Michael Parenti -- Spanish American War 3/3

THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR AND THE RISE OF US IMPERIALISM!

Michael Parenti uses the history of the Spanish American War to answer several very intriguing questions. Who first expressed the desire to annex the island of Cuba - and when? Why was the US government concerned about Spanish repression of the rights of Cubans while the repression of African Americans within the US was ignored? Why did the US attack the Philippines when it was Cuba they supposedly wanted to rescue? Why did the US give verbal support to the Cuban liberation movements against Spain while selling weapons to Spain to fight the popular movement? The Spanish American War was an important turning point in the transition of the US to an imperial power and many of the forces at work are eerily contemporary.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Nicholas Baldion]

ahh death to the empire

!!!

[Jonathan Ventures]

That's all you got is an ad hominen? That's not an argument it's a fallacy which indicates you have nothing to say...

[parhhesia]

Its not so strange that some black leaders would be generally supportive of US foreign policy, since they had so few friends in Washington; even MLK supported the Vietnam war in its earlier years. To the extent that there was supporter in the broader black community, it may have centred around the false impression that the US intended to liberate the Cubans. Parenti's not a hack; he uses the point to show the inherent hypocrisy of the imperialist's stated concern for the oppressed Cubans.

[gamerunknown]

While the author of the article must have reviewed a considerable portion of the literature, he doesn't specify where the position that blacks were "clearly ambivalent" came from. I'd assume that Parenti would claim that the business press (even with a black readership) would attempt to promote the cause of war, just as Chomsky holds that memos showing Middle Eastern establishment fear of Iran didn't translate to public fear. I agree that blanket statements = revisionism.

[gamerunknown]

Well, it's an interesting resource but it doesn't refute the class basis of his thesis. According to the article on black participation which cited numerous sources (though I wish it would use inline citations too), the anti-imperialist black press was hostile to the war (unsurprisingly). The imperial group held the bizarre racial theory that black soldiers would be better in tropical conditions and the few black regiments were shipped off first.

[gamerunknown]

Well, it's pretty clear he's doing a Marxist analysis of history so that colours his view. I'd be more interested in reading an article from both of you where sources are cited: he'd probably cite worker's newspapers, you'd cite the few black businessmen and their journals. Fifty years down the line will we hold that the black community was divided on the civil rights issue because of Thomas Sowell and Herman Cain?

[gamerunknown]

That doesn't contradict what he said at all: he referred to black publications that he'd obviously read. One thing that he referred to was that the black business press said that those that couldn't vote should be exempt from fighting in the war. Those that would benefit financially from it would support it though.

[98bigbutt]

The people that Parenti just mentioned are the 1% of the wealthy people that really rule the USA and caused the deaths of millions of people worldwide for their corporations around the world.

[FaaarLeft]

The big picture is both accurate and obfuscated.

[RPenta]

A country which refuses to acknowledge its real history is doomed to follow the course of force, fraud, and folly. Why? Because the people think that they are always right, always victimized, always innocent, and always the target for evil and cunning enemies. Therefore, any actions in defense are justified and all other concerns are shunted aside for security.

Sounds like any country you live in?

[avalsonline]

ok, you have failed o answer my initial question, so let me ask you another one. are you a fool or a zealot? are you simply ignorant of the facts? or do you know the history and are simply compelled by your politics to ignore it? next time you decide to criticise someone, check your facts.

[avalsonline]

I will ask you for the third and final time. for the sake of discussion, please tell me what parenti said that was hateful or untrue. please support your claim.