EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Put Away the Flags
Remembering Howard Zinn on July 4th
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its
symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its
insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
Howard Zinn died on January 27, 2010. Please read Matthew Rothschild's "Thank you, Howard Zinn," for more about his legacy.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
177 Comments so far
Show All"One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Stated as if *NOTHING AT ALL* occured between 12/7/1941 and 8/6/1945.
Good grief.
20% of the victims of Hiroshima were Koreans, essentially kidnapped and brought to Japan to work at non-defense industries as replacements for the men in the armed forces. Most of the rest were women and children, notably powerless especially in pre-1945 Japan. I'm not clear why any discussion of the war years (which I'm sure Howard Zinn recalls, as he flew on bombers in the ETO, where about 2/3rd's never returned) would mitigate the injustice of their wanton, tormented deaths. Especially since the Japanese government had made it clear by that time that they would surrender and only the details remained to be ironed out, a fact that sinks that canard about averting "a million casualties if we invade". Your shallow, ethnocentric response is exactly what this article is about. Far from refuting it, it illustrates its central point.
That hurts my feelings.
Meaning that you, just like Rich, are incapable of having any discussion about the point I made, so you resort to name calling. *shrug*
Have a great holiday!
the fourth of july is far from holy.
You have a great holiday too!
RichM
What we have to recall is that the words that Henry Fonda's character said to the elderly juror as he attempted to reason with the juror played by Jack Warden certainly pertains to Mr. Newton:
"He can't hear you. He never will."
"Your shallow, ethnocentric response is exactly what this article is about. "
Read what I said again. I only said that the author makes his statement as though nothing happened between Pearl harbor and Hiroshima, but suggests one was simply a response to the other. Nothing could be more simplistic and wrong, and my response has nothing to do with any "ethnocentricity". Stop projecting and start reading more carefully.
Between 12/7/41 d 8/6/45eer were many battles. It was a horrible hate war. Horrible atrocities were in fact committed by both sides. In the end, industrial power prevailed. How does that change the discussion?
Consider this. The use of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is often justified with the notion that the lives of millions were saved by using it when we did, even though the use of those bombs resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 children. Suppose we could have stopped and won the war earlier by killing 100,000 American children. Should we have done so?
"Between 12/7/41 d 8/6/45eer were many battles."
Correct, in the early part of that period Japan was the aggressor, trying to folow up it's victory at Pearl Harbor. By the end of that period there were hundreds of times more casualties then were inflicted at Pearl Harbor.
"How does that change the discussion?"
The discussion I was trying to have was on a narrow point: Zinn said that nationalism leads to justifying the dead at Hiroshima by the dead at Pearl Harbor. Given what happened between those two events, the contention is simplistic and wrong. In fact, I've never heard *anyone* using Pearl HArbor as the sole justification for dropping the bombs.
Jake, you're neglecting Zinn's intent. His intent was to speak to the people in regard to human nature. The elites would be nothing without the people. So it should be no surprise that Zinn's strategy is to refocus the people's attention upon themselves.
The people tend to embrace the 2300 deaths at Pearl Harbor, because that's human nature. You might consider what ultimately drove USans in the voting booths in 2004 to keep Darth Viper in the cockpit of the USS Avenger. It was the 3000 deaths on 9/11 - same thing at Pearl Harbor.
Why might you want to distract the people from awareness of their own nature? And their role in carving their own destiny?
"Jake, you're neglecting Zinn's intent. His intent was to speak to the people in regard to human nature."
OK.
"The people tend to embrace the 2300 deaths at Pearl Harbor, because that's human nature."
To the exclusion of the many thousands more deaths that occured afterward, and as well the apparent motives of the Japenese at that time to kill and conquer throughout the Pacific?? I doubt that in the strongest terms.
And that is somehow supposed to justify what the United States did to those innocent civilians in Japan? As you say, I doubt that in the strongest terms.
It is really mystifying why such a strong supporter of United States foreign policies like yourself has not done his patriotic duty and that would be to ENLIST.
Remember Jake, your country NEEDS YOU.
"And that is somehow supposed to justify what the United States did to those innocent civilians in Japan?"
Pay attention Erroll, I didn't justify anything, I simply added much more things to consider than Zinn was considering.
Collateral Damage is a fact in war, especially modern war. A fact. The discussion on that is on going and extensive and I suggest you read something about it before saying something stupid.
"It is really mystifying why such a strong supporter of United States foreign policies like yourself"
What is your best evidence that that I am "a strong supporter of United States foreign policies"? Straw Man much? Are you ever going to read up on Logical Fallacies like I suggested before? You make them all the time just as you did here. Do you know what a Straw Man is?
I am beginning to think you are not reachable in this area, and that you will continue to sling your crap around in forums while lacking the most fundamental skills.
The point I take about what Zinn's intent might have been about human nature, is that once Nationalistic Pride becomes conditioned within a Chain Of Command that is acting reactionary any kind of horrific human manifestation can occur; both Japan and the US(then and now) demonstrated the atrocities that can happen among humans when a basic human recognition fails to occur because it's clouded by Nationalism (a simplistic comparison is going to the check out now adays: you're more likely to be engaged by the corporate loyalty speak about their loyalty card, then by a how are you, or how's the family? Similar disconnect on differing levels of society...same dehumanizing(for all) result).
I have no doubt that nationalism can lead to a lack of reason on any number of things, but Zinn's example of Pearl Harbor vis a vis Hiroshima was terrible.
"...though the use of those bombs resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 children. " Is this a proved statement? Or were our generation so unutterably naive that some of us joined the WAVES and WACS before graduation from college, thinking that we were being "patriotic"?
As to be expected, jake newton's comment makes very little sense at all. In Howard Zinn's example the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was committed against a military base. The U.S. destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was committed against civilians. The U.S. attack on those cities should be seen as revenge against the Japanese while jake newton is attempting, without success, to condone what the U.S. did because of what the Japanese did during the war. Jake newton is actually trying to justify what the U.S. did to those people because of Japan's actions during wartime. One is supposed to justify the other? I think not.
"In Howard Zinn's example "
He specifically said this:
"One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
"the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was committed against a military base. The U.S. destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was committed against civilians."
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Zinn's point that nationalism led to justifying Hiroshima by Pearl Harbor.
Why do you *always* change the subject? I may actually agree with what you wrote here but it WASN'T WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. Once again, the subject is Zinn's contention that "the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion". The example was bad because it skipped over four and a half years of history between the two events and no one makes that justification anyway.
Your argument about points that I never make are best left for such time when someone actually makes them. Isn't that a good idea?
As I have attempted to advise you many times in the past, you should really try to focus on the subject at hand. As Howard Zinn correctly noted, and as you yourself have even quoted him as saying, "The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki." So isn't a it good idea to address that issue since that is certainly the subject that we are talking about. I and many others contend that the bombing of those Japanese cities was entirely unjustified because the United States, as a result of nationalistic thinking, convinced itself that the destruction of those cities was carried out out of revenge because Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor which, as I attempted to point out, despite your protests, was a military base while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible.
You are attempting, as usual, to obfuscate the issue when you want to focus on what happened during the war while not acknowledging that the slaughter of all those civilians was entirely unnecessary.
Jake, please try taking up yoga or TM as that might, perhaps, enable you to focus on the more important issues at hand. Or better yet, to demonstrate your nationalism, and at the same time also impressing your neoconservative colleagues, why not show them and us what a red blooded American you are by fighting for your cause in the Middle East by ENLISTING. Think how proud your fellow neocons will be when you return to this country missing an arm or a leg or having half of your face blown off. And you can have the satisfaction of telling them that it all happened because of your righteous beliefs.
Yo man! :-)
"As Howard Zinn correctly noted,"
He was incorrect, and I explained why when I said "The example was bad because it skipped over four and a half years of history between the two events and no one makes that justification anyway." I don't know why you ignored that, but that's how you seem to do things.
"I and many others contend that the bombing of those Japanese cities was entirely unjustified "
I know, and it has nothing to do with the above, and I am uninterested in it. Zinn never tried to make this point in his article either.
"You are attempting, as usual, to obfuscate the issue "
By focusing like a lazer on Zinn's point? His point was very narrow. *You* obfuscate by ignoring what I've said about Zinn's point and instead trying to broaden it way past anything he or I ever said.
"Jake, please try taking up yoga or TM "
LOL! You misunderstand where you are. It is *you* who should study up on Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies.
"why not show them and us what a red blooded American you are by fighting for your cause in the Middle East by ENLISTING."
Just look at how distracted you are here. Trust me, the military does not want me in their ranks. LOL!
"Trust me, the military does not want me in their ranks. LOL!"
Just out of curiosity, what would prevent you from enlisting? What is it they haven't lowered the requirements on that disqualifies you?
Age.
Mangled left foot.
And I would likely prove a coward under fire.
"In Howard Zinn's example the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was committed against a military base. The U.S. destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was committed against civilians."
–(Erroll)
The salient point. No more need be said despite the obscene circle dance, the roundelay of prevarications from petty fascists like JakeNewton.
The former example was a peremptory military action (however reprehensible) that was all but provoked; the latter was a gratuitous and barbaric act of terrorism and the mass slaughter of civilians inspired by motivations of the vilest nationalism and revenge.
The disproportionality of the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has become a subsequent operational leitmotif– a tacit protocol– which has become typically, if not endemically American, in such concepts as 'full spectrum dominance.'
Where the unconscionable, no matter the scale of the abomination, can somehow always be justified.
"The salient point. No more need be said despite the obscene circle dance, the roundelay of prevarications from petty fascists like JakeNewton."
Why do you say I am a Fascist?
Do you know what a Logical Fallacy is? Do you know which one you just committed?
"The former example was a peremptory military action (however reprehensible) that was all but provoked; the latter was a gratuitous and barbaric act of terrorism and the mass slaughter of civilians inspired by motivations of the vilest nationalism and revenge."
My point has *always* been that Zinn was wrong in saying that anyone justified Hiroshima solely with Pearl Harbor. It's untrue. There has been no specific example of *anyone* making that claim.
i dont care if they are American citizens if its going to end a war that claimed over 25 million lives DO IT
It really blows the mind -- and should of every American -- the amount of lives lost of Afghani and Iraqi citizens for the 3,000 (give or take) lost on 9-11. It's an abomination, whether it was an inside job or not.
Well, this nation is a LAUGHING STOCK and it most certainly isn't independent in any true sense whether we are talking going to wars for plundering other nations of their resources, borrowing money from other nations to finance obscene war spending and tax cuts for the corporate and wealthy elites, "free" trade scams, outsourcing, or using immigrants for slave labor. Listen, the American electorate can keep being dishonest with itself into believing that it is better than Europe or despite the inconvenient truth that the nation is on LIFE SUPPORT and it is only a matter of time when the US will have to finally come clean too and pay the piper. The 4th of July is nowadays another joke day much like Thanksgiving Day where gratitude isn't the norm or Valentine's Day for a nation that has a 50% divorce rate and ranks pretty high in broken relationships and domestic abuses. But please enjoy the holiday and forget where all those 4th of July goodies are made in. As for "please get me out of here", I won't be one of them. I wouldn't want the US to keep poisoning other nations so I would rather stick with those trying to fight the source here on the homeland.
".....whiners..." ding ding ding
You have a point, jakenewton. The second sentence needed work. Of course, the essay was not intended as a substitute for in-depth discussions on the various topics he mentions. I understand his intent, and I agree with it.
"The second sentence needed work. "
Strongly agreed.
"I understand his intent,"
I do too.
" and I agree with it."
And I don't. We can talk more on it if you want. Thanks for your response.
I want. What do you disagree with?
"I want."
Cool.
"What do you disagree with?"
A statement like this by Zinn:
"The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
I have never once heard of someone justifying the dropping the two A bombs solely on the dead at Pearl Harbor. There were over four additional years of Japenese attrocities that might have been used as a much better reason instead, or in addition, if you prefer.
I already agreed with you on that point. When I wrote that I understand his intent and agree with it, I was referring to the article and his views on nationalism. I can forgive him a little sermonizing.
A more in-depth discussion would include a closer look, nation by nation, concentrating on the examples that are most relevant to a supremacist empire nation.
"I can forgive him a little sermonizing."
Very well then. OTOH, I have a big problem with generalities thrown out with no examples to support them. I suspect you understand that by now. Have a great holiday if you celebrate it.
Likewise, I hope you enjoy your holiday, jakenewton.
Thanks, you too, and thanks for being reasonable.
Jake, the use of nuclear weapons on civilians when the Japan was already basically defeated, when compared to what the Japanese did in Pearl Harbor is even less justified than what most people had realised.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor was always considered to be so terribly unforgivable; it was always understood to have been a totally and cowardly unprovoked attack on an America peacefully minding its own business. However, newly released documents show PEARL HARBOR WAS NOT UNPROVOKED as you can read below. If so then Hiroshima and Nagasaki can not even begin to be justified by Pearl Harbor.
In the decade before WW2, the US was already at war with Japan in China through America's Chinese proxies, the Nationalist and Communists. The USA had even been planning to bomb Japan but changed their mind and used a much more cunning approach. The US set up a resources siege on Japan (Doesn't that sound familiar?) The US Secretary of State Hull, gave Japan an ultimatum to leave China (where the Japanese had been for a long time). If Japan did not leave China, Japan would not get any more oil or rubber, amongst other things. Hull and Roosevelt knew full well the Japanese wouldn't leave China and couldn't operate at all without the oil or rubber. The whole ultimatum was a ploy to provoke Japan to attack the USA so that the USA could enter WW2 with popular support at home.
What happened and why has become clearer since documents from the time have been released more recently. Although I have known about this for a while now from many varied sources, you can read an article about it (including some documentation) at:
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm
Jan, all of this is very interesting but has nothing to do with my beef with Zinn's specific point. The subject is Zinn's contention that "the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion". The example was bad because it skipped over four and a half years of history between the two events and no one makes that justification anyway.
A loss of proportion involves a comparison. Nationalist thinking influences the way you judge your own nations actions as excusable but the comparable actions of the other nation is condemned. Nationalist thinking also allows your nation to do things that if anyone else did it you would go beserk.
This point is clear; you don't need to state all of the aspects of the issue to make a comparison. Specifically most Americans consider the "unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor" the reason the US destroyed two cities in Japan by nuking them. Zinn doesn't even mention the relentless firebombing to deliberately create firestorms annihilating most Japanese cities. So if we followed your logic Jake we should have complained about that too because a much greater disproportionality was committed by the USA than Zinn mentioned in his comparison.
A story is always bigger than anyone can possibly cover when making certain points. Surely you can't cover all aspects of something nor do you need to in order to make your point about it.
"A loss of proportion involves a comparison."
Of course.
"Nationalist thinking influences the way you judge your own nations actions as excusable but the comparable actions of the other nation is condemned. Nationalist thinking also allows your nation to do things that if anyone else did it you would go beserk."
All quite possibly true, but the example was bad, see below.
"You don't need to state all of the aspects of the issue to make a comparison."
Agreed, but certain omissions are deafening in their absence, such as four and a half years of additional war where Japan was the aggressor.
"Specifically most Americans consider the "unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor" the reason the US destroyed two cities in Japan by nuking them."
Specifically who? I can't think of a single one who thinks that, Pearl Harbor being the sole reason. What people typically recognize is that Pearl Harbor was simply the first belligerent act and that many more cascaded from it from an obvious policy of armed conquest involving carnage exponentially beyond what happened at Pearl Harbor, and that it all culminated in August of '45. So getting back to your point about comparisons, it seems to me that it is only Zinn and you who compare 3000 in '41 to a couple hundred thousand in August of '45, and that is a complete misread of the situation.
"Zinn doesn't even mention the relentless firebombing to deliberately create firestorms annihilating most Japanese cities."
I know, he skipped it all, didn't he? I think he was disingenuous in doing so, which is far worse than just being ignorant.
"disproportionality was committed by the USA"
I deny any principle of proportionality being morally required, The Japanese were collectively suicidal in their tactics and strategy. The moral requirement is to use what most seems to be the force required to defeat the enemy.
"A story is always bigger than anyone can possibly cover when making certain points."
I know that. But Zinn's angle was obviously that of "America is always bad". Sure America is sometimes bad, especially with 20-20 hind sight and seen from someone who wasn't taking any risks himself at the time, but where the support for "America bad" is so glaringly erroneous I will point it out.
Jake,
when you added that many more years of stuff happened between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I immediately thought "Yes of course a whole war took place where both sides did nasty things". However, once YOU wanted to add extra things (I presume they were nasty things done by the Japanese,) that were aimed at saying Zinn's claim of disproportional response was not warranted, OTHERS here (like me and Elmwood) added extra things (like the earlier bad ways the US had treated Japan and the deliberate provocation by the US to deliberately force a bad reaction from Japan). My additions were to contextualise Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor to show that Zinn's claim of disproportionality WAS warranted after all.
In short, you decided your preferred inclusions to the equation to be relevant and yet other people's points in balance against yours as not relevant. That was a basic error but I am not going over those points again.
In allocating blame for a war the question of who started it is the first thing people go on about. "Oh but they started it" is what people often say to justify the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the invasion of Afghanistan. I am not doing a study to find out what percentage of people say or think that, or what other things people believe that would justify the Nuking of Japan and the Afghanistan invasion; these things can not easily be quantified if you want a numerical comparison. But is that really necessary to undestand this issue?
Surely no-one really disagrees that 9-11 really changed things in the minds of mainstream America; it was often likened to Pearl Harbor by the MSM and the Bushies. What they usually meant is these attacks justified all sorts of nasty things we were going to do (Patriot Act/ War on Terrorism) and have subsequently done (Invading Afghanistan and Iraq, basically in retaliation and very disproportionately nasty, which is what Zinn criticised)
U.S. exceptionalism, nationalism, superiorism and "full spectrum dominance" all have something to do with believing it is okey to do "whatever it takes" because we are American. Basically we are always right and good and they are always wrong and bad. Jake, you are clearly in that camp - I'll pray for you. God Bless the Whole World.
.
"He really hates having people use humor"
What's sticky and brown?
Scroll down.
Scroll further.
A little more
A stick!
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
"Zinn's claim of disproportionality WAS warranted after all."
He made a *specific* claim in his specific comparison. All the other points may very well be true, but I am not addressing them because my beef is what *Zinn* said. Zinn stated that the A bombs aere justified by Pearl Harbor and was wrong. Please try to understand that, and forget about if there was some general disproportionate reaction in total. That is not what I am talking about.
"In allocating blame for a war the question of who started it is the first thing people go on about."
I don't care to go into this in detail, I am just looking for clarification: Do you think Japan started a war with the US in 1941?
"Basically we are always right and good and they are always wrong and bad. Jake, you are clearly in that camp"
Actually I admitted that the US has been wrong or bad at times, so I am not in that camp.
"I'll pray for you. God Bless the Whole World."
Thank you.
"That is not what I am talking about."
You think you are so logical; you are definitely persistent. But about what?
I know your direct repeated claim is: "my beef is what *Zinn* said". But when you are claiming as well that the nuking WAS justified, that it WAS proportional AND that Zinn left out all that important stuff that happened after Pearl Harbor, your intention of raising what you claim was "left out" was clearly to criticise Zinn's argument about disproportionality. This is so obvious that the fact that you can't see it or can't acknowledge it makes me worried about how your mind works. Why not check one of the links from the following site:
http://autism.about.com/od/aspergerssyndrome/tp/whygetasdx.htm
Or ask your doctor for a second opinion.
"But when you are claiming as well that the nuking WAS justified,"
Like Erroll, you will look in vain for any such claim, and cannot produce any quote from me that's constitutes that claim.
"that it WAS proportional"
I have no opinion about whether it was proportional or not. I did however suggest that there may not be anything morally wrong about disproportionate reactions in war.
"AND that Zinn left out all that important stuff that happened after Pearl Harbor,"
He did.
"your intention"
This makes me worried about how your mind works. Intention is something that can not be observed. It is locked within the mind of the intender, so you would need ESP to observe it. This is a very important lesson for you to learn, I have high hopes that you will.
"This is so obvious"
See above, all you can do is guess. *Very* important that you learn this.
"Or ask your doctor for a second opinion."
You can't argue it straight, soyou go to this classless level. You have a nice day.
I'm waiting to see if you really do want to have the last say and then when no-one replies anymore you have convinced yourself that you have "Kicked ass" as you put it.
Your obsession to win using "Logic" as you call it, is betrayed by your inability to understand the fuller meaning behind what is said beyond direct quotes.
Meaning is generally infered and not necessarily said directly, just like you infered a meaning from me that made you consider I was going "to this classless level".
Everyone uses whole sentences and paragraphs to figure out meaning, that is, from more than just direct quotes isolated from each other; either you are playing games just to argue and waste our time, or you have a problem because you don't understand how meaning is derived. If you don't understand that, you may have aspergers syndrome or something very much like it. Ask your doctor or look it up.
"I'm waiting to see if you really do want to have the last say and then when no-one replies anymore you have convinced yourself that you have "Kicked ass" as you put it."
The test of whether I have kicked ass or not is not if I am the last post, but in your failure to provide the quotes that would substantiate what you claimed I said but didn't. In half the time it took you to type this post you would have been able to find those quotes and cited them. But they don't exist, so your claim is still false.
"your inability to understand the fuller meaning behind what is said beyond direct quotes."
It's not that I don't understand it, I just don't care about it. All I care about is the very narrow quote in question, which is false and disingenuous. That argument stands.
"Meaning is generally infered and not necessarily said directly, just like you infered a meaning from me that made you consider I was going "to this classless level"."
You suggested I was was mentally handicapped as a substitute for discussing the issue directly. That is lacking in class. That is just my opinion.
"either you are playing games just to argue and waste our time, or you have a problem because you don't understand how meaning is derived."
A false choice. A third possibility is that I simply wanted to point out a false statement by Zinn.
And I would concentrate on your own shortcomings instead of what you guess are mine, such as believing that you can discern someone’s intent, which is akin to reading minds. Maybe you *are* gifted.
Jake, I have known a variety of very capable people with aspergers. Some people who are professors and very learned have aspergers syndrome. Instead of using that label, it might have been more useful to try to explain where you go wrong in your approach to what people write.
In my judgement you tend to lock in to "logic" as the be all and end all. You are too often pointing out "logical fallacies" when at the same time it seems to me that you "can't see the wood for the trees" so to speak.
In my view it would be useful for you to do some study of linguistics, particularly Pragmatics and Semantics; you will find there is more going on in communication than you seem to be aware of. I have noticed that you value the skills levels of people who repond to your posts; you have commented on them at Commondreams so I didn't feel you should mind my analysis of what I consider your rather too narrowly obsessive "logical" approach.