Is History bias?

[Calamari]

Of the examples you listed, self-examination did not begin until after the event. The French did not actively question colonialism for several hundred years. The US has already done its own revisionism with things like the westward expansion.

France learnt from it's experience in Algeria and Indochina that one cannot impose colonialistic will by the power of arms. But the US also made many very negative experiences, probably more than France, with it's imperialist policies. But, apparently, they didnt learn from it.

 

[Agrippa]

France learnt from it's experience in Algeria and Indochina that one cannot impose colonialistic will by the power of arms. But the US also made many very negative experiences, probably more than France, with it's imperialist policies. But, apparently, they didnt learn from it.

Actually it has. The first major spurt of American Imperialism occurred during the 1840s and 1850s with the initial colonization of the west, ie Manifest Destiny. The Civil War, with one of its more obvious causes being westward expansion, turned the US against similar ventures. Never again would the term Manifest Destiny inspire such actions on the part of Americans. The plantation owners on Hawaii that staged a coup explained their actions as part of Manifest Destiny but had no where near the support westward expansion did. There was a great deal of opposition to the seizure of the Philippines from Spain; within 30 years, this opposition culminated in Filipino independence. Now look at the Indian Wars. Is there anyone out there today that is glad we did the things we did? No, there is widespread condemnation.

If you are referring to the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as imperialism, you are sorely mistaken. Afghanistan was done solely in response to 9/11. There was never any hint by George Bush that we would be involved there until the WTC attacks. As for Iraq, support has dropped dramatically. The vast majority of its supporters truly believed Iraq was a threat. If it wasn't for the people that argue we made the mess, we can't leave, there would be more support for leaving than staying. This is not imperialism.

Imperialism is overrated. It's not a cash cow; rather, it's a cash drain. Businessmen know this. The vast majority of multinational enterprises and foreign direct investment occurs between industrialized nations.

 

[Calamari]

Actually it has. The first major spurt of American Imperialism occurred during the 1840s and 1850s with the initial colonization of the west, ie Manifest Destiny. The Civil War, with one of its more obvious causes being westward expansion, turned the US against similar ventures. Never again would the term Manifest Destiny inspire such actions on the part of Americans. The plantation owners on Hawaii that staged a coup explained their actions as part of Manifest Destiny but had no where near the support westward expansion did. There was a great deal of opposition to the seizure of the Philippines from Spain; within 30 years, this opposition culminated in Filipino independence. Now look at the Indian Wars. Is there anyone out there today that is glad we did the things we did? No, there is widespread condemnation.

Ok, but apparently this condemnation hasnt filtered through into a humanist world view for a majority of americans, for which i hold the nationalist right responsible, which is unsurprisingly much stronger and much more accepted than in european countries f.ex.

If you are referring to the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as imperialism, you are sorely mistaken. Afghanistan was done solely in response to 9/11. There was never any hint by George Bush that we would be involved there until the WTC attacks. As for Iraq, support has dropped dramatically. The vast majority of its supporters truly believed Iraq was a threat. If it wasn't for the people that argue we made the mess, we can't leave, there would be more support for leaving than staying. This is not imperialism.

'regime change' to acquire stregic control over oil resources is imperialism, as millions have already died for the sake of US power policies in Iraq, Iran or Lebanon. You are saying that people supported the Iraq war only because Bush lied, and many believed him. Outside the USA, almost everyone knew the claims against Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon are false and forged propaganda. How do you explain that, if not by historical obfuscation by the US Media ?

Imperialism is overrated. It's not a cash cow; rather, it's a cash drain. Businessmen know this. The vast majority of multinational enterprises and foreign direct investment occurs between industrialized nations.

I partly agree with you. However, the ruling elites in the united states see it otherwise, and their financial and strategic interests in the region seem to outweigh historical experiences and scientific analysis of the problems.

 

[Agrippa]

Ok, but apparently this condemnation hasnt filtered through into a humanist world view for a majority of americans, for which i hold the nationalist right responsible, which is unsurprisingly much stronger and much more accepted than in european countries f.ex.

It's a cycle. There is no one today (well, except for a few extremists) who would advocate the mass genocide of the Native American population. Most of the US population after 9/11 was scared and angry, willing to lash out at any threat or supposed threat. Hence, Iraq. Before 9/11, we would not have done anything (look at what happened when Clinton bombed Iraq after they threw out the weapons inspectors).

'regime change' to acquire stregic control over oil resources is imperialism, as millions have already died for the sake of US power policies in Iraq, Iran or Lebanon. You are saying that people supported the Iraq war only because Bush lied, and many believed him. Outside the USA, almost everyone knew the claims against Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon are false and forged propaganda. How do you explain that, if not by historical obfuscation by the US Media ?

Partly, I blame it on the poor educational system. Watching primarily Fox News, I came away with the impression that Iraq was not involved with al-Queda. Yet, somehow, most Americans believed Iraq was closely connected with that organization (contrary to popular myth, most Americans (80%) did not believe Iraq was involved with 9/11 specifically).

The rest of blame falls on the diverging experience between Europe and the US. Europe is currently experiencing what the US experienced after the Civil War. The Second World War in Europe and the US Civil War were tramatic experiences for the nations involved. In Europe, the post-WWII mindset is one of European unity (look at the growth of the EU from the European Coal and Steel Community) and an aversion to armed conflict (Germany is perhaps the strongest examples of this, going from a militaristic nation to one of the most pacificist nations on earth). The US, as a result of the Civil War changed as well, becoming more unified and turning against Manifest Destiny in such militant terms. It's been 150 years since the Civil War and the stigma has gone away (partly from the impact of WWII, ironically). It's only been 50 years since WWII in Europe and the societies involved still feel the impact.

What does this mean? Europe primarily opposed the Iraq War because the US did not have UN approval. They see something disturbing in unilateralism, which one can only expect from the lessons of WWII. In my opinion, a pre-WWII Europe would have supported the US wholeheartedly.

I partly agree with you. However, the ruling elites in the united states see it otherwise, and their financial and strategic interests in the region seem to outweigh historical experiences and scientific analysis of the problems.

I think the situation is the result of misjudgment on the part of Bush and then opportunism once the error had been made. I believe that Bush honestly saw Iraq as a threat (a preconception that colored his interpretation of intelligence reports, making him see more than was there) and made use of the opportunity of 9/11 to take out Hussein's regime (he couldn't have done it pre-9/11). Once it became obvious that he was wrong, he refused to admit the error and used the opportunity to give a little kickback to corporations like Haliburton. Invading Iraq to give Haliburton a job is just too complicated outside of things like Tom Clancey novels.

 

[Calamari]

What does this mean? Europe primarily opposed the Iraq War because the US did not have UN approval. They see something disturbing in unilateralism, which one can only expect from the lessons of WWII. In my opinion, a pre-WWII Europe would have supported the US wholeheartedly.

I don't think the WW2 argument holds for Europe. The horrors of war are far away, and popular sentiment isnt really influenced anymore by things that happened 60 years ago. Even nations that did not really had traumatic war experiences, like Britain or Scandinavia were radicaly opposed to Bush's plans. I would rather say that the world has evolved since WW2, and since the cold war, and almost all nations (except USA, Israel, Micronesia, and Palau) agree that international, democratic,peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for different cultures morally outweighs cold-war unilateralism, which claimed so many million victims.

I also don't think the world opposes US foreign policy just because it didnt have UN approval. The war against Serbia (which also had no UN approval, a remnant of the cold war) was seen to be morally legitimate by most, because it was a factual response to an ongoing civil war and genocide.

The reason why the world opposes the war in Iraq is that it was built on false and forged intelligence.

I think the situation is the result of misjudgment on the part of Bush and then opportunism once the error had been made. I believe that Bush honestly saw Iraq as a threat (a preconception that colored his interpretation of intelligence reports, making him see more than was there) and made use of the opportunity of 9/11 to take out Hussein's regime (he couldn't have done it pre-9/11). Once it became obvious that he was wrong, he refused to admit the error and used the opportunity to give a little kickback to corporations like Haliburton. Invading Iraq to give Haliburton a job is just too complicated outside of things like Tom Clancey novels.

If most people outside the US knew that the intelligence was bogus and Bush's claims hyped up, how can you honestly think Bush was being honest ? Is the level of information accessible to the president of the united states worse than the one accessible to a standard european journalist ? These are the dimensions we are talking about. Condoleeza Rice excused herself by saying that "she didnt care to read" the CIA assessment that termed the intelligence to be presented to the public as worthless.

And for the sake of completeness, another key point of history where the US are trying to twist and malign historical facts is the accusations conducted against Saddam Hussein : The US ruled out that accomplices to Saddam Hussein's actions could be prosecuted, and ruled out that the chemical weapons attacks against iranian troops could be prosecuted as war crimes. Now Tom Clancy's back

 

[Agrippa]

I don't think the WW2 argument holds for Europe. The horrors of war are far away, and popular sentiment isnt really influenced anymore by things that happened 60 years ago. Even nations that did not really had traumatic war experiences, like Britain or Scandinavia were radicaly opposed to Bush's plans. I would rather say that the world has evolved since WW2, and since the cold war, and almost all nations (except USA, Israel, Micronesia, and Palau) agree that international, democratic,peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for different cultures morally outweighs cold-war unilateralism, which claimed so many million victims.

WWII very much impacted Great Britain and Scandinavia. In the UK, study of WWII makes up the bulk of the historical curriculum. Finland had the impact of the Winter War/Continuation War. Norway was occupied and Sweden found the Third Reich and the Soviet Union on its borders. It was a conflict that destroyed a continent; something like that doesn't go away in fifty years.

I also don't think the world opposes US foreign policy just because it didnt have UN approval. The war against Serbia (which also had no UN approval, a remnant of the cold war) was seen to be morally legitimate by most, because it was a factual response to an ongoing civil war and genocide.

EDIT: Missed this paragraph here.

Serbia, on the other hand, had clear international support through NATO, which the Iraq war did not have. Anyway, there are some indications that the US was overzealous in some of its intelligence conclusions with Kosovo as well (some things with the mass graves, it appears as though Milosovec might get off on the war crimes trial).

The reason why the world opposes the war in Iraq is that it was built on false and forged intelligence.

I saw a good site with polls about the war that supported my conclusions once, but I can't seem to track it down now. I was able to find a few other things related to it.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opposition_to_war_on_Iraq

Yet opinion polls showed that the Irish would support a war if it had United Nations approval. What they would not support was a non-UN-sanctioned war declared in defiance of the UN by the Bush administration.

From: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...y+did+americans+support+the+war+in+iraq&hl=en

Be careful with that site. It kept on crashing my browser.

In polls conducted throught the world before and during the war, a very clear majority of world popular opinion opposed the US going to war with Iraq without UN approval.

If most people outside the US knew that the intelligence was bogus and Bush's claims hyped up, how can you honestly think Bush was being honest ? Is the level of information accessible to the president of the united states worse than the one accessible to a standard european journalist ? These are the dimensions we are talking about. Condoleeza Rice excused herself by saying that "she didnt care to read" the CIA assessment that termed the intelligence to be presented to the public as worthless.

I'm not saying the rest of the world knew the intelligence was wrong. The rest of the world wanted the inspectors to stay on and for the US to wait for UN approval. Later, the absense of WMD's proved the rest of the world correct.

And for the sake of completeness, another key point of history where the US are trying to twist and malign historical facts is the accusations conducted against Saddam Hussein : The US ruled out that accomplices to Saddam Hussein's actions could be prosecuted, and ruled out that the chemical weapons attacks against iranian troops could be prosecuted as war crimes. Now Tom Clancy's back

I'm not sure about the incident you're referring to so I can't really comment. The only thing I can say is that's not historical revisionism, it's a decision of who/what to prosecute and who/what not to prosecute.

Anyway, I think we're getting way off topic here.

 

[QustantinahQuaker]

As for Iraq, support has dropped dramatically. The vast majority of its supporters truly believed Iraq was a threat. If it wasn't for the people that argue we made the mess, we can't leave, there would be more support for leaving than staying. This is not imperialism.

The invasion and susiquent occupation was/is imperialism. The majority of French supporters of the Algerian War truely believed that Algeria was France and that it was just an extention of southern France. That doesn't mean the real reason for it was not imperial in nature. Afganistan was totally justified, its hard to say it wasn't. Just because the imperial war in Iraq has not prooved as easy as previously thought does not mean it is not longer imperialistic. But, that is a matter of opinion, in my opinion

Anyhow, history is bias. The books in America always have a point of view (these are text books now) that America is always right. The presentation of American Indians, Arabs, Africans and other nonAmericans/Europeans is basically "they were inferior and needed American help" and many things that would make America look not so good are omitted usually. The same is true in Algeria. In many text books Morocco (who has tried to invade/take Algerian territory and such) is usually demonized and shown as a puppet to the west (which it mostly is but its usually exaggerated) or the early Lebanese Republic (as controlled by Maronites w/ much foreign influence) is shown as "anti Arab" or "Arab hating" or "a puppet apartheid regime" which is greatly exaggerated, while Lebanon today, under Syrian occupation is a "united Lebanon" or the Arab/Muslim fighters in the Civil War are "Arab uniters and defenders of their brothers" as Maronite militants are "Arab who wish not to be such and desired to destory all that reminded them of being Arab' (this is right from the book too). French Algeria is shown as a hell like situation, which according to my grandparents is about right (and most older Algerians) and the Frenchmen who lived in Algeria as mean despots who raped Arab women and took Arab land. I have seen books/heard politicians say that in France today the tortures of the Algerians today control France and want to do the same to Algerian workers in France (ie Jac Chirac and Le Pen) in speeches. It is emphasised that France gives amnesty/excuses war criminals who tortured prisoners/killed civilians in Algeria unconditionally in many books and so forth. All countries glorify themselves I think to some extent or another and all writeres are biased. History is a way to make one people feel as if another is like this to them: or should be doing that. I think historians should try not to do that however. It leads to dehumanization and simple fabrication of facts. Facts must be presented as facts, no matter how bad they make the fatherland look.

 

[mindlight]

History as bias!

Rubbish the Americans were simply wrong to revolt and extremely ungrateful also after all we had done to protect them from the French in previous decade. All we did was ask them to pay towards their own defence.;-)

Bias comes from many different sources including power pragmatism and also plain ignorance of the complete picture.

When ex imperial nations wish to explain their present faults - they blaim their previous occupiers. When they want aid or trade then they speak of a long relationship.

Coming to an objective view of history like coming to an objective view of ones own condition before God involves a series of steps I believe:

1) Dealing with our imperfection: - Coming to terms with ones past errors of judgment and learning the more complete picture of ones condition that study and interaction with others can bring.
2) Letting go of prejudices and errors so that we can embrace a newly objective view of ourselves or the world.
3) Relearning the whole scenario and perhaps seeing it for the first time.
4) Trying out that newfound perspective in interaction with others - testing it
5) Going with what seems settled and lasting and ultimately right from an eternal perspective.

 

[Torah]

Very interesting mindlight! Thanks for your input.

 

[praying]

Yes history is bias that is why whenever possible go directly to the original sources to read about particular eras, not someone's intrepetation. It is infinitely more enlightening.

 

[kurabrhm]

Actually it has. The first major spurt of American Imperialism occurred during the 1840s and 1850s with the initial colonization of the west, ie Manifest Destiny. The Civil War, with one of its more obvious causes being westward expansion, turned the US against similar ventures. Never again would the term Manifest Destiny inspire such actions on the part of Americans. The plantation owners on Hawaii that staged a coup explained their actions as part of Manifest Destiny but had no where near the support westward expansion did. There was a great deal of opposition to the seizure of the Philippines from Spain; within 30 years, this opposition culminated in Filipino independence. Now look at the Indian Wars. Is there anyone out there today that is glad we did the things we did? No, there is widespread condemnation.

If you are referring to the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as imperialism, you are sorely mistaken. Afghanistan was done solely in response to 9/11. There was never any hint by George Bush that we would be involved there until the WTC attacks. As for Iraq, support has dropped dramatically. The vast majority of its supporters truly believed Iraq was a threat. If it wasn't for the people that argue we made the mess, we can't leave, there would be more support for leaving than staying. This is not imperialism.

Imperialism is overrated. It's not a cash cow; rather, it's a cash drain. Businessmen know this. The vast majority of multinational enterprises and foreign direct investment occurs between industrialized nations.

Brilliant!
You deserve a rep!
You argue that Afghanistan and Iraq aren't really examples of American imperialism. well, i would argue that it may not be imperialism, per se, but it is neo imperialism nonetheless. The main contributory factor towards neo imperialism is largely economical. When the symbol of American economic might is attacked (9/11), its inevitable that people like George Bush and Dick Cheney would use war to regain economic losses. Just think of the amount of contracts that were awarded to American companies working in Iraq in order to reconstruct the country and benefit Americans economically in the long run.

 

[Milla]

Yes history is bias that is why whenever possible go directly to the original sources to read about particular eras, not someone's intrepetation. It is infinitely more enlightening.

ONE MILLION HANDSHAKES TO YOU, MA'AM.

This is what I keep saying on this forum.