The Texicans

I remember a discussion on a forum I frequent about America's wars. I mentioned the War with Mexico as an example of a war based on the desire to steal land. I thought that maybe everyone would see that this was a bad war based on greed. I was wrong. While I did not find the defense that war received very coherent, a defense was made. Ultimately the defense seems to be the same one John Wayne gave in his infamous Playboy interview for the way we treated the Indians: "We needed the land, and the Indians selfishly wanted to keep it for themselves." (While I have not found a good reference for this, there are enough secondary references that I think he did say this.) 

Before we can discuss the War with Mexico, we need to discuss the Revolution of Texas. 

The movie that John Wayne starred in and directed naturally comes to mind in the context of the War with Mexico. That movie was The Alamo. As is natural in such propaganda efforts, the Mexicans were portrayed as evil. (It should be pointed out that Wayne married three Hispanic women.)

Here is what John Wayne's character said about the war:

“I may sound like a bible beater yelling up a revival at a river crossing camp meeting but that don’t change the truth none, there’s right and there’s wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one and you’re living, you do the other and you may be walking around but you’re dead as a beaver hat.”

- Col. Davy Crockett in The Alamo 1960, directed by John Wayne

Why did the Texicans throw off Mexican rule? No doubt the fact that most of them wanted to have a system of government similar to what they had in America. Wikipedia tells us this about the war:

Animosity between the Mexican government and the settlers in Texas, including many settlers of Mexican ancestry, began with the Siete Leyes of 1835, when Mexican President and General Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished the federal Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed the more centralizing 1835 constitution in its place. The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to secession movements and violence in several Mexican states.

There were religious elements as well. 

Some American immigrants and Mexican citizens were accustomed to the rights they had in the U.S. that they did not have in Mexico. For example, Mexico did not protect Freedom of Religion, instead requiring colonists to pledge their acceptance of Roman Catholicism; Mexican Law also required a tithe paid to the Catholic Church.

John Wayne converted to Catholicism, so this aspect was not mentioned in the movie. His conversion was probably later, but all his wives were Catholic. 

Another aspect that was not mentioned is that in Mexico slavery was illegal. Since there were 5000 slaves in Texas, you can see the economic aspects of the Texas revolution as well. So for good and bad reasons, Texas became independent in 1836.

The pattern we have been seeing for false flags continues in the Texas Revolution. We have a false cinematic impression of the war. Brave fighters against the evil, dark skinned foe is the meme. Important issues like slavery are ignored. While if I had been a Texican, I would have supported the revolution, hopefully I would have seen the whole picture.

As America leaves two wars and prepare to head to another war, can we see the big picture? 

Saturday I will talk about the American-Mexican War. 

Update on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 11:12AM by [Positive Dennis]

Todd Suave sent me the following:

Dennis,

I Googled the John Wayne quote and found this for you:

The interview is reprinted in The Playboy Intervew (Wideview Books, c1981). Here is the text of one answer about the Indians:

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that's what you're asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves." -p.269

It is apparently available on this Playboy interview CD-ROM:

Of course John Wayne was already dead in 1981 so I have no idea when he may have said this. Since Playboy only started publishing in the early 1950s, it was obviously somewhere in that 25 year or so period. It sounds 1950-60's-ish.

Thanks Todd. 

In 18 And 14 I Took A Little Trip ...

I have often in the past commented that few of America's wars were justified. One war that I would mention as justified was the war of 1812. There were a number of legitimate grievances that the young republic had with England. The treaty that ended the Revolutionary War required that England give up their forts in the West—in what is now the American Midwest. Instead, they kept them and armed the Indians and tried to establish an Indian confederation in the area. Of course the English Empire could have cared less about the Indians, they wanted a counterbalancing force against America. 

Another issue was that English ships would seize American-flagged ships and enslave the sailors to forced labor on English warships. There was a war with France, and England needed all the sailors they could get. Remember also that France was a traditional ally of America that had sold a huge swath of land to America, the Louisiana Purchase. 

My perspective has changed because of Facebook. Some Canadian Facebook friends pointed out that the real reason for the war was the desire of America to annex Canada. I had been deceived by the propaganda for the war. 

This is often how the false flags I have been talking about work. There are often legitimate grievances that are mentioned in the propaganda, but the real reasons are not mentioned quite so vocally.  Robert Wilson Lynd said, "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." Here is what Wiki thought about American expectations for "a short victorious war."

American leaders assumed that Canada could be easily overrun. Former President Jefferson optimistically referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching." Many Loyalist Americans had migrated to Upper Canada after the Revolutionary War, and the US assumed they would favor the American cause, but they did not.

The result was not a short victorious war but a war that killed 15,000—not counting Canadians and Indians of course! (For some reason the song about Billy the Kid keeps running through my head, "Billy killed 20 men, not counting Mexicans and Indians.") 

So when you hear legitimate grievances being aired in the media in a prelude to war, ask yourself a question, "Is this the real reason for the upcoming conflict?" Or is what is happening similar to what Vyacheslav von Plehve said in reference to the Russo-Japanese War: "What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution."

That war did not end well for Russia. Will the next war end well for America? I have a feeling we will know this year as the mania builds for a short victorious airstrike. More about this later. 

Told You I Did, Reckless Is He.

The parallels between modern America and a police state become more and more evident each day. Republicans take note, do you really think McCain would have been any different? 

Gulf of Tonkin

Another example of a false flag was the Gulf of Tonkin incident that preceded the Vietnam War. 

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or the USS Maddox Incident, are the names given to two separate confrontations, one actual and one now recognized as non-existent, involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. A sea battle resulted, in which the Maddox expended over two hundred and eighty 3-inch and 5-inch shells, and in which four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers strafed the torpedo boats. One US aircraft was damaged, one 14.5 mm round hit the destroyer, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed and six were wounded; there were no U.S. casualties.

As you can see from this quote in Wikipedia, it is not even in dispute that part of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" never happened. The part that did happen is interesting. The intelligence-gathering ship entered waters claimed by North Vietnam. The Maddox fired first. The presence of the ship in these waters was designed to "test Vietnamese resolve." So the Johnson Administration claim that the Vietnamese fired first was a lie. 

Here is a quote from document declassified in 2005. 

At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.

And as for the supposed second incident: 

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.

US Government's Version of the Journey of the MaddoxWhile the Maddox was in international waters, it was within the waters claimed by Vietnam. The Maddox was sent into these waters on purpose. Was it hoped that Vietnam would attack to give Johnson the pretext he wanted to intervene in the Vietnamese civil war? We do not know—but the pattern of all these wars I have talked about would indicate yes. 

Why don't more politicians stand up against all the wars? The example of Senators Kerry and Clinton show the problem. 

Clinton supported the Iraq war. It was a position that she staked out, probably in consultation with her husband, designed to make her more electable when she ran for president. Support of these wars is all about politics. Ironically her support of the war was a factor in her defeat in the Democratic primaries in 2008. To make it even more ironic, Obama opposed her position, and then once elected adopted it. 

Kerry had a tough choice as well. So he tried to be on both sides of the issue at once. This led to his famous quote, "I was in favor of the war, before I was against it." But that is not exactly what he said:

Voting for or against one particular bill does not tell us a lot about a person's position, but the die was cast of Kerry as a "flip-flopper." He was doomed. 

Why don't politicians stand up when these false flag incidents occur? The career of Wayne Morse highlights this:

While President Johnson’s final resolution was being drafted, Senator Wayne Morse attempted to hold a fundraiser to raise awareness about possible faulty records of the incident involving the USS Maddox. Morse supposedly received a call from an informant who has remained anonymous urging Morse to investigate official logbooks of the Maddox. These logs were not available before President Johnson’s resolution was presented to Congress.

After urging Congress that they should be wary of President Johnson’s coming attempt to convince Congress of his resolution, Morse failed to gain enough cooperation and support from his colleagues to mount any sort of movement to stop it. Immediately after the resolution was read and presented to Congress, Morse began to fight it. He contended in speeches to Congress that the actions taken by the United States were actions outside of the constitution and were “acts of war rather than acts of defense."

Morse’s efforts were not immediately met with support, largely because he revealed no sources and was working with very limited information. It was not until after the United States became more involved in the war that his claim began to gain support throughout the United States government. The controversial Morse was defeated when he ran for re-election in 1968.

Here is a you tube clip about the Gulf of Tonkin incident from 60 minutes, done at that time. President Johnson, Senators Fulbright and Morse are featured. 

Here is another clip that features Admiral Stockdale, who says nothing happened on the second day. 

The example of Wayne Morse is that if you oppose wars, you get defeated. We need more politicians who do not care about this, but value the truth more. And yes, I realize that the term "truthful politician" is an example of an oxymoron. 

Disney Propaganda: Education for Death

The following video is a fine example of WWII propaganda. What was most interesting about it was the fadeout and replacement of the Bible with Mein Kampf in the cartoon. Of course today we have no Bible in the schools. I am not necessarily saying it should be in the schools, but if its absence in Nazi schools is bad, what does this say about our schools?  

Note also the harshness of the German to our English ears. This also was designed to add to the effect of the propaganda. 

The purpose of our school system is not to educate. It is to enforce conformity. It is to make us complacent. It is to make us slaves. Of course a good slave does need a basic education in order to be a good worker. 

While our education system has not reached the point it may have in Nazi Germany, we are getting there. Here is an example:

Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday he had signed a bill that will require public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas.

The bill, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, will also require teachers to provide instruction on the role of people with disabilities.

“History should be honest,” Brown said in a statement.

This is not new. I remember my 8th grade history book. It only mentioned one person by name who was killed in the Boston Massacre in the American Revolutionary War. Would you care to guess his race? 

This is a propaganda technique called framing that was discussed in yesterday's video on propaganda. 

This is not being honest. This is framing the data in order to achieve the desired result. Thanksgiving is a good example of what I mean. Most of what we learned about it in school is myth and propaganda. John C. Dvorak, a tech writer and pundit, wrote about this several years ago. 

Although I am not a historian, I do have the training. History is seldom totally honest, as it is often used to justify whatever political ideology the writer has. This is why in the series on Church history that I am working on I start with my biases. Self-examination of our individual biases is a needed step to understand any subject. If we do not do this self-examination, we end up susceptible to propaganda.

Think I am out of line in my characterization of our current school system?