From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 00:20:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 00:20:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Anti-War Teach In revised References: Message-ID: Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) at the Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd 1:00 - 5:00pm Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Cost of War, Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (Syria) Karen Aram, Organizer/Coordinator For info. please contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 01:27:06 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 01:27:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Anti-War Teach In revised/ with added panelist, please see at the end. References: Message-ID: Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) at the Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd 1:00 - 5:00pm Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Cost of War, Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (US Support for Dictatorships Around the World) Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party (US Interventions in Libya and Syria) Karen Aram, Organizer/Coordinator For info. please contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 21:53:05 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 16:53:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market Message-ID: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> Stuart— It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) Regards, CGE ============================ Chapter 1: The Empire and the People Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. And: The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? Another soldier's letter of 1899: Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. ### From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 22:35:52 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:35:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market In-Reply-To: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> References: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> Hey Carl, They were happy to accept our application. When ready, we can start any week. The reservation system is different: rather than booking a whole year at once as vendors do, musical/spoken-word performers do it a week at a time. For the best chance of getting (a) a space and (b) the time slot we prefer, we should call & ask them during the week preceding the Saturday. Or we can show up on that Saturday morning and ask at the Urbana Market booth to see what's available. [Calling in advance: 384-2319 or urbanamarket at urbanaillinois.us]. Time slots: 7-9am, 9-10:30, 10:30-noon. I'd be happy to be one of the readers. As for source texts, we can try with the original People's History and see how listen-able it is. Voices of a People's History (Zinn & Arnove) is quite good too. It seems intended for reading aloud - as we did for Occupy a few years ago - and each reading has an explanatory preface. Many sections are short enough that some market visitors might stick around to hear a whole section, as some (few) people do when musicians are playing songs that last a few minutes each. This should be fun. Stuart On 09/01/2017 04:53 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > Stuart— > > It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. > > I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. > > It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. > > Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? > > I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) > > Regards, CGE > > ============================ > Chapter 1: The Empire and the People > > Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." > > The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. > > And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. > > Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. > > There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: > > 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. > 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. > 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] > 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. > 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] > 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. > 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. > 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. > 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. > 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. > Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. > > Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: > > In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. > A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: > > A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . > Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." > > Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: > > It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. > These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." > > When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." > > Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." > > William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." > > Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. > > While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." > > Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. > > There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. > > Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. > > It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: > > This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. > However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. > > For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. > > At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: > > This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . > There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: > > It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. > Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. > > There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: > > A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. > The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: > > In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. > As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." > > In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: > > The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. > At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." > > Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." > > There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." > > Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. > > On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." > > Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: > > In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . > Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. > > Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: > > Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. > American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." > > When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the > > . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. > The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: > > A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. > Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: > > If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. > Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." > > But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." > > The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. > > On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." > > The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." > > The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: > > Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. > The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. > > In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. > > The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. > > American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: > > I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. > . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . > > A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . > > Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: > > Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. > The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." > > Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. > > During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. > > The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. > > The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." > > In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." > > A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: > > For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. > And: > > The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . > The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: > > A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible > With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. > > Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." > > Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. > > There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: > > Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. > I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. > > I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: > > 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. > > 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. > > 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and > > 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. > > The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. > > It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. > > The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: > > Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . > The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . > > No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . > > I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . > > My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. > > It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. > > The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. > > In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." > > William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." > > James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." > > The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." > > A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." > > It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. > > In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: > > The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. > Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: > > One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. > Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." > > In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: > > The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." > In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. > > Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: > > We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. > And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. > > American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. > > For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." > > Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. > > On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: > > The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . > When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. > > The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. > > Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. > > Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: > > Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. > The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." > > But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." > > There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. > > Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." > > From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: > > I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? > Another soldier's letter of 1899: > > Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. > Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: > > Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . > A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." > > Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: > > We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . > . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . > > With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . > > It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . > > And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . > > The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. > > ### > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 22:40:36 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market In-Reply-To: <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> References: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8226B59A-5329-48D5-9A68-6BE250AF0A41@illinois.edu> Is 9-10:30 tomorrow a possibility? I’m away on the 9th. > On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace wrote: > > Hey Carl, > > They were happy to accept our application. When ready, we can start any week. The reservation system is different: rather than booking a whole year at once as vendors do, musical/spoken-word performers do it a week at a time. For the best chance of getting (a) a space and (b) the time slot we prefer, we should call & ask them during the week preceding the Saturday. Or we can show up on that Saturday morning and ask at the Urbana Market booth to see what's available. [Calling in advance: 384-2319 or urbanamarket at urbanaillinois.us ]. > > Time slots: 7-9am, 9-10:30, 10:30-noon. > > I'd be happy to be one of the readers. > > As for source texts, we can try with the original People's History and see how listen-able it is. Voices of a People's History (Zinn & Arnove) is quite good too. It seems intended for reading aloud - as we did for Occupy a few years ago - and each reading has an explanatory preface. Many sections are short enough that some market visitors might stick around to hear a whole section, as some (few) people do when musicians are playing songs that last a few minutes each. > > This should be fun. > > Stuart > > On 09/01/2017 04:53 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> Stuart— >> >> It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. >> >> I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. >> >> It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. >> >> Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? >> >> I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) >> >> Regards, CGE >> >> ============================ >> Chapter 1: The Empire and the People >> >> Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." >> >> The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. >> >> And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. >> >> Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. >> >> There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: >> >> 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. >> 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. >> 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] >> 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. >> 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] >> 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. >> 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. >> 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. >> 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. >> 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. >> Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. >> >> Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: >> >> In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. >> A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: >> >> A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . >> Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." >> >> Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: >> >> It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. >> These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." >> >> When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." >> >> Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." >> >> William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." >> >> Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. >> >> While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." >> >> Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. >> >> There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. >> >> Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. >> >> It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: >> >> This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. >> However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. >> >> For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. >> >> At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: >> >> This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . >> There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: >> >> It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. >> Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. >> >> There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: >> >> A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. >> The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: >> >> In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. >> As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." >> >> In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: >> >> The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. >> At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." >> >> Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." >> >> There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." >> >> Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. >> >> On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." >> >> Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: >> >> In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . >> Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. >> >> Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: >> >> Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. >> American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." >> >> When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the >> >> . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. >> The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: >> >> A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. >> Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: >> >> If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. >> Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." >> >> But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." >> >> The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. >> >> On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." >> >> The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." >> >> The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: >> >> Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. >> The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. >> >> In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. >> >> The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. >> >> American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: >> >> I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. >> . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . >> >> A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . >> >> Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: >> >> Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. >> The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." >> >> Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. >> >> During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. >> >> The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. >> >> The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." >> >> In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." >> >> A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: >> >> For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. >> And: >> >> The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . >> The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: >> >> A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible >> With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. >> >> Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." >> >> Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. >> >> There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: >> >> Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. >> I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. >> >> I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: >> >> 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. >> >> 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. >> >> 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and >> >> 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. >> >> The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. >> >> It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. >> >> The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: >> >> Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . >> The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . >> >> No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . >> >> I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . >> >> My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. >> >> It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. >> >> The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. >> >> In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." >> >> William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." >> >> James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." >> >> The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." >> >> A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." >> >> It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. >> >> In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: >> >> The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. >> Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: >> >> One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. >> Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." >> >> In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: >> >> The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." >> In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. >> >> Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: >> >> We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. >> And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. >> >> American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. >> >> For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." >> >> Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. >> >> On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: >> >> The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . >> When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. >> >> The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. >> >> Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. >> >> Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: >> >> Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. >> The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." >> >> But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." >> >> There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. >> >> Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." >> >> From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: >> >> I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? >> Another soldier's letter of 1899: >> >> Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. >> Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: >> >> Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . >> A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." >> >> Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: >> >> We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . >> . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . >> >> With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . >> >> It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . >> >> And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . >> >> The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. >> >> ### >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 01:25:02 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 20:25:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace] for Banned Book Week, AWARE will be Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market Message-ID: Dear Peace, AWARE (in celebration of Banned Book Week which is September 24 - 30, 2017) will be reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" at the Saturday (September 30th) Farmer's Market at the Square. Want to help? We need: * articles to make it a performance worth listening to. Like a music stand or a podium. * volunteers to read. * listeners -- yep, maybe we want people to act like they are listening. * some help putting together a flyer about anti-war banned books worth reading * ideas. Please write to me (Karen Medina), Carl Estabrook, Stuart Levy, or peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net if you want to be involved. We know you have been waiting for something like this! peace and all good, karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 01:38:45 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 20:38:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace] peace demonstration / Saturday, September 2, 2017 / 2pm-4pm Message-ID: Dear Peace, Yep, it is the first Saturday of the month again. And look how beautiful our weather is. There are all sorts of things happening in your lives, yep, but there are people suffering natural disasters and human-made disasters. And there are long-term preventable wars happening and about to happen. The world needs to know that WE ARE SAYING NO TO WAR! We are not just sitting at home watching it happen. Whose country? Our country! And we, the people, are saying no. Be there, at the corner of Church St and Neil St, downtown Champaign, Illinois. Saturday, September 2, 2017 2pm-4pm peace and all good, -- karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:03:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 14:03:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Interview that sums up everything and where we are today.... Message-ID: Abby Martin interview with Chris Hedges on telesur https://youtu.be/s0LOYvk0y3o From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:08:11 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 14:08:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Poems for justice References: Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Boyle Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3022999 bytes Desc: Boyle Flyer.pdf URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:13:02 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 14:13:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Poems for Justice References: Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Boyle Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3022999 bytes Desc: Boyle Flyer.pdf URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:22:44 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 09:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?=22Why_Jihadism_Won=E2=80=99t_Be_Allowed_to_Die?= =?utf-8?q?=22?= Message-ID: > Q: Why will jihadism not be allowed to die? A: Because the US government, which invented jihadism in Afghanistan 40 years ago "to give to the USSR its Vietnam war," will - in spite of the 'blowback ' of 9/11/2001 - continue to use it to retard the economic integration of Eurasia, long seen by the US 1% as a threat to their world economic hegemony. (See .) [From the article cited] '...the “4+1” – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – with the addition of Turkey, and with China in a “leading from behind” role, are all working together. 'The unfinished war across “Syraq” coupled with spasms of jihadism in Europe could certainly still metastasize into a massive Eurasian cancer, spreading like a plague from Afghanistan to Germany and vice-versa, and from the South China Sea to Brussels via Pakistan and vice-versa. 'What would happen under this cataclysmic scenario is the complete derailment of the Chinese-driven New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); [the ending of] its integration with the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union (EAEC); and a massive security threat to the domestic stability of the Russia-China strategic partnership, with uncontrollable bellicose scenarios developing very close to their borders. 'It’s no secret which elements and institutions would very much cherish internal political chaos in both Russia and China' [ = the US, the CIA, and the Pentagon]... 'ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS-K – that regroup in Afghanistan – can be so handy to wreak havoc in the intersection of Central Asia and South Asia, so close to key BRI development corridors. '...The phony Caliphate was useful in an attempt to break off BRI across “Syraq”, as much as Maidan in Ukraine was useful to break off the EAEU. Other war fronts will follow – from the Philippines to Venezuela, all bent on disrupting regional integration projects under a Divide and Rule strategy of US satraps... 'Sixteen years after 9/11, the name of the game is not GWOT (Global War on Terror) anymore; [it's now] under the cover of GWOT, to disturb geostrategic expansion by ... “peer competitors” Russia and China.’ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 14:21:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 14:21:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Worth listening Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/blackagendareport -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 15:45:33 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace] AWARE ON THE AIR, Tuesday 5 September Message-ID: <43225776-24A1-4BA2-B45D-55D99A531CF8@gmail.com> I’d like to center Tuesday’s AWARE ON THE AIR on the USG’s wars and war provocations vs. Russia and China (as in Afghanistan and the DPRK). Antifa, Chris Hedges’ articles, Hopkins’ article below, etc., can be considered on the next NEWS FROM NEPTUNE. Regards, CGE > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 20:40:33 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:40:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace] book release party for Jim Barrett's "History from the bottom up and the inside out" Message-ID: short AWARE meeting tonight 5pm-5:30pm Because several of us are attending a release party for Jim Barrett's new book! "History from the bottom up and the inside out / Ethnicity, Race and Identity in Working-Class History". Book release party Sunday, September 3, 2017 5:30 at Pizza M back room Come celebrate the publication of Jim Barrett's new book -- History from the Bottom Up & the Inside Out: Ethnicity, Race, and Identity in Working-Class History. This landmark collection of essays rethinks the boundaries of American working-class history by investigating the ways in which working-class peoples’ personal lives intersected with their activism and religious, racial, ethnic, and class identities. The book was published by Duke University Press, and includes a Foreword by David Roediger. The book party will be in the bar area in the back of Pizza M. Come celebrate with Jim, and pick up your copy of the book just in time for Labor Day. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 15:56:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:56:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The most important issue upon which to focus. US provocations of NK, Russia & China Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Trump, North Korea and the danger of world war 4 September 2017 The North Korean nuclear test yesterday, its sixth and most powerful, has once again exposed the extremely volatile and precarious state of global geopolitics and the great danger of a descent into a nuclear world war. The unstable regime in Pyongyang has concluded that its only hope of self-preservation, in the face of provocative threats from an unstable Trump administration, is to try and expand its nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is acutely conscious of the brutal end of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, after they abandoned their so-called weapons of mass destruction. While the actions of North Korea are certainly compounding the risk of conflict, prime responsibility for pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war rests with US imperialism. Moreover, as the reckless and belligerent statements from Trump and his officials demonstrate, North Korea’s limited nuclear weaponry and reactionary nationalist bombast will not prevent the US from using its military might, including its huge nuclear arsenal, against the North Korean people. After a meeting between Trump and his top military and national security advisers, US Defence Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis warned North Korea that it faced “a massive military response” to any threat to the US or its allies. “We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea,” Mattis continued, “but as I said, we have many options to do so.” President Trump “wanted to be briefed on each one of them,” he added. Trump himself warned of a US nuclear attack against North Korea when he declared last month that it confronted “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” A White House readout from his phone call yesterday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe explicitly declared that the US stood ready to use “the full range of diplomatic, conventional and nuclear capabilities at our disposal.” Trump was asked on Sunday: “Will you attack North Korea?” He refused to rule out pre-emptive military strikes, simply declaring: “We’ll see.” The US president has repeatedly said that he would not signal a military attack in advance, compounding the uncertainty, and hence fears in Pyongyang. Furthermore, as the crisis on the Korean Peninsula has escalated, the divisions in the Trump administration have resulted in an incoherent policy, which swings wildly between threats of all-out war and suggestions of talks, further inflaming the already explosive situation. In the aftermath of yesterday’s nuclear test, the White House, along with the American media, has turned its fire on China and Russia, underscoring the fact that the US confrontation with North Korea is bound up with far broader strategic aims. American strategists regard domination of the vast Eurasian land mass as the key to US global hegemony and China as the chief obstacle to that goal. NBC presenters Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd on yesterday’s “Meet the Press,” repeatedly emphasised the accusation that China and Russia were providing “economic help” to North Korea. Republican Senator Roy Blunt added: “There’s some sense that they have been more helpful than they should have been and more sustaining to the economy than they should have been.” Last month, both China and Russia voted for, and have begun implementing, crippling UN sanctions on North Korea that will slash its exports by one third. What is now being actively discussed in Washington is a total economic embargo—itself an act of war—and the cutting of trade with those who continue to conduct any with North Korea—above all China and Russia. Trump, who is already preparing trade war measures against China over its alleged “theft” of intellectual property, tweeted yesterday: “The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin confirmed on Fox News Sunday that he was preparing “a sanctions package to send to the president, for his strong consideration” to do just that. The implications for the global economy are immense—a collapse of trade, plunging the world into economic depression, as in the 1930s. That such a possibility is being actively considered is a measure of the depth of the economic and geo-political tensions wracking the world. Moreover, the threat of all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies is being accompanied by the preparations for all-out military conflict. The Trump administration has accelerated the diplomatic, economic and military challenge to China begun by President Obama under his “pivot to Asia.” The massive US military build-up in North East Asia, including the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and huge and highly provocative joint US-South Korean war games, is directed more at fighting a nuclear war with China than a conflict with the small, backward country of North Korea. As well as ramping up the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has given the green light for more “freedom of navigation” operations in another of the region’s volatile flashpoints—the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US Pacific Command is preparing to sail warships and send military aircraft directly into waters and airspace claimed by China around its islets, two or three times in the next few months as part of a regular schedule. In Europe, the US is escalating its confrontation with Russia by taking the first steps towards annulling the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the former Soviet Union. As Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung warned, the danger is “that the US will construct new missiles and station them in Europe,” raising the terrifying spectre of a nuclear war in Europe between the two countries—the US and Russia—that both possess thousands of nuclear warheads. The most dangerous factor in this highly volatile situation is the profound economic, social and political crisis of US imperialism—of which Trump is the most malignant expression. His administration confronts deep internal divisions and a huge and mounting social crisis, which is generating massive domestic opposition, as a result of its incompetence and indifference to the human suffering caused by the Houston flooding. The danger is that Trump will resort to a war against North Korea with incalculable consequences, as a means of directing acute domestic class tensions outwards against an external foe. At the same time, these social tensions, in America and around the world, are fuelling the coming revolutionary upheavals of the working class. The crucial issue is the building of a revolutionary leadership, to forge a unified international movement of workers guided by a scientific socialist program and perspective to put an end to the capitalist system and its outmoded division of the world into rival nation states. That is the perspective for which the International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections fight. Peter Symonds WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 18:14:51 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 18:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism References: <408444805.2725193.1504548891757.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <408444805.2725193.1504548891757@mail.yahoo.com> CAS Initiative-David Blacker - Event Type - Lecture - Sponsor - Center for Advanced Study - Location - Levis Faculty Center-Room 210; 919 West Illinois Street; Urbana - Date - Sep 25, 2017   4:00 pm   - Speaker - David Blacker; Professor of Philosophy of Education and Legal Studies Program, University of Delaware - Cost - Free and Open to the Public - E-Mail - cas at cas.illinois.edu - Phone - 217-333-6729 - Views - 3 - Originating Calendar - Center for Advanced Study - Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism Characterized by historic commitments to egalitarianism, the political left implicitly positions itself as moral educator to the public at large. As presently conceived, however, this enterprise has become antiquated. As decent durable jobs become scarcer and individuals more economically disposable, human identities are becoming more fluid, disconnecting from their erstwhile vocational anchors. In this context, the political left's educative capacity is structurally limited by its reluctance to confront its own philosophical contingencies, as its field of action is increasingly drained of shared comprehensive conceptions. In this setting of collective meaning deficit, an overly thin egalitarian imaginary is guaranteed to fail long-term. Yet public education in the grand sense is not impossible. This lecture describes several possibilities for the needed reconstruction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Sep 4 21:55:39 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace] who wants to deliver petition tomorrow to IL-13 Dems on ending US aid to Saudis' Yemen war? Message-ID: There's a forum tomorrow on the UI campus with the five declared Dem candidates to run against Rodney Davis. Unfortunately for me, I'll be on my way back from St. Louis, pre-arranged meeting at Claire McCaskill's office, pressing them to stop arming Saudi Arabia's war. So: anyone here want to deliver this petition at the forum tomorrow? @Jonathan_Ebel, @BetsyforIL, @ErikJones4IL, @EverForwardIL, @davidgill2018: Oppose U.S. Role in Saudi War in Yemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/jonathan_ebel-betsyforil?r_by=1135580 *PS: *We know where David Gill stands. *He signed the petition.* Give the man his due. 17. David Gill from Bloomington, IL signed this petition on Sep 1, 2017. === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 @clairecmc, @SenDonnelly, @Sen_JoeManchin, @MarkWarner, @SenBillNelson: #StopArmingSaudi War Crimes in Yemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/senate-stop-arming-saudi?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 02:12:14 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 02:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] film: Gandhi's Gift References: <598330389.2963624.1504577534008.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <598330389.2963624.1504577534008@mail.yahoo.com> http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/779?key=000000000000000033276772 Thurs Sept. 7 at 7 pm Levis Faculty Center 2nd floor - Music Room  #208 discussion afterwards with Gandhi's grandson and the 2 co-producers more info:  https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gandhi-s-gift#/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 02:25:13 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 02:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] film: The Apology References: <597174527.2993647.1504578313299.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <597174527.2993647.1504578313299@mail.yahoo.com> http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/events/event.php?ID=1369 - 10/10/2017 - Time: 3:00 pm - Location: Knight Auditorium, Spurlock Museum, 600 S. Gregory St., Urbana, IL - Cost: Free Admission Film Description The Apology follows the personal journeys of three former "comfort women" who were among the 200,000 girls and young women kidnapped and forced into military sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. After seventy years of living in silence and shame about their experiences of institutionalized rape and sexual slavery, Grandma Gil in South Korea, Grandma Cao in China, and Grandma Adela in the Philippines give first-hand accounts of the truth. They are seeking an apology and the hope that this horrific chapter of history not be forgotten. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 12:08:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:08:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=C2=A0Showings_of_Racial_Taboo_in_Decatu?= =?utf-8?q?r_and_Mahomet?= References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: From: Amy Felty > Subject: Showings of Racial Taboo in Decatur and Mahomet Date: September 4, 2017 at 19:33:30 PDT To: > Reply-To: Amy Felty > We are announcing the next two showings of the documentary film Racial Taboo. Please share this invitation with others who would be interested in attending. Sunday, September 24, 2017 Decatur Club 158 W. Prairie Avenue Decatur, IL 2:00-5:00 pm Sunday, October 1, 2017 Mahomet Methodist Church 1302 E. South Mahomet Road Mahomet, IL 2:00-5:00 pm There is no charge for the film. Please let your friends and acquaintances know that they are welcome. You may wish to see the film again and discuss it with others. For more information, contact Amy Felty at asfelty at gmail.com. This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Racial Taboo group discussion notification list · 1914 Clover Lane · Champaign, Il 61821 · USA [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 14:42:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:42:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Our next proxy war? US weapons being supplied to the Saudi's to train "rebels" in Burma, to defend themselves....... Message-ID: The military government of Burma/Myanmar is a particularly ruthless and cruel one, still in power in spite of all appearances. They began the slaughter of Rohingya’s or Muslims on a large scale approximately 2-4 years ago. A few months ago news of the Saudi’s training the Rohingya’s as well as supplying them with weapons, US weapons, to “defend” themselves made the news. It certainly began to look like another “Syria,” and now we have many human rights groups calling for international assistance to the Rohingya’s. The question is will the US use this as an excuse for intervention? Is it because the government of Burma/Myanmar just signed an agreement with China for a gas pipeline running through the nation, and to the ports of Rakhine onto the Indian Ocean, bypassing the chokehold on the Malacca Straits, with the potential now for the BRI or Belt Road Initiative by China? I think we know the answer, if the Burmese government doesn’t cancel their agreements with China, where this is all headed. The following article is one of the best I’ve seen from Moonofalabama.com by Andrew Korbyko who has written of US proxy or “Hybrid Wars.” The Rohingya Of Myanmar - Pawns In An Anglo-Chinese Proxy War Fought By Saudi Jihadists Media attention is directed to some minor ethnic violence in Myanmar, the former Burma. The story in the "western" press is of Muslim Rohingya unfairly vilified, chased out and killed by Buddhist mobs and the army in the state of Rakhine near the border to Bangladesh. The "liberal human interventionists" like Human Rights Watch are united with Islamists like Turkey's President Erdogan in loudly lamenting the plight of the Rohingya. That curious alliance also occurred during the wars on Libya and Syria. It is by now a warning sign. Could there be more behind this than some local conflict in Myanmar? Is someone stocking a fire? Indeed. While the ethnic conflict in Rankine state is very old, it has over the last years morphed into an Jihadist guerilla war financed and led from Saudi Arabia. The area is of geo-strategic interest: Rakhine plays an important part in [the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative] OBOR, as it is an exit to Indian Ocean and the location of planned billion-dollar Chinese projects—a planned economic zone on Ramree Island, and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port, which has oil and natural gas pipelines linked with Yunnan Province’s Kunming. Pipelines from the western coast of Myanmar eastwards to China allow hydrocarbon imports from the Persian Gulf to China while avoiding the bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea. It is in "Western interest" to hinder China's projects in Myanmar. Inciting Jihad in Rakhine could help to achieve that. There is historic precedence for such a proxy war in Burma. During World War II British imperial forces incited the Rohingya Muslim in Rakhine to fight Burmese nationalist Buddhists allied with Japanese imperialists. [http://www.moonofalabama.org/images5/myanmar2-s.jpg] bigger The Rohingya immigrated to the northern parts of Arakan, today's Rakhine state of Myanmar, since the 16th century. A large wave came under British imperial occupation some hundred years ago. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh continued over the last decades. In total about 1.1 million of Muslim Rohingya live in Myanmar. The birthrate of the Rohingya is said to be higher than that of the local Arakanese Buddhists. These feel under pressure in their own land. While these populations are mixed in some towns there are many hamlets that belong 100% to either one. There is generally little integration of Rohingya within Myanmar. Most are officially not accepted as citizens. Over the centuries and the last decades there have been several violent episodes between the immigrants and the local people. The last Muslim-Buddhist conflict raged in 2012. Since then a clearly Islamist insurgency was build up in the area. It acts under the name Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Jihadist from Pakistan. (ARSA earlier operated under the name Harakah al-Yakin, or Faith Movement.) Ataullah was born into the large Rohingya community of Karachi, Pakistan. He grew up and was educated in Saudi Arabia. He received military training in Pakistan and worked as Wahhabi Imam in Saudi Arabia before he came to Myanmar. He has since brainwashed, hired and trained a local guerrilla army of some 1,000 Takfiris. According to a 2015 report in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn there are more than 500,000 Rohingya in Karachi. They came from Bangladesh during the 1970s and 1980s on the behest on General Ziaul Haq’s military regime and the CIA to fight the Soviets and the government of Afghanistan: Rohingya community [in Karachi] is more inclined towards religion and they send their children to madressahs. It is a major reason that many religious parties, especially the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, the JI and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl, have their organisational set-up in Burmese neighborhoods. ... “A number of Rohingya members living in Arakan Abad have lost their relatives in recent attacks by Buddhist mobs in June 2012 in Myanmar,” said Mohammad Fazil, a local JI activist. Rohingyas in Karachi regularly collect donations, Zakat and hides of sacrificial animals and send these to Myanmar and Bangladesh to support the displaced families. Reuters noted in late 2016 that the Jihadist group is trained, led and financed through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said on Thursday, citing members of the group. ... “Though not confirmed, there are indications [Ataullah] went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare,” the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said. The ARSA Jihadists claim to only attack government forces but civilian Arakanese Buddhists have also been ambushed and massacred. Bugghist hamlets were also burned down. The government of Myanmar alleges that Ataullah and his group want to declare an independent Islamic State. In October 2016 his group started to attack police and other government forces in the area. On August 25 this year his group attacked 30 police stations and military outposts and killed some 12 policemen. The army and police responded, as is usual in this conflict, by burning down Rohingya townships suspected of hiding guerilla forces. To escape the growing violence many local Arakanese Buddhist flee their towns towards the capitol of Rankine. Local Rohingya Muslim flee across the border to Bangladesh. Only the later refugees seem to get international attention. The Myanmar army has ruled the country for decades. Under economic pressure it nominally opened up to the "west" and instituted "democracy". The darling of the "west" in Myanmar is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won the elections and she has a dominant role in the government. But Aung San Suu Kyi is foremost a nationalist and the real power is still held by the generals. While Aung San Suu Kyi was propped up as democratic icon she has little personal merit except being the daughter of Thakin Aung San, a famous leader of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) and the "father of the nation". In the 1940s Thakin Aung San was recruited by the Imperial Japanese Army to wage a guerrilla war against the colonial British army and the British supply line to anti-Japanese forces in China: The young Aung San learned to wear Japanese traditional clothing, speak the language, and even took a Japanese name. In historian Thant Myint-U’s “The River of Lost Footsteps,” he describes him as “apparently getting swept away in all the fascist euphoria surrounding him,” but notes that his commitment remained to independence for Myanmar. The ethnic strife in Rakhine also played a role in the British-Japanese conflict over Burma: In April 1942, Japanese troops advanced into Rakhine State and reached Maungdaw Township, near the border with what was then British India, and is now Bangladesh. As the British retreated to India, Rakhine became a front line. Local Arakanese Buddhists collaborated with the BIA and Japanese forces but the British recruited area Muslims to counter the Japanese. “Both armies, British and Japanese, exploited the frictions and animosity in the local population to further their own military aims,” wrote scholar Moshe Yegar When the British won against the Japanese Thakin Aung San change sides and negotiated the end of British imperial rule over Burma. He was assassinated in 1947 with the help of British officers. Since then Burma, later renamed to Myanmar, was ruled by ever competing factions of the military. Thakin Aung San's daughter Aung San Suu Kyi received a British education and was build up for a role in Myanmar. In the 1980s and 90s she quarreled with the military government. She was given a Nobel Peace Price and was promoted as progressive defender of human rights by the "western" literati. But she, and the National League for Democracy (NLD). she leads, were always the opposite - ultra-right fascists in Buddhist Saffron robes. The hypocrites are now disappointed that she does not speak out in favor of the Rohingya. But doing so would put her on the opposite side her father had famously fought for. It would also put her in opposition to most of the people in Myanmar who have little sympathy for the Rohingya and their Jihadi fight. Moreover - the Chinese OBOR projects are a huge bon for Myanmar and will help with its economic development. The Saudis and Pakistani send guerilla commanders and money to incite the Rohingya to Jihad in Myanmar. This is a historic repeat of the CIA operation against Soviet influence in Afghanistan. But unlike in Afghanistan the people of Myanmar are not Muslim they will surely fight against, not join, any Jihad in their country. The Rohingya are now pawns in the great game and will suffer from it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 15:40:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 15:40:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The latest news Message-ID: The military government of Burma/Myanmar is a particularly ruthless and cruel one, still in power in spite of all appearances. They began the slaughter of Rohingya’s or Muslims on a large scale approximately 2-4 years ago. A few months ago news of the Saudi’s training the Rohingya’s as well as supplying them with weapons, US weapons, to “defend” themselves made the news. It certainly began to look like another “Syria,” and now we have many human rights groups calling for international assistance to the Rohingya’s. The question is will the US use this as an excuse for intervention? Is it because the government of Burma/Myanmar just signed an agreement with China for a gas pipeline running through the nation, and to the ports of Rakhine onto the Indian Ocean, bypassing the chokehold on the Malacca Straits, with the potential now for the BRI or Belt Road Initiative by China? I think we know the answer, if the Burmese government doesn’t cancel their agreements with China, where this is all headed. The following article is one of the best I’ve seen from Moonofalabama.com by Andrew Korbyko who has written of US proxy or “Hybrid Wars.” The Rohingya Of Myanmar - Pawns In An Anglo-Chinese Proxy War Fought By Saudi Jihadists Media attention is directed to some minor ethnic violence in Myanmar, the former Burma. The story in the "western" press is of Muslim Rohingya unfairly vilified, chased out and killed by Buddhist mobs and the army in the state of Rakhine near the border to Bangladesh. The "liberal human interventionists" like Human Rights Watch are united with Islamists like Turkey's President Erdogan in loudly lamenting the plight of the Rohingya. That curious alliance also occurred during the wars on Libya and Syria. It is by now a warning sign. Could there be more behind this than some local conflict in Myanmar? Is someone stocking a fire? Indeed. While the ethnic conflict in Rankine state is very old, it has over the last years morphed into an Jihadist guerilla war financed and led from Saudi Arabia. The area is of geo-strategic interest: Rakhine plays an important part in [the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative] OBOR, as it is an exit to Indian Ocean and the location of planned billion-dollar Chinese projects—a planned economic zone on Ramree Island, and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port, which has oil and natural gas pipelines linked with Yunnan Province’s Kunming. Pipelines from the western coast of Myanmar eastwards to China allow hydrocarbon imports from the Persian Gulf to China while avoiding the bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea. It is in "Western interest" to hinder China's projects in Myanmar. Inciting Jihad in Rakhine could help to achieve that. There is historic precedence for such a proxy war in Burma. During World War II British imperial forces incited the Rohingya Muslim in Rakhine to fight Burmese nationalist Buddhists allied with Japanese imperialists. [http://www.moonofalabama.org/images5/myanmar2-s.jpg] bigger The Rohingya immigrated to the northern parts of Arakan, today's Rakhine state of Myanmar, since the 16th century. A large wave came under British imperial occupation some hundred years ago. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh continued over the last decades. In total about 1.1 million of Muslim Rohingya live in Myanmar. The birthrate of the Rohingya is said to be higher than that of the local Arakanese Buddhists. These feel under pressure in their own land. While these populations are mixed in some towns there are many hamlets that belong 100% to either one. There is generally little integration of Rohingya within Myanmar. Most are officially not accepted as citizens. Over the centuries and the last decades there have been several violent episodes between the immigrants and the local people. The last Muslim-Buddhist conflict raged in 2012. Since then a clearly Islamist insurgency was build up in the area. It acts under the name Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Jihadist from Pakistan. (ARSA earlier operated under the name Harakah al-Yakin, or Faith Movement.) Ataullah was born into the large Rohingya community of Karachi, Pakistan. He grew up and was educated in Saudi Arabia. He received military training in Pakistan and worked as Wahhabi Imam in Saudi Arabia before he came to Myanmar. He has since brainwashed, hired and trained a local guerrilla army of some 1,000 Takfiris. According to a 2015 report in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn there are more than 500,000 Rohingya in Karachi. They came from Bangladesh during the 1970s and 1980s on the behest on General Ziaul Haq’s military regime and the CIA to fight the Soviets and the government of Afghanistan: Rohingya community [in Karachi] is more inclined towards religion and they send their children to madressahs. It is a major reason that many religious parties, especially the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, the JI and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl, have their organisational set-up in Burmese neighborhoods. ... “A number of Rohingya members living in Arakan Abad have lost their relatives in recent attacks by Buddhist mobs in June 2012 in Myanmar,” said Mohammad Fazil, a local JI activist. Rohingyas in Karachi regularly collect donations, Zakat and hides of sacrificial animals and send these to Myanmar and Bangladesh to support the displaced families. Reuters noted in late 2016 that the Jihadist group is trained, led and financed through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said on Thursday, citing members of the group. ... “Though not confirmed, there are indications [Ataullah] went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare,” the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said. The ARSA Jihadists claim to only attack government forces but civilian Arakanese Buddhists have also been ambushed and massacred. Bugghist hamlets were also burned down. The government of Myanmar alleges that Ataullah and his group want to declare an independent Islamic State. In October 2016 his group started to attack police and other government forces in the area. On August 25 this year his group attacked 30 police stations and military outposts and killed some 12 policemen. The army and police responded, as is usual in this conflict, by burning down Rohingya townships suspected of hiding guerilla forces. To escape the growing violence many local Arakanese Buddhist flee their towns towards the capitol of Rankine. Local Rohingya Muslim flee across the border to Bangladesh. Only the later refugees seem to get international attention. The Myanmar army has ruled the country for decades. Under economic pressure it nominally opened up to the "west" and instituted "democracy". The darling of the "west" in Myanmar is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won the elections and she has a dominant role in the government. But Aung San Suu Kyi is foremost a nationalist and the real power is still held by the generals. While Aung San Suu Kyi was propped up as democratic icon she has little personal merit except being the daughter of Thakin Aung San, a famous leader of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) and the "father of the nation". In the 1940s Thakin Aung San was recruited by the Imperial Japanese Army to wage a guerrilla war against the colonial British army and the British supply line to anti-Japanese forces in China: The young Aung San learned to wear Japanese traditional clothing, speak the language, and even took a Japanese name. In historian Thant Myint-U’s “The River of Lost Footsteps,” he describes him as “apparently getting swept away in all the fascist euphoria surrounding him,” but notes that his commitment remained to independence for Myanmar. The ethnic strife in Rakhine also played a role in the British-Japanese conflict over Burma: In April 1942, Japanese troops advanced into Rakhine State and reached Maungdaw Township, near the border with what was then British India, and is now Bangladesh. As the British retreated to India, Rakhine became a front line. Local Arakanese Buddhists collaborated with the BIA and Japanese forces but the British recruited area Muslims to counter the Japanese. “Both armies, British and Japanese, exploited the frictions and animosity in the local population to further their own military aims,” wrote scholar Moshe Yegar When the British won against the Japanese Thakin Aung San change sides and negotiated the end of British imperial rule over Burma. He was assassinated in 1947 with the help of British officers. Since then Burma, later renamed to Myanmar, was ruled by ever competing factions of the military. Thakin Aung San's daughter Aung San Suu Kyi received a British education and was build up for a role in Myanmar. In the 1980s and 90s she quarreled with the military government. She was given a Nobel Peace Price and was promoted as progressive defender of human rights by the "western" literati. But she, and the National League for Democracy (NLD). she leads, were always the opposite - ultra-right fascists in Buddhist Saffron robes. The hypocrites are now disappointed that she does not speak out in favor of the Rohingya. But doing so would put her on the opposite side her father had famously fought for. It would also put her in opposition to most of the people in Myanmar who have little sympathy for the Rohingya and their Jihadi fight. Moreover - the Chinese OBOR projects are a huge bon for Myanmar and will help with its economic development. The Saudis and Pakistani send guerilla commanders and money to incite the Rohingya to Jihad in Myanmar. This is a historic repeat of the CIA operation against Soviet influence in Afghanistan. But unlike in Afghanistan the people of Myanmar are not Muslim they will surely fight against, not join, any Jihad in their country. The Rohingya are now pawns in the great game and will suffer from it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Sep 6 00:59:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:59:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Black Agenda Radio - 09.04.17 at Black Agenda Radio References: Message-ID: Always worth a listen, the Black Agenda Report, and todays program interview with Prof. Francis Boyle [http://deow9bq0xqvbj.cloudfront.net/image-logo/277790/BlackAgendaRadio_AlbumArt.jpg] Black Agenda Radio - 09.04.17 Welcome to the radio magazine that brings you news, commentary and analysis from a Black Left perspective. I’m Glen Ford, along with my co-host Nellie Bailey. Coming up: from Bush to Obama to Trump, you can always count on U.S. presidents to keep the War M... http://blackagendaradio.podbean.com/e/black-agenda-radio-090417/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Sep 7 14:25:58 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:25:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace] JFP alert: TODAY: Tell Durbin to Help Murphy Break the Saudi Blockade of Yemen Message-ID: Durbin is on this subcommittee. Direct line is: (202) 224-2152 [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) will offer an amendment today in the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee conditioning U.S. "security assistance" to Saudi Arabia on a certification by Secretary of State Tillerson that Saudi Arabia is ensuring access for humanitarian aid to Yemen - a certification Tillerson can't make while Saudi Arabia maintains its blockade of Yemen. This amendment is very similar to an amendment Murphy offered last year that almost passed the subcommittee. One of your Senators is on this subcommittee [1]. Call your Senator on the subcommittee now at 202-225-3121 <(202)%20225-3121>. When you reach a staffer or leave a message, you can say something like: "I urge the Senator to support the Murphy amendment to break the Saudi blockade of Yemen so that Yemeni children can live." Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns Just Foreign Policy *If you think our work is important, support us with a $17 donation.* http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate References: 1. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/state- foreign-operations-and-related-programs [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] © 2016 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 8 15:19:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:19:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace] My letter this morning to the NG Message-ID: The world is facing two potential devastations, that of climate change, and nuclear war. War is a major contributing factor to climate change, in more ways than just environmental degradation and pollution. With 68% of the federal budget going to support the military, leaving little for social services, it also means little for support of alternative energies. As long as US foreign policy is that of perpetual war, in order to control other nations resources, it becomes obvious there is no “will” to support alternative energy. Individuals can do what they may, give up commercialism, SUV’s, air conditioning, eating meat, long showers and recycle, but compared to the use of fossil fuels, we are one grain of sand in the Sahara. Communities can attempt to provide clean water, food, and protect their local environment from the ravages of climate change, but we do not live in a bubble, we are dependent and connected to all other communities, and nations. Unless people unite in common cause, against a government of profiteers, exploitation all, there is little hope for mankind. Announcing “Anti-War Teach In” Sept. 23rd at Channing Murray 1209 Oregon St. with a panel of nine. From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Sep 13 03:09:29 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:09:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Call/email our senators on war amendment Message-ID: http://news.antiwar.com/2017/09/12/senate-will-vote-on-amendment-to-repeal-war-authorization/ Call/email Senators Durbin & Duckworth to vote in favor of this amendment. The vote will probably be Wednesday afternoon 9/13. Durbin: (202) 224-2152 > Duckworth: (202) 224-2854 > —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 12:56:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:56:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Call your Senators today and demand: Message-ID: They support Sanders healthcare “Single Payer” for all. They support Rand Paul’s Amendment to Repeal War Authorization. In Illinois call Dick Durbin at ; 217-492-4062 / Tammy Duckworth at 217-528-6124 * Antiwar.com Home * About Antiwar.com * Donate * Blog * US Casualties * Contact * Latest News Senate Will Vote on Amendment to Repeal War Authorization Amendment Would Give Congress Six Months to Debate a ReplacementJason Ditz Posted onSeptember 12, 2017CategoriesNewsTagsAUMF, McCain, Rand Paul Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s push for a vote on his amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) appears to have been successful, and his office issued a press release confirming that such a vote will take place after all. Previously, there were doubts, as the Senate leadership sought to severely limit discussion of amendments and just push the NDAA through. [http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/312.jpg]Sen. Rand Paul The amendment is short and simple. It would repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. The two authorizations would sunset in six months, giving Congress a window in which to debate a replacement authorization. Limited debate on the amendment was held Tuesday evening, with expectations of further debate Wednesday morning. There is no formal time set for the vote, but it’s expected Wednesday in the late morning. Paul has advocated the repeal of the AUMF because it has been used by recent presidents as a blanket justification for new wars. Despite the 2001 AUMF not having anything to do with them, it is presently used as the legal cover for seven US military operations worldwide. The hope is that it will attract support not just from antiwar senators, but also from senators who have wanted a new AUMF that is directly applicable to current wars, since the repeals would oblige the leadership to finally allow debate on such an effort. At the same time, some ultra-hawks, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), oppose the effort, because an AUMF directly applicable to current wars would inevitably include specific limits on those wars. These hawks prefer to keep the wars effectively unauthorized to give the president limitless power to escalate. A new AUMF, informed by the abuses caused by the vagueness of the past ones, would doubtless be more limited, and make it difficult for presidents to unilaterally launch new wars. Sen. Paul is already getting new support for the vote now that it’s going to happen. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who had just days prior publicly attacked the amendment as a “disservice” to the military, now says he supports it. Those interested in contacting their senators to express support for the amendment can find contact information here. With the vote expected soon, those wishing to do so should contact them as soon as possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 13:52:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:52:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Worth a listen. Patrick Henningsen nails it!!! Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/403140-trump-administration-on-religon/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 00:45:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:45:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Cake Night -- Sept 16 References: Message-ID: This isn’t “let them eat cake” on our Peace List, but it is a “eat cake event." To: Janie > Yes, that's right -- Everyone's favorite social event of the year is coming up on Saturday, September 16. Remember: The Purpose of Cake Night is to EAT CAKE. What a concept! Saturday, September 16 7-10 pm The Baha'i Center in Urbana See the attached flier for all the details, and feel free to print it out and give it to your friends. The whole world is invited! Hope to see you there. 😛 Janie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cake Night Flier 2017.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 469796 bytes Desc: Cake Night Flier 2017.pdf URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 09:37:26 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 04:37:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace] call Sens Durbin and Duckworth today Message-ID: Thanks to Karen A for posting yesterday about calling our Senators urging them to co-sponsor S.1804, Medicare for All. Sen Sanders and 16 original co-sponsors introduced S.1804 yesterday, nad today we need to keep up the pressure, working hard to get our Senators here in Illinois on board with this vital piece of legislation. I am writing to ask you to call Sens Duckworth and Durbin today and tomorrow and next week to ask them to co-sponsor S.1804, Medicare for All. We need Medicare for All as a long-term solution to this country's vast health care problems, and we need S.1804 as a launchpad for a serious discussion about the long-term solution to health care in the U.S. Please call our Senators' DC offices first; if you get a recording, call their Springfield offices. Tell them that the time is NOW to show leadership and put their names on Medicare for All, S. 1804. Sen. Dick Durbin 202-224-2152 217-492-4378 Sen Tammy Duckworth 202-224-2854 217-528-6124 It is important to keep up pressure on them to co-sponsor S.1804, Medicare for All. Thanks for all you do, Deb From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 20:50:09 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:50:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Muslim genocide in Burma Message-ID: Is ASSK responsible? Does she have the power to change things? Or is she attempting to bring progress by working within the system, rather than externally? I don’t know the answer. However working within the system of a government that commits genocide is doomed to fail, and her resignation would be of greater value, than her continued support. Once my hero, no more. Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi and the fraud of human rights imperialism By Peter Symonds WSWS.ORG 14 September 2017 The plight of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing the Burmese military’s rampage in the western state of Rakhine is a devastating exposure of the fraud of human rights imperialism practiced by the US and its allies and their chief political asset in Burma (Myanmar)—Aung San Suu Kyi. The brutality and scale of the military operations have occasioned a great deal of hypocritical handwringing in the UN and by those who have aggressively promoted Suu Kyi as a “democracy icon.” Despite the media and humanitarian agencies being barred from the operational area, there is substantial and mounting evidence that the Burmese army has been systematically torching villages and there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers gunning down civilians. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres yesterday described what was taking place in Rakhine state as “ethnic cleansing,” saying: “When one-third of the Rohingya population had to flee the country, could you find a better word to describe it?” The UN Security Council issued a statement that “expressed concern about reports of excessive violence” and appealed for steps to “de-escalate the situation,” protect civilians and resolve the refugee problem. British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson last week joined the chorus of international appeals to Suu Kyi to use her influence to rein in the military. “Aung San Suu Kyi is rightly regarded as one of the most inspiring figures of our age, but the treatment of the Rohingya is alas besmirching the reputation of Burma,” he declared. If the military’s ethnic cleansing had taken place a decade ago, when the Burmese junta had Suu Kyi under house arrest, the reaction would have been quite different. There would have been ringing condemnations from Western imperialism of the “rogue regime,” denunciations of its long history of human rights abuses and moves for even tougher diplomatic and economic sanctions against Burma. Why is Washington now soft-peddling now the latest military outrages in Burma? As is the case around the world, the US has never had the slightest interest in promoting basic democratic rights in Burma. Rather, its attitude toward the Burmese military dictatorship was always determined by economic and strategic interests—in particular, Washington’s hostility to the junta’s close ties with China. As the Obama administration began to ramp up its “pivot to Asia” against China throughout the Asia Pacific, the Burmese junta, facing a mounting economic and social crisis at home, signalled a shift away from Beijing in 2011 and a willingness to find a political role for Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD). It was as if a switch had been flicked. Virtually overnight, Burma was designated in the US and international media not as a rogue state, but as a "developing democracy." A string of top American officials trooped in, culminating in a visit by President Barack Obama in 2012. Sanctions were progressively dropped and Suu Kyi became a roving ambassador for the junta, hustling for investment and aid. The victory of the NLD in the carefully managed elections in 2016 and installation of Suu Kyi as de facto head of government was universally hailed by the establishment media, middle-class liberals and various pseudo-left organisations as the flowering of democracy. In reality, the military remains in charge: it appointed officers to a quarter of the parliamentary seats and installed serving generals to the key cabinet posts of defence, home affairs and border affairs. Suu Kyi and the NLD went along with this charade because their basic concern was never with democratic rights as such. Rather, the NLD represents those sections of the Burmese bourgeoisie whose economic interests were stifled under the military junta. Aligned with Western imperialism, they sought to open up the country to investment. Moreover, the NLD, Suu Kyi included, is just as mired as the military in the reactionary ideology of Burmese Buddhist supremacism, which has repeatedly been exploited to sow religious and ethnic divisions among working people. As hopes for an economic boom in Burma have faded, the military, with the NLD’s backing, has escalated violence against Muslim Rohingyas, who long have been used as a scapegoat for the country’s problems. Suu Kyi and the NLD have taken no steps to address the lack of fundamental rights for the Rohingya minority, who are branded as “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh. Despite having lived, in many cases for generations, in Burma, they are not citizens and thus have no rights or access to social services. Suu Kyi has openly defended the military’s ethnic cleansing campaign, justified in the name of the “war on terrorism” and the need to suppress Rohingya militias that have sprung up in response to the army’s outrages. After criticism from the Turkish president last week, Suu Kyi lashed out against “fake news photographs” and “a huge iceberg of misinformation” that creates problems “with the aim of promoting the interest of the terrorists.” The events in Burma are a graphic example of the cynical use of “human rights” to promote the interests of imperialism. But it is far from the only one. Time and again, the demonisation of leaders and regimes over “human rights” has been exploited as the pretext for illegal wars of aggression and regime-change operations. The US and its allies, supported by various liberals and pseudo-left groups, have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and Syria, leading to millions of deaths in a bid to shore up American hegemony in the strategic, energy-rich Middle East. The situation in Burma underscores the basic conclusion drawn by Leon Trotsky more than a century ago in his Theory of Permanent Revolution, and confirmed by the Russian Revolution in 1917: the organic inability of any section of the bourgeoisie in countries with a belated capitalist development that are dominated by imperialism, such as Burma, to establish basic democratic rights. That task falls to the working class, in the fight to take power at the head of a revolutionary movement as an integral component of the struggle for socialism internationally. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 20:24:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 20:24:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Chris Hedges best speech in 2017 Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycuw9Cvh6W4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 14:02:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 14:02:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Defeat of the AUMF bill, or a refusal to stop war Message-ID: >From POGO: "Project on Government Oversight" "Congress Again Demonstrates Cowardice When It Comes to Declaring War Congress has been spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing countless American lives for what is appearing to be an endless war that is no longer confined to the original bill. See if your Senator voted to keep kicking the can down the road" My thoughts: It's not just cowardice, its corruption. See below the vote: REFERENCE Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session XML Vote Summary Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 871 ) Vote Number: 195 Vote Date: September 13, 2017, 12:17 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 871 to S.Amdt. 1003 to H.R. 2810 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018) Statement of Purpose: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Vote Counts: YEAs61 NAYs36 Not Voting3 *Information compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Alphabetical by Senator Name Alexander (R-TN), Yea Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Nay Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Blunt (R-MO), Yea Booker (D-NJ), Nay Boozman (R-AR), Yea Brown (D-OH), Nay Burr (R-NC), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Capito (R-WV), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Cassidy (R-LA), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Coons (D-DE), Nay Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea Cotton (R-AR), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea Daines (R-MT), Yea Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Duckworth (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Yea Ernst (R-IA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Fischer (R-NE), Yea Flake (R-AZ), Yea Franken (D-MN), Nay Gardner (R-CO), Yea Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harris (D-CA), Nay Hassan (D-NH), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea Heinrich (D-NM), Nay Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay Heller (R-NV), Nay Hirono (D-HI), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kaine (D-VA), Nay Kennedy (R-LA), Yea King (I-ME), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Lankford (R-OK), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay Lee (R-UT), Nay Manchin (D-WV), Yea Markey (D-MA), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting Merkley (D-OR), Nay Moran (R-KS), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murphy (D-CT), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Paul (R-KY), Nay Perdue (R-GA), Yea Peters (D-MI), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rounds (R-SD), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting Sanders (I-VT), Nay Sasse (R-NE), Yea Schatz (D-HI), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Nay Scott (R-SC), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Strange (R-AL), Yea Sullivan (R-AK), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Tillis (R-NC), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Udall (D-NM), Nay Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Warren (D-MA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay Young (R-IN), Yea Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---61 Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Cassidy (R-LA) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Cortez Masto (D-NV) Cotton (R-AR) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) Daines (R-MT) Donnelly (D-IN) Enzi (R-WY) Ernst (R-IA) Fischer (R-NE) Flake (R-AZ) Gardner (R-CO) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hassan (D-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (R-WI) Kennedy (R-LA) Lankford (R-OK) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Perdue (R-GA) Portman (R-OH) Reed (D-RI) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rounds (R-SD) Sasse (R-NE) Schatz (D-HI) Scott (R-SC) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Stabenow (D-MI) Strange (R-AL) Sullivan (R-AK) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Young (R-IN) NAYs ---36 Baldwin (D-WI) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Coons (D-DE) Duckworth (D-IL) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harris (D-CA) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Heller (R-NV) Hirono (D-HI) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lee (R-UT) Markey (D-MA) Merkley (D-OR) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Paul (R-KY) Peters (D-MI) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Van Hollen (D-MD) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) Not Voting - 3 Menendez (D-NJ) Nelson (D-FL) Rubio (R-FL) Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Grouped by Home State Alabama: Shelby (R-AL), Yea Strange (R-AL), Yea Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Sullivan (R-AK), Yea Arizona: Flake (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Cotton (R-AR), Yea California: Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Harris (D-CA), Nay Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Gardner (R-CO), Yea Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Nay Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Coons (D-DE), Nay Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting Georgia: Isakson (R-GA), Yea Perdue (R-GA), Yea Hawaii: Hirono (D-HI), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Yea Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea Illinois: Duckworth (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Indiana: Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Young (R-IN), Yea Iowa: Ernst (R-IA), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Nay Louisiana: Cassidy (R-LA), Yea Kennedy (R-LA), Yea Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea King (I-ME), Nay Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay Massachusetts: Markey (D-MA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay Michigan: Peters (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea Montana: Daines (R-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Nebraska: Fischer (R-NE), Yea Sasse (R-NE), Yea Nevada: Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea Heller (R-NV), Nay New Hampshire: Hassan (D-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea New Jersey: Booker (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting New Mexico: Heinrich (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Tillis (R-NC), Yea North Dakota: Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Lankford (R-OK), Yea Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea Scott (R-SC), Yea South Dakota: Rounds (R-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay Virginia: Kaine (D-VA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay West Virginia: Capito (R-WV), Yea Manchin (D-WV), Yea Wisconsin: Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Johnson (R-WI), Yea Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Sun Sep 17 02:11:22 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 21:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune, 15 September 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> <3014b58c3080570ba473a4b2bdcb0659@shout.net> <1f26ef3688b593a338a8fbc7cd45b7a6@shout.net> <38dd9634ddb6d642a9e18e34d02ee607@shout.net> <11a3e6f7cbc9fa68332a0079c6684e49@shout.net> Message-ID: <4a674713df54241c58707027b4a957e4@shout.net> AN ANTI-FA-LA-LA EDITION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmgWZHTOdE From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 15:35:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:35:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Poems Against the Empire References: Message-ID: [cid:image003.jpg at 01D32F3D.89377560] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 21:25:08 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:25:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order References: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> I don't know where the speaker or the Cline Center is on the political spectrum.   This is their FB announcement. Dianna Please help us spread the word about this year’s Cline Symposium to anyone interested in America’s fundamental foreign policy challenges. At 7:30 on November 9th, Professor Eliot A. Cohen will deliver the 2017-2018 the Cline Symposium keynote entitled “The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump.” Dr. Cohen is the Director of the at the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | SAIS, and has served in several prominent positions at the Departments of State and Defense. He is also a US Army veteran, a highly-regarded commentator, and an award-winning teacher. Anyone can attend the talk at the Alice Campbell Alumni Center in Urbana, but if you are unable to attend we will post an open invitation to our Facebook page, so if you want a reminder or a notification of the livestream, just ‘like’ or follow us here. To learn more about the event, please use the link below: Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois | | | | | | | | | | | Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cline Center for Democracy news | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 15:57:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:57:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Anti-War Teach In reminder Message-ID: Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Foundation The corner of Oregon and Matthews, Urbana Saturday, September 23rd 1:00 - 5:00pm Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law (Illegalities) Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Costs of War & Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate U of I (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (US support for Dictatorships) Paula Bradshaw, Radio Show Host in Carbondale, Illinois Green Party ( Libya and Syria) Karen Aram (Coordinator/Facilitator) For info. contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 16:59:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:59:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Anti-War Teach In Message-ID: ANTI-WAR TEACH IN Saturday, Sept. 23,rd. (1:00am-5:00pm) CHANNING MURRAY Corner of Oregon & Matthews Hosted by (AWARE) the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign Urbana and (SEE) Students for Economic Empowerment UIUC, come join us for a teach-in about the dangers of US imperialism and its profit and resource fueled drives for conflict abroad Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Cost of War, Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (US Support for Dictatorships Around the World) Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party (US Interventions in Libya and Syria) For more information, contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 10:07:41 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:07:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Call Republican Senators today to block Graham-Cassidy so-called health care bill Message-ID: We all want universal health care in America. First, however, we have to fight off yet another Republican attempt to gut health care and throw 32 million Americans off the rolls of affordable and accessible health care. Graham -Cassidy is a last-ditch effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. It does neither. It will replace individual subsidies with block grants to states. It allows people with preexisting conditions to be charged 5 times more than others. It effectively ends Medicaid by 2027. Millions of Americans will lose health coverage. Graham-Cassidy is not health care. It's a slush fund. Call the following Republican Senators today: Shelley Moore-Capito WV 202-224-6472 Susan Collins ME 202-224-2523 Jeff Flake AZ 202-224-4521 Cory Gardner CO 202-224-5941 John McCain AZ 202-224-2235 Lisa Murkowski AK 202-224-6665 Rand Paul KY 202-224-4343 the only confirmed NO vote Rob Portman OH 202-224-3353 Pat Roberts KS 202-224-4774 Dan Sullivan AK 202-224-3004 If they object to you being out of state, remind them that e Senator's vote affects the whole country, the Senator takes money from out-of-state, and therefore should listen to voices across the country. We need all hands on deck once again to keep the health care we have in place. Thanks, Deb From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 19 13:23:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:23:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Cornel West, Chris Hedges, and Richard Wolf 2014 Message-ID: One of the most informative and interesting dialogs….. https://youtu.be/dMefZH1R9Rk From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Sep 19 15:57:40 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:57:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace] HP | Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, & Congress Should Vote Message-ID: Video and text from Rand Paul's denunciation of U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen on the Senate floor. Please help spread this, esp. to where Republicans will see it. Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, And Congress Should Vote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-unconstitution al-saudi-war-in-yemen-is-not_us_59c037f8e4b0f96732cbc872 === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 20:03:08 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace] HP | Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, & Congress Should Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rand Paul was also one of very few - 5 Ds, 3 Rs - who voted against who voted against the NDAA, with its $80 billion/year increase in military spending: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/18/the-senates-military-spending-increase-alone-is-enough-to-make-public-college-free/ (Those voting against the proposed NDAA yesterday, says the above article: Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Bob Corker (R-TN). Our own senators in IL voted in favor.) On 09/19/2017 10:57 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace wrote: > Video and text from Rand Paul's denunciation of U.S. participation in > the Saudi war in Yemen on the Senate floor. > > Please help spread this, esp. to where Republicans will see it. > > Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, > And Congress Should Vote > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-unconstitutional-saudi-war-in-yemen-is-not_us_59c037f8e4b0f96732cbc872 > > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 19 21:31:42 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace] HP | Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, & Congress Should Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rand Paul, introduced the repeal of the AUMF, and his speech before Congress he condemns all wars. Even if we don’t support his domestic policies, we must give him credit for taking on the warmongers in Congress. Following in his Fathers footsteps. On Sep 19, 2017, at 13:03, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: Rand Paul was also one of very few - 5 Ds, 3 Rs - who voted against who voted against the NDAA, with its $80 billion/year increase in military spending: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/18/the-senates-military-spending-increase-alone-is-enough-to-make-public-college-free/ (Those voting against the proposed NDAA yesterday, says the above article: Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Bob Corker (R-TN). Our own senators in IL voted in favor.) On 09/19/2017 10:57 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace wrote: Video and text from Rand Paul's denunciation of U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen on the Senate floor. Please help spread this, esp. to where Republicans will see it. Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, And Congress Should Vote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-unconstitutional-saudi-war-in-yemen-is-not_us_59c037f8e4b0f96732cbc872 === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Sep 20 02:35:10 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 02:35:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [Peace-discuss] FW: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences References: Message-ID: University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik on Monday. "The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the United States and the Democratic ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Sep 20 19:33:56 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:33:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace] JFP alert: Share Rand Paul's trashing of the Saudi war in Yemen Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Just Foreign Policy Date: Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:59 PM Subject: Share Rand Paul's trashing of the Saudi war in Yemen To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, Help us engage Republicans by sharing Rand Paul's denunciation of the Saudi war in Yemen. * View and share* Next week, the House comes back from recess. We expect a bipartisan group of House members to introduce a resolution invoking Congressional war powers to force a floor vote on ending U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. *Without U.S. participation, we believe that the Saudi war in Yemen cannot continue. * In order to win in the House, we don't need all the Republicans. We don't even need a majority of the Republicans. But we do need *some* Republicans. We need something like the 40 Republicans who joined 164 Democrats in June 2016 to vote to prohibit the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. That's why we're highlighting the opposition to the illegal and unconstitutional war of key "Republican validators." It's not because we're great admirers of Republicans in general. It's because without some Republican help, we have no path to victory. *Can you help us spread the word?* Please share *this piece* on social media. It contains video and text from Rand Paul's denunciation of the illegal Saudi war in Yemen on the Senate floor last week. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41989-rand-paul-uncons titutional-saudi-war-in-yemen-is-not-in-our-interest-and- congress-should-vote You can sign our petition to the House in support of forcing a floor vote here . https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns Just Foreign Policy If you think our work is important, support us with a $17 donation. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] © 2016 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 22 16:08:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:08:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [ufpj-activist] Intercept: Bernie Sanders: Saudi Arabia Is "Not An Ally"; U.S. Should Rethink Its Approach to Iran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Bernie also made a speech on "The Real News" which captures much of the same as captured by the Intercept, plus much more. It sounds really good, use of diplomacy instead of provocations and war. However, he insists on the usual propaganda of "Russian interference in US elections" accusing the Russians of supporting Assad because Assad is so awful, never mentioning US support for ISIS and our intervention in Syria which created the war and devastation there. He also refers to the criminal regime of North Korea and their actions, offering no solution to the problem, such as ending the Korean War, removing our troops from their border, ending our military exercises in the region, and removing our military bases and war ships from the South China Sea. He does speak out against the use of drones, now, perhaps because other nations possess them. He does say all the right things related to domestic issues as he did during his campaign last year. And, yes he urges staying with the agreement with Iran. However, his rhetoric supports our current foreign policy of containment of Russia and China, only focusing that which is in the past, documented and known by all. He refers to Iraq intervention as a "blunder" or mistake, as if we didn't know what we were doing. Nonsense, we knew exactly what we were doing, creating "chaos" in order to continue our proliferation of weapons, and eventually provide profit for our contractors, and control of all natural resources in the MENA. We are doing the same thing now in Burma/Myanmar, supplying weapons and training to the Rohingya Muslims to defend themselves against the military government who has been slaughtering their people. These minorities will become "cannon fodder" with their villages being burned to the ground as retaliation. It's another case of the US insisting a nation back away from deals with China or they may end up like Syria, Libya etc., etc. with destruction and " total chaos." ________________________________ From: ufpj-activist on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:29 AM To: ufpj-activist Subject: [ufpj-activist] Intercept: Bernie Sanders: Saudi Arabia Is "Not An Ally"; U.S. Should Rethink Its Approach to Iran https://theintercept.com/2017/09/21/bernie-sanders-interview-saudi-arabia-iran-trump/ BERNIE SANDERS: SAUDI ARABIA IS “NOT AN ALLY” AND THE U.S. SHOULD “RETHINK” ITS APPROACH TO IRAN Mehdi Hasan September 21 2017, 11:28 a.m. SAUDI ARABIA IS “not an ally of the United States,” according to Bernie Sanders, the independent senator and former Democratic presidential hopeful. Sanders broke with the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill in an exclusive interview with The Intercept. The United States has long considered Saudi Arabia to be a loyal friend, supporter, and partner in the so-called war on terror. Sanders issued a scathing denunciation of the Gulf kingdom, which has recently embarked on a new round of domestic repression. “I consider [Saudi Arabia] to be an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world, it has funded terrorism. … They are not an ally of the United States.” The Vermont senator accused the “incredibly anti-democratic” Saudis of “continuing to fund madrasas” and spreading “an extremely radical Wahhabi doctrine in many countries around the world.” “They are fomenting a lot of hatred,” he added. In June, Sanders joined 46 other senators in voting to try and block the sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-led coalition backed by the U.S. has been bombing Iranian-backed Houthi fighters in Yemen since 2015 and is accused of killing thousands of Yemeni civilians. Speaking to The Intercept, Sanders called for a “rethink, in terms of American foreign policy … vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia.” The senator suggested the United States should consider a pivot toward long-standing adversary Iran and away from traditional ally Saudi Arabia. The latter, he claimed, “has played a very bad role internationally, but we have sided with them time and time and time again, and yet Iran, which just held elections, Iran, whose young people really want to reach out to the West, we are … continuing to put them down.” Sanders said he had “legitimate concerns … about Iran’s foreign policy” but wanted a more “even-handed” approach from the United States to the “Iran and Saudi conflict.” In a wide-ranging interview ahead of his set-piece speech on foreign policy in Fulton, Missouri, on Thursday morning, the independent senator said the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and said he would be willing to consider voting to cut U.S. aid to the Jewish state. He also offered tentative support for a “face-to-face” meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un; described U.S. drone strikes against innocent civilians as one of the “root causes” of terrorism; and called for a re-examination of U.S. foreign policy “unilateralism.” Asked if he agreed with ESPN’s Jemele Hill and The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who have both called Trump a “white supremacist,” Sanders said he preferred to use the word “racist” to describe the president. “I think Donald Trump has strong racist tendencies,” he said. “And I say that not just because of his absurd and horrific remarks on Charlottesville, but because … when you lead the effort to try to de-legitimize … the first African-American president in our history, I think that’s racist. When you argue about the Central Park 5, I think that’s racist — so I think it’s fair to say he has strong racist tendencies.” The Intercept will publish the full interview with Sanders on Friday. === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 20:03:50 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:03:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace] "No War 2017: War and the Environment" livestream of conference in Germany In-Reply-To: <59c54dadc4fc6_5f7772bd8c3476711a@ip-10-0-0-142.mail> References: <59c54dadc4fc6_5f7772bd8c3476711a@ip-10-0-0-142.mail> Message-ID: <0df72176-42fa-e614-f42b-4adf6391542b@gmail.com> The live stream of this War and the Environment conference should be ongoing now - it started at 7pm Berlin time, which was noon Central Daylight Time. Saturday's and Sunday's sessions (9am - 9pm Berlin time) should be 2am - 2pm Central time on Sat and Sun here. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Live Stream of #NoWar2017 Starts Soon Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:51:42 +0000 (UTC) From: World Beyond War via ActionNetwork.org Reply-To: info at worldbeyondwar.org To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Action Network Email No War 2017: War and the Environment *September 22-24 Conference in **Washington, D.C.* *We will use Facebook Live to stream this conference. You do not need a Facebook account to watch it. To watch the livestream simply visit facebook.com/worldbeyondwar at the time of the conference. If you miss it you can watch it anytime later at the same page. Numerous groups around the world are organizing events to watch the livestream. You can do the same and let us know to help promote your event.* *Livestream event in Berlin Germany .* *WHO:* Speakers will include: Medea Benjamin, Nadine Bloch, Max Blumenthal, Natalia Cardona, Terry Crawford-Browne, Alice Day, Lincoln Day, Tim DeChristopher, Dale Dewar, Thomas Drake, Pat Elder, Dan Ellsberg, Bruce Gagnon, Will Griffin, Tiffany Jenkins, Tony Jenkins, Kathy Kelly, Jonathan King, Lindsay Koshgarian, James Marc Leas, Annie Machon, Ray McGovern, Rev Lukata Mjumbe, Bill Moyer, Elizabeth Murray, Emanuel Pastreich, Anthony Rogers-Wright, Alice Slater, Gar Smith, Edward Snowden (by video), Susi Snyder, Mike Stagg, Jill Stein, David Swanson, Robin Taubenfeld, Brian Terrell, Brian Trautman, Richard Tucker, Donnal Walter, Ann Wright, Emily Wurth, Kevin Zeese. *Read speakers’ bios. * Music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz , and by Emma’s Revolution , and by Bryan Cahall . *WHEN: *Friday, Sept 22: 7-10 p.m. Saturday, Sept 23: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. Sunday, Sept 24: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. Sponsors include: *EndWarForever.com* *Steve Shafarman* Dr. Art Milholland and Dr. Luann Mostello of Physicians for Social Responsibility Supporters of #NoWar2017 include: Nonviolence International, OnEarthPeace, WarIsACrime.org, DC 350.org, Peace Action Montgomery, and United for Peace and Justice. *AGENDA:* *Sept 22* 7:00-7:55 p.m. Conference Opening Plenary: David Swanson, Jill Stein, Tim DeChristopher. 7:55 p.m. music by Bryan Cahall. 8:10-10 p.m. Begining with Edward Snowden (by video) introduced by Elizabeth Murray, our friends from the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence will present an event with Elizabeth Murray, Annie Machon, Daniel Ellsberg (now by video), Thomas Drake, Ray McGovern, Ann Wright, John Kiriakou. (Note: Chelsea Manning sends regrets that she cannot attend as we had hoped, as does Seymour Hersh.) *Sept 23* 9-10:15 a.m. Understanding the intersection of pro-environment and anti-war activism, with Richard Tucker, Gar Smith, and Dale Dewar. Moderator: Leah Bolger 10:30-11:45 a.m. Preventing domestic environmental damage of militarism, with Mike Stagg, Pat Elder, James Marc Leas. Moderator: Pat Elder 11:45 a.m. – 1 p.m. catered lunch by D.C. Vegan 12:45 p.m. – 1 p.m. welcome back music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz . 1-2:15 p.m. Combining movements globally, with Robin Taubenfeld, Rev Lukata Mjumbe, Emily Wurth. Moderator: Mary Dean 2:30-3:45 p.m. Financial tradeoffs, budgets, and conversion, with Lindsay Koshgarian, Bruce Gagnon, Emanuel Pastreich, and Natalia Cardona. Moderator: Jean Athey 4:00-4:05 Presentation of World Beyond War’s new online Study Guide with Tony Jenkins. 4:05-5:15 p.m. Divestment from fossil fuels and weapons with Jonathan King, Susi Snyder, Terry Crawford-Browne. Moderator: Tony Jenkins 5:15-6:45 dinner on your own Here is a map showing restaurants and coffee shops on campus (PDF ). There are many more options just up Nebraska Avenue to Wisconsin Avenue and the area of the American University / Tenleytown Metro stop. A shuttlebus makes it easy to get there and back. 6:45-7:30 Music by Emma’s Revolution . 7:30-9:00 Screening of episode 7 of /Untold History of the United States/ , followed by discussion with Ray McGovern, David Swanson, and Dan Ellsberg (now by video). *Sept 24* 9-10:15 a.m. Creative activism for the earth and peace, with Nadine Bloch, Bill Moyer, Brian Trautman. Moderator: Alice Slater 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Breakout workshop strategic planning sessions in Recital Hall, and in Rooms 112, 115, 123, and 128, and possibly outdoors. Workshop 1: /How the Internet Changes Activism/ with Donnal Walter. Creating a culture of environmental responsibility, social justice, and peace requires viewing our individual efforts in continuity with the past and in cooperation with each other, all of us. What has greater potential for bringing the planet together than the World Wide Web? How can we as activists use the Web and social media to foster such collaboration? How do we tell a new story? And how do we use the global vision to motivate local action? The Internet is also known to contribute to division and polarization. How do we as activists resist /this/ tendency? Yes, bring your laptop. Workshop 2: /Creative activism/ with Nadine Bloch and Bill Moyer. Join Bill Moyer, Backbone , and Nadine Bloch, BeautifulTrouble for an exploration of strategic creative cultural resistance and action. This will be an interactive dive into what makes ‘best’ actions and ‘worst’ actions, with a look at core principles, theories, stories and tactics that every activist building for a more equitable and just world would want in their toolbox! Check out BeautifulTrouble.org and BackboneCampaign.org for more info. Workshop 3: /Educational Approaches to Foster Political Engagement for Peace and Planet/, with Tony Jenkins and Tiffany Jenkins. How do we move people from concern to engagement and action? This is a fundamental challenge of both the peace and environmental movements. This interactive workshop – intended for both educators and activists – will introduce practical, formal, and non-formal transformative educational theories, strategies and approaches intended to foster active social and political engagement. Workshop 4: /Don’t Bank on the Bomb: Divestment Campaign from Corporations Involved in the Manufacture and Maintenance of Nuclear Weapons,/ with Jonathan King, Alice Slater, Susi Snyder. These campaigns, which can be carried out by a small group, educate the public to the profits that are one of the driving forces for the continuation of nuclear weapons programs, and offers the possibility of bringing economic pressure in support of nuclear disarmament. The “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” campaign was developed in the Netherlands and operates throughout Europe.There the focus is on requesting investment funds to exclude corporations making nuclear weapons from their portfolios. Since the launch of that Campaign, 122 nations with a mandate from the UN General Assembly voted for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons which bans them and outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons, including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing, installation, and deployment. In the U.S. the nuclear weapons corporations are a much more significant component of the economy.The first successful campaign in the US was requesting the Cambridge City Council to ask its Municipal Pension Fund to divest from such corporations, in particular Lockheed-Martin. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has adapted a supportive resolution. Such campaigns can be directed at Pension Funds, College and University endowments, Church holdings, and related investments. The Future of Life Institute is leading the effort to make it easy for individuals to move their retirement and other personal investments out of funds that includes nuclear weapons manufacture in their portfolio. Workshop 5: /Closing Military Bases/ with Ann Wright, Will Griffin. The U.S. has 800 bases around the planet. These bases are provocations to the rest of the world. With so many bases the Department of Defense should be called the Department of Offense. U.S. military bases don’t just provoke other militaries, but they also displace entire communities, break democratic systems, violate human rights, destroy their environments, and so much more. But in response to these bases, struggles around the world have risen up and are fighting back against US imperialism. These are the struggles we can learn about and support to create an international citizens movement to close all foreign bases. 12-1 p.m. catered lunch by D.C. Vegan 1-2 p.m. Reporting back and discussion in Recital Hall. Moderator: Leah Bolger 2:15-3:30 p.m. Halting the environmental damage of distant U.S. wars, with Kathy Kelly, Brian Terrell, Max Blumenthal. Moderator: Bob Fantina 3:45-5:00 p.m. Building a Joint Peacenvironmentalist / Envirantiwar Movement, with Kevin Zeese, Anthony Rogers-Wright, Medea Benjamin. Moderator: Donnal Walter 5:00-6:30 p.m. dinner on your own Here is a map showing restaurants and coffee shops on campus (PDF ). There are many more options just up Nebraska Avenue to Wisconsin Avenue and the area of the American University / Tenleytown Metro stop. A shuttlebus makes it easy to get there and back. 6:30-7:15 Music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz . 7:15-9:00 p.m. Film screening and discussion: /Scarred Lands and Wounded Lives: The Environmental Footprint of War/ , with Alice Day and Lincoln Day. ** Action Network Sent via Action Network, a free online toolset anyone can use to organize. Click here to sign up and get started building an email list and creating online actions today. Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes. We encourage responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper action. We do not control or endorse the conduct of users and make no representations of any kind about them. You can unsubscribe or update your email address by changing your subscription preferences here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 15:04:19 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 10:04:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] *Anti-War Teach-In* /Sponsored by/* * *Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE)* *Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE)* Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so *Opening remarks* Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE *1:10 p.m.* Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party* Q & A* *2:10 p.m.* Brief statements by student groups *2:25 p.m.* Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate* Q & A* *3:25 p.m.* Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine *3:40 p.m.* Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU)* * *Final Q & A * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 01:18:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:18:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Professor Francis Boyle"s Speech In-Reply-To: References: <438EF415F313C647B9F9B4DF29FE77C34BFDABBB@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu>, Message-ID: Todays Anti War Speech ________________________________ Light at the End of the Tunnel By Professor Francis A. Boyle Peace Teach-In University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign September 23, 2017 © Copyright 2017 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this paper the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. After September 11, 2001 the people of the world witnessed successive governments in the United States that have demonstrated little respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, and the United States Constitution. Instead, the world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by gangs of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the U.S. government’s foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and United States domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950), as well as the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offences of “crimes against peace”—e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, drone strikes, etc. Furthermore, various officials of the United States government have committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right: planning, and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the terrible irony of today’s situation is that seven decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment, and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that these officials of the United States government currently inflict upon Peoples of Color all over the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes, whether they be Saddam Hussein, Bush Junior, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have known of the commission of these international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very top of America’s criminal chain-of-command the President, the Vice-President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A. Director, National Security Advisor and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff along with the appropriate Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and now U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of 1956. Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to “defense” and “counter-terrorism.” They are the terrorists! They terrorize the entire world! For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order to demand that U.S. government officials adhere to basic principles of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of foreign affairs and military operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to constitute classic instances of "civil disobedience" as historically practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for those who knowingly engage in “civil disobedience” has always been that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Today’s civil resisters are the sheriffs! The U.S. government officials are the outlaws! Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart, prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by officials of the U.S. government under well‑recognized principles of international and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope Americans have to prevent the U.S. government from moving even farther down the paths of lawless violence in Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, military interventionism into Latin America, and nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China. Such measures of "civil resistance" must not be confused with, and indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of "civil disobedience" as traditionally defined. In today’s civil resistance cases, what we witness are American citizens attempting to prevent the ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law. This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast, today’s civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and international law. Applying the term “civil disobedience” to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely exonerates the U.S. government criminals. Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast, U.S. government officials grossly violated fundamental principles of international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government! Today the American people must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding their government officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic crimes. They must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged “war criminals” according to the U.S. government’s own official definition of that term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, inter alia. The American people must insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes. If not so restrained by civil resistance, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War. That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today! The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go! This is our Nuremberg Moment now! Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 02:08:10 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral arguments and we won!  This is great for all minor parties in Illinois!  Hallelujah! Dianna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IllinoisBallotaccessOpinionfrom7thCircuit.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 195083 bytes Desc: not available URL: From james.manrique at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 03:19:17 2017 From: james.manrique at gmail.com (James M) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 22:19:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates? On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral > arguments and we won! This is great for all minor parties in Illinois! > Hallelujah! > > Dianna > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 03:40:51 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> I'm not aware of any news articles.  I will send it to Tom Kacich in hopes that his editors will let him report on it. Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover it.  And Michael Madigan is probably peeved. I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party. Dianna On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M wrote: I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates? On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral arguments and we won!  This is great for all minor parties in Illinois!  Hallelujah! Dianna ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niloofar.peace at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 04:56:58 2017 From: niloofar.peace at gmail.com (Niloofar Shambayati) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 23:56:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Would be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties too! On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I'm not aware of any news articles. I will send it to Tom Kacich in hopes > that his editors will let him report on it. > > Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover it. > And Michael Madigan is probably peeved. > > I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party. > > Dianna > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M < > james.manrique at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, > this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. > Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How > long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates? > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral > arguments and we won! This is great for all minor parties in Illinois! > Hallelujah! > > Dianna > > ______________________________ _________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 15:37:16 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1163482177.8235598.1506267436569@mail.yahoo.com> I don't have contact info for those folks, so feel free to spread the news. Dianna On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 11:57:39 PM CDT, Niloofar Shambayati wrote: Would be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties too! On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: I'm not aware of any news articles.  I will send it to Tom Kacich in hopes that his editors will let him report on it. Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover it.  And Michael Madigan is probably peeved. I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party. Dianna On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M wrote: I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates? On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral arguments and we won!  This is great for all minor parties in Illinois!  Hallelujah! Dianna ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 18:32:13 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:32:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace] (local) Neighborhood Approaches to Environmental Justice Message-ID: Dear Peace, Some of you might be interested in this talk. pace e bene, -karen medina - "Neighborhood Approaches to Environmental Justice" Friday Forum* at the Y / 1001 S. Wright St., Champaign, Illinois Friday, September 29, 2017, 12noon Speaker: Lierman Neighborhood Action Committee and the 5th and Hill Neighborhood Rights Campaign "About the Speakers: The Lierman Neighborhood Action committee is a group of citizens working to improve the east Urbana neighborhoods around Lierman Ave. & Washington St. "The 5th & Hill Neighborhood Rights Campaign is dedicated to protecting the health of the neighborhood residents and the rights of the community in relation to the toxic site owned by Ameren, located at 5th and Hill Streets in Champaign. The Campaign is made up of 5th and Hill neighborhood residents, former residents, community members, and organizations who care environmental justice and rights, and the health and safety of all community members." --- Getting there: *By Bus* Bus Lines: Yellow, Navy, Blue, Silver, Brown, Illini Nearby Bus Stops: Transit Plaza, Wright & Chalmers, Armory & Wright *By Car -- Parking Nearby:* Parking lot on 6th between Daniel & Chalmers – Free after 5pm. Parking garage on 6th & John – Free after 5pm. Street parking on Wright, Chalmers, & 6th Streets for 75¢ per hour. Municipal lot on Green & 5th Streets for $1 per hour. --- * The title for the Fall 2017 Friday Forum series is "Building a Better Environmental Movement" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Mon Sep 25 14:08:22 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism In-Reply-To: <408444805.2725193.1504548891757@mail.yahoo.com> References: <408444805.2725193.1504548891757.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <408444805.2725193.1504548891757@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1812960111.8083889.1506348502790@mail.yahoo.com> This lecture has been reworked.  The new description is on he Center for Advanced Study website: The Educational Needs of Erstwhile Humans: Identity Fluidity in a Post-Work World | CAS | | | | The Educational Needs of Erstwhile Humans: Identity Fluidity in a Post-W... | | | ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dianna Visek via Peace To: Peace List Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017, 1:15:32 PM CDTSubject: [Peace] Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism CAS Initiative-David Blacker - Event Type - Lecture - Sponsor - Center for Advanced Study - Location - Levis Faculty Center-Room 210; 919 West Illinois Street; Urbana - Date - Sep 25, 2017   4:00 pm   - Speaker - David Blacker; Professor of Philosophy of Education and Legal Studies Program, University of Delaware - Cost - Free and Open to the Public - E-Mail - cas at cas.illinois.edu - Phone - 217-333-6729 - Views - 3 - Originating Calendar - Center for Advanced Study - Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism Characterized by historic commitments to egalitarianism, the political left implicitly positions itself as moral educator to the public at large. As presently conceived, however, this enterprise has become antiquated. As decent durable jobs become scarcer and individuals more economically disposable, human identities are becoming more fluid, disconnecting from their erstwhile vocational anchors. In this context, the political left's educative capacity is structurally limited by its reluctance to confront its own philosophical contingencies, as its field of action is increasingly drained of shared comprehensive conceptions. In this setting of collective meaning deficit, an overly thin egalitarian imaginary is guaranteed to fail long-term. Yet public education in the grand sense is not impossible. This lecture describes several possibilities for the needed reconstruction. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 14:28:41 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:28:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Presentation by Carl Estabrook at SEE & AWARE's Anti-War Teach In Message-ID: Remarks for the ANTI-WAR TEACH-IN sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) and the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE), September 23, 2017 U.S. WAR-MAKING SINCE WORLD WAR II: WHAT HAVE WE DONE, AND WHY? [Q: Why have US presidents killed more than 20 million people since 1945? A: Ask Halford Mackinder*.] 1. When the Second World War ended, in 1945, the US was the only major undamaged country, among the victors or the vanquished. It’s a US propaganda myth that it was the US who won the war against Germany (and an even greater myth that we did it to save Jews). The war in Europe was won by the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million citizens; the US in comparison lost less than a half million in the entire war. Even German casualties were less than a third of the Russian dead. 2. Even after the US belatedly joined the war in Europe by invading France in 1944, the great majority of German troops remained on the eastern front, against Russia. The US government attitude toward the war had been candidly expressed by the unlikely man who became the 33rd president of the US, Harry Truman: when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, Truman said, “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible...” 3. But with the ending of the war in 1945, US government planners - who, in the State Department and the Council of Foreign Relations, had been planning for US economic control of the post-war world since before Pearl Harbor - had a serious problem: the Great Depression, that had produced the Roosevelt administration and the economic reforms of the New Deal, had been ended, not by those reforms, but by war-time production; that is what bought back the jobs lost in the 1930s. But with the ending of the war, there was every indication that the Depression would come back. 4. Military production was the answer, but with the defeat of Germany and Japan, the US public was happy to see the end of war. The US public is historically anti-war: they had to be tricked, propagandized, and forced into both the First and Second World Wars, by the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, respectively. They wanted no more war in 1945. 5. The solution was offered to President Truman by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Arthur Vandenberg, who urged the president to present the threat of Soviet expansionism to Congress and the nation in the starkest of terms. The only way to get renewed military spending Vandenberg advised, was to “make a personal appearance before Congress and scare the hell out of the American people.” On March 12, 1947, Truman, before a joint session of the House and Senate, did just that, painting the picture of a world teetering toward communist domination. In articulating a set of principles—later known as the Truman Doctrine—the president declared: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." 6. That may remind you of a presidential comment from this past week, 70 years after Truman’s, but it was nonsense then: At that time, half of the mechanized divisions of the exhausted Russian army were horse-drawn - but that mattered little: the Cold War was launched, and the US government had a cover story for becoming what ML King called it - “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” 7. Truman “governed the country with the cooperation of a small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers" - so said Samuel Huntington, professor of the Science of Government [sic] at Harvard (Huntington was called ‘Mad Dog’ long before the present Secretary of Defense, General Mattis), but Truman and his successors also had a way to control the only enemy modern American presidents really fear - American public opinion. Australian social scientist Alex Carey wrote, ”The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance : the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." 8. The Cold War propaganda of 70 years ago was new, but the goal of US foreign policy was not; it remains the same today. We sometimes regard US foreign policy as “blundering attempts to do good,” as the NYT’s liberal columnist said about the Vietnam war, after it ended. But the truth is that at least since the Open Door policy of 1899, the cynosure of American planners has been Eurasia. The bedrock of US foreign policy since the 19th century has been the prevention of the economic integration of Eurasia, under whatever auspices, for fear that it would delimit the world-wide profits of the American economic elite, the 1%. 9. That’s what the Second World War in the Pacific was about - the defeat of Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” And America’s vicious wars in Korea and Vietnam were in aid of maintaining the economic control that the US had won in Asia in WWII. 10. That is today at the heart of the Obama and Trump administration’s war provocations against the Russia-China-Iran triad, who threaten once again the American bete noire, the economic integration of Eurasia, now most clearly in China’s Belt and Road initiative. 11. Since the Second World War, American presidents have killed between 20 and 30 million people in pursuit of that goal. And a subsidiary goal has been the control of world energy flows, principally from the Mideast, which has provided the US with a chokehold over competing economies in Europe and Asia, most notably over China. The US has shown itself willing to kill a lot of people for that. 12. The Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War (and even more obviously the parallel Tokyo Trials), in which officials of the defeated governments, Germany and Japan, were tried and hanged by the US and allied governments, were of course ‘victors’ justice’: one can easily imagine a reversed scenario, had the war ended differently. But in order to execute enemy officials, the US had to create law - law which also condemned the future behavior of the principal victor of the war, the US government. 13. The ‘International Military Tribunal for Germany,’ as it was called, declared at Nuremberg in 1946 (Sep. 30) that “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." 14. Wars of aggression - that is, not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council - are thus wars without international legality - indeed, the are “the supreme international crime.” And under that standard, the supreme international criminal in our lifetimes is the government of the United States. 15. It has been pointed out that all post-WWII US presidents would have been hanged, if they had been tried by a Nuremberg Tribunal, because they all launched aggressive war. 16. That most of America’s violence across the world has been perpetrated not by Republicans, or mutants like Trump, but by liberal Democrats, remains a taboo [subject]. 17. Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record, including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama’s overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia’s western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941. 18. Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ in 2011 signalled the transfer of the majority of America’s naval and air forces to Asia and the Pacific for no purpose other than to confront and provoke China. The Nobel Peace Laureate’s worldwide campaign of assassinations is arguably the most extensive campaign of terrorism since 9/11. 19. What is known in the US as ‘the left’ has effectively allied with the darkest recesses of institutional power, notably the Pentagon and the CIA, to see off a peace deal between Trump and Vladimir Putin and to reinstate Russia as an enemy, on the basis of no evidence of its alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election. 20. The poets often get there first. The playwright Harold Pinter said, when he received the Nobel Prize in 2005, “The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them... 21. ”The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people. We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death ... [and we] call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’... 22. “The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. 23. “The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries ... The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. 24. “You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.” 25. That’s Harold Pinter, a dozen years ago. At this moment the US is making war and killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these WARS, although most Americans are not aware of it. 26. In addition, the 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads. 27. Why is our government terrorizing the world to the point that international polls show the US is by far the most feared country in the world - not Russia, China, N. Korea, or Iran? The answer is simple and horrible. The US is killing people to protect the profits of the 1%, the American economic elite. 28. The US government used the crimes of 9-11 as an excuse to carry on its wars in the Mideast. The US government says it is fighting terrorism, but it is in fact killing people in order to control Mideast oil - what the US State Department called in 1945 “the world’s greatest material prize.” 29. The US doesn’t need Mideast oil - what we use here comes principally from the US, Canada, Venezuela, and Nigeria - but control of oil from SW Asia and N Africa gives the US a choke-hold over economic rivals, from Germany to China. 30. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the US government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it... _________________________________ * Sir Halford John Mackinder PC (1861-1947) was an English academic, a founder of geopolitics and geostrategy. His 1904 article, "The Geographical Pivot of History," proposed his ‘Heartland Theory’: According to Mackinder, the Earth's land surface consists of ~ the world-island, the interlinked continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa - the largest, most populous, and richest of all possible land combinations; ~ the offshore islands, including the British Isles and the islands of Japan; and ~ the outlying islands, including North America, South America, and Australia. The Heartland lay at the center of the world-island, stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic. In 1919, Mackinder summarized his theory as "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." (He may have been wrong about East Europe: it seems now that the command of the Heartland may be coming from the other direction.) The bedrock of US foreign policy, at least since the Open Door Policy (1899), has been to prevent the economic integration of the ‘Heartland,’ under whatever auspices, which was seen as a threat to the profits of the US economic elite. That’s what the unpleasantness with the Japanese in the 1940s was all about - and why the greatest set-back to the American ruling elite (and at the very moment of its complete triumph) was the ‘loss of China,’ in 1949, which accomplished the much-feared exclusion of US economic exploitation from Eurasia. (US wars in Korea and Indochina were attempts to maintain that exploitation, at least in east and southeast Asia; as such, those wars were successful, even if the US did not attain its maximum war aims.) Most modern US foreign policy (including the generations-long attempt to control energy flows from the Mideast, as a choke-hold on Asian economies) can be inferred from a Mackinderesque outlook. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 15:51:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:51:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Right to Resist War & Empire's event. Message-ID: Just now Greg Butterfield shared Right to Resist War & Empire's event. 16 years following the US invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the so-called war on terror, the longest war in US history has no end in sight. While the mainstream media would have us believe that the current rise of militarism in the US is a Trump phenomenon, we know that the violence of the US war machine is bipartisan, that by the end of Obama's second term the US was bombing seven Muslim-majority nations on any given day. On October 7 it's important that we come together to demand and end to this war of terror. But beyond condemning US imperialism, we are called upon to connect our local struggles against surveillance, criminalization, police occupation, raids, deportations, gentrification and displacement, to the global struggle against US empire. OCT 7 October 7th Rally to Resist War and Empire Sat 1 PM EDT · 34th and 6th Avenue, New York, NY Shared to International Action Center -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niloofar.peace at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 21:25:11 2017 From: niloofar.peace at gmail.com (Niloofar Shambayati) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:25:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Don't miss . . Symposium on Iran-US Relations !!! In-Reply-To: <1230592263.40568.1506372759871@tardis-app3.cites.illinois.edu> References: <1230592263.40568.1506372759871@tardis-app3.cites.illinois.edu> Message-ID: A not-to-miss symposium, especially as the competition between Democrats and Republicans over who's more hawkish against Iran is nearing the finish line! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Date: Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:52 PM Subject: Don't miss . . Symposium on Iran-US Relations !!! To: niloofar.peace at gmail.com Click here to see this online [image: Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies] *address:* 910 South Fifth Street, Champaign, IL 61820 • *phone:* (217) 244-7331 • *email:* csames at illinois.edu College of Liberal Arts & Sciences • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Subscribe Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 23:08:40 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:08:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Keep calling Republican Senators on Graham-Cassidy Message-ID: <2C2C29FD-924F-4DD9-9305-C47074BAE735@gmail.com> Call Sens Paul, McCain,and Collins to thank them for opposing it. Call Sens Murkowski, Sullivan, Moran, Portman, and Toomey to urge them to oppose the latest version. This bill won't die until Sept 30. If staffer asks where you are calling from tell them and add that as long as the Senator accepts out-of-state money he/she needs to hear out-of-state opinions. Thanks Deb Sent from my iPhone From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Sep 28 15:21:56 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:21:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Foreign Policy: Lawmakers Demand U.S. Withdrawal From Saudi-led War in Yemen Message-ID: The issue is joined. Please help spread this all around. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/28/lawmakers-demand-u-s-wit hdrawal-from-saudi-led-war-in-yemen/ Lawmakers Demand U.S. Withdrawal From Saudi-led War in Yemen Bipartisan bill proposes halting military assistance to air war in Yemen unless Congress votes on U.S. role. BY DAN DE LUCE, SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 Four lawmakers have introduced a bipartisan bill that would halt U.S. military assistance to the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen on grounds that Congress has never approved the American role in the war. Two House Republicans and two Democrats submitted the bill on Wednesday evening, but other lawmakers have already conveyed their support for the measure, congressional aides told Foreign Policy. The bill requires “the removal” of U.S. forces from the war in Yemen unless and until Congress votes to authorize the American assistance. For more than two years, the United States military has provided aerial refueling tankers and intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition waging war against Houthi rebels backed by Iran. “We aim to restore Congress as the constitutionally mandated branch of government that may declare war and retain oversight over it,” two sponsors, Democrats Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, wrote in a letter to colleagues, obtained by FP. Although the bipartisan bill is unlikely to secure a majority in the House, it underscores growing concerns over Saudi Arabia’s handling of the war that is now at a stalemate on the battlefield. And it reflects growing unease at Congress over the U.S. role there, following previous attempts by lawmakers this year to rein in arms sales or other military assistance to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and their Gulf partners backing the Yemeni government. Both Republicans and Democrats have accused the Gulf coalition of delaying or blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid to Yemen and criticized the Saudi-led states for bombing raids that have hit schools and hospitals and killed and wounded large numbers of civilians. As a result of the war, more than seven million people are on the verge of starvation in Yemen, U.N. officials say, and the country faces an unprecedented cholera outbreak that has spread at an alarming rate in only seven months. “It’s beyond time for the country to stop conducting refueling for missions over Yemen,” Khanna, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told FP in an email. “Congress and the American people know too little about the role we are playing in a war that is causing suffering for millions of people and is a genuine threat to our national security,” he said. The two Republican co-sponsors of the bill, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, are both conservatives who have called for upholding Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war. Pocan, the Wisconsin Democrat, said it was time for Congress to end the U.S. role in “this senseless, unauthorized conflict. “ The authors of the bill also argued that assistance to the coalition bombing in Yemen was harming U.S. security interests, by creating conditions that enabled al Qaeda and Islamic State to bolster their presence in the country. The proposed legislation will help “in reducing a genuine threat to national security posed by the expansion of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and promises to assist in ending the senseless suffering of millions of innocent people in Yemen,” according to the text of the bill. The bill cites a 2016 State Department report on terrorism in Yemen, which found that al Qaeda and Islamic State militants have benefited from the country’s “security vacuum” and exploited sectarian tensions between the Sunni Yemeni government and the Shiite Houthi rebels. The bill does not seek to end U.S. counterterrorism operations — including drone strikes — against al Qaeda or Islamic State branches in Yemen, which date back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The Saudi-led coalition launched its air war in Yemen in March 2015 after Houthi rebels backed by Tehran ousted the government led by president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Anxious over its image, Saudi Arabia has invested in an extensive public relations effort in Washington to counter criticism of the air war in Yemen and its obstruction of humanitarian aid deliveries to Sanaa airport and the country’s main port in Hodeida. Riyadh has argued that it had to intervene to defend itself against Iranian-backed and armed Houthi rebels who have fired rockets across its border. And it accuses Houthi forces of diverting aid from the Hodeida port, though international relief organizations have not confirmed those allegations. The Saudi-led coalition has come under intense scrutiny in Congress over its refusal since January to permit the delivery of four cranes financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development to the port of Hodeida. The World Food Programme and other aid groups say the cranes are crucial for unloading emergency food and medical supplies from ships arriving at the port amid a mounting humanitarian catastrophe. The blockade on the cranes violates international law and the Geneva Conventions, human rights groups say. And by continuing to provide military assistance to the coalition, the United States could be violating U.S. law, according to a legal opinion from the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights. The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits aid to governments that directly or indirectly block the transport of U.S. humanitarian assistance, unless the president certifies to Congress that it is in the security interests of the United States, it said. === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 20:42:49 2017 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:42:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Friday: Symposium on Iran-US Relations at UIUC - Trita Parsi is keynote Message-ID: For those who have participated in activism around promoting diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran, I hope that the fact that Trita Parsi is giving the keynote address will be particularly interesting. NIAC and Trita in particular have been key leaders in supporting diplomacy with Iran since the Bush Administration. And, in particular, Trita is one of the most prominent spokespeople in the camp of people who not only want to preserve the Iran nuclear deal, but want to promote diplomacy and de-escalation between the U.S. and Iran more generally, i.e. cooperating to de-escalate and resolve regional conflicts like Yemen and Syria, as opposed to the Jake Sullivan-Michele Flournoy-Hillary camp who support the nuclear deal but want to escalate "proxy wars" in Yemen and Syria. *From:* Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies [mailto: csames at illinois.edu] *Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2017 3:53 PM *Subject:* Don't miss . . Symposium on Iran-US Relations !!! Click here to see this online [image: Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies] *address:* 910 South Fifth Street, Champaign, IL 61820 • *phone:* (217) 244-7331 • *email:* csames at illinois.edu College of Liberal Arts & Sciences • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Fri Sep 29 21:02:52 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] articles about our lawsuit References: <2023201387.766933.1506718972924.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2023201387.766933.1506718972924@mail.yahoo.com> http://ballot-access.org/?s=illinois&x=10&y=11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: