Does it not seem like our current situation is an attempt to ... expand ... but in a different way? Expand not our borders, but our influence and our area of permenant exploitation. Who needs to expand our borders anyway eh, if we do that then we might actually have to give a shit about their welfare since they would then be americans.

Posted by Memnoch - December 25, 2003 11:30 PM

I agree that Manifest Destiny was one of the earliest forms of exploitation in Mexico, and it was certainly clear then as it was today that owning the upper part, rich in resources and landmass, was just as good as owning the whole thing when we could manipulate their country from our own borders. Like you said, we can take their riches now, and not own their people. But then again, it's not like we care too much for the poor in our own nation anyway. Our welfare system is a joke.

C-Span mentioned today that Bush plans to decrease limits on legal immigration from Mexico. Skeptics see this as an attempt to roll momentum for his presidency though the Hispanic communities in the United States. I just love the way that, even though they are knocked down, exploited, forgotten, and left behind, the lower rungs of society still get back up and support Bush and his Republican ideology. I see it as the greatest mystery of all in America today. How easy we disregard, forget, or overlook the past actions.

In a recent ZNet article, Chomsky called this idea the "doctrine of change of course," which he said is invoked in America every few years. The idea that, "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff." I just can't believe the stuff we dig up when we open a book that isn't designed for a classroom. It totally blows me away.

I really love reading A Peoples History, but I wish I had a lot more time to dig through whole books on the subjects covered in each of the chapters. I'm only 200 pages into the book, out of 700, but I'm thinking about buying it. It's so simply stated, and is filled with so many sources, quotes, and citations. It's just a really good read.

Posted by Adam - December 26, 2003 02:10 PM

Adam:

I have a copy of Zinn's lectures on the college circuit. It's humorous and insightful. I'm making Daniel a copy.

Every act of aggression of the US has been either economic in origin (to gain or keep open part of the economic machinery of America) OR to "save" the "white" Americans in Texas from the dominion of "nonwhite" foreign infidels. Which is why we kept Texas, because of all of the "real Americans" who had violated the trust of the Mexican government and had imbedded themselves in the area already part of Mexico. We would never keep any part that had a preponderance of a population in those areas that was "nonwhite" (unless there was some HUGE economic advantage.
Our country has long wanted the economic privileges that come with colonialism without the downside of governance. We can exert the pressure of the almighty dollar without the "excess" of civil disorder and chaos. We govern by controlling the desire for the "conveniences" of affluence by the hegemonic elite of the countries involved (ala Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD). The affluence America offers is like Huxley's SOMA--the mind numbing drug used to keep the rabble at bay and occupied. Case in point--Libya. They're looking for the "better life" that kaotowing to America will bring.

Posted by Skip Didier - December 29, 2003 09:08 PM