New School Racism: White History Month Week One

As written in earlier blogs, in response to rich white folks who happen to be black creating new school racism in which they selfishly use their black skin to help them with their careers and professional goals, I unilaterally designated September as White History Month to provide any blacks that want to call themselves white to benefit their career and goals a guiding standard by which to do so. A recent new, new school racist added to the new school racist list is 49ers’ quarterback Colin Kaepernick: a rich white kid who happens to be black who grew up spoiled and the center of attention his whole life in the sheltered bubble of California valley life thanks to his white parents rescuing him from his black mother’s abandonment of him. Having lost the center of attention in the NFL when he stopped being a starting quarterback, Mr. Kaepernick now has decided to draw attention to himself by calling himself black, and then on behalf of an imagined “oppressed” black minority community he has decided not to stand during the playing of the United States national anthem. Of course, Mr. Kaepernick’s protest does not go so far as rejecting any of his salary of 117,000,000 paid in United States dollars to him by one of the biggest oppressors and exploiters of black physical laborers in the United States: the NFL. Welcome to the list, Sir — if by some miracle you ever happen to see it. Since you have decided to use your skin color for selfish undeserved attention, advancement, credibility, and pity, I now assume that as a black quarterback you must be inferior to white quarterbacks. In order to prove me wrong and gain my respect, I give you White History Month’s first honoree against whom I will compare your future acts, statements, and character to see if I should reject my racist opinion of you: President Harry S. Truman.

 
President Truman will always be associated and his character examined by historians for centuries based on his decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in August of 1945 with the intent of saving millions of lives by a quick end to World War II, an act for which all politically correct liberals despise and condemn him. Unlike his predecessor the patrician Franklin D. Roosevelt, loved by liberals for saving capitalism from the Depression it caused while intentionally, knowingly, and deceitfully setting the stage to get the United States involved in World War II, Truman was a farm boy and hat salesman from Missouri despised by Congress, the military, and the military/industrial complex whom destiny forced into dealing with massive problems his haters, not he, created.

 
What historians will also be contemplating for centuries once the bombings are more distant history and some objective historical analysis is possible is why he stopped at Japan. For four years from the Summer of 1945 until September of 1949 when Russia set off its own nuclear bomb, President Truman and the United States were the only ones in the world that had control of nuclear bombs and the ability to drop them anywhere in the world. Think about that undisputed fact and apply it to any other nation/empire culture in world history, Western or Eastern, from Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and so forth (including the empires of Islam) and make a reasonable inference as to what most likely would have occurred. Would they have used atomic weapons to create a world empire? Dam right they would have, and by the Machiavellian principles that govern world history they should have. Mr. Coates and politically correct liberals accuse the United States of being militarily imperialist; Mr. Coates derides America, “whose armies fanned out across the world to extend their dominion”. We had four years to extend our dominion across the entire world without need of fanning out, yet we did not do it. Why did we act differently from how all previous “armies” would have acted?

 
President Truman, a World War I combat veteran, had plenty of opportunity and motive to easily create a world American military empire based on nuclear weapons if United States culture had or allowed for such mentality. As soon as World War II ended, the Cold War with both Russia and China began. Forgetting about the economic costs and concentrating on human lives, just in the years 1945 to 1949 communist Russia and China cost the world tens of millions of lives directly by Soviet and Chinese communist oppression of its conquered nations in Eastern Europe and in the Far East that at least equaled if not exceeded the misery caused by Nazi Germany. If America truly had an imperialist mentality, it would have stopped the creation of these opposing communist empires by an imperialistic, militaristic threat and use of nuclear weapons. (Once Russia had nuclear weapons, the cost of communist oppression upon its conquered nations went into millions of more lives).

 
Instead under Truman the United States engaged in an internationalist foreign policy and renounced isolationism but did so without the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Truman helped found the United Nations in 1945 and issued the Truman Doctrine in 1947 to contain Communism. Truman oversaw the Berlin Airlift of 1948 and the creation of NATO in 1949. Truman as a matter of principle decided to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after it declared itself a nation, over the objections of everyone — everyone else feared hurting relations with the oil rich Arab states. Instead of unilaterally using nuclear weapons to enforce a Pax Americana upon the world as a true imperialist would have done regardless of the cost to the enemy, Truman got the $13 billion Marshall Plan enacted to rebuild Western Europe including the defeated foe Germany — about half of which has still not been paid back and never will be. Truman instead of using nuclear weapons that would have assured a unilateral world American empire instead lend $13 billion to defeated enemies expecting it never to be paid back? The supposed great General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War. Again, Truman refused. What kind of militaristic imperialism is this?

 
It isn’t. United States enlisted military personnel do not make a sacramentum militare to faithfully execute the commands of the emperor. The oath we take is to defend the Constitution, which the likes of Mr. Coates are always preaching about protecting as long as it does not involve risk for them. Unfortunately, the war profiteers from Connecticut Avenue to Wall Street and their commissioned officers use the naiveness and unfortunate circumstances of the working and middle class who always have and still make up most of the military to take advantage of our naivete on this oath to start wars that never should have been started and continue to do so but this does not change the nature of the present United States military as the only major military force in history whose purpose and intent are not to create empires either for the United States or anyone. In history the difference between the good and the bad is a fine line; on this fine line, the present United States military falls into the good side — at least for now.

 
We can thank President Truman for being a significant part of the reason for falling on the right side of the line. True, he did use atomic bombs during an actively declared war with the intention to end the war in order to save millions of more lives, but he refused to use them as a means of imperialism. It is a difference in intent, a difference that Mr. Coates and all politically correct liberals ridicule. However, in the reality of working class life in which there is no power to define social ethics, and free will and control over our lives is usually if not always missing, good intentions are often all we have to show for our lives and by which they are measured.

 
Furthermore, going to domestic issues, despite opposition from a conservative Congress who treated him as a hick from Missouri, Truman successfully guided the American economy through the post-war economic problems and maintained civil rights as both a personal and national moral priority. It was Truman, not his predecessor the upper class racist and pompous classist Franklin Roosevelt loved by liberals, who in 1948 submitted the first comprehensive civil rights legislation to Congress and issued Executive Orders to start racial integration in the military and federal agencies.

 
While in politics, Truman did not have girlfriends and hookers running around his offices or the White House as FDR and the liberal hero JFK and others did. Though political graft was common in his political era, he never participated in it. Upon leaving the presidency, Truman returned to Missouri to live with his wife at his mother-in-law’s house. He did not go on any corporate or commercial payroll because he believed that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the presidency (can you believe that?). Other than his savings, a small real estate inheritance, and a personal loan to write and sell his memoirs, his only income was his old army pension of $112.56 per month, and he had significant debt from failed family investments. He received no pension for his service as senator or president. Luckily the book was a success and avoided having a former President go into poverty and bankruptcy. To avoid the possibility of such an embarrassment in the future, Congress subsequently passed the Former Presidents Act, offering a $25,000 yearly pension to each former president. At his death, his wife Bess Truman opted for a simple private service in Missouri rather than a state funeral in Washington.

 
Truman was not a working class hero. His life and power in Missouri, though a hick by Washington DC standards, always made him a big fish in that small pond. However, despite all his imperfections of which all humanity shares, as a human being with empathy for all and especially as a politician for whom power was not an end in itself but an obligation for duty, by intention and by acts President Truman is a fine example of what the United States flag should represent to all Americans — either white or black, regardless of whether you sit or stand during the playing of any formal or informal national anthem. If you are a rich white person who happens to be black and want to call yourself white, our honoree President Truman is one standard by which I will judge you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s