A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 15th 03, 06:37 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...(to John Fernandez):
...


"'The best thing for being sad', replied Merlyn, beginning to puff
and blow, 'is to learn something. That is the only thing that never
fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie
awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss
your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil
lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds.
There is only one thing for it then--to learn. Learn why the world
wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can
never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or
distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the thing for
you.'"
--T.H. White (The Once and Future King; Merlyn advises King Arthur)

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

I hope that you will not mind if I write something here that may
augment your knowledge of history or whet your interests in its study.

How about all the Presidents of the U. S. A. who not only countenanced, but,
often, supported slavery and the mass murders of the indigenous North
Americans. In this area, I am thinking about George Washington: the "father
of his country", who also happened to be, perhaps, the wealthiest man in the
American colonies of Great Britain and one of his time's largest holders of
slaves; I am thinking of Thomas Jefferson: the writer of "all men are created
equal" in the Declaration of Independence was a member of the slavocracy who
sold his own children;


"...He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us..."
--Thomas Jefferson (July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence)

That charge was directed at Lord Dunmore's Proclamation in 1775,
the first government offer of mass emancipation for slaves in North
American history. Lord Dunmore (nee John Murray) was the last Royal
Governor of Virginia. His proclamation offered immediate freedom to
any slave who was ready to fight loyally for 'King and Country'.
Hundreds of blacks fled their 'rebel' masters and hastened to enlist
in "Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment", which was outfitted with
uniforms bearing the motto, 'Liberty to Slaves'. Probably tens of
thousands more slaves would have joined Lord Dunmore's forces if they
had been able to escape. But smallpox decimated Lord Dunmore's ranks.

For further reading:
"Pox Americana: the Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82"
by Elizabeth Fenn

"How much better to have every 160 acres settled by an able-bodied
militia man, than by purchasers with their hordes of Negroes, to
add weakness instead of strength."
--Thomas Jefferson (24 December 1807, letter to Albert Gallatin)

"Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause: Land, Farmers, Slavery, and the
Louisiana Purchase" by Roger Kennedy (Director Emeritus of the
National Museum of American History) (2003, Oxford University Press)
strongly criticises Thomas Jefferson for permitting slavery's vast
expansion into some territories obtained by the Louisiana Purchase.

"Choices were made by those controlling the government of the
United States, and the governments of its territories and states,
determining whether or not slavery would be permitted within their
boundaries. In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase doubled the extent of
the territory conceded by the European powers to lie within the
United States; through arrangements made as part of that acquisition,
slavery was given fresh encouragement in Louisiana and permitted to
expand up the Mississippi Valley. A momentum of events began,
eventuating in 1861 in an attempted division of the Union by slave
owners, slave sellers, and those they could convince to follow their
lead. They so detested the prospect of restriction upon the continued
spread of their system of forced labor that they sought to take the
states they controlled out of the United States.

They had been threatening to do so since the 1780s. They had
raised the specter of disunion to have their way when the nation
was placed under constitutional government in 1787...From 1784
through 1804, as each new area was opened to slavery, eloquent
men and women argued that keeping people in bondage was inconsistent
with the nation's founding documents....

In a series of great papers written before 1784, he (Thomas
Jefferson) had expressed in radiant language his aversion to
slavery and his preference for a republic of free and independent
farmers, offering proposals whereby a virtuous republic might
wisely dispose of its public lands and encourage a benign labor
system on those lands. In his later years he was fully informed
of the choices being made but interposed no public objection as
his edifice of dreams was systematically reduced to rubble. He
could not escape full knowledge of the consequences for the land
itself of each decision. During his own presidency (1801-9)
great plantations worked by slaves engrossed more and more of
the choicest portions of a quarter of a continent. He was aware
of that outcome. Therefore this is a tragic story.

The tragedy was, of course, larger than the disappointment of a
single man. It was a national one: the nation as a whole had it
within its power, over and over again, to stop its decline into
civil war." (pp. 1-2)

"That contest was fought between 1861 and 1865. Many times
before that, Mr. Jefferson had asserted his principles, yet never
had he done so with sufficient vigor to arrest the descent of his
nation into the valley of the shadow. The failure of the cause
he proclaimed between 1776 and 1784 was a tragedy for him, for
the slaves and their owners, for the Indians who were thrust aside
to make way for plantations, and for the Southern land. The tragic
flaw central to this drama was Jefferson's timidity in risking
affront to those whose approval he craved. The tragedy for them
was that they had insufficient interest in the long-term health
either of society or of the land to accomodate the inconveniences
he espoused in his young manhood. When he approached the end of
his life, he offered the two alternative verdicts upon his career
set forth at the outset of this account, one carved into his
epitaph at Monticello, omitting his national public career and
designating him an author and educator, and the other in a letter
in effect summarizing the public life of his country while he was
its foremost statesman and concluding with the terrible words:

'(I) regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless
sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire
self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown
away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that
my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it.'"
--Thomas Jefferson (22 April 1820, letter to John Holmes)

--Roger Kennedy (Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause, p. 241)

Hence, toward the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson seems to have
regarded himself as an ultimate failure as a national leader and
a political architect, and to have feared that the American
experiment in self-government would fail too on account of
"the unwise and unworthy passions" of the American people.

I am thinking of Abraham Lincoln: the author of "government of the people, by
the people and for the people" "freed the slaves" in territories over which
he had NO CONTROL, but refused to support the abolition of slavery in
the "Union".


Abraham Lincoln was not the simple "Honest Abe" of legend; he
was a complex man and a pragmatic politician. Lincoln was
sincerely opposed to slavery, but, as the United States President,
he believed that his foremost priority must be to preserve the
Union. Lincoln declared that in order to preserve the Union, he
would free all, some, or none of the slaves--whichever was
necessary. For pragmatic reasons, Lincoln exempted the
slave-holding "border states" in the Union from his Emancipation
Proclamation, lest enough people in those states might object to
it and then persuade their state governments to defect to the
Confederacy. *If* Lincoln had applied his Emancipation
Proclamation to the "border states" and *if* consequently some
(or all) of them had joined the Confederacy, then it would have
become significantly more difficult, albeit still possible, for
the Union to win the Civil War.

...Truman's murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in two
swell foops (Hiroshima and Nagasaki);


Here are some books for further reading:

"The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of
an American Myth" by Gar Alperovitz et al

"The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb" by John Ray Skates

"Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard Frank

"War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War" by John Dower

"Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" by John Dower

Johnson's escalations of the invasion of Southeast Asia (Agent Orange and
depleted uranium are killing Vietnamese TODAY...


Here are some related articles from 'The Guardian':

"US used far more Dioxin in Vietnam than it admitted" (17 April 2003):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...938296,00.html

"Spectre Orange" (29 March 2003):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...923715,00.html

"Nearly thirty years after the Vietnam war, a chemical weapon used
by US troops is still exacting a hideous toll on each new generation.

Hong Hanh is falling to pieces. She has been poisoned by the
most toxic molecule known to science; it was sprayed during a
prolonged military campaign. The contamination persists. No
redress has been offered, no compensation. The superpower that
spread the toxin has done nothing to combat the medical and
environmental catastrophe that is overwhelming her country....

There are an estimated 650000 like Hong Hanh in Vietnam,
suffering from an array of baffling chronic conditions. Another
500000 already have died. The thread that weaves through all
their case histories is defoliants deployed by the US military
during the war....

This is a chain of events bitterly denied by the US government
.....New scientific research, however, confirms what the Vietnamese
have been claiming for years. It also portrays the US government
as one that has illicitly used weapons of mass destruction,
stymied all independent efforts to assess the impact of their
deployment, failed to acknowledge cold, hard evidence of maiming
and slaughter, and pursued a policy of evasion and deception....
Evidence also has emerged that the US government not only knew
that Agent Orange was contaminated, but was fully aware of the
killing power of its contaminant dioxin, and yet still continued
to use the herbicide in Vietnam for 10 years of the war and in
concentrations that exceeded its own guidelines by 25 times....

The evidence is categoric. Last April, a conference at Yale
University attended by the world's leading environmental
scientists, who reviewed the latest research, concluded that in
Vietnam the US had conducted *'the largest chemical warfare
campaign in history'.* And yet no money is forthcoming, no
aid in kind."

--Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark (29 March 2003, The Guardian)

While many Vietnamese men, women, and children continue to suffer
and die as a consequence of exposure to American chemical warfare
agents, the United States government has spent hundreds of millions
of dollars in its quest to retrieve at least one bone fragment
from every American serviceman still believed to be "missing in
action" from the Vietnam War.

Also, the United States government has a long, obstinate record
(as far as I know) of refusing to cooperate with Vietnam in
clearing American land mines remaining from the war. To their
credit, however, some American NGOs (non-governmental
organizations) have expressed their interest in assisting that
vital work.

"The United States and Biological Warfa Secrets from the
Early Cold War and Korea" by Stephen Endicott and Edward
Hagerman (Canadian scholars) (1998, Indiana University Press)
makes a strong case that the United States did practise
biological warfare during the Korean War.

"I remember the newspaper reports well; and entirely rejected
the thought that we were using germ warfare in Korea and over
China. Joseph Needham was the only person I knew on the
International Commission (which concluded that the United
States was guilty), and believing him to be biased toward
the Communist side...I dismissed his testimony in this
instance as another evidence of what I took to be his
unworldliness and suggestability. I say this now with
embarrassment: Needham is a great and utterly decent person
and a monumental scholar. As for the allegation that the U.S.
used germ warfare in the Korean War, I can only say with dismay
and some shame that what I dismissed as incredible then seems
altogether credible to me now."
--George Wald (15 March 1979, letter to Stephen Endicott)

George Wald was a Nobel Prize winner in biology and the head of
the Biological Laboratories at Harvard University.

Few Americans today, apart from professional historians, know
that President Kennedy did his utmost to persuade Khrushchev
to permit the United States to launch a "preemptive" first
strike (perhaps employing nuclear weapons) on China in 1963.
Its purpose would have been to destroy China's ongoing atomic
bomb programme (China's first atomic bomb would be tested in
October 1964) and, perhaps, more ambitiously, its future
technical potential to develop any nuclear weapons. But
Khrushchev would not give his consent.

"Kennedy must have been sorely disappointed at the failure
to gain Khrushchev's cooperation in stopping China's nuclear
development, and he could not resist taking some public swipes
at the Chinese. In his televised speech announcing the test
ban treaty, he referred to China several times and even used
a quote from one of Khrushchev's own diatribes against Beijing
to the effect that the Chinese Communists would 'envy the dead'
in the event of a nuclear war. In one last deliberate affront
Kennedy concluded his speech with a Chinese proverb: 'A journey
of a thousand miles must begin with a single step', he said
solemnly, referring to the goal of world peace.

William Buckley's 'National Review' condemned the Moscow treaty
as a 'diplomatic Pearl Harbor for America'. But the magazine
had it wrong: the treaty could have been the avenue for a
surprise attack on China." (p. 247)

--Gordon H. Chang (Friends and Enemies: The United States,
China, and the Soviet Union, 1948-1972; 1990, Stanford University
Press)

Gordon H. Chang (*not* to be confused with Gordon G. Chang, the
author of the speculative popular book, "The Coming Collapse of
China") is a professor of American history at Stanford University.
Gordon H. Chang's original article (which was reprinted as a
chapter in his 1990 book cited above), "JFK, China, and the Bomb"
in the "Journal of American History" (March 1988, Vol. 74, No. 4),
the professional journal of the Organization of American
Historians, won the prestigious Louis Pelzer Memorial Award
for 1987. In short, Gordon H. Chang is a highly regarded
professional American historian.

Forgive me for "lecturing" you, John, but terrorism is NOT Freedom Fighters
taking out a few citizens whose lives are based on sucking the blood of the
friends and relatives of the Freedon Fighters. Terrorism is sucking the
blood of the oppressed.


In my opinion, allusions to Dracula are unbecoming in most
serious historical discussions.

Please allow me to repeat one of Mark Twain's most important political (and
philosophical) statements: The real Reign of Terror was not the 14 months of
the Thermidor, but the 14 centuries that preceded it.


"Although the origins of that (French) revolution are complex,
once it had begun, it was rapidly linked to the lofty humanitarian
ideals of the Enlightenment, including religious tolerance, equal
justice before the law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
and control of the government by the governed. Most
revolutionaries were also committed to political change
through nonviolent means, 'through no other force than the
force of reason, justice, and public opinion', as one early
leader put it....

Yet despite its idealistic beginnings, the Revolution of 1789
was transformed in a period of only a few years into a veritable
'Reign of Terror'. By the summer of 1793 a totalitarian and
eminently intolerant regime had emerged that regularly employed
fear and violence as instruments of power. Searches without
warrants, arrests without indictment, the repression of free
speech: all were pursued more systematically and more efficiently
than in any previous period of French history. Justice before
the law and 'due process' were often abandoned in favor of guilt
by association. A 'law of suspects' attacked individuals on the
basis of unverified denunciation. By the summer of 1794
thousands of people had been sent to the guillotine--some of them
through travesties of the judicial system--or had been executed
summarily without trial.

Any explanation of how the liberal, humanitarian revolution
of 1789 was transformed into the Terror of 1793-94 would have
to take into account a variety of factors: the state of war
existing between France and much of Europe; the organized
efforts of dissident opponents to launch a counterrevolution;
the terrible factionalism that beset the revolutionary
leaders themselves; and the emergence of an obsessive fear of
conspiracy--real or imagined--that helped fuel the factionalism
and justify popular violence..."

--Timothy Tackett (When the King Took Flight, pp. 1-2)

"Le crime fait la honte et non pas l'echafaud."
--Pierre Corneille (Essex)

That line was quoted by Charlotte Corday in writing to her
father, shortly before she was executed (17 July 1793) for
assasinating Jean-Paul Marat.

'None are wise but they who determine to be wiser.'
--Samuel Richardson (Sir Charles Grandison)

--Nick
  #3  
Old July 15th 03, 05:57 PM
Jerome Bibuld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

Heil Dubya!

Poor Scam Spam, in his adoration of slavemaster Thomas Jefferson, chooses to
ignore the fact that most male slave owners -- including his idol -- raped
their young female slaves regularly and repeatedly. He also chooses to
"forget" that Jefferson's slave plantation was a "breeding" farm and that one
of the preferred "studs" on that farm was the third President of the good ol'
U. S. of A.

On 14 Jul 2003 21:37:47 -0700, (Nick) wrote:

(Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...(to John Fernandez):
...


I am thinking of Thomas Jefferson: the writer of "all men are created
equal" in the Declaration of Independence was a member of the slavocracy

who
sold his own children;


"...He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us..."
--Thomas Jefferson (July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence)


There is absolutely no basis whatever for the claim that Thomas
Jefferson sold his own childfen.

He had only five children by Sally and all of them were given their
freedom upon reaching age 21.

The claim that he sold his own daughter was first made by a drunk in a
bar in Boston and somehow has been repeated ever since.

This subject is covered in detail in my book, "The Slave Children of
Thomas Jefferson".

http://www.samsloan.com/slaves.htm

Sam Sloan


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus
  #4  
Old July 15th 03, 07:33 PM
Larry Tapper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message ...
For example, I assume (without actually knowing) that "Nick" does not know
George Wald--one of "Nick's" sources quoted above--personally.

I corresponded with George Wald in the mid-1970s, and I was personally
acquainted with him by 1979, the date of "Nick's" Wald quote. By 1979, Wald
was regarded on the Harvard campus


(well, in Tim Hanke's office, at least)

--though it was then, and remains now, a
largely left-wing environment--as a quaint, even bizarre relic of the 1960s,
a hippy type with scraggly hair who wore beads and counter-culture-style
clothing and espoused extreme-left opinions. None of this invalidates Wald's
statements on biological, political, or other topics, but it does suggest a
context for his remarks.

Another noted Harvard biology professor contemporary with Wald, named
Everett Mendelson, actually went to Vietnam after the war to study the
chemical weapons issue, and concluded in his report that a substance
asserted by many to be chemical weapons residue was actually bee pollen. (I
just did a Google search for an online reference, and can't find one, so
this is from my own memory.)


Tim,

You must be referring to the controversy about "Yellow Rain" and the
Hmong tribe, still not completely resolved:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020805.htm

The Harvard investigator was actually Matthew Meselson. The original
charge of using mycotoxins was leveled not against the U.S. but
against the Soviet Union, by Alexander Haig no less.

Larry
  #5  
Old July 15th 03, 07:54 PM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

"Larry Tapper" wrote ...
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message

...
For example, I assume (without actually knowing) that "Nick" does not

know
George Wald--one of "Nick's" sources quoted above--personally.

I corresponded with George Wald in the mid-1970s, and I was personally
acquainted with him by 1979, the date of "Nick's" Wald quote. By 1979,

Wald
was regarded on the Harvard campus


(well, in Tim Hanke's office, at least)


Larry,

It was not necessary to add your comment above; I assure you it was not just
my opinion that I shared in my post.

--though it was then, and remains now, a
largely left-wing environment--as a quaint, even bizarre relic of the

1960s,
a hippy type with scraggly hair who wore beads and counter-culture-style
clothing and espoused extreme-left opinions. None of this invalidates

Wald's
statements on biological, political, or other topics, but it does

suggest a
context for his remarks.

Another noted Harvard biology professor contemporary with Wald, named
Everett Mendelson, actually went to Vietnam after the war to study the
chemical weapons issue, and concluded in his report that a substance
asserted by many to be chemical weapons residue was actually bee pollen.

(I
just did a Google search for an online reference, and can't find one, so
this is from my own memory.)


Tim,

You must be referring to the controversy about "Yellow Rain" and the
Hmong tribe, still not completely resolved:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020805.htm

The Harvard investigator was actually Matthew Meselson. The original
charge of using mycotoxins was leveled not against the U.S. but
against the Soviet Union, by Alexander Haig no less.

Larry


Good; thanks for figuring this out. It has been a long time since this topic
was current, and I confused the two Harvard professors Mendelson and
Meselson. No wonder my search on Mendelson didn't produce anything relevant.

Next you will be telling me it wasn't George Wald who wandered around the
Harvard campus looking like a senile hippie, it was Bill Weld who was later
elected Massachusetts governor on the Republican ticket.

Tim Hanke


  #6  
Old July 16th 03, 05:43 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...(to John Fernandez):
...
How about all the Presidents of the U. S. A. who not only countenanced,
but, often, supported slavery and the mass murders of the indigenous North
Americans. In this area, I am thinking about George Washington: the "father
of his country", who also happened to be, perhaps, the wealthiest man in the
American colonies of Great Britain and one of his time's largest holders of
slaves; I am thinking of Thomas Jefferson: the writer of "all men are
created equal" in the Declaration of Independence was a member of the
slavocracy who sold his own children;


"...He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us..."
--Thomas Jefferson (July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence)

That charge was directed at Lord Dunmore's Proclamation in 1775,
the first government offer of mass emancipation for slaves in North
American history. Lord Dunmore (nee John Murray) was the last Royal
Governor of Virginia. His proclamation offered immediate freedom to
any slave who was ready to fight loyally for 'King and Country'.
Hundreds of blacks fled their 'rebel' masters and hastened to enlist
in "Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment", which was outfitted with
uniforms bearing the motto, 'Liberty to Slaves'. Probably tens of
thousands more slaves would have joined Lord Dunmore's forces if they
had been able to escape. But smallpox decimated Lord Dunmore's ranks.


"In 1775, as Royal Governor, Dunmore was commanding the Virginia militia
invading the territories of the Shawnee in the Ohio Valley when the American
Revolution was launched by the First Continental Congress. Dunmore rushed
back to Williamsburg to defend his capital against the rebels....In April 1775,
Dunmore had the colony's supply of powder removed from the Williamsburg Arsenal,
where the rebels might seize it, and put aboard a warship. Mr. Jefferson's
friends cried that without adequate powder they could *not* resist a rising of
their slaves. Dunmore responded that if their rebellion continued, 'by the
living God he would declare freedom to the slaves and reduce the city of
Williamsburg to ashes.' Many blacks rose to the implicit invitation, presenting
themselves at the governor's palace to offer their aid to Dunmore as chief of
that set of whites acting in their interest. Then Dunmore provided one of the
grievances listed in Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence by
offering 'liberty to all slaves who would rise against, or escape from their
Rebel masters.'

For this emancipation proclamation, Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues blamed
not only Dunmore but also the Scots traders who rallied to his side. This set
of Scots merchants had absorbed 'the greater part of the increase in the
British tobacco trade after 1745' and had much to lose from any revolutionary
change. Along the Chesapeake as along the Gulf, it was a rare trading post
whose proprietor spoke English without a burr, and when that sound was heard
it might be assumed that the speaker shared the views of the laird of Dunmore.
Accordingly, it became a Whig habit to lump all Loyalists into 'the Scotch
Party'. Only a last-minute action by John Witherspoon persuaded the Continental
Congress to remove from Jefferson's draft of the Declaration an attack upon
the Tory merchants *specifically as Scots*."

--Roger Kennedy (Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause, p. 130)

That shows that the Declaration of Independence should be read not only as
a testament of universal principles (in patriotic American textbooks, it tends
to be presented as an eternal civics lesson inscribed on stone tablets) but
also as a contemporary political document, which was informed and governed
by the passions of the day.

(A prominent Scots Loyalist in North Carolina was Flora MacDonald (1722-1790),
the famous Jacobite heroine who had assisted the fugitive Bonnie Prince Charlie
in his escaping the Hanoverian pursuit (which had offered a fabulous bounty of
30000 pounds for his capture) in 1746. After the war, she and her family
returned to Scotland.)

"Dunmore's successful recruitment (of blacks) became the greatest challenge
to the Southern plantation system before the American Civil War. In London,
Edmund Burke noted a movement in Parliament to promulgate 'a general
enfranchisement of slaves' while the commanders of British forces in North
America succeeded in rousing as many as a hundred thousand slaves against
the rebellious colonists. Eight hundred former slaves served in Dunmore's
British Ethiopian Regiment...Cherokees and Shawnees also joined Dunmore's
aggregate of Tories, Scots, and Negroes. They came to arms too slowly to
tip the scales against the Revolution, but the memory of their doing so at
all explains the consternation among the planters when (William Augustus)
Bowles roused a similar coalition in the later 1780s under Dunmore's
sponsorship. The Virginians had observed how the Indians 'caressing the
Negroes' in the time of Pontiac's coalition twenty years earlier had been
'productive of an insurrection'. Similar fears stirred the Carolinas when
the Cherokees and Creeks welcomed black recruits to their contest against
the Americans..."
--Roger Kennedy (Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause, p. 131)

"The United States and Biological Warfa Secrets from the Early Cold War
and Korea" by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (Canadian scholars)
(1998, Indiana University Press) makes a strong case that the United States
did practise biological warfare during the Korean War.

"I remember the newspaper reports well; and entirely rejected
the thought that we were using germ warfare in Korea and over
China. Joseph Needham was the only person I knew on the
International Commission (which concluded that the United
States was guilty), and believing him to be biased toward
the Communist side...I dismissed his testimony in this
instance as another evidence of what I took to be his
unworldliness and suggestability. I say this now with
embarrassment: Needham is a great and utterly decent person
and a monumental scholar. As for the allegation that the U.S.
used germ warfare in the Korean War, I can only say with dismay
and some shame that what I dismissed as incredible then seems
altogether credible to me now."
--George Wald (15 March 1979, letter to Stephen Endicott)

George Wald was a Nobel Prize winner in biology and the head of
the Biological Laboratories at Harvard University.


Actually, George Wald (1906-1997) shared the 1967 Nobel Prize in
Physiology and Medicine.

--Nick
  #7  
Old July 16th 03, 07:00 PM
Larry Tapper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message ...
"Larry Tapper" wrote ...
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message

...
For example, I assume (without actually knowing) that "Nick" does not

know
George Wald--one of "Nick's" sources quoted above--personally.

I corresponded with George Wald in the mid-1970s, and I was personally
acquainted with him by 1979, the date of "Nick's" Wald quote. By 1979,

Wald
was regarded on the Harvard campus


(well, in Tim Hanke's office, at least)


Larry,

It was not necessary to add your comment above;


Right: it was not necessary, but it was fun. You of all people should
appreciate this point.

I assure you it was not just
my opinion that I shared in my post.


Yes I know that --- I was there too. I think of Wald as roughly
comparable to other eccentric Nobelists who viewed themselves as
crusaders for peace and justice, e.g. Linus Pauling. In my view, the
world could do with more of them, not less.

Cheers, Larry


--though it was then, and remains now, a
largely left-wing environment--as a quaint, even bizarre relic of the

1960s,
a hippy type with scraggly hair who wore beads and counter-culture-style
clothing and espoused extreme-left opinions. None of this invalidates

Wald's
statements on biological, political, or other topics, but it does

suggest a
context for his remarks.

  #8  
Old July 17th 03, 05:00 AM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

"Larry Tapper" wrote ...
"Tim Hanke" wrote ...

Larry,

It was not necessary to add your comment above;


Right: it was not necessary, but it was fun. You of all people should
appreciate this point.

I assure you it was not just
my opinion that I shared in my post.


Yes I know that --- I was there too. I think of Wald as roughly
comparable to other eccentric Nobelists who viewed themselves as
crusaders for peace and justice, e.g. Linus Pauling. In my view, the
world could do with more of them, not less.

Cheers, Larry


Larry,

No problem.

Tim Hanke


  #9  
Old August 7th 03, 04:06 AM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote in message
om...
(snipped)
"The United States and Biological Warfa Secrets from the Early Cold War
and Korea" by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman (Canadian scholars)
(1998, Indiana University Press) makes a strong case that the United States
did practise biological warfare during the Korean War.

"I remember the newspaper reports well; and entirely rejected the thought
that we were using germ warfare in Korea and over China. Joseph Needham
was the only person I knew on the International Commission (which concluded
that the United States was guilty), and believing him to be biased toward
the Communist side...I dismissed his testimony in this instance as another
evidence of what I took to be his unworldliness and suggestability. I say
this now with embarrassment: Needham is a great and utterly decent person
and a monumental scholar. As for the allegation that the U.S. used germ
warfare in the Korean War, I can only say with dismay and some shame that
what I dismissed as incredible then seems altogether credible to me now."
--George Wald (15 March 1979, letter to Stephen Endicott)

George Wald was a Nobel Prize winner in biology and the head of
the Biological Laboratories at Harvard University.


Actually, George Wald (1906-1997) shared the 1967 Nobel Prize in
Physiology and Medicine.

This post is sort of interesting, though off-topic as usual with "Nick's"
posts.


I have no objection to Tim Hanke expressing his opinion of George Wald.
But Tim Hanke's criticism of my post--and *only* my post--for being
"off-topic" in this thread is unwarranted and hypocritical.

1) This thread, "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave", is an *undeclared
off-topic* thread that was created by Sam Sloan, who wrote nothing about
chess in his originating post here.
2) Several other persons, including Tim Hanke himself (14 June 2003), wrote
posts herein that also mentioned nothing whatsoever about chess.
3) Tim Hanke evidently criticised *only* my post for not being about chess,
but he did *not* criticise any other posts, including his own, for not
being about chess.

As far as I can recall, Tim Hanke never has criticised any American
nationalistic "flag-waving" posts in any thread for being "off-topic".

Writing history is very difficult work; evaluating history written by others
may be even harder work, especially when one does not know the authors
personally, which is generally the case.


"The historian has much to answer for. History--that is written history--has
made and unmade States, given courage to the oppressed and undermined the
oppressor, has justified aggression and overridden law."
--C.V. Wedgwood (Velvet Studies, p. 154)

Given Tim Hanke's copious record of American nationalistic "flag-waving" posts
here, apparently extolling a highly idealized view of United States history,
perhaps Hanke would like to simplify the admittedly difficult process of
reading and evaluating history for everyone else here too.

For example, I assume (without actually knowing) that "Nick" does not know
George Wald--one of "Nick's" sources quoted above--personally.
I corresponded with George Wald in the mid-1970s, and I was personally
acquainted with him by 1979, the date of "Nick's" Wald quote. By 1979, Wald
was regarded on the Harvard campus--though it was then, and remains now, a
largely left-wing environment--as a quaint, even bizarre relic of the 1960s,
a hippy type with scraggly hair who wore beads and counter-culture-style
clothing and espoused extreme-left opinions. None of this invalidates Wald's
statements on biological, political, or other topics, but it does suggest a
context for his remarks.


Evidently, George Wald was a minor source (he's cited only once) for
"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott and Edward
Hagerman (both of York University, Toronto, Canada).

Here's an excerpt from the introduction by Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank
Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University:

"But there are other concerns as well, especially the extent to which
government--any government, including our own--can be trusted when it comes
to matters of national security. There is, first of all, a thick veil of
secrecy and deception that surrounds the undertakings of government in the
domainof national security. In the American case, this opaqueness is
reinforced by the doctrine of deniability, which *authorizes lying to the
extent necessary to resist unwanted disclosures*. Second, there is the sense
that the constraints of law and morality must be put aside in circumstances
of warfare or in the pursuit of vital national interests. Third, there is a
highly compliant mainstream media even in constitutional democracies that is
deferential to the national security establishment, and generally succumbs
to pressure in the unusual event of an unwanted revelation. And fourth,
there is the fusion of militarist thinking that anything goes in war with
the prevalent belief among political and military leaders that 'saving
American lives' is a justification for otherwise terrible deeds that brushes
aside any moral and legal obstacles. Such a combination of circumstances
suggests the breadth of the gap that separates the citizenry from its political
and military leadership in the areas of war and peace.

It is against such a background of concerns that this disturbing and fine book
by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman assumes its importance. The authors,
experienced historians whose approach to their subject is impressively
exhaustive and meticulous, explore one of the most notorious allegations of
the Cold War era--that the United States used biological weapons on an
experimental basis in China and North Korea during the Korean War....

Relying on a vast array of previously unavailable declassified sources and
on access to archival materials in several countries, including China, Endicott
and Hagerman reached the conclusion that the circumstantial evidence strongly
supports the allegation of use. It also implies a continuing high-level
cover-up about the true relationship of the United States government to
biological weapons in general. The authors are scrupulous in their
presentation, providing evidence and reasoning for each link in their
argument and resisting generalizations that exceed what can be reliably
documented. They also examine fairly the arguments and evidence that have
been advanced over the years to discredit the central allegation of BW use,
and find them thin and contrived. At minimum, this book raises the historical
debate on the allegation about biological weaponry to a new and necessary
level of scholarly seriousness that challenges the government to come forward
with its own refuting arguments and evidence. It is of utmost importance
to clear up the record....

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman deserve our gratitude for producing such
an important study based on prodigious research, but even more for their
courage in taking on such a delicate theme. There are likely to be
recriminations and countercharges hurled in their direction, highly
orchestrated responses designed to divert attention from the substance
of their analysis. Such a prospect is hardly fanciful. Consider the backlash
a few years ago when the prestigious Smithsonian Institution sought to mount
an exhibition on the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The end result of the incident was that the director
of the museum was dismissed and the exhibition was scaled way back to deprive
it of any elements of overdue atonement for the prolonged damage inflicted
on Japanese civilian society. In this instance, unlike that pertaining to
the biological weapons narrative, the essential facts were known (though
the bureaucratic rationale for the use of atomic bombs at that stage in the
war remains a matter of controversy and concealment), and it was patrioteering
elements of the citizenry who apparently self-mobilized (with notable
congressional and Pentagon backing) to safeguard their *own consoling version
of history*, thereby avoiding the anguish of self-examination with respect to
responsibility for having crossed the nuclear threshold."

--Richard Falk (5 August 1998, pp. xvii-xx)

Another noted Harvard biology professor contemporary with Wald, named
Everett Mendelson, actually went to Vietnam after the war to study the
chemical weapons issue, and concluded in his report that a substance
asserted by many to be chemical weapons residue was actually bee pollen. (I
just did a Google search for an online reference, and can't find one, so
this is from my own memory.)


According to Larry Tapper, that charge under investigation was the employment
of Soviet chemical weapons in the Vietnam War, not the employment of American
biological weapons in the Korean War.

--Nick
  #10  
Old August 9th 03, 12:31 AM
Briarroot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

Nick (The Minister of Propaganda) wrote:

Evidently, George Wald was a minor source (he's cited only once) for
"The United States and Biological Warfare" by Stephen Endicott and Edward
?Hagerman (both of York University, Toronto, Canada).


This is another communiqué from Nick, the Minister of Propaganda.
Let's just look at this with an open mind...

Whatever 'evidence' that may or may not exist regarding
the question of whether or not the US used biological
agents in the Korean war, a struggle which lasted nearly
three years, and in which the combatant armies were locked
closely together, their lines often being only yards apart,
let us examine the political philosophy of the man who Nick
quotes here.


Here's an excerpt from the introduction by Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank
Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University:

"But there are other concerns as well, especially the extent to which
government--any government, including our own--can be trusted when it comes
to matters of national security.


When it comes to matters of national security, who ya gonna call?
Ghostbusters? My aunt Sally?


There is, first of all, a thick veil of
secrecy and deception that surrounds the undertakings of government in the
domainof national security.


I wonder why Professor Falk thinks this is a bad thing? Secrecy
and deception being the stock and trade of spies and secret agents,
I wonder why he thinks it is that governments erect such barriers?
And who are these barriers designed to foul, the people of the nation,
or their enemies? Perhaps he is confused as to which is which.
I wonder how else he thinks national security should be preserved.


In the American case, this opaqueness is
reinforced by the doctrine of deniability, which *authorizes lying to the
extent necessary to resist unwanted disclosures*.


Which is exactly the same for every other large government
in the world; or at least those governments who take their
responsibilities seriously. Again, when he says "unwanted
disclosures" who does he consider to be the enemy? Or does
he think that there are no real enemies from whom some data
must remain secret?


Second, there is the
sense
that the constraints of law and morality must be put aside in circumstances
of warfare or in the pursuit of vital national interests.


I wonder how moral this professor would think it if a government
allowed its nation to suffer a defeat and its citizens killed by
a foreign power, in the interests of "law and morality?" What
"vital national interests" does he have in mind that supersede
a governments primary responsibility in keeping their nation safe?


Third, there is a
highly compliant mainstream media even in constitutional democracies that is
deferential to the national security establishment, and generally succumbs
to pressure in the unusual event of an unwanted revelation.


Hmm, is this the same rabid media that positively *lives* to
unearth new government scandals, often attempting to create
them out of whole cloth to boost the ratings? Is this the
media that immediately publicizes national security gaffes,
mistakes, foibles and screw ups? He must be speaking of some
other media in a land I've never heard of.

On the other hand, every nutter that comes bopping down
the pike with yet another conspiracy theory isn't likely
to be given much attention. For good reason - the moon
really isn't made of green cheese!


And fourth,
there is the fusion of militarist thinking that anything goes in war with
the prevalent belief among political and military leaders that 'saving
American lives' is a justification for otherwise terrible deeds that brushes
aside any moral and legal obstacles.


Yeah, those silly political and military leaders. How silly
of them to place a higher value on their own citizens lives
and welfare than that of the citizens of other nations! Again,
I wonder what Prof. Falk considers is the proper way to prosecute
a "moral and legal" war? Talking the enemy to death, perhaps?

Such a combination of circumstances
suggests the breadth of the gap that separates the citizenry from its
political
and military leadership in the areas of war and peace.


No fooling. The average citizen is too busy with his or her
own life to worry about the "areas of war and peace." Hence
they designate other folks to handle those problems for them.
We call this division of labor Civilization. Yeah, that's
right, professor, we organize ourselves exactly like that.
Some are politicians, some are soldiers, some are farmers,
some are builders, some are manufacturers, some are doctors,
some are teachers, and so on. All of us working diligently
in our own little corner of the whole. Fortunately, we don't
let guys like Prof. Falk get their hands on the levers of power.
That those who *do* wield power, do not take advice from the
amateur philosophers like this professor, is a Good Thing(tm).


It is against such a background of concerns that this disturbing and fine
book
by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman assumes its importance.


Such a background... meaning Professor Falk refuses to accept the
necessities of life in the big bad world around him. "Why can't
we all get along?" "Because the secret, vast, right-wing conspiracy
to control the world, won't let us!" Uh-huh. Sure.

The
authors,
experienced historians whose approach to their subject is impressively
exhaustive and meticulous, explore one of the most notorious allegations of
the Cold War era--that the United States used biological weapons on an
experimental basis in China and North Korea during the Korean War....


Allegations from whom? What's notorious here, is this Professors
wholesale acceptance of innuendo. Where did these notorious
allegations arise? China? The Soviet Union? Your local student
union?


Relying on a vast array of previously unavailable declassified sources and
on access to archival materials in several countries, including China,
Endicott
and Hagerman reached the conclusion that the circumstantial evidence
strongly
supports the allegation of use.


Riiight. Wouldn't be much of a research project if they'd come
up empty. Bang! There goes the funding from the international
conspiracy set. And the Chinese released some documents? How
clever of them to recognize an opportunity like this, to cast
doubt on their enemy's veracity.


It also implies a continuing high-level
cover-up about the true relationship of the United States government to
biological weapons in general.


Or maybe the authors were mistaken all along. It doesn't take
much effort to "cover-up" something that never happened.


The authors are scrupulous in their
presentation, providing evidence and reasoning for each link in their
argument and resisting generalizations that exceed what can be reliably
documented.


Are the authors "providing" evidence or pointing out that such
evidence already exists? Are they creating evidence in support
of their theory? Readers of this introduction can't tell how
reliable is the documentation used the allegations made in the
book. This professor's imprimatur seems less than reassuring.


They also examine fairly the arguments and evidence that have
been advanced over the years to discredit the central allegation of BW use,
and find them thin and contrived.


This whole book sounds thin and contrived, unlike this introduction
which is clearly laced with loaded words to convey a message that
the book's premise cannot be refuted.


At minimum, this book raises the
historical
debate on the allegation about biological weaponry to a new and necessary
level of scholarly seriousness that challenges the government to come
forward
with its own refuting arguments and evidence. It is of utmost importance
to clear up the record....


Utmost importance to create suspicion where none previously
existed, you mean. I can't see any government taking time
out to refute the "allegations" of every two-bit psychopath
with a political agenda somewhat to the left of Joe Stalin.
And why bother?


Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman deserve our gratitude for producing
such
an important study based on prodigious research, but even more for their
courage in taking on such a delicate theme. There are likely to be
recriminations and countercharges hurled in their direction, highly
orchestrated responses designed to divert attention from the substance
of their analysis.


Oh, how cunningly this is worded! Those "recriminations and
countercharges hurled in their direction" couldn't be because
they deserve criticism, could it? No, says the Prof., they
"deserve our gratitude." What hogwash! Falk is warning of
"highly orchestrated responses designed to divert attention
from the substance of their analysis" while doing the exact
same thing himself!

Few people are going to believe the moon is made of green cheese,
no matter how much documentation you provide; and if you persist
in saying so anyway, based on your "prodigious research," they're
going to point at you and snicker! Better get used to it.
This doesn't require orchestration by a secret cabal, it's just
the normal inclination of human beings to scoff at the improbable.


Such a prospect is hardly fanciful. Consider the
backlash
a few years ago when the prestigious Smithsonian Institution sought to mount
an exhibition on the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The end result of the incident was that the
director
of the museum was dismissed and the exhibition was scaled way back to
deprive
it of any elements of overdue atonement for the prolonged damage inflicted
on Japanese civilian society.


Long overdue atonement! What a crock. Professor Falk has been
raising his flag throughout this piece, and here he clearly reveals
his ideology. "The prolonged damage inflicted on Japanese civilian
society" as he puts it, was the result of that same society starting
a brutal war to subjugate the whole of east asia. The Japanese
murdered millions for the sake of their narcissistic desire for
Empire and domination. In my opinion, an opinion which is far more
widely held than the Prof.'s, the Japanese richly deserved whatever
suffering they were later forced to endure. Don't just blame their
leaders, like Tojo, who was tried, convicted and hung by the allies;
the common people themselves, while things were going well, were
eager for their empire to conquer, and Tojo was their hero. Just as
the Germans loved Hitler... until they started losing. Yes, dropping
the atomic bombs saved *many* American lives. That's considered a
Good Thing(tm) by the American people who elected the leaders that
made that decision.

And no Japan wasn't going to surrender soon anyway. Tojo and his
gang were planning on going out with a blaze of glory. What actually
happened on Okinawa (and all the other islands) was going to happen
in Japan, but on a hugely increased scale. They were even training
the women and children to charge the invasion beaches with bamboo
spears. They had 15,000 aircraft hidden, with just enough fuel for
a final Kamikaze run at the American fleets. They were planning to
resist to the end, all for the glory of their Empire! Casualties on
both sides would have been horrendous. Even after the first atomic
bomb destroyed Hiroshima, Tojo refused to reconsider. Only after the
second bomb destroyed Nagasaki did the Emperor get off his ass and
finally step in and overrule him to say, in effect, enough's enough.
In my opinion, the Smithsonian curator who set up that exhibition was
*properly* dismissed for trying to re-write history. It is the various
*revisionist* conspiracy theories such as are promulgated here by
Professor Falk, that are exactly what he attempts to label below as
"their "own consoling version of history."


In this instance, unlike that pertaining to
the biological weapons narrative, the essential facts were known (though
the bureaucratic rationale for the use of atomic bombs at that stage in the
war remains a matter of controversy and concealment), and it was
patrioteering
elements of the citizenry who apparently self-mobilized (with notable
congressional and Pentagon backing) to safeguard their *own consoling
version
of history*, thereby avoiding the anguish of self-examination with respect
to
responsibility for having crossed the nuclear threshold."


What nonsense. Know one in 1945 knew exactly what effects the bombs
would have, not even the scientists who developed them. There was
no evident "nuclear threshold" in 1945. Leaving aside the question
of whether or not nuclear weapons are any less moral to use in wartime
than conventional weapons, (I happen to think they are as moral as
any other weapon) all talk of a "nuclear threshold" is 20-20 hindsight.


--Richard Falk (5 August 1998, pp. xvii-xx)


Professor Falk and his kind (such as that museum director) deserve
all the excoriation and disdain that they may have received for
trying to twist history to fit their fantastic notions of morality,
and how wars should be fought. Above, Falk criticizes " political
and military leaders" who feel "that 'saving American lives' is a
justification for otherwise terrible deeds that brushes aside any
moral and legal obstacles." He is completely wrong to do so. It
is the primary responsibility of all national leaders to save the
lives of their citizens; and to place the survival of their own
ahead of the survival of the people of an enemy state, both in time
of war and in time of peace. This is the duty for which they were
elected or appointed to the positions which they hold. One might
even say it is their first duty. But then the concept of national
duty seems strangely alien to men like Prof. Falk.


It's too bad Nick didn't quote any of the body of this book.
I'd like the opportunity to debunk some of that bilge water.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.