http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00491.htm

INTRODUCTION:
American inventor and entrepreneur, Henry Ford, is
famous not only for his astounding success in making
the automobile available to nearly every American
family, but also for his famous quote: "History is bunk."
Many historians, offended by Ford's abrupt dismissal
of the subject, defensively retort that history is not
bunk and set out to prove their "case" regarding the
relevance and significance of the study of history.
The reader may be surprised to learn that on one level,
I agree with Ford. A few years ago while browsing the
titles in the history section of my local bookstore, my
eyes fell upon James Loewen's Lies My Teacher
Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook
Got Wrong. Instantaneously, I snatched the book from
the shelf and began frantically shuffling through its
pages. Presently, I realized that Loewen had elucidated
the exasperation of countless teachers of American
history, and I could barely wait to get the book home
where I could pore over his words without interruption.
A sociologist by trade, Loewen articulates brilliantly
the effects upon a society when its citizens are ignorant
of their history and shines an almost blinding light on
some of the most sacrosanct American historical
legends.
By and large, Americans do not consider themselves
ignorant of their history. Yet, most are still under the
influence of grammar-school indoctrination in the
"discovery" of America by Columbus and the myth of
George Washington's confession to his father that he,
indeed, could not tell a lie and did, in fact, cut down
the cherry tree. Sadly, in the technologically-obsessed
twenty-first century, any knowledge of history beyond
these mythical snippets is considered
"onerous" or simply "extraneous" to the "real" world.
Overwhelmingly, what I hear from my college history
students is that high school history was boring,
irrelevant, and largely taught to them by teachers
who had little or no passion for the subject. The
classic situation is the high school coach who is
hired to supervise athletic programs on the condition
that he/she teaches a designated number of social
studies courses of which history usually comprises
the majority.
In my own experience, high school history was taught by male coaches who
authoritatively lectured about U.S. history as a parent would a child, then barked
commands, like: "All right, everybody be quiet and write the answers to the questions
on Page 29." While we submissively complied, the coach sat at his desk, clipboard and
pencil in hand, diagramming football plays, resentfully offering obligatory answers
to any questions we might ask.
Nevertheless, some of us, thanks to stimulating college instructors, learned to love
history. We studied the subject in the context of the social upheaval and cultural
transformation of the 1960s and 70s. Moreover, in awe-stricken wonder at the
relevance of history to our lives and our world, we vowed that our teaching of it
would be passionate, vital, and illuminating. We could not wait to incite a similar
voracity for historical knowledge in our students.
So upon all of the above I reflect when I hear Henry Ford's proclamation that history
is bunk. I believe that rather than simply defending against Ford's comment, the
diligent historian must analyze it more deeply. First, we must ask ourselves what
would cause someone to proclaim that history is bunk? What more should we know about
Ford that might shed light on his dismissal of history? Is it not extraordinarily
relevant to understand that Ford was passionately anti-semitic and an ardent admirer
of Hitler? In fact, when Hitler penned his infamous Mein Kampf, a portrait of Ford
rested on his writing desk.
What might happen if this detail were included in conventional history texts? Might
it not lead to discussion of the reality that Ford was only one of hundreds of
corporate tycoons during the 1930s who admired Hitler and helped finance his rise to
power? And if Ford was only one, who were the others? Why did they support Hitler?
How did they become admirers of the most treacherous butcher in modern history? And
what happened to their support for Hitler during World War II and after? Does their
identification with his cause have anything to do with the turn of events following
World War II or even the unfolding of events in the early twenty-first century? Are
there implications that connect with current events such as the fact that at this
writing, the sitting American president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, a contemporary
of Ford, was one of those numerous corporate financiers of Hitler?
These are questions that historians are obligated to ask, and I do, and in History
Uncensored, I offer answers to those questions-or at least plausible explanations
which may not be "right" in the conventional sense, but which provide an alternative
not found in "official" versions of American history. This work is unequivocally
controversial, and it is meant to be, but as one of my students remarked after a
lively discussion of its contents: "We may not agree with you or this curriculum, but
we will never forget this course." For me, the impact of the questions raised is far
more momentous than my students' or readers' agreement with my answers.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Henry Ford is the philosopher, George
Santayana, whose famous quote is ubiquitous in history books and holocaust museums:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Unfortunately, some
students use this quote to attempt to validate the irrelevance of studying history.
The logic goes something like: "Well, the only thing I learn from history is that
people learn nothing from history." At that point, I
am quick to challenge the student to tell me what he/she personally has learned from
history. Almost always, the student discloses that she has learned a great deal from
history but also confesses that it feels meaningless if the rest of society does not
also learn similar lessons. At that point, I hasten to remind the student that one
cannot compel society to learn from history, but one can learn one's own lessons from
history, and since society is comprised of individuals, what each person learns from
history has the potential to make an enormous difference in society.
I personally feel great empathy with the student who argues in this manner because he
is articulating frustration with a society that does not value historical knowledge.
College and university budgets incessantly decrease funds for humanities and social
sciences while increasing them for engineering and technological programs. Academia
appears to be screaming loudly that only the present and future matter. Whenever a
tragic event occurs nationally, one of the most
telling and frequently-repeated mantras is "we want to put this behind us" thereby
revealing our collective belief in the irrelevance of the past-a place where dark,
painful events are buried, never to be unearthed and examined for their meaning and
relevance.
In my opinion, the relegating of history to an antiquated closet of insignificance is
not only intellectually unsound but fundamentally dangerous. A people ignorant of
their own history are easily deceived and exploited. For example, our Founding
Fathers wrote and spoke profusely of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment concept of
inalienable rights. It permeates our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
For them, the term was synonymous with human rights
held by each individual by virtue of nothing more than his/her existence. That is,
one possesses inalienable rights because one breathes air and walks on the earth.
Currently, however, members of the Bush Administration, including former Homeland
Security Chief, Tom Ridge, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia,
argue that government bestows the rights guaranteed in the Constitution upon its
citizens.
In almost every history class I teach, I ask students to explain the origin of their
rights as American citizens. Typically, most assume that their rights are "given" to
them by their government. It is a rare student who has ever considered that if the
government can "give" these rights, the government can also take them away. Few
traditional history textbooks clarify the concept of inalienable rights which has
contributed, in my opinion, to several generations of Americans who assume that the
rights they daily enjoy and take for granted are somehow bestowed by their nation's
leaders.
It is important to understand that history textbooks are the products of corporate
media, and corporate media, whether it be CNN, the New York Times, or Bedford St.
Martins Publishers is much more concerned with selling a product than agonizing over
accuracy. This is why hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, no longer
acquire their daily news from mainstream sources but rely on alternative sources on
the internet to inform them of local, national,
and world events.
Moreover, as Loewen explains in Lies My Teacher Told Me, public school systems are
not interested in making waves in terms of questioning the accuracy of history
textbooks. Particularly in an era of backlash against the teaching of the theory of
evolution or sex education, educators are loath to scrutinize American history
textbooks which teach, as virtually all traditional ones do, that the United States
of America is the most tolerant, moral, non-aggressive, and benevolent nation on
earth. Insufficient detail, if any, is offered regarding Native American genocide by
European settlers or the rabid racism that motivated them from the moment they set
foot on the continent. Few textbooks analyze the persecution of labor and social
justice movements by the wealthy and powerful in America, or American imperialism
which came to fruition in the Spanish-American War, steadily burgeoning throughout
the twentieth century and which
in the current moment, constitutes the fundamental lynchpin of international
relations.
To analyze these issues in depth, which most certainly results in learning that the
history of the United States contains a very dark, as well as lighter past, is now
considered disloyal, unpatriotic, and earns the analyst the label of "terrorist" or
"enemy combatant." In response to these accusations, the dedicated historian must
always ask: How did this happen? How did we arrive at such a state of affairs in our
history? How is it that we are increasingly kept ignorant of the dark
side of American history and even discouraged from studying our history at all?
History Uncensored asks these questions and offers responses to them evoked by
historical facts. Repeatedly, it presents historical events which are rarely
discussed in traditional textbooks and asks the reader to think critically about
them. I have taken great pains to document the information presented in it so that
the reader may investigate the information in order to validate its historical
accuracy and also research it further if inclined to do so.
Unquestionably, what is presented is unsettling, if not blatantly disturbing, and
that is my direct intent. I have been and will continue to be accused of hating
America and lacking gratitude for the benefits of being born in this nation. To this
accusation I can only call on the wisdom of the great American writer Mark Twain who
stated that "We should be loyal to our country at all times and to our government
when it deserves it." As I adamantly declare to my students
of U.S. history, I love my country dearly, but I am now certain that my government
has been and is in the process of destroying it. Americans who genuinely revere their
national heritage do not blindly deify it, but rather, in the words of another great
American, the former slave, Frederick Douglass, realize that "We should be lovers of
our country who rebuke and do not excuse its sins.
Numerous former officials of the U.S. government have resoundingly criticized it
within the past five years, not the least of whom was former Supreme Court Justice,
Sandra Day O'Connor, who in March, 2006 stated that the United States is edging ever
closer to becoming a dictatorship. She pointed to the incessant attacks on the U.S.
judiciary by the right wing of the Republican Party which appointed her to the high
court in the 1980s. "Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial
independence-people do," O'Connor emphasized in her scathing Georgetown University
speech.[1]
Founding Father and second President of the United States, John Adams, wrote that
"the historian must have no country". Adams meant that we must be so committed to
discovering the truth that history reveals, painful as it may be, that we put aside
nationalistic prejudice and apply the scalpel of historical research. By doing so, we
help heal, not harm, the nation we revere. If we insist on "having a country" when
studying history, such healing cannot occur.
Perhaps the most momentous historical event of the twenty-first century thus far was
the fraudulent selection of George W. Bush, Jr. as President of the United States in
2000. This abstract addresses the event and offers overwhelming evidence of fraud and
criminal behavior in the 2000 election. The reader may immediately wonder why I
choose to label the 2000 election more momentous than the attacks of September 11,
2001. My answer is that I do not consider the two events to be unrelated. The
connection is explained more fully near the end of the book, but the significance of
both events is that, taken together, they launched a coup d'etat in the United States
which dramatically accelerated America's trajectory toward empire, diverging with
dizzying velocity away from its Founders' original intent, a democratic republic
whose purpose was to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. What could be
more despicable?
For the analytical historian, the only appropriate response is to diligently explore
the process of the nation's demise from the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787
to the termination of that experiment in November, 2000. Beginning with the year
1865, that is precisely what History Uncensored intends to do.
I emphasize that the devolution from republic to empire has been a process and not an
event. Throughout recent American history, particularly the history of the twentieth
century, certain markers or "tipping points" have signaled the collapse of the
Founding Fathers' experiment. One date in particular looms larger than life for the
attentive student of history. That is 1947 when the National Security Act was signed
into law creating the Central Intelligence Agency and
a black budget, which absolved the Agency from all accountability to Congress or the
American people regarding its activities and expenditures. During the Reagan
Administration of the 1980s, other government agencies were allowed to create black
budgets which opened the door for unprecedented corruption in the federal government.
Yet another marker-the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther
King, Jr. And then the consummation of empire: the 2000 elections and September 11,
2001.
I contend that if one does not understand that the United States of America in 2006
is an empire, one can understand neither its history nor its future. To meticulously
analyze its history, which traditional textbooks do not do, is to witness that empire
taking shape. In fact, like the correct placing of scattered fragments of a puzzle,
History Uncensored endeavors to put the puzzle together and construct a "map" which
not only connects past and present events, but causes them to make perfect sense.
One imperative I offer the reader before beginning the journey through the book is:
Please remove rose-colored glasses. Be willing to entertain new definitions of
loyalty, patriotism, and national pride. What you will learn there is not pleasant,
nor is it unparalleled. My intention is not to portray the United States as uniquely
evil. Nor do I wish to portray other modern regimes as exclusively honorable.
Unquestionably, Stalin of the Soviet Union and Chairman Mao
of China behaved despicably and murdered millions of people in the name of the
communist cause. Have other nations behaved as badly or worse than the United States?
Absolutely. But I do not live in those nations; I live in the United States. My
obligation, indeed my duty as an American citizen, according to the Constitution, is
to dissent when I see its principles of liberty violated. For as Jefferson wrote,
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." More recently a similar maxim has become
prominent among activists in American society: "Dissent protects democracy."
Perhaps what Americans most need to understand is that their nation is not "special."
We have been taught to mouth platitudes such as "America is the greatest country in
the world" or "people all over the world sacrifice everything they have, including
their lives to come here." From the days of the Puritans who viewed the New World as
"a city set on a hill" or "a new Jerusalem" or "a light unto the world," Americans
have been enculturated to believe that other countries
have dictatorships, but we don't; that other countries are imperialistic, but we aren't;
that other countries have corrupt elections, but we don't; that other countries
torture and maim prisoners of war or their own citizens, but we don't; that other
countries perform lethal scientific experiments on their own citizens, but we don't;
that other countries would incite and conduct wars for natural resources or
commercial markets abroad, but we don't.
In my own personal history, I have ancestors who fought in the American Revolution,
some who were conductors for the Underground Railroad, and others who were members of
the Ku Klux Klan. I wish that I could eliminate the reality of the latter, but I
cannot. History, like the individuals who make it, is remarkably complicated. It
contains the good, the bad, the ugly, the indifferent, and everything in between. I
passionately contend that as Americans we must revere
that in our history which is extraordinary, honorable, praiseworthy, and yes, unique,
yet at the same time, we must be willing to comprehend the long and tragic journey
away from those incipient virtues to the depraved ground on which we now stand.
Some readers will undoubtedly label this work "conspiracy theory"-an accusation which
I no longer take seriously given the fact that conspiracies do happen every day of
our lives and that the "conspiracy theory" allegation is so unremittingly utilized as
an attempt to marginalize arguments which question or confront "official history." As
investigative journalist, Mike Ruppert is fond of saying, "I don't deal in conspiracy
theory; I deal in conspiracy fact." A former Los Angeles Police Department Narcotics
Investigator, Ruppert has become known to many as an "information cop", a term which
refers to law enforcement investigative procedures, where pieces of evidence are
gathered and configured, so that when the configuration is sufficiently indicative of
who might have committed the crime, the evidence is presented to a district attorney
or a grand jury. An information cop relates similarly to information. I encourage the
reader of History Uncensored to become his/her own information cop and carefully
examine the pieces of evidence there, configure them, or as we say, "connect the
 dots", and draw one's own conclusions.
Indeed, I have selectively included certain historical events and omitted others. I
have done so because like any other historian, I have an opinion, and unlike some
historians, I see history "going somewhere", and where it appears to be going is more
than a little disturbing to me. Present, past, and future are inextricably connected
and, in my world view, constantly influence each other. I firmly believe that we
cannot understand current issues of global climate change, the
end of the age of hydrocarbon energy, the events of September 11, 2001, the current
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the globalist economy which is in the process of
obliterating national economies, including our own, the draconian evisceration of the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, the proliferation of
poverty, prisons, and people without health care, to mention only a few national and
planetary perils, unless we incisively examine the history
of our nation, particular from the end of the Civil War to the present moment.
History Uncensored is meant to supplement, not replace, any textbooks or readings
required by the institutions in which it is being utilized. The reader may be
astonished at what is omitted in this work, but please bear in mind that my intention
was not to write a history textbook covering every historical event from 1865 to the
present, but to insert events that are typically excluded from traditional textbooks.
For example, I have written little about the actual events of World War II, but I
offer details regarding the Pearl Harbor attacks, the triggering event of America's
involvement in the war, and the role of the United States in the world in the
aftermath of the war and the war's effect on the U.S. domestically. For this reason,
I have chosen to refer to the work as a curriculum abstract.
Whether one is a student in a formal class of U.S. history from 1865 to the present,
whether one is a history teacher, a lover of history, or an activist, U.S. History
Uncensored is a fascinating and provocative story of how America became the nation it
is today, told from a perspective one is almost guaranteed not to find in traditional
history textbooks. In other words, this is a history class the reader will not fall
asleep in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1729396,00.html
--
_____________________________________________________

I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility."   ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--