Rising fascism in the US

The land? Well, it doesn't anymore. They lost it in a war.

The U.S. was born out of ethnic cleansing, a violent process that had started long before 1776 and would not be complete until 1900. In other words, more than half of America’s existence (about 53%) has been marked by the active process of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, which was ultimately all but destroyed.

If the Islamophobes insist that the Armenian Genocide, which took place in the span of eight years, defines the Ottoman Empire (which existed for over 600 years, meaning the Armenian Genocide lasted only 1% of its existence), then would they be consistent and use this logic to argue that the ethnic cleansing of the American Indians (which spanned more than a century and a quarter, or 53% of America’s existence) defines the United States? Or would they use it to demean Christianity overall as they do Islam?

By looking at America’s many wars throughout history, it becomes apparent that it is not radical Islam that propels the country to war. Rather, it is America’s trajectory of war and conquest, which has always been in the direction of expanding hegemony. In the start, the country expanded by occupying American Indian lands, portraying its indigenous population as inherently violent and warlike. In 1823, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: “The tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war…” [2]

The American Indians were thought to be an existential threat to the United States (a classic case of projection or role inversion): John Quincy Adams, for example, wrote that “the savage Indians” were out to “wage an exterminating war” against the “peaceful inhabitants” of the United States [3]. It was the same message then as it is now: we must attack them before they attack us.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/

We have certainly done them no good with this stuff.)

****, this reminds me of the Helen Jamesians in The World According to Garp.

Too few people know ...

Garp was an enjoyable movie, though as is usually the case the book was better

The Hotel New Hampshire film was awful (loved the book) and spoiled me ever seeing another film based on an Irving novel again

djjd62 wrote:

Garp was an enjoyable movie, though as is usually the case the book was better

The Hotel New Hampshire film was awful (loved the book) and spoiled me ever seeing another film based on an Irving novel again

Yes, very rarely are movies better than books. Irving is an inspiring novelist and I thought he did a good job with "Cider House Rules".

djjd62 wrote:

Garp was an enjoyable movie, though as is usually the case the book was better

The Hotel New Hampshire film was awful (loved the book) and spoiled me ever seeing another film based on an Irving novel again