In 1945 Ho Chi Minh declared the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam before a crowd of 500,000 in Hanoi. The Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam cited both USA & French declarations.
France invaded again anyway, then so did the USA, even though even Eisenhower admitted 80% of population might have supported Ho Chi Minh if fair elections were allowed! After they successfully convinced the French invaders to withdraw they agreed to allow elections and created an artificial boundary partly if not entirely because of demands from Europeans and Americans.
Western countries told us that they were fighting to defend democracy; and they agreed to allow elections that were supposed to happen in 1956; however they were never held. No doubt there would have been problems having a fair and free election if western countries weren't determined to invade; however, in the elections in the South that did take place, apparently Ngo Dinh Diem, the prime minister, supported by the United States somehow managed to get "98.2 percent of the vote, including 133% in Saigon. His American advisers had recommended a more modest winning margin of '60 to 70 percent.'"
No one familiar with the history of Vietnam is even trying to pretend this election wasn't rigged!
This war was based on lies from the beginning and once we acknowledge that there can be no justification for it and the United States clearly wasn't fighting to defend Democracy but to crush the politicians with more popular support, even if they did commit atrocities and participate in some of their own election rigging before it was said and done!
Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's 10-part, 18-hour documentary “The Vietnam War,” is the hardest hitting record of this war that I remember from the mainstream media ever; however in alternative media outlets they're calling it rewriting history or propaganda to defend the "Vietnam war," and they're at least partly right.
For a long time I considered myself reasonably well informed; however I couldn't understand what the vast majority of the controversy about the Vietnam war was about.
It simply didn't make sense, yet I was reading traditional news on a regular basis and watching PBS and other traditional media outlets but I couldn't understand what this was all about, and I certainly didn't know about the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence.
It wasn't until I read my first book by Howard Zinn, which was eventually followed up by others by Alfred McCoy, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, James Douglass, and the Pentagon Papers, that I began to realize that there are at least two totally different versions of history, one presented to the vast majority of the public that has an enormous amount of mistakes and lies, but few will notice it unless they keep a record of it and check facts on a regular basis; and another by people who do check facts and keep track of them. The better documented version of history is often reported on alternative media outlets and in some of the best sourced books in libraries.
The propaganda presented to the vast majority of the public is presented on TV and some of the most popular newspapers. They often cite demagogues that push lies and propaganda without checking them and some more credible sources, who occasionally admit to some of the most inconvenient facts quickly and relatively quietly. Mostly these more reliable sources simply remain silent while the demagogues in the traditional media repeat lies over and over again, and those susceptible to propaganda believe the lies.
Then occasionally a comedian or pundit will go on the street and ask people about the news and act amazed at how stupid or uninformed the public is, as if the reason for this isn't the incredibly bad propaganda presented by the government and six oligarchies controlling the media, and that they keep people distracted with worship of celebrities or sports, as well.
One of the most common claim that they gave the public was that it was a war of fiscal ideology, of Capitalism versus Communism, which was also a lie; but even if it was true this wouldn't have been a reasonable way of handling that disagreement, when they could have debated the ideas and kept the best of both in a rational debate if they allowed discussion of it. Instead they made emotional appeals to many people to distract them from flaws in the ideologies and using tensions from race relation or anything else that would distract the public from the truth.
One of the fighters presented in the documentary says that it wasn't about Communism and that they were fighting for their own country; however this didn't draw much attention. James Douglass also reported in his book, "JFK and the Unspeakable" that Kennedy negotiated a policy of neutrality with Laos and was preparing to do the same with Vietnam in his second term; however he was, of course, assassinated before that could happen.
However, if that wasn't the case then the supporters of the war could have presented their arguments refuting this without appeals to emotion and attempts to suppress the truth, including refusing to report to the majority of the American public about Vietnam's Declaration of Independence, and that they wanted to choose their own leaders. And, as I said, even it was still about ideology, why should we be dictating our ideology to people half way around the world? And why couldn't they inform the public about the details about the two ideologies and compare the differences?
There are no credible claims that Vietnam ever even considered invading the United States, and even if they did, they didn't have enough resources to make more than a pathetic attempt.
Could it be that the ideology that they were defending wasn't always what the propaganda claimed it was; or that the ideology that they were demonizing wasn't completely as bad as the propaganda we were given implied either?
Communism as it was practiced in the Soviet Union is, of course, atrocious, assuming that a fraction of the propaganda we've been given is true, and much of it will stand up to scrutiny; however that doesn't mean that the ideology that was presented to the public was so atrocious and that we shouldn't review it and pick the best aspects of it, which some Northern European countries did and they have much better quality of life, less violence and less economic inequality.
At least the Communist Manifesto demands "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." (Communist Manifesto Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists) At times when it suits their propaganda purposes the United States has claimed to support this; however they have been relying on outsourcing to increase availability of cheap labor even when it means using slave labor or child labor.
And despite the propaganda about Brown v. Education trying to provide equal opportunity to education for all regardless of race, it never addressed class and after San "Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez" it was watered down so much that it no longer even addressed race as pointed out in Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities" excerpts (Jonathan Kozol "Savage Inequalities" complete text)
Both the fiscal ideology that controls our economic system and the justifications for the Vietnam War, and most if not all other wars after WWII, and perhaps, at least to some degree including WWII and those before it, are based on lies and distorted propaganda and appeals to emotions.
During the documentary on at least one or two occasions one of the North Vietnamese soldiers talks about how sons of party leaders aren't drafted to fight the War, just like in the South and the veterans that were drafted from the United States. There were some exceptions, like John Kerry and John McCain; however the vast majority of the people fighting the war on both sides, like all other wars, especially those in the riskiest positions are from the working class, or in the case of Vietnam the farming class.
John McCain never to the best of my knowledge came out and admitted that the Vietnam War was based on lies; although John Kerry is widely known for speaking out against the war what is reported far less often is that he wasn't opposed to the war when he asked for a discharge so he could run for Congress. After receiving it he didn't run right away, and presumably might have learned how strong the opposition to the war was. It wasn't until then that he began to protest the war, quickly rising to a leadership position; but later once he was in Congress, when it suited the purposes of the Ruling Class he often supported more wars based on lies!
Eugene Debs and many other antiwar activists recognized this patterns long before the Vietnam War even began.
Eugene Debs Canton, Ohio Speech 06/16/1918
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.
Yours not to reason why;
Yours but to do and die.
That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace. Complete article
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.
Yours not to reason why;
Yours but to do and die.
That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace. Complete article
And before people decide whether to fight these wars let them know the truth about them!
This is part of a divide and rule tactic to turn different factions of the working class from around the world, and sometimes within our own country against each other!
The ruling classes have known how to manipulate working classes for centuries dating back to ancient Roman and even Egyptian times, before thorough records were being kept; however recently they have done more detailed research into how to indoctrinate veterans in the academic world, although they don't often put it into its proper context when they partially disclose some of this research to the public as I explained in Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment; Eli Roth, Milgram's Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize; which are experiments done in the sixties and seventies either shortly after the Vietnam War or closer to the end of it where they pretended to study how to prevent blind obedience, while doing the opposite; and Frank Luntz virtually confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients where I reviewed how political pundits are often trying to manipulate the public and presenting it as if they're trying to help them instead, and there's much more research than that although it takes a lot of time to sort through good non-fiction and figure out how it's being spun.
During the documentary there are several occasions including at the 1968 Democratic Convention and shortly after the Kent State protest where the national guard killed four protesters and they reported that construction workers were outraged by antiwar protests saying, on one occasion "they were provoked." These construction workers were very angry yelling to the camera during the documentary, and it didn't appear as if they wanted to calm down and listen to talk about the Vietnamese declaration of Independence and that they wanted to run their own country, or at least choose their own corrupt leaders who wouldn't be as bad as the corrupt leaders choisen by people serving corporations based six to ten thousand miles away from Vietnam.
The construction workers that I've known aren't remotely like these angry anti-protesters; and what the documentary didn't explain as reported in, Hard Hat Riot: Tea Party of yesteryear 11/19/2016, that in at least some cases union leaders with political connections, including Peter Brennan organized these protests. It is virtually guaranteed that he had the help from some advisers about how to stir up patriotic emotions for these workers selectively only reporting the facts that suit their agenda! according to this article, "President Nixon appointed Peter Brennan as his Labor Secretary as a reward for his support."
And of course, it's not hard to find examples where they tried to get African American's to fight wars based on lies without sharing the benefits with them; and true patriots like Martin Luther King Jr. and Muhammad Ali saw through this scam and protested the war often refusing to obey orders that should be illegal by any reasonable standard to fight a war that was based on lies and designed to suppress the side that had far more popular support from the people they were allegedly "defending from Communism." Few people who are being bombed by the United States are thrilled with this form of "defense!"
As I said in the beginning, many people from the antiwar organizations are outraged by this documentary, claiming that it is rewriting history and for the most part they're right, often some of the most important facts are only mentioned briefly and there is little doubt that a large percentage of the population will never watch it; and even those that do will forget large portions of it after a few weeks. This already happened with the reporting on the drug running that the History Channel reported on last June as reported in The History Channel Is Finally Telling the Stunning Secret Story of the War on Drugs 06/18/2017 This was the best documentary on this subject that the mainstream media provided ever, but where is it now? I checked the History Channel and all I found was a brief summation saying that "Episodes for this season are currently unavailable on our site." The vast majority of the public didn't pay much attention to this anymore than they might be inclined to pay attention to the Vietnam documentary; and it will quickly go down the memory hole if we let it, which is typical of state propaganda.
Whether it is the War on Vietnam or the War on Drugs the best research is still what's available from alternative media outlets or in the best non-fiction books often collecting dust in libraries.
This has been typical of the way the most important news has been reported in this country; one good example is the recent disclosure that Reagan Documents Shed Light on U.S. ‘Meddling’ 09/13/2017 reported by Robert Parry on Consortium News. Where's the reporting on this in the traditional news?
The government declassified some of the covert actions that admit to some of their worst corrupt activities at a very low profile level and like other examples where they've declassified documents the traditional media either doesn't report it at all or they only report a small portion of it. More credible reporters like Robert Parry or other people from alternative media outlets often do much better research into it; yet they're often labeled conspiracy theorists by traditional pundits, even though some of their alleged conspiracies from the past have often been partially if not entirely proven to be true based on declassified documents ignored by the mainstream media!
They continue to provide at least two dramatically different versions of history, one well researched and only reported in a low profile and one propaganda version repeated over and over again by the mainstream media!
And they're in the process of using epidemic war propaganda to prepare the public for one war or anther based on lies now, whether it is the conflict with North Korea or the clownish attempt to blame the problems with the 2016 election on Russia and their alleged hacking to expose the conspiracy by the Democratic National Committee to rig the primary election for Hillary Clinton by giving her overwhelming advantages in the timing of various primaries and preferential treatment from the media!
As I've reported repeatedly, and so have many others from alternative media outlets, there is no way that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could have even gotten the nomination if the mainstream media hadn't given both of them an insane amount of obsession coverage while refusing to give most grassroots candidates much if any coverage at all. The media refuses to cover candidates unless they collect an enormous amount of bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions from powerful corporations. Bernie Sanders, and to a lesser degree Jill Stein managed to get some coverage, thanks to an enormous amount of grassroots work from the most well informed people in this country; however in order to get name recognition to become a viable candidate in a country dominated by mass media a candidate needs some favorable coverage. Instead of giving even these two candidates a chance they treated them as fringe and kept their coverage to a minimum compared to the two candidates that got the nomination, who both also happened to be under FBI investigation and involved in many more scandals that weren't being investigated but should have been.
If Russia was involved in any attempts to rig the election they couldn't have accomplished much if anything without help from the mass media and political organizations in this country! And, amazingly the thing they're being accused of the most is hacking E-Mails to expose efforts by the DNC to rig their own primaries, and according to several E-Mails even help Donald Trump win the nomination, since they allegedly thought he would be easy to beat.
Somehow they managed to provide the hardest hitting documentary that the mainstream media has ever provided and still covered up some of the most important facts; but if the majority of the public let's them then they've already indicated they'll keep leading into one war after another based on lies then come back after it's too late and admit to parts of it before leading us into another war based on lies!
For some of the other critical articles from alternative media outlets about the Vietnam War or exposing Morgan Freeman't propaganda efforts see the following:
Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 09/02/1945
Getting the Gulf of Tonkin Wrong: Are Ken Burns and Lynn Novick “Telling Stories” About the Central Events Used to Legitimize the US Attack Against Vietnam? 09/19/2017
The Killing of History 09/21/2017
Ken Burns Vietnam Documentary? Or Should I Watch Game of Thrones Again? 09/21/2017
American Rape of Vietnamese Women was “Considered Standard Operating Procedure” 19/30/2017
Ken Burns Defends His Indefensible Reinvention of Vietnam War History 09/02/2017
Deplorable Ignorance and Indifference of Most Americans 09/17/2017
Morgan Freeman's Russia-Hating Video Has Gone Viral - But Not the Way He Hoped 09/26/2017
Actor-director Rob Reiner and actor Morgan Freeman have teamed up with a sordid crowd of extreme right-wingers to push the McCarthyite anti-Russia campaign. 09/26/2017
Morgan Freeman: War Whore 09/27/2017
Wikipedia: Vietnam War
Wikipedia: Ngo Dinh Diem
The contradictions of Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s The Vietnam War 10/03/2017
Hard Hat Riot: Tea Party of yesteryear 11/19/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment