I thought Embassy duty may have been what gave you a true view of the World that is extremely difficult for someone with Marine indoctrination to see. It is catharctic to have the Military view of the World turned upside down by reality.
That's a false stereotype that would normally fall to the guy who does four years and gets out. In such a temporary capacity, most one-termers don't even think about it. No, I'm the product of wanting to understand and wanting to give meaning to certain matters over the course of twenty years. And afterwards, five years of intense University study into Foreign Policy and M.E. history. Words like "democracy" and "freedom" just don't cut it if you want to understand what you did for twenty years.
Anyway, I wanted to return the favor on the recommended books by recommending a Internet site.
.
<
THIRD WORLD TRAVELER - THIRD WORLD, FOREIGN POLICY, FRIENDLY DICTATORS, WAR CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS, COUPS, FALSE FLAGS, RULING ELITE, GLOBAL OLIGARCHY, FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY, GLOBALISM, CORPORATE OLIGARCHY, PROPAGANDA, CORPORATE MEDIA, INTERNATIONAL TRAV >
/
I'm familiar with some of these titles and authors...
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - John J. Mearsheimer
People's History of the United States, A - Howard Zinn
Safe For Democracy - John Prados (I just dropped this one to you)
War Is A Racket - Smedley D. Butler
<---A Marine.
Kinzer is in there too. But you have to be careful with such a site. I was not surprised to see Chomsky salted throughout. I'm fine with Chomsky, but people (and these kinds of sites) love to take him out of context when presenting their personal narratives. Chomsky is first, and foremost, a social critic and political activist. His writing is almost entirely about how imperfect the U.S. and thus his presented histories of the U.S. cater to that perspective. Grain of salt.
My point is that the author matters, as does whether or not the material is peer-reviewed. A book written and argued through legitimate primary sources is not the same thing as a book written and argued through preconceptions and sources that are forced to fit into a desired narrative. Propaganda easily becomes a part of the narrative. And a book written from the perspective of a single witness (the author) is typically not a great source by itself. He must argue through the primary sources and less his personal experience. Journalists (and others) are fond of shaping the facts into a desired narrative that fits his private experience, rather than allowing the facts to dictate the narrative. But if one reads a book on this event, another book on that event, and then start mashing them together, it can look like an invisible CIA hand that covers the earth in scandal and intrigue. This is why to understand any particular subject or event, one must read 8-10 books on it. For example, I have read near 15 books on the Islamic Revolution. Because of Change Over Time, newer source reveals, and increased understanding through multiple perspectives of the facts, not a single author is 100% correct all by him/herself.
Historians are very careful about their method and their personal political bias, but even they sometimes can imply an untruth simply because space demands that some facts be omitted. For example...
- Gadiss' shortened book on the Cold War has a slight Right lean (America the great).
- LaFeber's book on the Cold War has a Left lean (America's fault)
- Westad's book on the Cold War presents a more neutral position.
All three historians are respected giants in the field, but because Gaddis leans a bit to the Right, and shortened his book, he makes two errors in regards to Iran (one in the 1940s and one in 1979). LaFeber tends to place all responsibility for the post-World War break down between the Soviets and the U.S. on the U.S. (Think a less enthused Chomskey). Now, add Zubok's neutral book on the Cold War from the Soviet perspective and we start to see the push and pull that creates a clearer picture. All four books are University Press, but this is why I tend to stick with peer-reviewed University Presses. Other historians, though disagreeing with some narrative, will have given their seal of approval before going to print because of legitimacy of the sources they used and whether or not the author employed those sources within the proper method.
We may not agree (or want to) with the argument that the author makes, but if the primary sources back up the argument, then we have to consider it as a piece of the truth.
