
So you like it when one group of people can legally deny rights to others.??I guess that doesn't surprise me a bit...I'm sure you can find some ways of your own to keep the n*****s down.:P


How can an individual deny "rights" to others? They can't. All they can do is decide how to control their own actions and their own property.

Deciding not to serve a customer in a restaurant doesn't deny that customer any rights, he has no rights to service, that's a demand he places on the establishment that is only served when the free choice of the management agrees to do so.

The decision is an act of the owner exercising his freedom. Insisting the customer be served is an usurpation of the owner's rights, it isn't a restoration of any rights the customer may have had, he had none in the first place.

Ditto that for housing, employment, and ANY OTHER function the private sector does for commerce.

Glad to see you didn't comment on how the Voting Rights Act let illiterates and illegals into the voting booth.

dsanthony
07-24-2006, 05:25 PM
YOu must be a leftist... you begin automatically with insults. Lacking in ideas, that's usually your first refuge.

No, the radical fringe was not "a minor part".. neither were the riots. 4 dead in ohio, remember? The intellectual (look it up) justification for the radicals was a socialist revolution. Tune in, turn on, drop out. I'd suggest you read some poets of the 50s and 60s to see where their ideas were coming from.

Of course the average hippie on the street was as stupid as the average anything else. But the intellectual elites (who became the core of the New Democratic Party) were/are socialists and radicals who want to remake the culture of the US in their own image.. Free to be (homeless, drug addict, unwed mother, rap singer..anything but a republican or patriotic american, apparently)

Ethan
08-24-2006, 07:42 PM
And how are you not doing the same thing, by which I mean going straight to insult. It isn't neccessary when we can have a civilised discussion about this stuff instead of making fun of each other. I want to know how you can appose the Civil Rights Act! Explain this to me, enlighten me, do whatever, just explain yourself!

By the way, if you feel that I'm being offensive, please just say so, don't fight back, and I will probably apologize, since I don't want people to just fight like animals here.

To clear this message up, I was adressing Nathan Brazil from earlier, when he said all that stuff. It seemed to be a trigger for your argument, but if I was wrong, no biggie.

dsanthony
08-24-2006, 07:59 PM
I assume you're addressing me? Where did I say I oppose the Civil Rights Act? I don't remember doing so. Now, if you want to talk about forced busing, that I disagree with.

AlonzoMourning23
08-24-2006, 08:30 PM
He was referring to nathan. Here, and on multiple occasions, has opposed the civil rights act, equal employment, housing, and the voting rights act.

But, reading your post you basically say that you never said you oppose the civil rights act. As far as I know that's true. But what someone says is sometimes just a sanitized version of what they believe. Basically, do you oppose the civil rights act??Or do you oppose significant segments of it (ie. equal housing opportunity)?

Nathan Brazil
08-24-2006, 08:46 PM
He was referring to nathan. Here, and on multiple occasions, has opposed the civil rights act, equal employment, housing, and the voting rights act.

But, reading your post you basically say that you never said you oppose the civil rights act. As far as I know that's true. But what someone says is sometimes just a sanitized version of what they believe. Basically, do you oppose the civil rights act??Or do you oppose significant segments of it (ie. equal housing opportunity)?


Of course I oppose those laws.??They dictate to private citizens how to conduct their businesses.??It's none of the government's business to tell citizens how to live their lives.??Period.??The Civil Rights Act should have been limited strictly to government hiring practices, though one could argue that it would be reasonable to extend the same requirements on to government vendors.??Ditto for housing.

As far as voting goes, the Voting Rights Act permits illiterates to vote.??It's been interpreted to mean that the state can't demand proper ID of it's voters.??And it's been used as a justification for gerrymandering for racial outcome in elections.??No reasonable American tolerates any of that crap.??

People should be able to read fluently, in English, if they want to vote.??(I said "English", not "ebonics", btw).??

They should be able to prove who they are.??(and naturally, the voting rolls should be purged of illegal/invalid voters every cycle. We got computers than can do that nowadays, ya know)

And if government isn't supposed to be racist, government should not use race as a consideration when defining voter districts.

How hard is any of that to understand?

Edited: Put "not" after "should" in that next to last sentence. It makes much more sense that way.

Rider
08-25-2006, 12:00 AM
Dagnabit Nathan. You knocked that one out of the park! All I can say is "ditto for me".

AlonzoMourning23
08-25-2006, 01:44 AM
I know nathan's views, the question was directed to anthony.

AlonzoMourning23
08-26-2006, 12:32 AM
I get the feeling anthony won't be answering.

dsanthony
08-26-2006, 12:42 AM
Of course not. You're lying from the start. I won't answer the question "how long have you been beating your wife". You have a poor intellect if you must resort to such tactics.

AlonzoMourning23
08-26-2006, 02:06 AM
Really? If someone asks you how long you've been beating your wife, the question itself assumes an answer, and to answer in the negative you need to change the question. What's the comparison with asking whether you support the civil rights act? That's yes or no, and I even asked whether you support parts of it or not. That covers a wide range of answers. People in this thread oppose it. Why should I assume your position?

dsanthony
08-26-2006, 02:20 AM
no. you dont answer a cheap question. Or I should say a MAN doesn't.

AlonzoMourning23
08-26-2006, 02:34 AM
I'm sure there are some people who are offended by insults to their masulinity and sexuality. Personally I find it funny, but Nathan probably wouldn't. Ya know, the other person you insulted, since you said a man doesn't answer such questions. Since he actually did answer the question, I assume you think he's not a MAN?

On the question though, we have multiple opinions on the civil rights act in this thread, how is asking your opinion a cheap question? Most people who have absolutely no problem with stating their opinion, and it has been voted on by the highest elected officials. Considering the diverse opinions, it's not cheap.

dsanthony
08-26-2006, 02:35 PM
yawn... you assume my position then asked me to prove you wrong. childish tactics. Arguing with a zealot is a waste of time.

AlonzoMourning23
08-26-2006, 09:29 PM
Anthony, you make comments on issues, as I do. But, when asked my opinion, I give it. As does virtually everyone here. But you take offense when someone asks you your position on an issue. An issue which members are on both sides of. Why are you even on a message board if you don't want to state your beliefs?

I haven't stated anything about what I think of your opinion, I don't know enough to make a statement. I'm not stating assumptions about you, as you repeatedly do about my opinion. I don't even assume I know your position, I have suspicions, but not assumptions.