I belong to a number of historical journals and associations, amongst them a number American (USA) publications. The American ones are concerned with general history and seem to limit themselves to WW2, and forget Vietnam and other American excursions in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asian. The genocide of the Native Americans and Slavery are hardly ever analysed in depth. The real reason for seeking independence from Great Britain is simply not mentioned except when Hollywood decides to have a triumphant go at the conquest of the West portraying natives as cruel subhumans, a striking parallel with the portrayal by the American Military and Media of the Vietnamese population, they forgot that the Vietnamese had been fighting foreign invaders for two thousand years, this is equally applicable to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and so forth, History can be a great teacher if you only pay due attention.
It is not clear at all, why most of the Independence leaders, who were all slave owners and British, did not relinquish their human property once they had achieved their goal. This was rather strange if you consider their much vaunted views on freedom and liberty etc etc. Even stranger is the fact that African Americans are still fighting for freedom and equality in the supposed Land of the Free, please note that during WW2, the American Military still operated an apartheid system, ironic indeed since these black soldiers were put in harm’s way in order to defend democracy just like the their fellow soldiers from the Raj and other British colonies. Thee must be something awfully wrong with a society that needs the slogan “Black Lives Matter”.
Perhaps we should return to this subject in depth and dig out the real objective of the exercise.
Another aspect of this sorry business is that when Americans put on their anti-imperialistic gown they conveniently forget their invasion and occupation of the west and their virtual annihilation of Native Americans. Apartheid and concentration camps (Reservations) was what survivors could look forward to.
Texas, New Mexico, California etc., were other territories that the freedom loving ex-colonists had there eyes on and eventually occupied and kept for themselves. Unfortunately for them they could not keep the whole of Cuba and the Philippines, though they tried their damnedest, however they got away with Hawaii, Puerto Rico and bits of Panama including the Canal after engineering a split from from Colombia.
This really looks like a country following in the footsteps of it’s mother country, with one important proviso, the mother country did not hide its imperialistic nature and wherever possible acted in a fair way, according to their lights. Not so America (USA).
I cannot understand why America claims that she wants to see democracy flourish in distant lands when it is still unattainable for millions of citizens at home. Why are overseas authoritarian regimes backed by the freedom loving US government? Surely charity begins at home, as the saying goes. Unless there is something untoward in this stance, selling arms to a guaranteed clientele and thus making them dependent on your arms manufacturers, perhaps? In this scenario the more wars you can start the better for the economy back home, especially certain sectors such as banks and other financial institutions and with full employment to boot.
Not since Roman times have soldiers been feted so much and thrust into the center of government and politics, it is to be noted that twelve american generals has become presidents of the nation during its short history.
I have a suspicion about who really govern the U S A, it is not the politicians, General/President Eisenhower could, indeed did, tell us a few things.
Manifest Destiny I suppose.
The above may seem rather like anti-Americanism but, even in today’s world, facts are facts……………..
BRITISH VALUES…………
Posted in ANALYSIS, analysis, BRITISH VALUES, Current Affairs, Passing Comments, REFLECTIONS, THE WAY OF THE WORLD, UNDERSTANDING HISTORY on August 31, 2018 by aelagAfter the abolition of slavery, newly freed men and women refused to work for the low wages on offer on the sugar farms in British colonies in the West Indies. Indentured labour was a system of bonded labour that was instituted following the abolition of slavery. Indentured labour were recruited to work on sugar, cotton and tea plantations, and rail construction projects in British colonies in West Indies, Africa and South East Asia. From 1834 to the end of the WWI, Britain had transported about 2 million Indian indentured workers to 19 colonies including Fiji, Mauritius, Ceylon, Trinidad, Guyana, Malaysia, Uganda, Kenya and South Africa.
The Indian indenture system was finally banned in 1917.[25] According to The Economist, “When the Indian Legislative Council finally ended indenture…it did so because of pressure from Indian nationalists and declining profitability, rather than from humanitarian concerns.
I have been paying attention to the British media about immigration, cultural identities etc and in particular to the abolition of slavery within the then British Empire and I am astonished not to hear about Indentured Labour, which in effect was Slavery by another name.
The hypocrisy of the British media knows no bounds, especially when referring to themselves and their values, that is to say their supposed moral superiority, whilst forgetting their atrocities and double dealing fron the Indian sub-continent through to the Middle East (PALESTINE, BUT NOT ONLY), to Cyprus, North and East Africa, I could carry on but I am sure the reader will catch the drift.
What astounds me is that not in one single instance has anybody questioned this British invention and it remains largely unknown or ignored world-wide.
Perhaps some tribunal should look into this, I doubt it.
A triumph of British Values!!!
Food for thought.
3 Comments »