CDZ Crash Course in U.S. History -- Economics, immigration, race, and class

[GaryDog]

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

BTW none of the Founders had their own non-profit Foundation collecting contributions from foreign government in exchange for political favors

Feel free to abstain from the discussion then.

So you can continue to lie, misrepresent and spew all over American History?

No, thanks.

Well at least you're on record for being unwilling to learn a damned thing.

 

[GaryDog]

One of my favorite history courses in college dealt with Latin American history. It's so exceedingly interesting the extent to which our involvement there transformed the continent, and in turn transformed our own culture in terms of migration, drug policy, etc.

Did you read a book from Eduardo Galeano called The Open Veins of Latin America? I'm not saying it was perfect, but I found it to be quite educational. So did former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He gave Obama a copy in Spanish (he should have gotten him an english copy in my view), but regardless as to whether Obama ever got a copy in english and read it, the book got some much needed attention, rising from 54,295th most popular book on Amazon.com on one day to #2 on the list a day later.

I'll have to put that on my list.

The book Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism had some great chapters about how much we messed with all of South America's economy and government, almost always for the worse.

 

[GaryDog]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties. That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

So who were the poor, the women, or the minorities that were chiefly involved in our post-colonial government? Or do you just object to the idea of pointing out that white, rich men were in charge?

 

[phoenyx]

One of my favorite history courses in college dealt with Latin American history. It's so exceedingly interesting the extent to which our involvement there transformed the continent, and in turn transformed our own culture in terms of migration, drug policy, etc.

Did you read a book from Eduardo Galeano called The Open Veins of Latin America? I'm not saying it was perfect, but I found it to be quite educational. So did former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He gave Obama a copy in Spanish (he should have gotten him an english copy in my view), but regardless as to whether Obama ever got a copy in english and read it, the book got some much needed attention, rising from 54,295th most popular book on Amazon.com on one day to #2 on the list a day later.

I'll have to put that on my list.

The book Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism had some great chapters about how much we messed with all of South America's economy and government, almost always for the worse.

I have yet to read Noami Klein's Shock Doctrine, but just reading a -review- of her book got me to quote passages from said review in the economy sub forum here. Truly excellent work.

 

[phoenyx]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties. That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

So who were the poor, the women, or the minorities that were chiefly involved in our post-colonial government? Or do you just object to the idea of pointing out that white, rich men were in charge?

I think he objects to the idea that the American Revolution didn't change anything. I think that, had he kept on listening to the documentary, he would have realized that that is -not- the documentary's conclusion. By the same token, I think it's important to note that the American Revolution may have changed things for the better, but there was still a lot that needed working on, including abolishing slavery, for instance. The U.S. would need another war to pave the road for that to happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

He didn't say the American -Revolution- was "rich, white guys, etc". He said "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show". As far as I know that summation is true. Granted, the white guys in question were not the same guys before the revolution as they were afterwards, and this is a point that the video does elaborate on after the quote you mention.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties.

I don't know about that. Here's an excerpt from an old article in the New York Times:
**
''The common wisdom among historians is that the people who wrote the Constitution had no concept of the Indian way of life,'' said John Mohawk, a Seneca from the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation near Buffalo, and the organizer, with Professor Lyons, of the project. ''But what made the colonists American as opposed to English was their experiences with the Indians.''

As proof, they cite records kept by the colonists. An Onondaga named Canassatego suggested that the colonists form a nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy during a meeting of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania in Lancaster on June 25, 1744.

According to the director of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Parker, the council minutes show that Canassatego urged the colonists to ''receive these your brethren with open arms; unite yourselves to them in the covenant chain and be you with them as one body and one soul.'' Range of Models

In the years that followed, the colonists went from one meeting to another, looking for unions they should study, according to the executive director of the New York State Bicentennial Commission, Stephen L. Schechter.

''They contemplated examples from Europe, examples from Greco-Roman times, examples from the Bible,'' he said. ''And they also looked at Native American examples, particularly the Iroquois Confederacy.''**

Source: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

There are differences between the American Constitution and the Iroquois, to be sure, but they sound relatively minor:
Iroquois and the Founding Fathers | Teachinghistory.org

That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

No one's forcing you to participate here ...

I'm well aware of the influence the Iroquois (I forgot the name they called themselves) had on some of the Founders (I think Franklin in particular)

Cool

The Iroquois had women leaders, we didn't.

Yep, there were definitely some differences.

But it's fairly obvious the biggest influence on the Founders in establishing our government was - Rome. Whatever other influences there were pales in comparison

What draws you to that conclusion?

Because its so glaringly obvious. What do you think we are?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I started with the American Revolution and turned it off at 41 seconds where he described the American Revolution as "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show..."

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties. That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

So who were the poor, the women, or the minorities that were chiefly involved in our post-colonial government? Or do you just object to the idea of pointing out that white, rich men were in charge?

I reject your Government-centric world view, reject it in its entirety. You believe that government bestows happiness and we'll being, I dont

 

[phoenyx]

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

He didn't say the American -Revolution- was "rich, white guys, etc". He said "we went from a bunch of rich white guys running the show, to a bunch of rich white guys running the show". As far as I know that summation is true. Granted, the white guys in question were not the same guys before the revolution as they were afterwards, and this is a point that the video does elaborate on after the quote you mention.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties.

I don't know about that. Here's an excerpt from an old article in the New York Times:
**
''The common wisdom among historians is that the people who wrote the Constitution had no concept of the Indian way of life,'' said John Mohawk, a Seneca from the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation near Buffalo, and the organizer, with Professor Lyons, of the project. ''But what made the colonists American as opposed to English was their experiences with the Indians.''

As proof, they cite records kept by the colonists. An Onondaga named Canassatego suggested that the colonists form a nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy during a meeting of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania in Lancaster on June 25, 1744.

According to the director of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Parker, the council minutes show that Canassatego urged the colonists to ''receive these your brethren with open arms; unite yourselves to them in the covenant chain and be you with them as one body and one soul.'' Range of Models

In the years that followed, the colonists went from one meeting to another, looking for unions they should study, according to the executive director of the New York State Bicentennial Commission, Stephen L. Schechter.

''They contemplated examples from Europe, examples from Greco-Roman times, examples from the Bible,'' he said. ''And they also looked at Native American examples, particularly the Iroquois Confederacy.''**

Source: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

There are differences between the American Constitution and the Iroquois, to be sure, but they sound relatively minor:
Iroquois and the Founding Fathers | Teachinghistory.org

That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

No one's forcing you to participate here ...

I'm well aware of the influence the Iroquois (I forgot the name they called themselves) had on some of the Founders (I think Franklin in particular)

Cool

The Iroquois had women leaders, we didn't.

Yep, there were definitely some differences.

But it's fairly obvious the biggest influence on the Founders in establishing our government was - Rome. Whatever other influences there were pales in comparison

What draws you to that conclusion?

Because its so glaringly obvious.

I don't see it that way...

What do you think we are?

Is this where I'm supposed to say an Empire ? If so, I'll definitely grant you that it did come to mind. But what the U.S. is now and what the U.S. was at its founding are 2 different creatures, in my view.

Here's some pages I found interesting on the subject of what the Founders had in mind...
Who are the 4 influential philosophers whose ideas influenced the Founding Fathers in setting up the structure of the American government? Where in the Constitution or in the modern American system do we see these ideas being applied? - Quora

John Locke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[phoenyx]

Okay....Well, now we know....

Yes, we know the videos are a pile of crap not worth the effort to watch

Is the the royal "we"? I thought the first 4 videos in the opening post were well done and that quote was accurate. That being said, that's certainly not the -only- thing he said about the American Revolution. Amoung other things, he also suggested that the Civil War that followed it was only logical, seeing as "all men are created equal" just can't really work with slavery.

Describing the American Revolution as "rich, white guys, etc" is just wrong and totally moronic. That's just the latest fictional narrative from Progressives who have nothing to offer except their deep hatred of our Founding.

We are, or were, unique on earth: a nation founded with the idea of limiting government and maximizing individual rights and Liberties. That's the lesson of our Founding, and I don't have the time to waste listening to some Progressive "explain" otherwise

So who were the poor, the women, or the minorities that were chiefly involved in our post-colonial government? Or do you just object to the idea of pointing out that white, rich men were in charge?

I reject your Government-centric world view, reject it in its entirety. You believe that government bestows happiness and we'll being, I dont

Does he? I know I don't. Quoting wikipedia's introduction to the term: "A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Every nation has one, but I think absolutely no one would agree that all governments are equally good or bad. I think it's fair to say that governments wherein citizens are rewarded for hard work and that takes care of those in it that can't take care of themselves (children, the elderly, the sick and the dying) are the best of societies. Such governments require the redistribution of wealth to some extent in order to make this so. The problem with the U.S. and many other western countries these days is that most of the wealth is funneled up into the hands of the rich, at the expense of the poor. The Wall Street Crash of 2008 was an excellent example of this, and was well documented in Sony Pictures' well done documentary "Inside Job". Here's the trailer: