I Stand Corrected

When my enthusiasm, indignance, ire and zealotry combined to prompt me to write the last blog, “Neo-Retrovision”, I made few historical errors, a few grammatical slip-ups and some errors of omission. Although I did offer a mid-article disclaimer, in “retro-spect”, I fear that that was not enough to absolve me of my crimes. Very much in the spirit of what appears on the second page of the NYT, after they make a faux pax, I feel constrained to offer this:

The lecture I referred to in that blog, on mid-first millennia history, revolving mostly around misunderstandings about the cooperation of Muslims and Jews during that time, was in fact presented by Mr. Roy Casagranda, an Assistant Professor of Government at Austin Community College, here in Texas. Barbara forwarded the blog entry along to him, and he was kind enough to respond, in true “professorial” style, with a variety of comments and corrections. I re-print them for you here. At the end I will make several feeble attempts at explanation, clarification, justification and other forms of excuses for my (almost) inexcusable behavior:

I caught a couple of typos. I made the corrections in brackets below.Europe ({i}n both beneficial and despicable ways), through it{'}s deft manipulation of money and power, and was then pushed further along after theAramco was the Arabian American Oil Company until 1988 (today it is called Saudi Aramco). Nothing to do with Farsi. Shah is spelled with an 'h' not a 'w'.

The US never lifted a hand to stop the Holocaust. We refused to accept escaping Jews from Nazi occupied Europe, unless they had technical skills that we wanted. IBM sold Hitler the census data containing all the information on who had Jewish ancestry, including hundreds of thousands of Christians who had no Jewish identity. And throughout the massive bombing campaign that reduced nearly every single city in Europe to rubble (Prague, Rome, Heidelberg, and Paris were more or less preserved) not once did a bomb fall on a concentration camp, on a death camp, nor upon the railroads leading to them. The US might have wanted to fight WWII, but not to save the Jews.The time period at the bottom is off. Islam came about in 610 AD. The Arabs began conquering an empire in 633 AD. That amicability lasted even through the Crusades to the Contemporary Period. It fell apart a bit when the Mamluk seized Egypt, it was brought back a bit when the Crusaders joined the Arabs in the Battle of Ayn Jalut when the Mongols were defeated for the first time in 1260 AD (first battle to ever have a cannon by the way). The intolerance that we see today did not really start to implant itself (with one major exception Egypt from 1250 to 1517) until after the British, Italians, Spanish, and French carved up the Middle East between 1830 and 1920. The real event that caused Islamic intolerance and religious strife was the creation of Israel and then the subsequent perception that Israel was Europe and the US's new Crusade. The last sentence seems to use Arab as a term for Muslim. Remember that Arabs are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.

My turn:
First of all, I finished writing this diatribe at two in the morning. That there were only two immediately noticeable typos is a miracle. I do take exception to the business of using an apostrophe with the word “its”. The jury is still out on the when, if and maybe about when that can and should be used. My apologies to the Shaw: I was thinking of him mostly in terms of “oh.pshah”, anyway, for all the good he did the people of Iran. And you can spell Aramco (Ameriramocomobilxon?) however you see fit. The English-Arab translation still means, “I have most of your money and you don’t”. And the line about Farsi was just a thrown in for cynicism: most of what has happened since the formation of this venture has been farcical. Get it?

On a more serious note, I certainly stand corrected on the historical data: that is why Prof. Casagranda is a professor and I’m not. However (and I say this because if he saw it this way, then perhaps you did, too) I never meant to imply that the U.S. went into or vowed to fight/win WWII for the sake of or because of the Jews and the Holocaust. Sadly, that was probably an ugly and impossible-to-ignore aftermath of that war. The U.S. overlooked much, as did many other countries and races, until the horror had become unspeakable. The U.S. did, however, enter the European theatre as much to buck up Great Britain, and France and to no doubt worry about the future of mid-east oil, especially after Hitler went after North Africa. I still tend to believe that most of the western world, after being on a binge-like spree of militarism after the war, and led by the “great victor” the U.S., was prompted to settle the European Jewish survivors where they are today, for most of the reasons I stated in the original blog. Hence, my conclusion that that Bill Moyers was (and is) wrong, and that the conflict today is not between the Jews and the Canaanites of the books of the Old Testament.

Whether I can prove it or not, I still contend that after WWII, most of the western world, even after the Crusades were long over, still felt it could do with the eastern world pretty much what it willed. That is why you have the British provincial regionalization of Iraq, the Shaw of Iran and the western financial institutions thinking they had the Saudis in their back pocket. That was, of course before, Japan brought us the Toyota, the Chinese grew to several billion people and learned how to copy anything and bubble-wrap it, and the Saudis leaned how to spell OPEC.

Professor Casagranda’s last correction points out probably the most serious error in the entire piece: being an Arab does not automatically mean you are Muslim. Arabs can be Muslim, Jewish or Christian. But in my own defense (and I do sincerely apologize for that blunder), I went back and watched the Moyers’ piece again, and at the end of his commentary he made the same mistake. So although I am indeed guilty, I am in good company!

Update: That initial blog posting was done over a week ago, and the blatant atrocities in Gaza continued. Here are a few more recent observations from Prof. Casagranda:

"Day 22Death Toll 1,203Wounded 5,400I have included the Gaza, Texas map with locations bombed by Israel. Eastern Gaza City south of the Jabaliya concentration camp has really gotten a lot of attention from Israel. Israeli suggestions of a ceasefire are merely a rouse. They will do it unilaterally without solving any of the underlying problems such as the 18 month long siege of Gaza. So Hamas will have no choice but to fight back. That will then allow Israel to say, "Oh my G-d, look at those terrorists." Then they will strike back and continue the massacre.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Roy Casagranda wrote:
Death toll 1,159 and 5,200 wounded. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/13/catastrophically_misguidedincomprehensible_policy_renowned_jewish_playwrightOn a personal note the talk with the Jewish American Zionists has probably already fizzled. An email was sent today by one of the key Zionists that basically shut the door. I have not completely given up and so we will likely meet again next week, but it seems that there is nowhere to go.Hamas was democratically elected. Was isolated and blockaded by Israel with US support. Offered to enter into a coalition with Fateh, which it did not need to do. Stopped firing rockets into Israel for four months, until Israel attacked the Gaza Strip in November. Israel will not recognize Hamas. Arab Summit: Mahmoud Abbas could not go to the Arab Summit in Doha, Qatar, because he did not get permission from Israel in time, but Hamas made it.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Roy Casagranda wrote:
Below are two links to my lecture on Saturday the 10th.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqczt149iIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcaQcqE5w0
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Roy Casagranda wrote:
Day 211105 Dead. 5,100 wounded.I have included a map to give people an idea of how big the Gaza Strip is. Austin has a 1,000,000 people. Gaza has 1,500,000. " (Italics mine)

My own thoughts run like this:

One: I am hearing today that the Israelis are pulling out (conditionally) from Gaza, completely coincidentally with the inauguration of Barack Obama. They seem to feel that with G.W. Bush and Condi “I am a shill for the MSM” Rice out of the picture, they have no idea what kind of support or cooperation they will get from the U.S., as their ugly and despicable behavior continues. I find this course of action to be a bald and two-faced cowardly and (pardon the expression) “niggardly” manner of politics which is most inexcusable and reprehensible. I hate to sound crude, but on Jan. 20, Washington D.C. had ten balls and the Israelis seem to have none. If they do not feel that they can get approval to play with their (our) F-16’s, they won’t play at all.

Two: Mr. Engel, of MSNBC.TV, just reported that nearly as soon as the Israeli aggression stopped in Gaza, and the troops withdrew, work began immediately to clean up and re-open the supply tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. Aside from the mention that this will enable Hamas to “re-arm” (firecrackers and smoke bombs?), the report stated that Egyptian vendors and merchants night profit from this endeavor. I think Bart Simpson would simply say ,“Doh”. It sound to me like good old-fashioned capitalism (war profiteering?) which remains a mainstay of American economic policy. Once again, it is OK if we do it, but if someone else does, it is a crime.

Thanks to Prof. Casagranda for whipping me into shape with the corrections. But I still reserve the right to be disgusted, indignant and ashamed of the entire affair. Not to mention much aggrieved by the deaths of those civilians who never fired a rocket at anyone.