Your Patriotic Duty - And Other Myths

In American classrooms almost everywhere, we were given the standard Patriotic brainwashing lessons. We were told, as kids, this is the truth and not to question such things. Many, even into their adulthood, have been afraid to question certain things which were taught such as:

1. This country was founded solely on the basis of religious freedom
2. The tax the king of England imposed on the colonies was unfair and started the war
3. Abraham Lincoln, who wanted the slaves free, thought they should have equal rights
4. The Civil War was only about slavery
5. Both World War I and II we were merely defending our rights and did nothing beforehand to make our enemies hate us
6. The Manifest Destiny was a great way to create a great nation and was fair to all involved
7. The Pledge of Alligience originally said, "One nation under God"
8. Anyone could be President
9. And it is your patriotic duty to always vote

To challenge such notions would be to invite hatred from your fellow citizens. Here I go anyway.

This country was founded solely on the basis of religious freedom

This country was founded, to be quite clear, by businessmen. When the notion that this new world was waiting for the best and brightest to conquer it for profit, the first ones who hopped over the ships were people looking for wealth or those wanting to expand their wealth.

Most of the first colonies in the new world were sponsored by a big company back in England, Spain, or France. Anyone who wanted to seek their wealth could approach these investors to sponsor the journey in exchange for a profit. Many of these businesses went bust, but the ones that were successful invited their families to join them and communities grew from there.

It wasn't until the business communities had settled colonies that the religious from England wanted to have a colony of their own in the new land where they could pursue their brand of faith. They were not coming over to start a nation in the new world based on religious freedom, but wanted an exclusive area where those who did not believe they way they did were forbidden. This was the minority of people who came to the colonies. These religious nuts, as they were thought of back then, had no intention or bold ideas of taking over the entire land and forcing their religion on everyone. They were seperatists.

While the businessmen who founded this country all had some form of religious conviction, that was not the purpose of founding this nation. It was all about the money.

The tax the king of England imposed on the colonies was unfair and started the war

Out of all the colonies owned by England, the colonies of the States was taxed the least. Why the tax?

The settlers would find themselves in trouble from time to time. Agreements made with the Natives about boundaries were often discounted by the English settlers who saw unused land and decided to take it anyway, regardless of the agreements made. This made many Natives angry and was the start to many wars to follow.

The settlers were a combination of businessmen and some religious communes with women and children and slaves who were unable to fight. The English army was there for the protection of its citizens. The citizens kept instigating the wars and the army had to keep protecting them.

An army costs money. The colonists did not want to pay. To save on costs, the army needed places to bunk and be fed, so it helped to impose upon a settler's home for an indefinite time to keep the area safe. Both paying taxes or supporting the army were not acceptable options and they cried foul when they needed help from the attacks if the army was not there to protect them.

The tax was not unfair, but it was part of the events that led to the United States independence.

Abraham Lincoln, who wanted the slaves free, thought they should have equal rights

As many men with a conscience, they saw the slaves as humans who were suffering and it was wrong. However, the majority in this group did not equate that the slaves being human meant they were equal to the white man. Lincoln was one of that group.

While he was strongly in favour for ending slavery, he thought they would either be better off going back to Africa or having a different part of the land like the Natives. His position on slavery did not mean he ever thought the former slaves should have the right to vote or any other liberties and freedoms guaranteed to the white men.

The Civil War was only about slavery

While slavery was a big issue, the bigger issue was about controlling one's destiny. As the United States expanded by taking over almost every part of the land going back to the Pacific Ocean, the issue came up about whether these new areas should or should not allow slavery.

Those on the pro-slavery side needed such free help in order to expand their economies because without free labour, they could not grow. Those on the anti-slavery side had the money and more advance technology on their side and could grow and expand without the need for slaves. If the slaves were taken out of society, it could create more job opportunites for the white man. It was more about the money which could be made or loss than the slaves' rights.

As this country was founded on the idea that each state was basically its own country with its own laws, but part of the big picture of all these others to work together, the states of the South decided the national level of the government was becoming too influenced by those of the North and was going to force a one-size-fits-all kind of law over the entire nation, including overturning slavery. The Southerners wanted to be free to live the way they have grown accustom. The Northerns were afraid a split would destroy all the hard work done with the expansion and a split could take away most of the land they took over.

That is why they fought. Not over slaves, but over money and land. Slaves were just an emotional issue to charge people up, but the bottom line of any war is money and land.

Both World War I and II we were merely defending our rights and did nothing beforehand to make our enemies hate us

Why were we brought into WWI? Because we boldly ignored friendly warnings from the German government to stay out of areas in the sea where they were actively fighting. We were told to stay off of ships that might have ammunition to help their enemies because they would be blown up. We did not listen to those warnings and got upset when they killed our people who got in the way during a time of war.

Our people were back and forth trying to stay neutral, but at the same time pitting one nation against another causing enemies for our nation. By the time we stepped into the war, Germany was already mad enough at the US they were about to attack us on our soil until the plot was uncovered and we went in to fight.

When the war was over, our country was among the victors who took lands as spoils of the war. Many of these lands were also of Africa and the Middle East which would later come back to haunt us because of how this was handled. Losing nations were split up and impoverished. Germany was forced to pay for damages and could not afford it. Hitler came along with an idea to get his nation out of the bottom of the heap.

By this time, the US was meddling in affairs on the Pacific end trying to expand more land with the islands and had its eyes on the Asian coast. Even before we were "prompted" into war, we made enemies with both China and Japan as well as Russia which was going through massive changes when we applauded the takeover of the Czar and welcomed the new government only to denounce Russia when that government we approved was taken over by the popular government of the people.

When Pearl Harbor was bombed, it was not just an attack out of nowhere. The way the teachers made it sound was they just out of the blue decided to be mean and attack innocent people. On the contrary, the Japanese had an axe to grind. They did not set out to attack innocent people, but a military base. But did we ever repay them - we launched two nuclear bombs on innocent people.. The second bomb we dropped, we did not even wait to see if they were going to surrender after the first one.

The Manifest Destiny was a great way to create a great nation and was fair to all involved

In order to expand the United States, more land was needed. We needed to prove we could be a super force just like the Europeans who colonized lands all over the world. We did the same thing by starting where we lived.

All those areas of land to the West were going to waste. At least from the point of view of businessmen and land developers. The Spanish and French and British who owned parts of these areas really were unable to do much with them. There were all sorts of agreements with the Natives to assure them the land which was leftover would be theirs to keep. The islands to the South were in various struggles and Haiti caused fear because the slave population rose up and took over winning independence which was all the more reason to take control of more land.

We instigated the war to take over part of Mexico. We were beaten the first time around, but fought hard and won the second time. By the time we had our eyes on what would be California, the Mexicans did not want to fight anymore and simply handed it over. The British gave up parts of the Northwest in order to keep Canada free from the land grab. Negotiations were made with France to give up their lands. The only hold outs were the Natives. They were not citizens and were not a real nation in which one could negotiate, so they saw fit to just take what was left since no one really owned it.

This left disgruntled Natives fighting for what little they had which was taken away without consent and breaking all agreements made. For trying to fight back, most of the numbers have been eliminated and the remaining were sent to the worst of the lands the developers could do nothing with so they could have their new homes there. Of course, if oil or gold or silver were to be discovered on these "worthless" lands we gave the Natives, we would simply relocate them to another dump.

The Pledge of Alligience originally said, "One nation under God"

The Pledge of Alligience was created as a way to unify a nation. The creator was a Socialist and also an atheist. He did not include the words "one nation under god" in the original pledge. It was only added later to the protest of many people.

Anyone could be President

Nope. The only people who could ever conceive of being President must have the following going for them:

1. Very rich - campaigns don't run on free speeches. Exposure costs money.
2. Connections - you must have enough powerful friends who are willing to nominate you.
3. Major party - if your values and beliefs are not reflected in the two main parties, you don't have a chance of winning and mostly will be ignored.

Forget the fairytale notion that anyone with a bit of ambition could be President. If you think Tamika Jones who is a single mother living in the projects earning $12,000 a year will ever be President, you are dreaming. Farmer Cleatus Smith, who barely graduated from high school and a farm being foreclosed upon earning $35,000 a year will never be President. Crazy millionaire, Buck Finch, does not agree with the major parties and wants to start his own and will run as president -- he is just wasting his money, but at least he is rich enough to find a tax write off.

If anyone could be President, there would be more than two major parties with a chance of making it to the White House.

And it is your patriotic duty to always vote

No. As the system is set up were the person you think represents you may never be up for office, you are basically given one of two choices. There are smaller parties to choose from if you agree with them, even if they don't stand a chance to win.

What if no one represents you? What if you cannot afford to run for office yourself? Why is it your duty to vote or give your approval to someone who does not have your best interests at heart?

For me, I was put into such a situation during the last election. I was pressured to vote because it was my duty and I caved in and voted for the "lesser of two evils" which to me was vulgar because the lesser of two evils was an idiot who in no way represented me or my points of view. The other candidates did not represent me either. I was not in a position to run for President. What were my options?

Now that the mess is over and we have the nut in office, I don't think it would have been much better with the other nut in office either. I don't think any of the parties had someone running who could do something better.

Why give your approval to someone you do not believe in? If you cannot run and there is no one who represents you, you no longer have a country who has your best interests at heart. Why cast your vote of approval of a system that has betrayed you?

Armed revolution or peaceful protest? How will you be remembered as a patriot? If no one represents me, I will no longer give them my stamp of approval.

Informing You News

Police Shot Man Over Panic

Jean Charles de Menezes was in the prime of his life at age 27. Originally from Brazil, he came to London to study and work part time. He had family and friends who loved him very much. He has never been in trouble with the law, until one fateful day. Police called out to him and ordered him to stop. Instead of sticking around to see what they wanted, he ran away and the police shot him five times.

Why did an innocent person run from the police? It is speculated he may have run from police because of his visa situation, but this does not merit a death penalty. Even if that speculation were not true, suppose he had some illegal substance on him, that still would not put him to death in a court of law. Suppose he had just stolen someone's purse or robbed a bank, they don't just murder the criminal for those crimes. Suppose he had a lot of parking tickets and outstanding fines, did he need to be killed over that issue? Suppose he was just in a state of panic not so long after the last bombings and he misunderstood what they were saying to him and thought it was a dangerous situation and he needed to run? You certainly do not kill someone over a misunderstanding.

Why did the police want him to stop anyway? They were in the middle of investigating the recent bombings. They are in a high pressured job and sometimes their minds get stuck on one track. They are only human and make mistakes. It is not easy to be a police officer. Sometimes a person must make snap decisions for the safety of the general population. Was this the case? Could they have done something different?

It is a general assumption with the police if they ask you to stop and you do not stop, you are probably hiding something illegal from them. If you are doing something illegal, it is their duty to investigate. If a police officer tells you to stop and you run, it sets off a signal in their minds that something is not right.

These particular officers were on a one-track mind of investigating the bombings. That was their current focus. The poor, innocent man who got caught up in their focus made the unfortunate decision to run instead of stopping to see what they wanted. In a highly charged atmosphere filled with fear and wanting to prevent more deaths, the officers panicked. They were in that state of mind an officer never should have to be in when enforcing the law. This kind of panic does not allow for rational decisions and this was a situation when rational thinking was critical.

A rational move to prevent possible injury to others would dictate at the most to shoot him in the leg to stop him from running, or calling for back up, or yelling out to the people to clear the area. An irrational move would be to shoot him several times in key areas to make sure he would end up dead in order to prevent a bomb from going off - if he had one. He didn't. Even if he did have a bomb and was a suicide bomber, logic would dictate that the moment the police called him over he would have set it off before the chase. Logic would dictate this man may have been guilty of something, but that did not necessarily mean he was going to set off a bomb.

A police officer is not supposed to be the judge, jury and executioner. On that day, these officers took on all those roles without having all the facts in hand. They abused Mr. Menezes' human rights on an assumption they were protecting the people at large. You cannot kill a person on a hunch.

The people of the UK are not used to this kind of thing happening. This situation happens a lot in the US. It is so old news in the US that when it happens, it barely gets a headline. The police in Brazil can be equally brutal and have done this on a frequent scale. Many third world countries will shoot first and ask questions later. This is not a unique phenomenon, it just is not the kind of thing they expect to happen in England where such impulsive acts are considered vulgar.

These officers were trying to do their job and made a really bad decision in the heat of the moment. They need to have time off from their jobs and to re-train in order to make better decisions. They need time to re-think about the seriousness of how their duty is to protect all citizens, even the ones suspected of wrong-doing. They need to weigh heavy on their minds the fact they killed an innocent man and how that has wronged his family and loved ones. These officers are not the bad guys, but made a really bad choice and should be made to pay for it.

Many people make serious mistakes. Sometimes the result of serious mistakes is the death of another. Average citizens who make these kinds of mistakes are usually given jail time or pay fines or do community service to compensate for their serious mistake. Shouldn't these officers be held up to the same standards?

Ultimate List Of Songs