This process of “reshaping the past” may have benefit for the “nouveau riche” nations (and families), but it gives the leaders and the populations of these a vastly distorted world view, especially in the eyes of the nations who are somewhat akin to the “fallen nobility of the 18^th and 19^th century” of Europe (those all the pretensions of nobility, an actual family history going back centuries, but no real resources to support the lifestyle.) 

It is perhaps this “nouveau riche” mentality that explains why Americans mostly hate the study serious history. Yes, we may want to know some Greek or Roman history (our pseudo ancestors). But we shy away from the history of any other nation, especially nations that we consider less important then us (which just about means all the other nations)   It maybe that this information will contradict our self conception and challenge our “nouveau riche” re-write of history.

We, as a culture, support this limited knowledge of the past.  Our schools teach little history, and have made it so “politically correct” that what knowledge is passed along is “peplum.’  I’ve heard American historians state it was more important that American know the “legends” of the United States, then the actual history.  We know so little about our own real history and the history of the world that it is almost insulting to other peoples.  An Egyptian friend once said to me, after spending some time in West Virginia, Ohio and Tennessee, that the “stupidest Fehheyen  (Egyptian peasant farmer) knows more about the history of the world those people “out there.”   I could not argue with him.

It’s not just the average American who is “ignorant” of history, but our leaders as well.  I know someone high up in the “military industrial complex” who believed that Jesus and Mohammad were contemporaries.  I have yet to meet an elected official, or a high ranking military office who has heard of Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the historical inspiration of Osama Bin Laden. 

This utter lack of a foundation of history leads to bad choices by our leaders.  The Iraq war is only the most recent example.  The Viet Nam War and the support of dictatorships around the world can all be linked to the distorted view of history that our leaders have, and the views of those who elect them. 

In addition, it leads us to fail to understand potential options to solve current world.  We are trapped in our thinking by the very limits of our knowledge.  We think mostly of the world as a stagnant situation, when the history of the world is one of the constant movements of peoples and boarders. Lands have been occupied by one people only to have another come in within a few centuries (if not sooner) and the cultures changed, almost completely.  (Perhaps we don’t want to remember the 200 years of wars with the Indians on the Eastern coast that come with the establishment of the nation, endless broken treaties and eventual “ethnic cleansing in the 1830’s)  Lands have been conquered and held for hundreds of years only to be lost again based new wars or new waves of immigration (Perhaps we don’t want to remember that we only conquered half of Mexico some 160 years ago, which is almost nothing in world history, and now the Hispanics are coming back).

So our view of a “nouveau riche” stagnant world keeps us trapped in the idea that things have to remain as they are, when some of the best solutions maybe to make a major change in the current locations of peoples and ownership of land.  Some of the problems we face are really quite ancient, and perhaps we need a modified version of ancient solutions to address these issues, the ancient solution of moving people.  

Israel perhaps is most noted for this “people movement.” For centuries, the land was fought over by the Hebrews, Canaanites and Philistines. Eventually the Hebrews, (now Israelites and Jews) were expelled by the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively.  The Israelis never returned (the infamous 10 lost tribes), and the Jews returned with a newly refocused religion (many historians believe the Bible was first written while the Jews were in exile in Babylon.  But the battle over the land currently called Israel did not end, with the Jewish return under Persian protection, and then under Greek control. Over the last 2000 years or so the land was owned and occupied by many civilizations and peoples.

o       The older Jewish state of the Hasamones descendents of Judas Maccabeus gave way to Roman rule around 40 BC. 

o       By 140 AD or so, Jews were expelled and (after three major wars of independence lost by the Jews) completely banned from the lands. 

o       The lands were occupied by Greek and Romans as well as some Semitic peoples. This was the status of the land for close to the next five hundred years, with the culture shifting to Greek and Christian, from Roman and Classical (with a few incursions of Persians, one lasting for about 40 years). 

o       Then, next came the Arabs and Islam.  These new rulers did not expel the Greeks, but created a new educated and elegant Arab/Greek culture, with Islam slowly replacing Christianity (and the Arabs allowed the Jews back in.).

o       Then, after some 400 years of this transition, came the Crusaders, who slaughter all they could, including the entire population of Jerusalem.   They tried to repopulate the land with Germanic Franks and descendents of the Vikings. But the majority remained Arabs. 

o       This Christian rule lasted to some degree for about 150 years until the Turks (under the leadership of a Kurd, known in the West as Saladin.) took the land.

o       Since about 1200 AD or so, one Turkic people or another occupied the area with the population being primarily Arab, but with large amounts of Turks and some Christians and Jews.  The Ottoman Empire held the land from about 1600 until 1918, when the English gained controlled.

o       British rule lasted less then 30 years.   

While the Turks allowed Jewish immigration into the land during its rule, there were less then 50,000 when the British took over, and only about 600,000 at the time of Israeli independence (the increase coming mostly from the remains of European Jewry). Now, in just the past 60 years the population rose to over 7,000,000 in Israel, (mostly Jews, some Muslim) as well as 5 million Palestinians Muslims in the two sections of the area called the Palestinian Authority.  The huge growth in population of Israel is largely the result of massive relocation of Russian, Persian and Arab Jews.  So, now the land is once again mainly occupied by Europeans, with a large Semitic minority, as it was under the Romans, and under the Crusader states.

But, as dramatic as this story is (since it also mixes in the issues of religion) this is not the territory that in the European/Mediterranean world that has changed hands and populations the most.  That honor actually rest with Sicily.  As stated in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily#Geography

The original peoples of the island were Italic peoples (or possible Iberians).  The island’s location made it the center of conflict of the ancient world (much like the location of ancient Israel.) At first there was the struggle between the Phoenicians and their colony of Carthage and the Greeks (who occupied all of Southern Italy and eventually half of Sicily. The two sides fought over the island and its center to trade for over 350 years.  The land was populated and repopulated time and again.  The Carthaginians brought in tens of thousands of Gauls, Celts from what is now France.  The Greeks brought in Greeks from what is now the coast of Turkey, as these Greeks fell under the control of the Persians.

The Greeks ended up fighting each other as well.  The greatest military disaster of Athens was their effort to conquer the Sicilian city of Syracuse.  They lost their entire fleet and army, upwards of 40,000 men. 

But, perhaps the most remembered war over Sicily is the Punic War, or the war between the rising Roman state and the aging Carthage.  By 242 BC, the Romans had won the first round of the war, and occupied the island.  They began to repopulate it with Roman and Italian stock.

However, as stated in the encyclopedia:

o       The initial success of the Carthaginians (Hannibal in Italy) during the Second Punic War encouraged many of the Sicilian cities to revolt against Roman rule. Rome sent troops to put down the rebellions (it was during the siege of Syracuse that Archimedes was killed). Carthage briefly took control of parts of Sicily, but in the end was driven off. Many Carthaginian sympathizers were killed—in 210 BC the Roman consul M. Valerian told the Roman Senate that “no Carthaginian remains in Sicily”.

The famous Carthaginian statement about Roman conquest was: “You make it a desert and call it peace.”

o       For the next 6 centuries Sicily was a province of the Roman Empire. It was something of a rural backwater, important chiefly for its grain fields which were a mainstay of the food supply of the city of Rome. The empire did not make much effort to Romanize the region, which remained largely Greek.

With the decline of Roman, Sicily again became a major strategic battle field.  For the next 350 years Sicily was ruled by a series of different peoples, including the Vandals (for 3 decades). For the next six decades the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines (Greeks saying they were Romans) fought over the island, leaving much of it in ruins and depopulated. The Byzantines won out, and ruled the island (again repopulating it with Greeks from the Balkans.)

The Byzantines ruled more or less unmolested until the island was invaded by the Muslims from North Africa.  Starting in 827 the war of conquest continued until 902 and the land was occupied by Moors (Berbers) from North Africa.  Like in Spain, under Muslim rule, the island became the center of progress and religious tolerance.  The Kalbid dynasty made Sicily one of, if not the richest kingdom, in all of Europe. But the descendents of the Vikings, the Normans, invaded the Mediterranean in 1060 and started a 30 year systematic conquest of Sicily.  They basically became a ruling class of Berber (Arab), Greek and German population, and maintained the tolerance of the former Muslim rulers.

However, with the coming of the Crusades, and a new ruling house of Germans, toleration ended, and persecution of Muslim (and the small Jewish population) became standard. In 1224, the last of the Muslim were expelled.

Soon after France conquered the island, but only held it briefly. In 1282, Aragon invaded and brought a “Spanish” presence. Either as part of the independent kingdom of Aragon, or as part of the unified Spanish Kingdom (Aragon, Castile and a few other smaller parts) Sicily remained in Spanish hands (and Spanish speaking rulers) for some four hundred and fifty years.  The population ruling classes became Spanish speaking and many Aragonese moved into the island, bring another new population change.  Also, in 1656 a major plague hit Sicily hard.  Spain ended up importing Italians from the mainland to help repopulate.  It was only then that the island got its first major populations who actually spoke Italian.

In the early 18^th century, the island was under the rule of Savoy, then Austria and then a French monarch who, starting in 1734, ruled the island and southern Italy under the name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

o       Sicily was the scene of major revolutionary movements in 1820 and 1848 against [the monarchy’s] denial of constitutional government. The 1848 revolutions resulted in a sixteen month period of independence from the Bourbons before its armed forces took back control of the island in 1849.

Sicily only became part of the newly formed kingdom of Italy in 1860.  However, it was not a “happy union” and in 1866 there was a major revolt.  Descent and revolts continued leading to the collapse of the economy and the massive movement of Sicilians out of the island.  As noted in the encyclopedia;

o       Palermo revolted against Italy. The city was soon bombed by the Italian navy ….. Italian soldiers summarily executed the civilian insurgents, and took possession once again of the island.

• A long extensive guerrilla campaign against the unionists (1861-1871) took place throughout southern Italy, and in Sicily, inducing the Italian governments to a ferocious military repression. Ruled under martial law for many years Sicily (and southern Italy) was ravaged by the Italian army that summarily executed hundreds of thousands of people, made tens of thousands prisoners, destroyed villages, and deported people. The Sicilian economy collapsed, leading to an unprecedented wave of emigration.

Depopulation of the island took place as millions moved to New York and other areas.  The island itself fell mostly under the control of local “lords” or organized crime networks commonly known as the “mafia.” The status within Italy as being something different from the mainly was recognized when Sicily was made an autonomous region starting in 1946.  Despite reforms offered, the relationship between the island and the mainland government continues to be uncomfortable at best.

With a serious review of the basic history of Sicily, we see that the perspective that Sicily is a quaint happy Italian island to be mostly false.  It is not happy, and it is actually barely Italian.  In its people’s histories are Celts, Phoenicians Greeks, including Greeks from Asia and the Balkans, Romans/Italics, Germans of several groups, Arabs and Berbers, Scandinavians, Spanish, French, Austrians and the modern Italians. Each one of the groups ruled the land from a few generations to hundreds of years, bringing about many changes in culture and religion with each shift in rulers and populations.

Israel and Sicily have had extensive changes, as we have seen.  However, other nations and lands have similar stories, if not as dramatic.  The “Hungarian Plain,” the Balkans all throughout the Americas, and as we learned better the history of Africa, we see a similar pattern in much of the southern part of the continent; peoples and cultures are constantly moving.

So, why did I do this long review of the land and populations changes in Israel and Sicily?  Because, if we look at history from a long time view, we see that “things” are not stagnant.  With this understanding we can start to think of a potential solution to the crisis in the “Middle East” from an “ancient view point,” that of looking at the fluidness of the populations movement.  What can we learn from this long term perspective?

1)      Land occupation by any nation can be tentative at best.

2)      Land is often exchanged as part of a war and peace process.

3)      Peoples around the world have relocated many times.

4)      Often people relocate to avoid destruction and war other times for economic reasons (including population increases)

5)      The occupation of lands by new people can bring about destruction or it can bring about a great expansion of wealth and culture.

From a “stagnant” point of view, we see the crisis in the Middle East as two peoples (Israel and Palestinians) fighting for the same land, each making claims to the land based on, history, religion and by right of conquest. Both sides have holy places under their controls and not under their control that are bound tight to their, and others, religious foundations.  In addition, both groups see their land as a place of salvation and security, having both experience extensive discrimination, (with the Palestinians only having this experience as people living in exile during the last 60 years or so, while the Jews have faced destruction many times, in many locations and for centuries.)

In the stagnant world view, there seems little that can be done but to try and divide the land in some fashion (which most Arabs, and a minority of Israelis, do not want.) It has taken some 40 years of war and terrorism to get the parties to roughly agree on a “two state solution” but in fact this seems not to really satisfy the Arabs, as witnessed by the election victories of the Hamas party, which is still dedicated to the elimination of Israel.

The policies of the West, and Israel, caught up much in the stagnant view, are leading to possible another war of extermination of the Jewish people.  The signs are everywhere.  The radicals, such Hamas, gain power throughout the region (with Iran supporting their efforts towards a new war).  The existing governments of the Arab world are hated by the citizens, in large part for their failure to defeat Israel, and are seen by their own people as the tools of the old and new Christian/Jewish imperialism (France, England and the US.) 

The “Arab street” has a strong argument.  Most of the current nations in the Middle East have “unnatural boarders” of the existing countries of the region are the remnants of European imperialism.  These boarders are mainly based on the failed treaty ending World War I, and its aftermath.  Iraq is nothing more then a creation of British and French needs and has not historical basis.  Israel, Jordan and Arabia are also manifestations of this period. The lack of “Kurd state” is also linked to the post World War I politics.

The Arab peoples are also far better aware of world history then the people of the West. They tend to see Israel as the reincarnation of the Crusaders states. It took the Muslim world more then 200 years to rid themselves of that old imperialist venture.  Israel has only been there for sixty years.  The Arabs see time as on their side.  Most Westerners, when they think of the Crusades, think on terms of the valiant Christian knights trying to protect Christian pilgrims.

The Arabs also see demographics as on their side.  The population of the area is growing in leaps. Clearly the younger population is expressing a new “peoples’ will.”  Sooner or later, in some fashion or other, the local older populations’ governments representing the “imperialist” will fall and the “will of the people” will come to power.  That new “people’s will” is extensively pro-Islamist and, extensively, willing to go to war with Israel no matter what the cost. 

In addition, the outward migration of Muslims into Western Europe and the United States make them and their political and religious views important in these democracies.  Israel no longer has the monopoly on the internal advocates on the regional politics. How these demographic changes will affect the political support of the Israel by Western powers will be played out over the next 50 years is not clear.  (If the Western powers are still the world powers some 50 years from now.) The shifts away from Israel are already beginning, and the trend towards a least a “more balanced approach” is clearly in place. President’s Bush calling for a Palestinian state was a major sign of that shift.

What is clear, however, from a “stagnant” world point of view, the future is not good for the region.  It seems clear, that in the long run the “two-state solution” will not last.  It seems clear that eventually Israel will fall, or be destroyed.  It is also clear that the war possibly will lead to a world wide nuclear war.  Perhaps the “Biblical Prophecies of Armageddon” will come true.  Perhaps, the “fire next time” will be the fires of Iranian or terrorist nuclear weapons with replies by Israel and US returns.  Or perhaps the sequence will be a pre-emptive strike by the US or Israel.  It does not matter, if the outcome is a nuclear war. 

However, if we look at the situation from a non- nouveau riche,” non-stagnant world view, we see that there are options.  In addition, there is now the wealth in the world, in the Arab lands and among the relevant world powers, to make options possible.   There are also precedents in the potential warring parties that could give them the basis for accepting options. 

Before the option can be expressed, we need to look at the given needs of the two warring factions:

From the Arab point of view:

Israel is an imposition of Western Imperialism that has led to:

o       The disposition and impoverishment of millions of Palestinians, and

o       The lost of control of holy sites central to the religion of Islam

The Arabs also see that it is a religious obligation to regain control of lands lost to the “Ulmma” or Islamic community. 

Israel, or the Jewish peoples, sees, based in history, that:

o       There is a need for a “Jewish state” the real need is for the Jewish state to exist within safe and secure borders.”

o       The land was both promised to the by God and British Empire and the World through the UN.  

They also see the land as the “promised land” and the only rational place for a Jewish State.  In the early period of the Zionist movement” Jewish leadership rejected several options for the location of Israel other the Near East, including Uganda, parts of Argentina and even parts of Utah.

There are several ways for the two points to be phrased, but the real issue seems to come down to having Israel, as a safe and secure place as a nation with a Jewish majority and culture.  Demographics, the desire of the Arab masses and many other issues show that bottom line appears is not maintainable over the long haul in its current location.

However, extensively the massive Anti Semitism of the last 150 years, (starting in 19th Century Russia) on through the Holocaust and into the modern Islamist movements have more or less proven the need for a Jewish dominated state. 

So from the stagnant world view, there seems to be little solution.  However, from the fluid world view there is another solution. 

o       Move the Jewish state (out of harms way).

To many in the West, this sounds like an absurd solution.  Yet, as nouveau riche, they forget their own histories.  Each of the states of the West (except for perhaps Norway and Sweden) consists of peoples who started in one place and migrated to another. Often there were multiple movements and relocations.  Remember, those who created the Kingdom of Spain can trace their origins to nomadic horsemen from the country now called Ukraine. Most of the Balkans nations are populated by peoples with origins as far away as from Siberia. 

So, just for the moment let’s put aside all concepts of absurdity, and ask a critical question; How in this modern age would you go about moving a nation?  Especially how do you go about moving a nation without war?

o       The answer seems to be buying the nation, and, then using that money to buy some other place to relocate. 

Currently, with all the oil wealth in the Arab world, there is actually the wealth available to buy Israel. All that would be needed is to determine a price (and what can stay and what can go.) 

The Arabs would regain the lands they so sorely want, and they would do so without war.

o       In fact, the Arabs had actually sold the lands in question before, during the Crusading period, Fredrick the Emperor of German, during the sixth Crusade, basically bought all of the “West Bank” and Jerusalem (except for the Dome of the Rock) from the Sultan of Egypt,  in exchange for cash and military aid. (February 1229).  This in fact was the least costly, bloody and most successful of all the crusades. 

o       Its outcome was rejected by the Western leaders, (including the Pope) for failure to fight with the “infidels”. This rejection led to more (lost) wars and the final collapse of the Crusader states.

Perhaps the Arabs leaders would be able to not make the same mistakes as the Pope.

So, if the land of Israel can be “bought” by the Arabs, where could Israel go? 

o       One of the best and clearest options is Sicily. 

Besides the fact that the island has just a long history of changing of populations and cultures, it is roughly the same size (Israel 20,770 km² Sicily 25,708 km²) and climate as Israel and there is a similar agriculture base.  In addition, as noted the island and its people have not really been happy as part of Italy.  The people who remain there are in deep poverty.

Therefore, the land is occupied, and in the modern world, peoples can not be forced to leave to make way for another population.  Therefore, the part of the deal would have to include incentives for the people of Sicily to either move or to accept new rulers, citizenship and the new influx of the new culture.  First of all there would be the incentive of money.  The property of the people would be purchased, if someone agrees to sell.  Second, the citizens of Sicily are citizens of both Italy and the European Union.  Currently many nations in the EU are facing labor shortages, (most often turning to Turkey for workers) and many people from Sicily could easily resettle in other parts of the EU (with their new cash, and perhaps training and education incentives) . 

In addition, there would be no absolute requirement for people to move if they accept the new State and the influx of 7 million new people who would be mostly Jewish.  Many Sicilians could remain on the island and take on the role that the Palestinians play in the Israeli economy (low-wage workers in the “service economy”)

But Italy also needs a reason to sell the Island.  First of all, the nation is in dire need of economy help.  The income from selling Sicily would help greatly in getting some needed resources to help modernize the rest of the country’s infrastructure. It would also rid them of a section of the nation that is an economic drain on the rest of the nation, and a source of much of the nation’s crime.

In addition, the other Western states would benefit with the sale of Israel in that it would release some of the “Petro-dollars” that are currently locked in the Arab world.  The sales of Israel and Sicily would help offset the “trade deficit” between the West and Arab world.

Israel would gain a place where they could have a nation in safe and secure boarders, and be able to stop putting so much of their resources into military. Once relocated, the cost of the national enterprise would be greatly reduced, and the more original concepts of the land of Israel could be restored. 

The issue of religion and the promise of God and all these other issues will of course stand in the way of any type of settlement for Israel.  However, there are solutions for part of this issue.  The key part of the solution would include the “internationalization” of Jerusalem, especially the holy sites.  The city would become the possession of the United Nations, and that organization would relocate to that site.  Other specific sites such as the Dome of the Rock, the Wailing Wall, the Masada, and various Christian sites, would become the United Nations with they delegation the upkeep and security for these sites to specific countries or groups of countries.

In addition, the United Nations would have to guarantee the human rights of all peoples who wish to either stay in the area, or to locate there.  In other words, just like the Sicilians could not be “forced to relocate,” neither would Israelis be forced to leave by the new Palestinian government.  Any Jew who wished to remain in the old land of Israel should be free to do so.  Many of the Orthodox Jews may wish to do so, and they would need to be protected, but by the new government, and by the United Nations.   

So, here is the deal … in the sequence that seems to make sense.  It actually needs to move backwards.  The first step would be Italy agreeing to participate, by agreeing to sell Sicily (and the people of Sicily would have to agree to be part of the deal.) Both of these would have to be “in principle” agreements, since the price will not be established for a long time into the process.  Then Israel would need to agree in principle to relocate, and to be “bought.” (again in principle), and massive relocation.  Then the Arab governments would have to agree to buy Israel, with the caveats about protections of holy sites and Jews who remain, also with the relocation of the UN.  Then, the incentives would also have to be in place eventually to enable the UN to relocate and take on the responsibilities of protection of the holy sites, and minority populations.

There would have to be agreements on costs and on a time table for the change (perhaps over the course of 10-15 years.)

The rhetoric used in political campaigns can have long term impacts long after the election is over.  The politics of hatred and distraction used by desperate politicians can and have resulted in “spillovers.”  In the US,  where politicians for decades used the anti-Black race baiting as a means to obtain the support of segregated and restricted voting population, this approach led to lynchings and the “old fashion” use of the term “race riots” (where Whites attacked Blacks), predominately but not exclusively in the South,.  The more violent the rhetoric, against Blacks during the election periods, the more likely there would be an American style “pogroms.”   And, of course this manifestation of the use of the over the top rhetoric has been seen across countries and time as kings, and rulers and politicians of all kinds used local hated of minorities or different classes as part of the local “rituals of campaigning.” 

But in this time, in our country, where the current Republican candidate is trying to link the Democratic candidate to “dark” (use deliberately) forces and crowds at the Republican rallies are calling for the death of the Democratic candidate and calling him a traitor and terrorist, and these events are making the campaign look more like a lynch mob then a reasoned political discussion, we do not have to go back into our history of segregation or to other countries to see the consequences of this type of rhetoric.  We need to look at what seems to be a very forgotten recent event in American history and the greatest terror attack upon our country and its government, prior to 9/11 and which made all the activities of the Weather Underground look like kindergarteners activities; the attack on the 1995 Federal Building in Oklahoma City, but home grown far right wing terrorist linked to the then spreading “militia movement.” 

The rise and popularity of this “militia movement” was directly linked to the right wing rhetoric aimed at the, at first candidate Bill Clinton, claiming this “failed governor from a failed state” was planning to bring socialism to the US; and he would force abomination of “gay rights” down everyone’s throats, including gays in the army and equal status of gay marriage.  The attacks on both candidate and President Clinton were outrageous and at the same time seemingly accepted. When a Congressman from North Carolina said that Clinton should not come to his district, because he most likely wouldn’t make it out alive, no action was taken and the incident was merely accepted as a “statement of fact.”

These campaigning period of 1992 and early Clinton years were a great time of fear and over the top right wing attacks leading eventually to the Newt Gingrich “Contract with America” and the near collapse of the Democratic Party in the 1994 elections.  Newt added greatly to the anti-Clinton rhetoric and the growth of right wing radio and super conservative Christian evangelicals like Pat Robinson and Jerry Farwell only added to the craziness of the times. 

The right (ok far right) was predicting that with Bill Clinton the end of America as we knew it was coming and it was the right and obligation of all people to arm themselves and form into military self defense groups “or local militias (as stated in the second amendment).  These groups popped up all over the place, and were gaining a lot of press and seemingly support, as Clinton seem to prove them right when one of his first acts was to try to allow gays to participate in the military and his much hated (by the right) wife, Hillary ran the process that would “socialize” medicine in the US.

Wrapped in the guise of the “love of country and the constitutions” the country was in a radical right wing frenzy, when it all changed do to a logical progression when hate is used for winning votes, and this time it was a direct attack on the US federal government facility in Oklahoma City by a right wing militia group which used the same rhetoric of the over the top politicians. 

As stated in Wikipedia

The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist attack on April 19, 1995 aimed at the U.S. government in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, an office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was bombed. The attack claimed 168 lives and left over 800 people injured. It was the first major terrorist attack and until the September 11, 2001 attacks, it was the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil. …

Within days after the bombing, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both arrested for their roles in the bombing. Investigators determined that they were sympathizers of a militia movement and that their motive was to retaliate against the government (actions).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

This act brought America to its senses and led to the overt disbandment of most of the militias, and in fact to the first of several reconstruction of Bill Clinton, as the broad majority of the country saw how this right wing madness was led directly to this horrible act. And from a historical view, the Timothy McVeigh action was a predictable as the actions of race riots and lynchings after previous campaigns based on hate.  The “crazies” take this stuff seriously and they take actions based on what they hear.

Now, today, while this Presidential  campaign continues, and the attacks against Obama continue at this level and with the purpose that it is intended; to undermine the county’s belief that Obama is legitimate and even potentially a “Manchurian Candidate” sleeper cell; it’s not really a question of the effectiveness of the approach, or what most people believe, but what is really important is in the long term historic consequences of how some “crazies” will take this message to heart; and “save America” by eliminating the “terrorist” regardless of the outcome of the election (but especially if Obama wins.).

Through there actions, clearly based on historical presidents, the McCain campaign is laying the foundation for future “American terrorism” as it recreates the hatred generated against Clinton and the fears against change that can be directly linked to the Oklahoma City Bombing.  McCain claims to be an American patriot, this is no way for a patriot to act. McCain needs to take strong and immediate action to not just denounce the calls at his rallies, but to actually stop the approach, and return to a campaign that does not attempt to paint his opponent as un-American.  He needs to recognize the long-term consequences of his actions.

There can be no doubt that the most important date in the history of African Americans was the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the US constitution banning chattel slavery.  While the emancipation proclamation is often more cited as the date of “liberation” Lincoln’s edict did not in fact free all slaves but only those in territories still in succession.  Slavery itself was not fully outlawed until the passage of the 13^th amendment, (with citizenship rights later provided with the 14^th and 15^th amendments.)

However, what should we consider the second most important date, or event? The introduction of slavery into Virginia (before the Mayflower), or one of the positive or negative Supreme Court rulings, that allowed Jim Crow or moved toward ending the American Apartheid?  The “I have a Dream Speech” or Jackie Robinson?  There are just so many possible events or dates that stand out in the long term struggle for African Americans to achieve success in the United States.

However, if we look at issues from a slightly different perspective, I would like to propose a different idea for the second most important date in African American history that is not considered or looked upon with any connection to the African American community.  That date is June 28, 1914, and the event is the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria, the event that began World War I.  

And I offer this date not for the long term impact of the African Americans who eventually served in the US military (in mostly segregated units) and created a core group of empowered persons that came home expecting a different world.  No, I offer this date because with the advent of World War I the much needed source of cheap labor (Europe) that had fueled the American economy since the foundation of the nation, was now cut off.   And as a result of this termination of cheap labor from Europe, the industrial heartland of America turned to a similar group of peoples (semi or fully peon populations with little or no education, living in dire economic and political repression in their homelands) for its source of cheap labor, the peonage population of the African Americans living under Jim Crow in the southern United States became the new source of cheap labor.  Some 4 million African Americans eventually participated in the Great Migration between the years of 1914 and 1945 (with some big gaps with the world wide depression)

And these 4 million African Americans join in the great heritage of the mass migrations of other oppressed peoples from the servitude and hopelessness of Europe into the great American cauldron of the former industrial heartland.  And as it turns out these African Americans, despite racism, and the past history of slavery, have for the most part prospered and progressed as the same relative pace, using the same means for progression,  as the other major immigrant groups who also descended upon America.  Therefore with the ending of cheap labor from Europe, the African Americans were giving the chance to break free economically as well as culturally and politically from the Jim Crow era and move greatly along the path to political equality.

In addition, what each of these immigrant groups, despite low wages and mostly deplorable living conditions, were able to do, besides prospering themselves, was to develop a rare commodity, surplus wealth.  And as with other immigrant groups who came to America, this surplus wealth, impart went to improve the living and political conditions of their “fellow countrymen (people)” who never made it to “America”.  So we not only see that the modern civil rights movement in the US was supported in great part by the small contributions of the “migrants” but we see also that the establishment of the Republic of Ireland, was mostly funded by descendents of Irish immigrants to the US, and the creation of the State of Israel was demand by and mostly funded by Jewish Americans. In addition efforts to bring about reforms in Russia, Poland, Germany, Italy, and many other countries was greatly supported by if not majority funded by the “surplus wealth of the immigrants and their descendents to the US.

But this similarity and its long-term benefit to the efforts to end tyranny around the world, is only one of so many similarities between the immigrants to the US from other countries, and the African American immigrants from the almost other country of the “southern states.”

But before going on we need to define a bit better the groups we are talking about.  For example, the large wave of immigration of Scandinavians which helped to populate the Minnesota and Wisconsin regions does not really fit well into the major immigration patterns in US history.  Primarily this groups does not fit well in that they, the Scandinavians who came, were mainly “middle class” and rather well educated for the time, and they tended to stay in one highly concentrated area.  They came primarily for continuing their life style (farmers) in a place that offered far more land then they considered ever possible.  And while there were some ethnic conflicts between the Norwegians and the Swedes back in Europe, it was never one that rose to a level where the Norwegians were at risk of life. 

However, for the other key immigrant groups of the late 18^th and throughout the 19^th centuries and into the early 20^th centuries that came to populate and repopulate the American industrial “heartland” the Scots, and poor English, and then later the massive waves Irish, and then Italians, and then great waves of Slavs, including Russians, Poles, Bohemians, and in the West, the Chinese, and the last of the pre-World War I massive wave of Russian and Polish Jews, that all came to the US to become the cheap source of labor for the American industrial “giant.”  

These peoples were very different then the Swedes and Norwegians.  These people were almost all desperately poor (at least for America), they were fleeing economic, and often political repression, and while they clustered in urban settings and neighborhoods, they spread out throughout the whole of the Northern US, (with the Chinese primarily on the west coast.)  And except for some people who came over to be miners, where in the past they had been miners in the “old country” mostly the people came to do jobs they had never done before, and perhaps had never conceived of before.  For the most part these were poor peasants with almost no knowledge of modern technology who were being thrown into relatively modern cities, and went to work in massive factories with “huge machines”

Also, for the most part these new immigrants were extremely religious, and were practicing a religion that was not the “accepted” one of the new nation.  While the Americans were primarily some variety of Protestantism the new immigrants were mainly Roman or Eastern Catholic, or Jewish. (Or the religion of the long term oppressors of the majority population, or the most hated and repress of the religions of Europe.) And the peoples had had little impact to their traditional cultures from what we call the “enlightenment” or modernization.   For the most part these were very superstitious uneducated persons (who all appeared to have endless amounts of children).

In addition, almost all the groups were frightened of “outsiders” since the “outsiders” were the oppressors;

• The Irish were greatly repressed by the English, and the was great deprivation at the time of the major wave of immigrants (the potato famine)
• The Italians economy had collapsed and the people had to deal with the old tyranny of the Catholic Church and local dukes, and also a newly united state with a new King, as well as the long-term terror of the local gangs
• The Slavs economy also had collapsed and the peoples were mainly ruled by absolutes kings who were often German and Protestant (Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empires) and the people were often “cannon fodder” for the frequent wars in Eastern Europe.
• The Russians has just been “liberated” from some 400 years of slavery (serfs) but had little economic access to land or education, and were still treaded as mostly non-humans by their ruling elite
• The Jews faced what seemed like an endless stream of attacks from almost all people, and the Jews of Russia were faced with new effort of the Czarist government to make the Empire of Russia “Jew Free” by a policy of “one-third conversion, one third deportation and one-third starvation.”

 As we can see the African American community fits well into this pattern.

• After some 340 years of legal slavery in the US (with the most intense period being after the invention of the cotton gin in 1790’s) Blacks were awarded their legal freedom, much at the same time as the Russian serfs.  And much like the serfs, the initial “liberal” efforts to train and education the Black populations (Reconstruction) were mostly abandoned based on pressure of the old ruling elite (the White landowners in the South, and that Barons in Russian) and near civil war in the areas of the US south.
• As with the Serfs of Russia, the African Americans of the south were mainly left to fend for themselves and rapidly fell into a state of near slavery or legal peonage.
• And for the most part, while there were some long term “free Black” communities in the north and pockets of successful African Americans in the south, for the most part there was mainly roughly a 50 year period of lost of rights and social and economic isolation.

And they were frightened of “whitey” since “whitey” was often ready to kill African Americans without any fear of regress of the law.  It is estimated that a minimum of 14,000 African Americans were killed in “lynchings” or other acts of racial violence (the original meaning of the term “race riots”)  in the 40 years between the ending “Reconstruction” the beginning of the Great Migration.

Then came the “guns of August,” in 1914, and the empires of Europe found a new use to their “surplus” populations that they had been all too happy to ship off to the Americas.  But now they were needed as soldiers and workers in the new war machines needed for this new modern war.

But American factories still needed labor, and cheap labor.  Since the continuous flow of competitive cheap labor kept wages down and Unionism only a pipe dream, the need was critical to the industrialist who feared “labors” demands.   By the time of World War I almost all the major countries of Europe has successful unions and even major socialist parties (based on the concepts of the Second International) Not so the US, the constant flow of labor enabled the factory owners to rid themselves of union organizer and socialist agitators with ease.  For every worker fired there were often two or three waiting to take their job. The classic line offered by the Industrialist of the time was that “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.” This foundation of anti-unionism was only possible if the flow of cheap labor continued.

In Europe, with their limited movement of populations and the strong sense of nationalism (even in relatively newly formed countries) and extensive classism, and old “guild” concepts, both Unionism and Socialism were successful, since there were no replacement workers waiting in the wings, and European industrialist had to come to terms with their “workers”  In fact at the beginning of World War I the majority party in the German Parliament was the Socialist (who quickly abandoned their pledges of international worker solidarity in opposition to the war, to one of in favor of German Nationalism, and Germany sacred rights to fight).

But in America, the Industrialist needed to keep the flow of labor coming in to keep the competition going to keep down wages and unionism.  The best source of peon labor that was readily available and easily transportable was the African Americans caught in the tyranny of Jim Crow; and the word went out an the great migration began.

And what awaited the new African American immigrant in the cities of the North was the same as all other immigrants; overt hatred of the “native persons” discrimination in jobs and housing, and being used by the industrialist against other groups of labor.  The Irish were the first to face the overt hatred of the Americans, with the flow of Irish even leading to a political party that looked to “control the American boarders, and ban new immigration.  The American Party and what became known as the “know nothings” were active politically throughout the 1850’s and won governorships and mayoralties based on pledges to end immigration throughout the country and ran third in the 1856 Presidential elections.

The overt hatred given Black were no worse then that given Chinese in the West, or Irish and Jews especially in the East. In fact the case can be made that the Chinese were treated even with more contempt, then Blacks as the anti-Chinese groups managed to expel much the Asian populations from many states, and ban their further immigrations (and later during World War II had some 150,000 Japanese placed in concentration camps based solely on issue of race.)

All the major immigrant groups faced the rage of the “nativist” groups and were subjects of overt anti-immigrant humor, as well as almost a complete ban from the progress to wealth through “normal” means.  As late as the early 1960’s there were “quotas” for the number of Jews that would be allowed into any given college (especially the elite schools) And tokenism prevailed (as with having a “Jewish seat” on the US Supreme court, but almost never more then one Jew at a time would serve. Therefore, almost all the immigrant groups took virtually the same seven means to acquiring wealth and power in a hostile capitalist setting. 

But before discussing success, we need to remember that these groups on the whole, during the first wave of immigration were not very successful.  They worked in the proverbial “sweat shops” and mass industrial complexes, and most during their first generation of immigration failed to progress very far away from this setting.  Most of the immigrants who came over as cheap labor, worked and died as cheap labor, and often the same could be said for  their children they brought with them, and the first children they had in this country.  Most of the progress for all the immigrant groups came, if at all, in the form of “class creep” meaning a slow rise from cheap labor to middle class families, over the course of some three to five generation. 

It can be clearly argued that the poor white populations in the rural areas and even most urban areas of much of the south are basically 8^th and 9^th generation failed immigrants.  They arrived in the US in the late 1700’s (if not before) and became farmers and tradespersons in the areas of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and out to Missouri and Oklahoma.   They did not do well in the agricultural age and little better if not worse in the industrial age, and are still relatively failing in the information age as well.  And they were and often still are the butt of bad jokes and stereotyping (Okies, Hillbillies, etc) but are really failed descendents of failed immigrants.

But the urban immigrants had other means at their disposal for acquiring wealth and power, other then the traditional means of industrialism. And those who did find success did so primarily through the used the military, policing, local government and politics, popular entertainment (and sport) and also crime (mainly the sin crimes of gambling, prostitution and when the country went “dry” alcohol and later drugs.) In addition, of course there were the shop keepers who on occasion developed ways and means to turn local shops into major industrial forces (Sears and Roebuck for example)

We can see them working their way into these settings (and we can see them in the clichés of the times, such as the Irish Cop, or Custer’s troopers at Little Big Horn, or the Italian gangster, or and Italian crooner.)  We see the world of entertainment move from the Eddie Cantors and Al Jolson’s to the Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennet to the Michael Jackson, Will Smith and 50 Cent of today.

Boxing (the middle weights at least) were dominated by Jews in the 1920’s (who replaced the Poles, who had replaced the Irish and Italians as the dominate fighters and now, it is the Blacks and Hispanics (the latest immigrant group) that dominate the fight game.  Basketball use to be called the “Jewish sport” in the 1920s’ and the description of the “sly and shifty Jew” in sports papers mimicked the overtly racist description of African American ball players that was the hall mark of the early 1950’s and even as far as into the early 1970’s.  We saw baseball dominated in its early days by Irish player only to be replaced by Italian players, to be replaced by Black and now Hispanic players.

Irish gangs, which “controlled” much of the poor sections of major cities (and was the foundation of the Kennedy family fortune) were replaced by Italian gangs (and in many places, Jewish gangs, which have now given way to Black and Hispanic and Asian gangs, all controlling what is not now government controlled “sins” (The old numbers game is no more because the states created the Lotto systems)   Cities went from having Irish mayors to Italian and Slavic mayors to Jewish and Black mayors. In 1910 90% of the prostitutes in New York City were Jewish, now it’s Black Hispanic and Asians.

But what I have only brushed on partly is that all groups took three to five generations to reach at least tolerable socially acceptance in the main stream culture. It was almost 130 years, or roughly five generation, between the first rushes of the Irish to America to the first (and to this point only) election of a Irish Catholic president. Now on St Patrick day, everyone tries to “act Irish” what every that means.   We also see the social acceptance of the foods of the immigrants as now “American food:” Bagels are now sold at McDonalds (with ham and cheese on it, oy).  Pizza has become more or less the national American food..  Jazz is recognized as the most true of all American art forms.  And so on and so on.  But all of this took time and during that time it was rough for both the immigrants and the Nativist who resisted so strongly their “un-American” ways.

And its clear that we can see that for the most part this time that its take is three to five generations.  While some, such as Chinese and Japanese and the Jews seem to have been accepted somewhat faster, that is mostly appearances, and not fact.  

In addition there is one other point that a study of immigration clearly has shown, that very few immigrants actually achieve great wealth, while in almost all cases within five generations, the majority of those who survive tend to reach American middle class status, and some far higher; however within every group there is at least 1/3 failure.  As noted we can see this failure in the Appalachia and the Ozark regions. But we can also see it in South Boston, were there are still generations old Irish poverty (or at least lower working class) and in the Lower East Side there were still numbers of poor Jews who have been there for close to five generations.  And in cities like Buffalo and Cleveland and Akron or even Chicago, we find still closely knitted Slavic and Irish communities often in shape conflict with each other as well as the Blacks, for what little resource that remain in the old rust belt cities.    These communities have been in tack for generations and primarily have little economic change in status during the entire history of the neighborhood. 

So, not all immigrants succeed, and not all the children of the immigrants succeed, and during the three to five generation of social integration, the nativist point heavily towards the most unsuccessful, the lowest one-third of the immigrants and try to generalized failure of this portion of the immigrant population to all the members of that group.  So today we hear extensively about Black school failure and African American males in jails, but hear relatively little of the extensive numbers of African American college graduates and persons who are successful in a wide degree of economic options.  We primarily here about the failures and in fact this is normal in the American experience.  We use to hear about all the stupid Poles, and Italian Mafia, and Irish drunks, and every groups “ladies of the night” and again, this is normal and standard.  Its sell papers or TV adds to feature the failings of the latest competitors for jobs and housing etc. It wins votes for politicians to campaign on fear of the latest groups to appear different with a different religion and strange clothing and customs that don’t seem at all modern.

But again we have seen this occur in the US in the most horrible of fashions for every group that came over as poor cheap labor.  The elites had to feel like elites and our journals and newspaper archives are filled with writings that were more then socially acceptable in its time that would not be believed by modern readers. But over time, and through social acceptance by the use of the military, police government and crime but most importantly through the arts and sports, each group has won its place in the US culture and has greatly added to (and therefore changed) the culture but it takes time.

Viewing the events of the massive wave of Irish or Jews into this country at the time it was happening must have been so amazing.  The people seemed so different in religion and outlook and clothing and beliefs and habits etc.  They seemed so dirty and ugly and they couldn’t speak English or communicate properly.  They seemed lazy and so secretive.  They all had terrorist groups within their communities aimed at destroying America and American values (the Molly Maguire’s, the Jewish communists, the Italian and Russian anarchist, the German Fascist, the Black Panthers and Black Muslims, etc.)  

But over time, over generations, the language was learned, the dress changed, the names changed, often the religion would even change, and the “terrorist groups” became more like the Elks and the Rotary then the Communist party cells.  The children grew up and hit the American streets and wanted to be “American.” They also changed the streets to make them their own.  Also children grew up and many went to college and became more established and more successful and moved away from the old neighborhood.  So today you find neighborhoods in the suburbs that appear to be homogeneous which are in fact a hodgepodge of ethnic and cultural backgrounds that after these three to five generations have become so American they often relate little to their own cultural history.

And we can see, using this timeline that the African American experience in this process of “immigration to America”, starting with the advent of World War I, and we see that the African Americans are right on track, despite the “race issue” We are just moving into the third generation of the after the end of the great migration and we see the black population doing so much better in the “mainstream” then ever projected (and again, there is still a great deal of failure, but this is true with all immigrant groups) But just considering the change in role of Blacks as spokes persons for products on TV or staring roles in movies (were now it the goofy white side kick for the super smart Black action hero) Who could have projected that Allstate insurance would have a African American spokes person, or that Black women would be seen as role models for beauty and spokespersons for beauty products.  Go back twenty five years and say that would happen, and what type of reaction you would have received.   

Also the latest data from the US Department of Education shows that on average a black person stays in school slightly longer then the average white person (some 12.8 years, as opposed to 12.4 years for whites.   This is a far cry from just some 60 years ago with the average African American attended (segregated) schools for no more then four years.

So in the mist of the Nativist anger and rhetoric, and the still blatant attacks on the one/third who are failing (and attempting to generalize that one/third to all Blacks) and in the mist of the dramatic changes that are happening in the culture do to the next wave of immigrants coming in is such great numbers (Hispanic, Chinese, Africans and Arabs) it is hard to step back and take an objective long-term view of the traditional positive outcomes for most members of the third through fifth generation of immigrant groups.  It is hard but so much needed to give a solid argument against the new Know Nothings attacks on the new people who are coming to continue the traditions in the United States of reaping endless benefits from immigrants, and also by providing these immigrants the chance to become “modern” and acquire that scarce resource called “surplus wealth” we will allow or new internal movements within all the countries of origins of these new wave of immigrants to help end the tyranny that engulfs their homelands

But it all takes time, three to five generations to be exact.  Unfortunately we all tend to live in the here and now and can not project out three more generations, so all we can see now is the conflicts and the crises, and the natural conflicts and struggles between the nativist and the newcomers, and see nothing more then that conflict.   We fail to see the standard process of cultural integration from a long term perspective, and we fail to see the eventual hope, and only the look at the current problem.  And perhaps worse of all we fail to learn from the previous processes and therefore tend to allow the same mistakes in the integration process to occur over and over again. 

Like an Enron Clone

An updating of Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone.”

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be nation without much oil of its own
with an army so far from home

You’ve built to the finest school system, Miss Lonely
But you let all your kids get juiced in it.
And nobody has ever taught your people how to live on the streets
And with all the housing repos their gonna have to get used to it
You said you’d never compromise
With the mullahs in rags, but now you realize
He’s not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And ask him do you want to make an oil deal?

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be nation without much oil of its own
with an army so far from home

You never turned around to see the anger of the struggling nations and towns
When you all called on them to do your political tricks for you
You never understood that it ain’t no good
You shouldn’t support dictators to control other peoples just for you.
You used to ride high on with your military horse with your corporate diplomats
Who carried  in their briefcase a free trade pack
Ain’t it hard when you discover that
They really wasn’t where it’s at
After they took from you every job they could steal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be nation without much oil of its own
with an army so far from home

Wall street princes and all the pretty people
They’re drinkin’, thinkin’ that they got it made
Exchanging all kinds of perks and mega bonuses
But you’d better take their corporate greed you better regulate it babe
You used to be so amused
At the Chinese in rags and the language that they used
Go to them now, they calls you, you can’t refuse
When they hold all your T-bills, you got everything to lose
Your economy is invisible now, you got no assets conceal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be nation without much oil of its own
with an army so far from home