Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Wasn't Polk the one who engineered the annihilation of the native population? Or has primary responsibility at any rate.

Bob,

     I know more about Native American history out here in the West (Arapahoe, Cheyenne, Sioux, Ute, Apache, etc.) than in the Eastern U.S.  I know that Andrew Jackson was a prime mover in the wars and forced ex-patriation of the Five Civilized Nations, Indian Removal Act, (1830) and "Trail of Tears."   James Polk was, of course, a Jackson protégé, and the displacement of Eastern tribes continued during Polk's one-term Presidency.

    The truth is that American history from the early 17th century to the 20th witnessed a continuous process of annihilation and displacement of indigenous Native Americans from the East Coast to the Pacific, terminating in Arizona's Apache Wars of the 1870s.

    No doubt, Polk's acquisition of the Western U.S. after Guadalupe-Hidalgo contributed to the mass genocide and confiscation of Native American territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    The truth is that American history from the early 17th century to the 20th witnessed a continuous process of annihilation and displacement of indigenous Native Americans from the East Coast to the Pacific, terminating in Arizona's Apache Wars of the 1870s.

 

W.,

For me, the Indian Wars ended with the surrender of Chief Joseph in northern Montana in October, 1877.

Steve Thomas

Edited by Steve Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump just fired Bill Barr (12/14/20) effective 2/23/20..

It was nice and polite and everything. He's leaving to spend more time with his family.

I wonder if John Durham's investigation was starting to turn up things Trump wants to keep hidden.

Steve Thomas

Edited by Steve Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Trump just fired Bill Barr (12/14/20) effective 2/23/20..

It was nice and polite and everything. He's leaving to spend more time with his family.

I wonder if John Durham's investigation was starting to turn up things Trump wants to keep hidden.

Steve Thomas

     My wife and I were talking this morning about the Electoral College votes and I said, "I'll bet Trump will create some headline-grabbing distraction later today around the time that they announce Biden's victory."

    Right on cue, WaPo bumped their lead story about Biden's win with the story of Barr getting sh*t-canned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff said: Absolutely the world would have been perennially changed if JFK had served two terms.  Are you arguing that Nixon would have won in 1968 regardless?

No I don't think Nixon.. But Jeff, you're enough of an American" Deep State" guy to know that LBJ would have been no more of a "dove' in Viet Nam than Nixon, given what LBJ as President eventually did do!

Maybe I'm getting ahead of your thinking, but It sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions.

Why are you so sure that JFK would have been so successful? . Do you really think that JFK would have been such a slam dunk as a President that for example, the blacks would have forgotten all their cares and not rioted through out the mid to later 60's purely on the power of JFK's charisma? Even that was done after LBJ's civil rights legislation that JFK probably could  never have accomplished.

JFK wouldn't have gotten tremendous popular support for avoiding Viet Nam because we never would have known what a disaster VIetnam was until we actually went there. It's only through living through that war , that we can give JFK credit, but that's in hindsight!

I'm not sure where you're going Jeff. You probably think Bobby would have been a shoo in. I might have liked that. But you realize the only reason Bobby was first considered as an executive at all, was the through the incredible power of martyrdom through his brother's death, as you saw through the huge ovation at the 1964 Demo convention. Remember, by 1964, Bobby had never even  run for public office and eventually was rather timid and late to even challenge LBJ.in 1968! (after Eugene Mc Carthy) Even after it was so obvious how badly LBJ had botched things in Viet Nam! But there wouldn't even have been  that martyrdom factor if JFK hadn't been assassinated!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff said: Absolutely the world would have been perennially changed if JFK had served two terms.  Are you arguing that Nixon would have won in 1968 regardless?

No I don't think Nixon.. But Jeff, you're enough of an American" Deep State" guy to know that LBJ would have been no more of a "dove' in Viet Nam than Nixon, given what LBJ as President eventually did do!

Maybe I'm getting ahead of your thinking, but It sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions.

Why are you so sure that JFK would have been so successful? . Do you really think that JFK would have been such a slam dunk as a President that for example, the blacks would have forgotten all their cares and not rioted through out the mid to later 60's purely on the power of JFK's charisma? Even that was done after LBJ's civil rights legislation that JFK probably could  never have accomplished.

JFK wouldn't have gotten tremendous popular support for avoiding Viet Nam because we never would have known what a disaster VIetnam was until we actually went there. It's only through living through that war , that we can give JFK credit, but that's in hindsight!

I'm not sure where you're going Jeff. You probably think Bobby would have been a shoo in. I might have liked that. But you realize the only reason Bobby was first considered as an executive at all, was the through the incredible power of martyrdom through his brother's death, as you saw through the huge ovation at the 1964 Demo convention. Remember, by 1964, Bobby had never even  run for public office and eventually was rather timid and late to even challenge LBJ.in 1968! (after Eugene Mc Carthy) Even after it was so obvious how badly LBJ had botched things in Viet Nam! But there wouldn't even have been  that martyrdom factor if JFK hadn't been assassinated!

 

 

FDR’s New Deal reforms were extremely popular, but the New Deal representatives began to be squeezed out of the Democratic Party starting in 1944. Donald Gibson set out the case in “Battling Wall Street” that JFK’s domestic economic policies were an updated version of New Deal style reform - with the federal government serving as a countervailing power against private interests in the pursuit of policies which prioritized human and social development ahead of elite profit-making. So its a question of politics, not personality. If allowed to follow its natural path, JFK’s policies could have initiated a brighter future for many people, and the popularity such policies would help cement New Deal style reform and the Four Freedoms into the fundamental structure of US economy (rather than merely represent a temporary defunct measure from the depths of the 1930s as imagined by the captains of industry). This scenario can perhaps be disputed, but I have yet to see a refutation of Gibson’s premise or scholarship.

Internationally, two JFK terms would have likely meant: no wide scale Vietnam War, no overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia, and probably no Middle East war in 1967. The negative consequences of these three events have been profound and lasting. Perhaps as well the seeds of true nationalist development-prioritized governments across Africa and Latin America are established.

And a somewhat idealist reform program would find itself pulled by the baby-boomer wave, itself an idealistic generation (or so it appeared). The old-line conservative imperialism/ interventionism of Eisenhower years could have quite possibly been permanently set to pasture, rather than coming back through the neo-conservative / Reagan counter-revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battling Wall Street is a neglected oasis in a desert of alleged scholarship about Kennedy.

To this day, I think it is the best explication of Kennedy's economic policies there is. Considering it was first published in 1994, that is saying something.  I have the original hard cover which Don signed for me.

His opening chapter on the Steel Crisis is worth the price of the book.  Gibson introduced me to John Blair, the guy who wrote what I think is the best book ever on the so called oil crisis of the seventies.

His second book, The Kennedy Assassination Cover Up, is pretty good also.  There he makes the connections between New Orleans' upper classes and the Power Elite.

Both of these books came back into print a few years ago.  Combined, you can get them both for about forty bucks.  Well worth it.  Don had a unique angle on both Kennedy and his assassination.  No one elucidated the power structure of the USA, at that time, like he did.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

FDR’s New Deal reforms were extremely popular, but the New Deal representatives began to be squeezed out of the Democratic Party starting in 1944. Donald Gibson set out the case in “Battling Wall Street” that JFK’s domestic economic policies were an updated version of New Deal style reform - with the federal government serving as a countervailing power against private interests in the pursuit of policies which prioritized human and social development ahead of elite profit-making. So its a question of politics, not personality. If allowed to follow its natural path, JFK’s policies could have initiated a brighter future for many people, and the popularity such policies would help cement New Deal style reform and the Four Freedoms into the fundamental structure of US economy (rather than merely represent a temporary defunct measure from the depths of the 1930s as imagined by the captains of industry). This scenario can perhaps be disputed, but I have yet to see a refutation of Gibson’s premise or scholarship.

Internationally, two JFK terms would have likely meant: no wide scale Vietnam War, no overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia, and probably no Middle East war in 1967. The negative consequences of these three events have been profound and lasting. Perhaps as well the seeds of true nationalist development-prioritized governments across Africa and Latin America are established.

And a somewhat idealist reform program would find itself pulled by the baby-boomer wave, itself an idealistic generation (or so it appeared). The old-line conservative imperialism/ interventionism of Eisenhower years could have quite possibly been permanently set to pasture, rather than coming back through the neo-conservative / Reagan counter-revolution.

I like what you say, Jeff, but I think it's pretty hopeful. I just don't think JFK was ever going to be that powerful. What I thought you were going for was 16-20 years of Kennedy rule. That would have been an interesting  chunk, but would have involved steering through 4-5 elections! Which in reality, is very hard to do.

It might be just terminology, but I'm not sure America needed a New Deal in the 60's. It was the economic peak of the greatest economic power in the history of civilization. Working class people made it into the suburbs! But what I would take would be that there was a greater movement toward making it for more diverse groups of people being given a  chance to assimilation.

I think the 60s were going to be a turbulent time that politicians would have to navigate through with or without JFK.

The times were so interesting, yes it would have been fascinating to see a JFK second term. But you mention the "4 Freedoms" which I've always thought was John Lenon's "Imagine" 30 years before him. (Except for their  clash on the second freedom-"no religion too") heh heh

I'm probably more interested in seeing what the world would have looked like if  FDR could  have filled out his final term and establish his imprint into the Post War era.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be so quick to celebrate Bill Barr's departure

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, December 14, 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/14/politics/bill-barr-donald-trump-ag/index.html

"Consider:

* According to The Wall Street Journal, Barr went out of his way this past fall to ensure that the federal investigation into Hunter Biden's financial dealings never went public in the course of a presidential campaign in which Trump sought to make the son of his Democratic opponent a major issue.

* Earlier this month, Barr directly contradicted Trump's repeated claims that there was widespread voter fraud in the presidential election. "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election," Barr told the Associated Press in an interview.

Trump has previously expressed his preference for "acting" officials in key roles. "I like acting because I can move so quickly," he said in 2019. "it gives me more flexibility."

It also gives him more control over the broader government apparatus as he can place unquestioning loyalists in posts without having to worry about those people being confirmed by the Senate.

What that means for the DOJ is that Trump is very likely to enjoy something close to unfettered control over the department between now and January 20.

That could mean the appointment of a special counsel to ensure the Hunter Biden investigation continues beyond the Trump presidency.

It could mean increased pressure on special counsel John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Russia counter-intelligence probe in 2016, to announce his findings and/or bring charges.

Or 1,001 other things that Trump has unsuccessfully pushed the Justice Department to look into -- virtually every one of them involving his political enemies -- over his four years in office.

Most presidents before Trump understood that while the attorney general -- and the wider Justice Department -- work for him, that it was important for the rule of law to ensure that the AG had significant autonomy. Trump never seemed to understand that need for independence. And now, with Barr gone, the last major obstacle to him doing (or at least trying to do) whatever he wants is now gone."

Steve Thomas

 

Edited by Steve Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

White House Official Recovers From Severe Covid-19, Friend Says

Jennifer Jacobs 16 hrs ago

 

(Bloomberg) -- A White House official who fell ill with Covid-19 in September is recovering after three months in the hospital, though he lost his right foot and lower leg in his battle against the virus, according to a friend.

 

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/white-house-official-recovers-from-severe-covid-19-friend-says/ar-BB1bV9tN

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...