host

I am surprised to observe several posters debating a university level history professor on the finer points of his areas of expertise.

What you describe as the "fundamental sins", Lebell, I see as a way of thinking that is the root cause of the divide between the conservative, mostly white, current "ruling class" in America, and....to an extent in the U.K., vs. the "rest of the world".

Your view seems to me to be too simplistic, and as an earlier poster pointed out. The following quote describes it better than I'm able to:
If you found out that your grandfather eight generations in the past, kept slaves, how would it effect your thinking? I have to tell, you, discovering this complicates mine. It makes me endeavor to further the advocacy for AA that I already embraced. It makes me wonder why I've never met anybody who
admits to a direct descent from a slave owning, American ancestor. I asked a couple of black friend if anyone had ever confided such a thing to them, and they had not.

The lily white, "god is on our side", projection that too many Americans personally hold as their opinion of their country and it's society, seems belligerent and threatening to much of the world. They easily see this as delusional. Why do you think, even during the impeachment period of Clinton's presidency, he was welcomed enthusiastically everywhere he traveled outside of the U.S., while the reaction that Bush receives when he travels speaks to the track record of his administration. It took a considerable number of policy actions and communications from this administration to largely negate the good will that Clinton had engendered, in addition to the overwhelmingly sympathetic gestures of worlwide support in the period immediately after 9/11.

Empathy and understanding; the ability to see ourselves as others see us.
I study history to refine that side of my nature; and conservatives seem to concern themselves with how to prevent other people rom benefitting by using past injustices as leverage to influence a political/economic advantage. It seems very similar to the justifications for the bankruptcy "reform" bill; musn't let anyone abuse the system. This concern and the "solutions" that it fosters, always seems to be directed at the disadvantaged, never at those at the upper echelons of society and in dollar terms, massive white collar crime.

Your "way" will bankrupt the U.S. treasury, indeed, it is already unaffordable.
Why are you so disturbed, to the point of seeming to feel threatned, about encouraging a trend toward a more complex view of history? The truth is that everywhere caucasian christian europeans have ventured., outside of their own borders, they have projected violence, disease, colonization, and exploitatioin of the world's people and it's evironment. A study of the foreign projections of muslim societies seems less violent and more tolerant.

The U.S. must lead by example; a way that would make the U.S. more approachable, much easier to be aligned with.

I am pretty sure that roachboy will agree that the more you study history, the more complicated it becomes to reach conclusions. This is not a bad thing, Lebell. The popular U.S. opinion of itself and the foreign policy that results is not cost effective, or attractive to potential allies, let alone third world societies that Bush espouses to export "freedom" to.

Rumsfeld, Bush, and Bremer were oblivious enough of the Iraqi's recent history to continue to use Abu Ghraib prison in too similar of a way that it was used in the past. They just changed the guards and engaged in their own kinder, gentler, version of torture. Documents emerged that Bush's official legal counsel endeavored to find loopholes that would permit Bush to order torture, and circumvent the Geneva Convention. Does this seem like an administration that learns from it's study of history and avoids repeating it's mistakes.

My way is harder, Lebell. I want to find other people who are willing to admit that they descend from slave holding ancestors, and who are willing to discuss their reactions to that knowledge, and what, if anything, they plan to do differently because of it. There may be no conclusions to be reached, no plans to be made, but the exercise is worth it. If it seems that I'm being too negative to you by immersing myself in this, consider that if the Bush admin. had made a strong effort to put itself as best it could, in the point of view of Iraqis, Abu Ghraib would have been leveled instead of being reoccupied, and
if a study of Britain's last expedition into Iraq had been fully examined, we might not have invaded in the first place.

What you see as liberal "negativity", I see as a near obsessive curiousity to perceive as accurately as I possibly can, what past events were about. By the time I examine any event, it is in the past. I have lived through the same recent U.S. era as you have. My methods of information gathering lead me to believe that the Bush administration is failing politically, economically, and militarily. I have examined at length information that makes me lean toward conclusions that this admininstrations economic policies favor wealth consolidation toward the already wealthiest, toward the major oil companies, military contractors, away from most everyone else, and put alarming downward pressure on the value of U.S. currency. The military and intelligence operations seem to foster the commission of war crimes, from enlisted troops to the commander in chief. There seems to be an assault on the independence of the judiciary, and on support and enforcement of the provisions of the constitution. There seems to be a priority on operating the government in secrecy and avoidance of accountiblity, even to the extent of inhibiting assurances of honest and open elections. Foreign policy seems to be a message to the world that "you're either with us or against us".
Theocracy seems to be encouraged and embraced as it seems to be replacing secular representation and administration in the government. Loyalty is the requirement for advancement in the Bush administration, instead of competence.

I have not made up my mind about the accuracy of all my suspicions that I described above, but I have good reasons for including all of them, and they
probably strike you as negative, repetitive points, posted by a predictably negative liberal. My opinions require a lot of research and are more often not concluded. We won't agree on much, but I would rather end up with a very well informed sense of an event, issue, news or history making person, so that I can avoid a black or white, good or bad, judgment about that subject, whether my focus is on something that happened yesterday or 2000 years ago. It would be easier if I could accept Jesus the way the Baptist or the Catholic church wants me to, if I could accept Bush as the Texas rancher that K. Rove wants me to see. Trouble is.....I know that he bought his ranch six months before the Nov. 2000 election, was born in CT, comes from a Greenwich, CT family, frequents his father's long owned home in Maine, attended four years of New England prepratory high school, four years at Yale University, and three years at Harvard Business School. I am more curious about Bush's 32 year absence from Yale after he graduated, and his seeming effort to display a political image that does not seem to be an accurate representation of who he is. What are the ties that bind Bush? Why has so much effort been put into projecting Bush as a Texan, instead of who he actually is; a New England prep school, Ivy leaguer of advanced education, of a New England family of long standing political, economic, and social influence. My study of Bush prompts me to be much more suspicious about his integrity and his motives than I would be if he wasn't so......packaged.
If more people took an in depth view of the first Bush administration, the U.S. might have moved on with a new administration.

I know it's messy, it seems negative, but to me it isn't. It's the way I approach things. There are only two major political parties. I'm not sure about one of them, but compared to the other one, the black or white conservative one, I'll take the messy, negative seeming one.I'll take history that way. too,
even if it means no Christmas, Thanksgiving, Columbus, or MLK jr. holidays.