tfpd

         YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW, AND THE NATION WEEPS
(Written and posted 16 September 2001)

       When I was young, I was a small, skinny, nerdy youth. I didn’t really care for “boy” things like football; I was more content to play “make-believe” (I created entire imaginary cities on paper and on the basement floor) and to ride around on my sister’s old bike (it was a “girl” bike). I was deemed a “sissy” by other boys, and I was relentlessly picked on because of this unwanted designation. I was the recipient of just about any humiliation that can be showered down upon a youth short of beatings -- I was locked in a refrigerated cooler, I was locked in a light-less closet, spat upon, dumped in a dumpster full of garbage (I mean the icky stuff like rotten food), had possessions stolen. In the winter, it was great fun to dump the little Schrader boy in a big snow drift and hold him there until every stitch of his clothing was wet. Others joy was my pain, as inevitably I would get sick as a result of my immersion in snow.
       Over the years, I began to resent my treatment, and began to loathe my oppressors, waiting for the opportunity to “get even”. That opportunity came one wintry day when I was in the sixth grade. The boys had threatened to immerse me in snow (and do other things) if I dared leave the schoolhouse. As they had all of the doors covered, I was trapped. At first I cowered, and then I became angry. After all, it was not fair for me to be intimidated in such a way. I stepped out the door, knowing full well that something bad would happen to me, picked up a nice chunk of hardened snow (in other words, ice), and threw it at the face of one of the boys. It left a gash about one inch above his eye. I was roundly criticized for my action, and justifiably so. Although the reason for my wanting to strike out was justified, the act of striking out was not.
       I tell this story because I think it is analogous to the horrible events of the past week, and I think that it is really important to do some deep soul searching as to why they occurred. Unlike Pearl Harbor, which was unprovoked, these attacks were not. The United States government must share some of the blame. The United States is the bully of the world. It has been our foreign policy for almost our entire existence that it is quite okay for us to insert ourselves in other nation’s internal affairs, to take by force what we can not get diplomatically, all for the sake of the almighty dollar. Greed and exploitation have been the guiding paradigms behind American policy.
       Take for example, my current state of residence, Texas. The Mexicans invited Americans to settle in Tejas. The Americans, who were invited, did not like Mexican law, especially the abolition of slavery. When the Americans in Mexico decided that they did not like the Mexican government, they took to arms and rebelled. When the United States annexed Texas, it unilaterally moved the border south from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande and moved people into this new territory, inciting the Mexicans to attack. As we all know, Polk declared war, and the American Southwest became ours.
       What they don’t mention in most high school history texts about the Mexican War is the real reason why we provoked Mexico and wanted their land -- to provide for the expansion of slavery, the most vile form of exploitation. What they also don’t mention is that Mexican resentment ran so deep that the Germans during World War I promised Mexico the return of the land for assistance in preventing the United States from coming to the aid of the Allies.
       Why did we get into World War I on the side of the Allies, anyway? It certainly wasn’t based on superior morality. After all, it was the Russians who mobilized first to come to the aid of their fellow slavs the Serbs, who happened to have aided in the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne. Because of the Russian mobilization, Germany mobilized, and the dominoes fell. We also know that during the German blockade of the British Isles, the British unilaterally suspended the rules of engagement which ultimately led to the sinking of the Lusitania. Although the sinking of the Lusitania is the sanitized “official” reason for joining with the allies, it all had to do with money. The British and French empires were much larger and more financially lucrative than the German and Austrian ones, and we had much more trade with them than with the Austrians and Germans, so it was in the best interest of American business to join the Allied side.
       Let’s not forget all of the actions in which we have toppled governments that did not suit the interests of American business.   Why do we dislike the Iranian government? Simple. They don’t like American business. Libya? They nationalized their oil fields. Salvador Allende, the legitimately elected leader of Chile in 1973 was a socialist who was talking about nationalizing businesses. We had him assassinated and replaced with the brutal Pinochet, who left American business interests alone. The Vietnam mess resulted because we didn’t like Ho’s politics. Grenada was socialist. The list goes on and on.
       The problem with this type of policy is that it breeds resentment, and resentment breeds determination. We have spent forty years trying to topple Castro (who we helped arm and train), and Cuba is more solid now than it ever was. All the starvation of the Cuban people has done is make them self-sufficient and resentful. We stormed into the Middle East to save Kuwaiti oil wells from Iraq, who we trained and armed. Ten years later, Iraq is still a threat, is much more unified, and the United States is much more detested.
       I believe that this attack is not an attack on America per se, but on George W. Bush and the policies he represents. (It’s personal.) After all, it was the elder Bush and his Republican cohorts who started this mess in the Middle East. This attack could be viewed as a use of American-style diplomacy and American-style military training against America, a way to remove a leader who politics are objectionable by force. A coup d’etat from the outside, if you will. If we can use this method against others, why can’t they use it against us?
       Because of our own policies (including the training of terrorists and hitmen), thousands of innocent people have senselessly lost their lives. Because of what again? After Columbine, I wrote that we must take a good hard look at ourselves to prevent the same tragedy from happening again. Obviously, we didn’t, because it did happen again. Perhaps now would be a good opportunity for that soul-searching.