Through public education we are taught that being the best facilitates a favorable induction to the upper tiers of American social stratification. Additionally we are told that hard work and a patrio-centric believe system precipitates the materialization of the American dream. As with any other teaching, this one is not exempt to critical examination. If logic is used to begin this analysis, it is not unlikely that one may ask, Who is responsible for this indoctrination?…A word I have chosen rather than education. The public education systems’ interpretation of US history emphasizes an ever-present fairness of American ideals. They are presented to students in such a way as to eliminate the possibility of critical assessment. Through ignorance and omission American history is portrayed as uncontroversial. For instance, the heroification of important figures such as our fore fathers. Their convictions, ideology and social conduct administered in such a way as to remove the possibility of any ethically questionable actions. Courses mindlessly portray their behavior to corroborate today’s value systems and social norms.
Christopher Columbus is hailed as a hero according to our textbooks. Stories of his bravery and courage are told to our young and a day given annually to celebrate his achievements. Similar doctrines of glory are propagated for the likes of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. It would seem these men and so many other American historical figures of significance are without fault, their private and public demeanor without controversy. One may perhaps be driven ask, how could such grandiose decisions made by these individuals, affecting millions of people from varying socio-economic backgrounds be met with unanimous agreement? Someone once told me, one mans sugar is another mans salt. I think this idiom is intuitive to us all, whether educated or not. If this holds any truth, it is then axiomatic that a winner/loser system may develop, furthermore, American history may possibly be told from a certain perspective. I wonder if the vigorous Columbus day celebrations would remain had the tale been recited from the aboriginal Haitians point of view? Could such a robust memorial dedicated to the excellence of Thomas Jefferson be justified had his legacy been summarized by the average African American? Generally speaking, most people do not find the kind of race relations demonstrated in early America appealing. Most would find it repulsive and inhumane by today’s socio-political standards, a difficult concept to bear since this behavior explicitly illustrates our beginnings as a society and the ethical values upon which it was founded. Again, we approach another fork in the road. What would happen if our young were to critically examine this information? Would there be potential for an ethnocentric consensus to develop? Could a typical middle school recess consist of a racially stratified schoolyard, with blacks taunting whites about the conduct of their ancestors? Absolutely. One need not mention that this would be a far more volatile system than the current trivial rivalries among our students. It could ignite a fire not easily extinguished, and what better way to prevent this occurrence than to remove the fuel needed for combustion. Unfortunately in this case, the fuel is truth. The motive, to abstain from creating waves in the tranquil sea of institutionalized education.
I may only be 33 years old but I think I have witnessed something pivotal. My grandfather witnessed the rise of the automobile and the associated industries to which it gave life. My mother observed the mobilization of the feminist and black movements and their profound effect on society and commerce. I am saddened to say that although I may have witnessed world altering technological marvels within the rise of the information age, It has been overshadowed and exploited by something more sinister in nature. The down turn of capitalism and its systemic effects. Indeed another dichotomy, as top level executives watching profits soar would hardly refer to it as a downturn. But from the eyes of the average working class citizen, one capable of dissecting the rhetoric of the talking heads, something has gone wrong. Like the Titanic’s fateful voyage, The ship has sustained terminal damage yet the passengers are told everything is fine.
Voltaire, a French historian born near the turn of the 18th century said “The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor”. At that time in history, Europe and the newly founded America were experiencing the main sequence of industrial transformation. Changes in society were abundant. A magnificent shift in the methodology of agriculture, transportation and manufacturing had taken place. Technological innovation was responsible for a massive increase in domestic production, this new paradigm rippled through the U.K and America, this began the transformation of a largely agrarian culture to what we now brand a machine dependant race. The discovery, production and distribution of petroleum products marked the beginnings of an unsustainable standard of living and critical dependence on a finite resource. The legal framework enabling a systematic approach to the free market had been pioneered. Although it would take quite some time for the modern day economic inequalities to materialize, the stage had been set. This was truly the origin of the short sighted corporate ideology, albeit, most historians would agree that the societal consensus at the time was favorable, provided you were not black, brown, red or female. It was a great time for some, an empty playing field with seemingly unlimited potential. The “white male” entrepreneur had near limitless opportunities to establish himself in a robust developing economic system. A post graduate or college education was nearly a white monopoly, as was most any formal education at the time. A contest of tremendous importance had begun, but only some were shown the rules, and of those select few, even less were given tips to succeed. And so began a complex revolution of American ideology, the collateral development of social tiers and the establishment of the ruling class…those that were given a head start in the understanding and navigation of a market economic structure. As the decades passed business models evolved, companies grew and allegiances were made. Economic strategies contained increasingly more bureaucracy, commercial networks and corporate conglomerations were conceived. At the helm of these rapidly growing entities were usually the beneficiaries of ivy league educations and other special privileges afforded them through societal rank and nepotism, this vicious cycle would continue to solidify and form power structure of the ruling class over time, something to remember for your next debate with right-wing republican “blame the victim” logic. Of course as with any other infant empire, media, public information and word of mouth erected a kind of civil undertone. From the micro economic view, certain firms and persons began to grow wealthy, while some others did not. The relationships between occupational position and social status began to emerge, a new psychological type of racial tension formed as it became evident that the emerging capitalist institution was European owned and operated, having little to no regard for non-whites and women, reserving mostly contempt for blacks. Through the ages this civil construct would continue to evolve to form a national infrastructure encompassing the framework of socio economical and political fundamentals. Social norms, stereotypes and demographics appeared and public information systems established. Evidence that certain classes contributed more intensely to wage labor while other classes were destined for ownership was discovered. From a wider view, this system was preferential to some and less so to others. Keeping that in mind, it is probably safe to say the manufacturers of the machine had the advantage.
The constitution created and formally underlined governmental powers for our society since its inception. It defined the rules for intervention, authorizing such action when civil liberty or domestic safety is threatened. An 1803 Supreme court decision, Marbury vs. Madison, reinforced that law is determined clearly and unambiguously by this document, anything other is no law at all. The US Constitution was successful in certain ways. It was able to mitigate grossly inhumane practices such as slavery and sexism. For some it established a cognitive foundation for ethical behavior, social conduct and interpreting governmental authority. It influenced a feeling of unity and pushed society toward a political correctness which indirectly created an underlying awareness, a conscience reminder of sorts to those who may have needed it. Perhaps some individuals who may have contemplated the mistreatment of others or their property for personal gain began to think again. This was a critical psychological contribution as it signified a formal beginning and foundation to civil rights movements and to some, the alleviation of an oppressive social norm, or at least the hope of such an occurrence. Of course the constitution was not invincible. As society grew increasingly complex, the evolution of the market economy and other capital business structures demanded increased definition. The very concept of modifications to this document, and that these amendments were more likely precipitated by those with influence, would be the guiding light in tilting the civil infrastructure in favor of the affluent and wealthy. In order to trigger a change in the structure of law, one must either have a great deal of influence (usually in the form of wealth) or satisfy the doctrine of democracy. In the latter, this would require the majority of citizens to agree unanimously on a particular issue. This agenda is then passed on to a member of congress of the corresponding district, federal or state. The importance of the issue at hand and or the number of people in agreement is relational to representation within the legislative branch. The law making or modifying process is then carried out according to guidelines in the first and second articles of the constitution. It sounds pretty straightforward but we must remember that this process is mediated by imperfect and sometimes unjust human beings, everyday people, with wants, needs and individual ideologies. Regardless of their academic or diplomatic achievements, their proclamations of integrity, they are still people, susceptible to the temptations of coercion, bribery and the incentives of special treatment. If we were to hypothetically take for instance, a member of the Senate, someone who unbeknownst to the public, has a questionable history in exhibiting the interests of the people he represents. If confronted with the potential for personal gain, his official duties may be compromised . Would it be possible that this individual, who holds a profound influence on the direction of everyday life may entertain an offer from a miniscule segment of society? Instead of the majority he is required to embody? Would he then promote legislature beneficial to this tiny portion, while the other 99% are forced to continue living in an otherwise unfair state? Who are the individuals able to accomplish such a gross distortion of the rules and how? How can such inequality go overlooked while the needs of a select few are satisfied? Finally, does this pose a systemic risk since the masses are the majority shareholders in government revenue and the backbone of economic fundamentals? I believe the history of national politics and our market economy hold the answer to that question. It is unlikely the architects of America could have envisioned the bureaucratic complexities associated with a modernized commercial and industrial system. As we are all well aware of today, based on investigative and rational analysis, business structure unanimously favor the bottom line above all. There are exceptions of course, but in general, companies want to succeed. Our market structure clearly dictates profit as the most useful tool for accomplishing this. Today, the fiscal remains after a corporations operating expenses are paid signify the end to a sometimes questionable means, or so we have learned. However, 50 years ago this was not so evident. To put it somewhat crudely, yesterdays society was more naïve. The formation of mass media outlets were intrinsically tied to the explosion of the industrial and commercial sectors. Understandably, the loss of journalistic and mainstream media impartiality was a lengthier process since it was a result of business strategies which required time to mature. Unbiased journalism gradually diminished as corporate mergers and acquisitions eventually consumed media networks, tipping the scales from within, again, unknown to the public eye. In the beginning it was this element of surprise that gave business sectors a tremendous advantage. A profit based ideology sequentially made their way to the televisions and news articles of unsuspecting viewers. Names and faces previously trusted by Americans were being hoisted away from independence and suspended in a state of limbo, pending the next campaign of propaganda from the power structure. And when this did occur, it was not met with critique but often enthusiasm. A dangerous thing when intensions are recurrently insincere and detrimental. How long were the tobacco industries able to promote smoking to the public body? Billboards within school zones glorifying the pleasures and sophistication associated with cigarettes?…Evidently long enough to create a public health care epidemic. Even with independent study illuminating the obvious, a link between lighting up and the outbreak of cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and other illness, who would possibly entertain a flimsy unconnected source when the almighty M.D himself is endorsing the luxurious nature of a Camel cigarette, this of course backed by your favorite primetime network you have come to know and trust. The wealthiest tobacco executives stood before congress and lied, with no real consequence, companies were slapped on the wrist and business went on as usual. This type of deceptive strategy was successful in initiating a soft start to the ethnic cleansing in Nazi Germany, it has also proven noteworthy in the destabilization of many South and Latin American governments. It has a very good success rate, why wouldn’t it work here in the U.S? While corporate media propaganda has been occurring for sometime now it can be argued that our current state of disarray has given rise to an extreme form. Ironically, the exponential growth of the telecommunication industries and the compelling need for distraction from 3rd millennium global industrial complexes seem to go hand and hand. Our repeated attempts to sustain a fiat currency system and it’s innate flaws with biased monetary policies are analogous to sustaining a flat lined patient with intermittent defibrillating. This could never be formally announced to the population as economic chaos may ensue, so it is a political no fly zone. Using the mainstream networks, politicians tap dance around the issue, sighting stimulus packages, spending cuts and austerity. Hollywood’s ever dominating influence in media creates a game show like appearance to remove any implication of real importance. Politics have been trivialized, the superficial issues carried to the limelight in America are often of little to no concern to the average working class citizen, yet these models are redundantly discussed to protect the real issues that would prompt a change in market standards and possibly jeopardize corporate revenue as well as material and ideological influence to those in power. The maintenance of a world police force and associated spending in the name of American imperialism is cloaked in the outlook of administering democracy to those unfortunate enough to lack such a standard, again, this untruthfulness explicitly requires mass media support to be effective. “Serving your country” or “Preventing Terrorism” and other haphazard Patrio-militant slogans set to a triumphant musical score and endorsed by the President are enough to stir the emotions of all but critical thinking citizens. Those that are able to translate this pseudo-philosophical declaration would probably ask themselves, why would a country responsible for the majority of international terrorism want to prevent it? Does this perhaps mean a movement in our own foreign policy? Why is this new effort focused primarily on Arab nations when their frequency of extremist behavior is so comparable to our own? Yet those in America who do not practice independent thinking, the majority of us, thoughtlessly lend themselves to tyrannical institutions under the assumption they are contributing to the well being of country and planet. This is exactly what they want. If Americas foreign policy over the last 100 years was openly, and truthfully revealed, public support may erode, voluntary enlistment would suffer tremendously. I personally do not know anyone who would reinforce ideology bearing such a striking resemblance to that of Hitler or Stalin, likewise, It is certainly not the sons and daughters of the politicians pursuing it or the elite figures backing them, It is what some refer to as the “chicken hawk“ policy, those high ranking politicians and affluent members of society who repeatedly escape the draft and other means of military induction only to direct our offspring to take up arms. By using the media complex, they persuade others to protect our so called virtuous ideals. Zbigniew Brzezinski, proclaimed that “democracy is inimical to imperialist mobilization” Finally, reality from politics. A statement that so accurately encapsulates our global military behavior, It follows proper causal logic allowing theory to coincide with events rather than vise-versa. This example is suitable to illustrate why American learning systems would portray history as uncontroversial. As democracy is indeed the enemy of imperialism, a cumulative effort to perpetuate morally sound government principals is required for public participation. Given our desperate need to establish a dominant presence in Eurasia affording us access to various logistic and global political resources, our government essentially declared that our intervention was needed to help overthrow oppressive regimes, topple dangerous dictatorships and instill a stable government. This was actually true, but are we to believe that we undertook such an economically demanding enterprise out of the goodness of our hearts? Should we believe that the staggering corporate profits accelerated by military mobilization are not considered? The best way to understand the actions of people or society is to address their history, so again, I think our documented actions over time hold the answer to that question. The aforementioned example of political imperialism transpired in the late seventies when American citizens were less skeptical of government proposals. Even after Vietnam, a publicly prescribed failure but capitalist success, Government rhetoric was able to heat up our patriotic blood to a near boil, and we again gave our hearts and lives to an endeavor we thought represented fair conduct and American exceptionally. This became increasingly difficult overtime as our country began accruing serious debt, outsourcing labor and garnishing the wages of our labor force. The standard of living for most American citizens diminished noticeably. Our domestic economic difficulties brought attention to frivolous military spending and citizens became aware of this illogical behavior. It became more and more difficult for our leaders to convince us of the importance of foreign intervention when poverty, homelessness and other domestic atrocities showed a steady incline. One need not have an ivy league degree to question why our government preferred aiding countries abroad when our own economic foundation began developing cracks. When the military industrial complex and Wall street, headed by the Bush administration determined it necessary to again enter Iraq and Palestinian territories. At this time domestic issues, the market economy and fiscal contingencies produced an overwhelmingly negative public reaction toward government recommendation to pursue yet another preemptive invasion. As Brzezinski had mentioned, only a state of emergency or the fear of domestic safety will push a society toward an imperialist ideology. Based on that theory, the unfortunate events of September 11th, 2001 took place. Suddenly US citizens were again united. The American people purchased another hegemonic agenda marketed by the US government.
I feel fortunate to have lived in a time and country where fuel is cheap, energy is abundant and a lucrative lifestyle is easily obtained. Only holding an associates degree I was able to obtain a position in the upper middle class and although I am a constituent of the wage labor sector, acquiring adequate capital to transcend the social tears is something that can be realized by all in today’s United States. This is regardless of race, sex or social status, a paradigm that did not exist only a short time ago. In terms of governance, protecting “white” American ideology has given way to protecting power altogether. Being a nation of immigrants, it was inevitable that a melting pot scenario would develop. While Europeans, from colonial to pre industrial times made certain that other races would not be able to prosper, the materialization of an immensely complex market economy and the subsidiaries it spawned such as the technological and entertainment markets were not as discriminatory. For quite some time America was able to maintain a foothold on the entrance to upper class earnings, keeping the door secured to all but white males, little did they know that their creation would evolve to form a structure so intricate they could no longer moderate the induction process. Racism of the power structure had devolved from being pre emptive to reactive. For example, sometime in the late 80’s corporate America realized that black culture was appealing outside of urban districts. Up until that time it had been exclusively limited to Afro-centric communities. Executives recognized that this product was something that could be marketed to a much larger demographic, unfortunately for them, the blacks had a monopoly on this system and since it was not a physical resource, but an intellectual property, they had to forgo their typical savage approach of conquering by force. They were forced to try something new….Diplomacy. If urban communities had developed a physical property of value, the elite could simply take it, as they have done time and time again in developing countries with rare natural resources and limited defenses. What African Americans had to offer was intangible and as a result, executives were forced to include blacks in many aspects of the business cycle they had not previously been aware of. It couldn’t have happened at a better time, we had recently abandoned our gold standard in favor of printing money out of thin air and short term wealth was a very realistic goal due to its abundance. Speculative money markets were at their best, meaning past the point of no return, but too early to be deemed destructive or unethical. When blacks began appearing on MTV, Hollywood, news, radio and other mainstream networks their profitability was realized by white America, the marketability of their culture proven. They couldn’t be cloned so they were included. For the first time in history blacks, Latinos and other ethnicities were afforded the type of capital to make an impact on their respective communities and subsequently modify the social structure to which they were bound, in other words, enough energy to sustain a chain reaction had been obtained. Ironically it was this principal asset of intellectual property that dictated whites behavior in this particular business venture. I say ironic since it was conceived through a structure which was intended to maintain Eurocentric dominance. I am not advocating in anyway that the upper tiers of society are loosing their European majority membership I am simply illuminating the dereliction of ideals that favored the absolute, uncompromising domination of Euro-supremacy in favor of global economic power.
