solved Week 16- 5/10 to 5/16: A New Century and New

Week 16- 5/10 to 5/16: A New Century and New CrisesThis week, history gets closer to the present, which always means more to debate and discuss, and we include one of the major historical events in US history at the start of the 21st century- that of September 11th, 2001.Readings are in Foner chapter 28; Zinn the final chapter; Stone/Kuznick chapters 13-14 as relevant. This week, we’ll look at 9/11 and on to the history of the present! Choose one Prompt for Posting and respond to another student Post by Sunday, May 16th, 11:59 P.M. There are MANY links for these topics below…please keep an open mind. The purpose here is to attempt to understand the complexity of historical construction as historical events unfold, and sometimes unravel (in other words, to contemplate history in the making, so to speak, and note its many emerging interpretations). It’s a favorite area of scholarship for me, I hope you find it intriguing as well. If you find yourself more interested in this week’s topics, and the past few, I teach a course that focuses on the recent past, esp. looking through the events of 9/11, if anyone is interested (titled History 122- Critical Reasoning in History, and, I’ve published and spoken about these subjects in public a good deal). Please read the materials, challenge yourself, ask tough questions, and please do not simply dismiss things with which you may disagree unless you can factually do so with citations.Here we go…the many links illustrate how difficult it can be to find historical meaning in the present. Note how much information from the links is not in the Foner text. This illustrates the challenge for historiographers of the recent past. Yes, there will be disagreements, and that’s history! Links may be useful for multiple Prompts as course texts do relatively little on the subject in detail.There’s a lot to consider, so choose carefully what you can as Posts could get really long. There’s just too much to consider. For those who wish to label people that research matters regarding 9/11 as “conspiracy theorists,” remember that label is often used to deter people from looking at evidence while encouraging them to leap to unfounded conclusions (oft proffered by government institutions or commissions). In fact, the CIA first used the label in the 1960s with their Operation Mockingbird (Links to an external site.) journalists working in American news rooms to use it to tarnish anyone who challenged the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination (it’s in something called Memo 1035-960- for more on that issue, see Lance deHaven-Smith’s 2013 scholarly book Conspiracy Theory in America). The Congress itself, in the House Select Committee on Assassinations later in 1979, went on to say the Warren Commission was inaccurate and that a some “probable conspiracy” beyond Lee Harvey Oswald likely took place (but that they may never know all the details, and since relevant agencies won’t release all the files despite a Congressional order to do so in 1992- giving a 25 year limit on what was classified- perhaps that’s a self-fulfilling prophesy since all of the files were not released on time this past month). Hear the national radio special I did with Dr. Peter Phillips for the Project Censored Show on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination here (Links to an external site.) (for those with more than casual interest).Likewise, the co-chairs and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission also declared that the Commission Report itself was inaccurate and deeply flawed, especially due to government agencies like the CIA not sharing information with Committee members. The legal counsel John Farmer, Dean of Law at Rutgers University, went so far as to call the Commission a “whitewash” (and wrote a book detailing his claims in a full length book of the same name). In 2016, 15 years after the attacks,, we saw the release of the “28 pages” of the Commission Report that were withheld (still partially redacted), which raises questions that include information linking funding of the 9/11 attacks to the Saudi royals. Some Senators and families of the victims of 9/11 were pushing for the redacted pages to be made public for well over a decade.But even though the lead counsel and several members of the Commission itself have gone public, some (like Farmer) writing entire books, saying that the Report was mostly fiction, a collection of half-truths, and stated there was no real investigation- those who peddle the official narrative of the 9/11 events have a hard time reconciling that we really may not know what happened on that day to the extent that is assumed in much of our public discourse on the matter. Other 9/11 confessions that have been noted in the last several years were oft obtained via torture (which is illegal by the way), so there are significant questions about their efficacy. So, this week’s work is not about speculation, it is about attempting to understand the recent past, the elements and forces that shape it, and how we as participants in history can try to make sense of complicated and controversial events.Please refrain from writing about personal beliefs, and be sure you can factually support your views, whatever they may be. History can be messy. It only gets worse when ideologies prevent people from thinking critically and speaking freely about such crucial issues. One role of the historian is to ask a lot of questions along the way as we’re now dealing with our roles in the construction of the recent past. I hope you will have questions, too.Read on.Choose ONE of the Prompts below and reply to another student. Extra credit will be offered before the final…stay tuned for that information.1. America was attacked September 11, 2001. In retaliation for those attacks, the US launched a new war called the War on Terror. What is the War on Terrorism? What events historically led up to it (and how far back could/should we go)? Both major political parties have said of the terrorists, that “they hate us for our freedom.” Do you agree or disagree and why? Who are they (Al Qaeda)? Are there other reasons for the attacks besides supposed hatred of freedom (some scholars cite “blowback”)? If so, what might these reasons be, or, how have “the enemy” or “they” defined these attacks? How do we know what we think we know and why are certain stories selected for telling over others (the creation of official narratives vs. vernacular ones)? See links below for additional perspectives.Frontline on Bin Laden (Links to an external site.)Steven Coll Ghost Wars (Links to an external site.)Coll Again (Links to an external site.)FBI Bin Laden No Evidence (Links to an external site.)More controversy (makes for interesting conversation):Bin Laden Dead Again? (Links to an external site.)CIA closes Bin Laden Unit 2006 (Links to an external site.)Chalmers Johnson- Blowback (Links to an external site.)A more recent view from veteran journalist Sy Hersh here (Links to an external site.).What do you think this all means for the future of America’s role in the world and why? (Remember what we’ve discussed earlier about the importance of propaganda and controlling public opinion in democratic societies.) At varying times when polled after the last decade, around half of Americans doubt the official story. Perhaps we should reconsider what we’ve been told from official sources, but that does not mean we should leap to alternate conclusions that are not based on facts.There are many links below. Many are highly critical of the official story surrounding the events of 9/11 and even several people associated with the Commission itself have since released books about the problems of the Commission, including a lead counsel and even the two co-chairs themselves. So, this is not just some “conspiratorial” notion. Even former proponents of the official view are saying the investigation was flawed and conclusions in error. Here are some of the critiques from outside the Commission itself, based on factual evidence. The conclusions suggested do not have to be your own, but the information can be quite fascinating and illustrate the controversial nature of historical construction. Sometimes asking critical questions and raising inconvenient facts doesn’t win people popularity points.Here is an overview I published a number of years ago regarding some of the controversies surrounding 9/11 for historical introduction (and for the record, I have changed my mind about some of this material as more has been made known):Deconstructing Deceit (Links to an external site.)The official view from the 9/11 Commission9/11 Commission (Links to an external site.)The Neoconservatives:Neocons (Links to an external site.)Critiques:Commission Chief Phillip Zelikow (Links to an external site.)Constitutional Scholar Critiques 9/11 Commission (Links to an external site.)Provocation as Pretext, a History (Links to an external site.)Omissions and Distortions in the Commission (Links to an external site.)Years of War Planning (Links to an external site.)9/11 does not equal Iraq (Links to an external site.)Saudi Govt. and 9/11 (Links to an external site.)undefined2. Remember our friend Benjamin Franklin? He once wrote (or at least published), “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” How does this apply to the U.S. historically and now post-911 with things like the USA PATRIOT Act, Operation TIPS (Links to an external site.), CAPPSII (Links to an external site.), H.R. 1955 (Links to an external site.), the AETA (Links to an external site.), NDAA (Links to an external site.), and others? How has America reacted at home after the 9/11 attacks concerning National Security and civil liberties? Why have domestic police forces become increasingly para-militarized? How is the Obama administration continuing these trends, not just on the left, but on the right, targeting anti-abortion activists, anti-immigration proponents, and militia movement leaders? Is this justified? Why or why not? How are politics involved and do you see any historical pattern from the Cold War (the Red Scare and McCarthyism)? Support factually and feel free to do some searching on your own.Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Links to an external site.)EPIC on the USA PATRIOT Act (Links to an external site.)NSA and AT&T (Links to an external site.)Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (Links to an external site.)No Habeas Corpus (Links to an external site.)Martial Law (Links to an external site.)Crackdown on Civil Liberties (Links to an external site.)FBI and Terror Plots (Links to an external site.)Green is the New Red (Links to an external site.)Remember, this is recent history, in the making one might say. Some of this may be very controversial, but it is meant to challenge what we think we know about the recent past, and to be more aware of how history is recorded and interpreted.Don’t forget to check the calendar for end of the semester happenings!See you online. Looking forward to reading your thoughts…