Heck Louis 5 out of 43 is just over ten percent. Shows that almost 90 per cent of them have an elementary knowledge of history.
Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 1:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:30283] Open letter to Michael Berube > Dear Professor Berube, > > I hope that you don't mind that I respond to your attack on the Chomskyan > left that appears in the Sept. 15 Boston Globe > (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/258/focus/Peace_puzzle+.shtml) through > this email. In fact--come to think of it--I do hope that you do find it > intrusive since I myself have grown sick of people like you, Christopher > Hitchens and Marc Cooper chastising the left from the pages of mass > circulation bourgeois media such as the LA Weekly, the Boston Globe, etc. > Years ago, when people like John Reed spoke on behalf of the left, they had > ties and accountability to a largely working-class base. Nowadays, we find > all too often that journalists and college professors speak only for > themselves and through the auspices of the very publications that are > beating the drums of war. On side of the op-ed page, we get snarling > attacks to remove Saddem Hussein. On the other, we get rueful professors > striking Orwellian poses against the radical movement. Sort of a hard > cop/soft cop combination if you gather my drift. > > On to the substance. You are troubled by the wing of the left that another > "opposes all military interventions regardless of their objectives." Since > you were only five years old when the Vietnam war started, it is entirely > possible that you missed out on the rather rich discussion that involved > historians like Gabriel Kolko who questioned whether the USA ever > intervened overseas for the right reason. Along with older scholars like > Howard Zinn, a veteran of WWII who writes for the Z Magazine that disturbs > you so much, they demonstrated in copious detail that the USA only acts out > of material self-interest and never for humanitarian reasons. > > Unlike yourself, they have an analysis of imperialism. You say that "The > antiwar left once knew well that its anti-imperialism was in fact a form of > patriotism - until it lost its bearings in Kosovo and Kabul, insisting > beyond all reason that those military campaigns were imperialist wars for > oil or regional power." My dear professor, there is abundant evidence that > the USA only fights for raw materials or regional power. > > Let's take a look at WWII, the war that is so often offered up by people > like yourself and Hitchens as a positive example of resisting evil. In > fact, the mushy left that got on board NATO's bombing campaign in the > Balkans must have been reading Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" for > inspiration at the time. > > Reading Howard Zinn, you would know that diplomat Sumner Welles assured the > French that they could hold on to their colonies after WWII. He said, "This > Government, mindful of its traditional friendship for France, has deeply > sympathized with the desire of the French people to maintain their > territories and preserve them intact." > > Secretary of State Cordell Hull said "Leadership toward a new system of > international relationships in trade and other economic affairs will > devolve very largely upon the United States because of our great economic > strength. We should assume this leadership, and the responsibility that > goes with it, primarily for reasons of national self-interest." > Self-interest? Get it, Professor Berube? That's kind of like saying that > WWII was about regional power and straight from the horse's mouth, no less. > > The poet Archibald MacLeish, at that time an Assistant Secretary of State, > predicted the outcome of an allied victory. He declared, "As things are now > going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a > peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace, in > brief...without moral purpose or human interest. > > In any case, I doubt that any of this will mean anything to you because you > are one of those postmodernist leftists who refuse to be burdened by > historical grand narratives. I myself think that this might be intimately > linked to the undergraduate malaise described so frequently in the media as > "historical illiteracy". For example, the Princeton University website says > that 5 out of 43 students in a group selected at random from Ivy League > colleges could not identify Germany or Italy as enemies of the USA during > WWII. Do you suppose this comes from reading too much Derrida? > > > Louis Proyect > www.marxmail.org >
