A People’s History of the United States - Book Summary

Dive into the authentic American story

The picture of America painted in most history books seems to be one of a valiant, free country. But Howard Zinn begs to differ. He argues that history books tend to lean towards the narrative of the conquerors, shrouding the truths and realities of those conquered.

Zinn describes the United States as a land birthed from conquest and fueled by tyranny, brimming with discrimination and exploitation. According to him, the country was designed for the upper class, enabling their domination over the masses.

The story of America, Zinn suggests, is a saga of revolt, defiance, labor strikes, and resistance. It's the narrative of the oppressed battling the oppressors—a narrative that throws light on today's rampant social inequalities.

As we embark on this journey, you will understand —

Why the United States seems perpetually embroiled in conflict,

The origins and evolution of labor unions in the United States, and

The alarming rise of corporate control over governmental affairs.

Unveiling the overlooked atrocities against native Americans

Much of the American education system paints Christopher Columbus as a stalwart explorer who "discovered" America. Each year, the nation commemorates this event on Columbus Day, celebrating his first step into the "New World" on October 12, 1492.

However, a more detailed examination of Columbus’s journal sheds light on a far grimmer story. His writings about the Arawak people he encountered in the Bahamas illustrate his pitiless intentions. Columbus wrote, “with 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever.”

And subjugate, they did. Columbus and his comrades coerced the natives into leading them to gold. In places with scarce resources, they attacked native settlements, violated women, and shipped the most robust Arawaks to Spain to be slaves.

Those who failed to yield gold or copper were mutilated. Over a three-month span, 7,000 children tragically lost their lives — either suffocated in mines, executed, or killed by their mothers to prevent their capture.

This heart-wrenching tale leads us to 1515 when a native population of 250,000 was reduced to a meager 50,000. By 1550, only 500 remained, and by 1650, the Arawaks were entirely wiped out.

Yet, the true story isn't what we typically read in conventional history books or biographies such as the 1954 publication "Christopher Columbus, Mariner" that paints him as an adventurous romantic.

Sadly, the atrocities against the Arawaks were just the tip of the iceberg. English settlers in the seventeenth century, arriving in Virginia and Massachusetts, virtually eradicated the Powhatan and Pequot tribes. Historians, egregiously, have often branded these genocidal acts as "necessary" for progress.

This distorted perspective aptly illustrates how history favors those in power. Nevertheless, Albert Camus encourages the thoughtful to stand with the victims, not the oppressors, and that's the approach we'll take in the forthcoming narratives.

The ripple effect of native American defiance on African slavery

On the lands that now constitute modern-day New York and Pennsylvania, lived the Iroquois tribe. This community respected communal land ownership, leading to a society without homelessness. They were versed in agriculture, and significantly, the societal hierarchy was matrilineal – women chose the representatives of tribal interests. In case of bad judgments, the chosen men were replaced.

To the invading Europeans, who believed women subservient to men, such an order was preposterous. They anticipated the native Americans to yield to their colonial rule, just like they expected women to yield to men. When this didn't transpire, conflict ensued.

Though unnerving, the Europeans' fundamental frustration was their struggle to adapt to the new environment. For instance, Jamestown, Virginia's chilling winter of 1609-1610 drove around 500 colonists to consume their fecal matter and even dig out the remains of their deceased comrades for nourishment.

Resentment brewed among the colonists as they faced extreme hardships in their "superior" race, meanwhile, the so-called "savages" thrived and resisted attempts of subjugation. As a result, by the late 1700s, colonists unleashed a biological warfare against natives by distributing smallpox-laden blankets, sharply decimating the native population. Case in point, on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, the native populace plunged from about 3,000 to a mere 313 between 1642 and 1764.

Notwithstanding the relentless resistance of the Native Americans, the European colonists remain hungered for slaves. Turning to Africa, the Dutch and the English orchestrated the horrifying transatlantic slave trade. By 1800, roughly 10-15 million enslaved Africans had endured unspeakable conditions to reach the "new world," with a third of them perishing during the journey. Yet, to the slave traders, this monstrous loss of life was trivial compared to the obscene profits they amassed.

The rapid expansion of this slave trade by 1763 led to half of Jamestown's population being enslaved, held captive in sprawling plantation systems.

How the American socioeconomic structure favors the wealthy

Certain historians of the twentieth century, such as Ulrich Phillips, insinuated that African folks are inherently submissive. However, the reality is far from this misconception. African slaves demonstrated their defiance through numerous uprisings, marking the very inception of the slave trade.

To illustrate, 21 slaves faced execution in New York in 1712 for organizing a rebellion that resulted in the deaths of nine white individuals. Slave owners were acutely aware that the indomitable spirit and inherent quest for freedom among slaves had to be suppressed for the slavery system to persist.

The American ruling class of the time held a deep-seated fear — that slaves would unite with lower-class whites and dismantle the reigning government of affluent landowners. To counter this, they enacted laws that prohibited white and black individuals from even conversing with each other. This fear was not without merit: many early revolts were spearheaded by a united front of white servants and black slaves.

Interestingly, about half the people migrating to America during this period were white servants, primarily hailing from England, Ireland, and Germany.

Distinct class boundaries were being established, leading to 1 percent of the nation controlling 44 percent of the wealth by 1770. Shockingly, this stark wealth disparity persists today, substantially due to the foundation laid by the founding fathers.

These pioneering figures of the US, such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson, were all wealthy landowners, with several owning vast slave plantations.

In order to preserve their own wealth and power, they established a robust federal government. It is no coincidence that a significant part of the US Constitution is dedicated to protecting land ownership and doesn’t reference slaves, servants, women, or any non-property – essentially, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

To maintain this status quo, future laws continued to favor the wealthy. For instance, to run for Governor of Maryland in 1776, the eligibility criteria required owning property worth at least 5,000 pounds. These kind of laws ensured the control of government remained securely within the grasp of the richest 10 percent of the American populace.

The early struggle of women in America and their rise to action

The US Constitution may not mention the word 'women', but it doesn't mean they stood silently in the backstage of history. Women of the era pushed boundaries, striving to be acknowledged.

In the period leading up to the American Revolution, women were systematically distanced from each other, impeding their ability to mobilize against a society that subjected them to oppressive indifference or treated them as sexual objects and servants.

The first arrival of women in Jamestown dates back to 1619, coinciding with the arrival of the first black slaves. The recorded account of their arrival refers to them as "agreeable persons, young and incorrupt," who willingly agreed to be sold off as wives to settlers. These unfortunate women endured physical torture and pitiable living conditions.

In a heartfelt letter to her father in England in 1756, Elizabeth Sprigs, a servant girl, agonizingly detailed these inhumane treatments. She lamented that the American populace was subject to sufferings beyond his imagination.

During this period, a widely circulated pocketbook, "Advice to a Daughter", indoctrinated women to be submissive, obliging them to appease and entertain men.

However, the aftermath of the revolution sparked a glimmer of change, although recognition was painfully slow. From 1760 to 1840, women's literacy rates surged from a paltry fraction to approximately 80 percent. By 1840, after enduring half a century of grueling work in New England textile mills, female laborers rallied for better working conditions and health care reforms.

Moreover, across the early anti-slavery movement, some of the most resonant voices were those of women. Emblematic of this was the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Society Convention, where two iconic women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, crossed paths. This serendipitous meeting paved the way for the first Women's Rights Convention that same year — a monumental event that kick-started the women’s rights movement in America. Subsequent years witnessed similar conventions, firmly etching their legacy in the annals of American history.

The unsettling past of American territorial expansion

Among the vivid tapestry of historical topics taught to elementary school students, American Indian displacement and the mid-1800s Mexican Wars are often conspicuously absent.

During these disconcerting times, series of treaties precipitated a westward exodus of Native American tribes. However, when the American government craved additional territorial expansion, these treaties were callously disregarded, pushing the tribes further west in a mass forced relocation known as the "Trail of Tears."

Interesting to note, Alabama translates to "here we may rest". This state was the third area to which the Cherokee people were relocated, hoping to finally find peace. However, in 1831, they were mercilessly displaced yet again.

Their journey continued with a grueling march west of the Mississippi River, during a brutal winter. Promised government assistance was practically non-existent, leaving the Cherokee wayfarers to suffer from pneumonia and starvation. Tragically, about 4,000 of the 17,000 Cherokees succumbed to these hardships.

In 1845, President James Polk initiated an aggressive campaign to expand the United States' boundaries to the Pacific Ocean, which necessitated acquiring California, then a Mexican territory.

Polk's strategy hinged on provoking the Mexican troops by deploying American soldiers along the northern bank of the Rio Grande, in anticipation of igniting the war that would secure California for America. Without a hitch, war was declared in May 1846, leading to a bloody and horrific mess, with an army primarily composed of recent immigrants, equipped with rifles, thrust into Mexico.

A protracted period of brutal combat ensued, with thousands dying from dysentery and heatstroke. As the war dragged on, American soldiers were habitually inebriated, terrorizing Mexican villages, which provoked cruel reprisals from Mexican guerrillas.

By February 1848, Polk had achieved his objective. In return for a $15 million payment, the Rio Grande was established as the new Texas-Mexico border; California and New Mexico were annexed to the United States.

The Civil War and its paradoxical relationship with slavery

As the year 1860 dawned, America found itself teetering on the brink of a societal upheaval, a situation exacerbated by the impending election of Abraham Lincoln. The elite businessmen, manufacturers, and bankers of the North clamored for an economy that shielded their interests, championing an open domestic market while concurrently protecting high tariffs against foreign competition.

Contrastingly, the southern plantation owners decried their northern counterparts, viewing the Republicans as unsympathetic tormentors threatening their existence. Lincoln's election sparked this tinderbox, initiating a cascade of southern states seceding from the Union, heralding the onset of civil war.

Despite heading the war effort that abolished slavery, Lincoln was not a crusader of freedom or justice. Masterfully political, he adroitly manipulated narratives to suit various factions, masking his underlying primary objective — maintaining the Union along with its financial and political infrastructure unscathed.

Similarly, the Emancipation Proclamation, often hailed as a momentous humanitarian act that ended slavery, was, in reality, a shrewd strategic move. It simply outlawed slavery for Union opposition, incentivizing slaves to abandon plantations, further weakening the South's resolve.

Though the later ratified Thirteenth Amendment indisputably outlawed slavery, it did little to ameliorate the conditions of black people, spurring the question of whom the government was genuinely advocating.

A closer look at the Union's post-war strategy reveals the unpalatable truth. The government heavily compensated former slave owners for their loss, given their landholding status and their consequent voting rights. Their freed slaves, sadly, were deserted without assistance, left facing a rising tide of racial subjugation.

Attempts to redress this balance were made by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, who endeavored to allot 40 acres of Georgia coastline to black families. Yet, his efforts were promptly undone by President Andrew Johnson, who favored granting the land to white Southern voters instead.

The emergence of collective power: The labor movement in the 1800s

Freed slaves and destitute, landless white tenant farmers ironically shared a common financial struggle. Their lack of significance to the government further augmented their plight. The situation was more crushing for the freed slaves, as they didn't even have voting rights to leverage for their cause.

However, the 1800s triggered an awakening among tenant farmers, as they realized the power of unity. The potential for collective bargaining through labor unions opened a beacon of hope. Indeed, asserting the rights of a single farmer might be arduous, but the collective voice of thousands is a force to reckon with.

Circa 1839, the Rensselaer family, landlords to 80,000 tenants in New York, owned so much land that they had accumulated a fortune worth $41 million. That year, when a family was served a notice for overdue rent, they retaliated by confiscating the notice and burning it.

When a local sheriff attempted to intervene with a 500-man support, he was met by an intimidating force of 1,800 farmers. Outnumbered and overrun, the sheriff retreated promptly.

This unified band of tenant farmers, termed the Anti-Renters, harnessed their collective influence, electing 14 representatives to New York's state legislature. This posed a viable challenge to conventional politicians.

While labor unions were an established entity in parts of Europe, their infancy in the United States quickly underscored their potency in bettering the lives of marginalized workers. The effect of nationwide labor strikes, where workers withdrew their services en masse until their demands were met, was profound.

This was particularly relevant as urbanization saw more people migrating to bustling cities like Boston and Lynn, Massachusetts. The Factory Girls Association was formed to address the deplorable conditions of textile mills.

Between 1864 and 1900, the numbers of unionized workers swelled from 200,000 to a whopping 1 million. The labor movement had catalyzed a massive face-off between capital and labor.

The surge of unions and democratic socialism in the industrial era

In the 1800s, workers discovered the potency of strikes as a tool in their fight for fair conditions – though the path to success was often marred by brutal setbacks.

In a tragic incident in 1877, 100,000 beleaguered railroad workers protested against life-threatening conditions and pitiful wages. The government's aggressive response, engaging 9,000 National Guard troops, resulted in the devastating death of 100 workers.

Though the strike did prevent a proposed wage curtailment, the real gain emerged from the widespread media coverage the calamity received. It became a grim reminder for workers nationwide about the necessity to amplify their collective power to prevent such harrowing incidents.

Unions established during this period were often seeded in socialist or communist values. The shoemaker’s union, for instance, circulated a militant newspaper named "The Awl", employing quotes from Marx’s Communist Manifesto to fuel worker organization.

Many unions were underpinned by similar anti-capitalist principles, leading to significant opposition from the establishment. However, a considerable threat emanated from a radically socialist union known as the Industrial Workers of the World, or the IWW. Unlike other labour unions, the IWW was inclusive to all workers, irrespective of race, gender, or professional skill.

Eugene Debs, the co-founder and enduring leader of IWW, even ran for president several times under the Socialist Party of America, which was established near the turn of the century.

The IWW particularly amplified the voices of the most impoverished workers, exemplified by the striking mill workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts. This diverse group, including Irish, Syrian, Polish, Russian, and Belgian immigrants, were already confronting arduous financial hardships when wage deductions were announced in January 1912.

IWW organizers responded swiftly, assisting the workers by orchestrating marches, establishing soup kitchens, and raising funds. They weathered a month-long strike until government intervention using police and militia quashed it. Though violence ensued, the IWW prioritized ensuring the workers’ children were moved to safety before the situation escalated.

The deceit and hypocrisy of the US government exposed during World War I

Do you ever question the reason behind the United States joining World War I? President Woodrow Wilson maintained that it was a response to the Germans sinking the Lusitania, an ocean liner carrying American passengers. However, the undisclosed fact was that the ship was surreptitiously ferrying 2,000 cases of small arms ammunition, 5,000 boxes of gun cartridges, and 1,248 cases of three-inch shells.

Despite this, Wilson's narrative about the Lusitania incident portrayed the United States as a victim whose rights "cannot consent to any abridgment". The true motivations for entering the war, which were largely economic, did not have a part in his narrative.

In 1915, the year the United States plunged into WWI, Wilson lifted the prohibition on private bank loans to foreign nations. Consequently, by April 1917, US goods worth $2 billion were sold to Allies involved in the war.

In essence, WWI was a lucrative conduit to pry open foreign markets to the monopolized corporations that formed the backbone of the ruling elite. This included major monopolies such as US Steel, owned by Andrew Carnegie; Standard Oil, under the control of the Rockefeller dynasty; and J.P. Morgan, whose "House of Morgan" monopoly oversaw many of the country's railroads along with the First National Bank of New York.

Secretary of State under Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, lauded the president for permitting "the doors of all the weaker countries to an invasion of American capital and American enterprise."

It's quite evident that Wilson's invocation of American rights was tinged with hypocrisy. This is further amplified when you consider the circumstances. In contrast to supposed American values of freedom, the Espionage Act, enacted during WWI, considered dissent against war or the circulation of anti-war literature a crime, punishable with up to 20 years in prison.

Furthermore, consider the Conscription Act, which bestowed the government with the power to draft individuals into the army. Charles Schenck, a Philadelphian socialist, was punished with a jail term for terming the act a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude."

The permanent surge in US military spending attributed to World War II

If World War I unveiled the US's hypocrisy, then World War II only exacerbated this trend. Consider the demeaning treatment of African-American soldiers dispatched to Europe on the Queen Mary, consigned to the ship's lowermost quarters adjacent to the engine room. Was this act of blatant discrimination any different from the anti-Semitism deeply rooted in Germany at that time?

It becomes apparent that Franklin D. Roosevelt, the US president during this period, was less interested in German racism and more concerned with how a potential conflict with Japan would impact supplies of critical resources like rubber and tin.

Prior to the infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had imposed severe economic sanctions on Japan, along with embargos on essential commodities like iron and oil. These restrictive measures, which endangered Japan's livelihood, were largely a reaction to Japan's activities in the southwest Pacific region that jeopardized US imports.

There even was a high-level discussion at the White House, merely two weeks before the Pearl Harbor incident, revolved around convincing the American population about the need for war with Japan.

Much like World War I, the US government strategized to use World War II as an opportunity to infiltrate foreign markets, with a specific focus on Saudi Arabia's lucrative oil industry. The economic fruits from this global conflict were so profitable that the notion of engaging the country in a perpetual state of warfare gained traction among businesses.

But who actually gained from this war effort?

Of the 2,000 companies that submitted military contract bids, a mere 56 large corporations made the cut. The profits of these corporations soared, and Charles Wilson, General Motors' president, was so elated with the economic aftermath of the war that he proposed instituting a "permanent war economy."

Precisely this scenario materialized after World War II. The military budget maintained its wartime levels, justifying this immense expenditure on threats posed by Russia, Korea, and Vietnam. This strategy redirected billions of dollars into a selected group of corporations tasked with producing and stockpiling an enormous arsenal.

Driving this military spending spree was the artificially stoked fear of communism. Consequently, defense budget rose from $12 billion in 1950 to a staggering $45.8 billion in 1960.

Economic interests influencing US foreign policy and deceptive narratives swaying public opinion

In the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy publically announced the US's involvement in Vietnam was to "assist independence," helping the nation liberate itself from the clutches of communism.

However, behind closed doors, his administration expressed interest in Vietnam's "rich exportable surpluses like rice, rubber, tea, corn, tin, spices, oil and many others."

But the greater deception was perpetrated by President Lyndon Johnson, who managed to secure congressional approval for military action by misrepresenting facts. In August 1964, he falsely claimed that North Vietnamese forces had assaulted US military boats operating in international waters.

In reality, it was the CIA who had attacked a North Vietnamese military installation while within Vietnamese waters.

In spite of repeated falsifications spoon-fed to the public, the Supreme Court chose to dismiss any argument stating that the government's war was unlawful, thereby undermining the constitutionally mandated checks and balances integral to the nation's democratic setup.

Grim reports of horrifying acts committed against the Vietnamese population by Americans trickled into the public domain via the media, sparking widespread protests during the 1960s. One such atrocious incident was reported by the New York Times, detailing the massacre at the My Lai 4 village, where between 450 to 500 innocent civilians, primarily children, women, and the elderly, were brutally executed and discarded into a mass grave.

Over the span of the war, the US military dropped a staggering 7 million tons of explosives on a territory roughly the size of Massachusetts. Not even Buddhist temples were spared during this relentless bombardment and chemical warfare campaign.

Such a level of concentrated bombardment was unparalleled in human history. The horrifying reality of the Vietnam War ignited a significant antiwar movement within the US. For instance, in 1965, a modest gathering of 100 individuals convened for an antiwar protest in Boston Commons; by 1969, the same location hosted 100,000 protestors, while another 2 million participated in demonstrations across the country.

Government suppression as the response to the civil rights movement, rather than the deliverance of justice

The Civil Rights movement, a momentous period of American social transformation, had been incubating for generations even before the 1955 arrest of Rosa Parks for defying the discriminatory rule of surrendering her bus seat to a white passenger. Her small act of defiance sparked a bus boycott and catalyzed a much wider social movement.

This period witnessed a proliferation of nonviolent protests nationwide, such as the black men's sit-in in 1960 at a Woolworth's department store lunch counter designated for "whites only" until the store renounced its racial segregation policy.

Sadly, what many perceive as the high point of the civil rights movement offers an example of governmental power exertion.

Here's what transpired:

In the summer of 1962, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. led a march on Washington, which drew a crowd of 200,000 people—both black and white—from diverse walks of life. However, many remain unaware that the protest organizers maintained a direct line of communication with the Kennedy administration. The governmental body persuaded them to silence voices like John Lewis, a leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which promoted a more aggressive approach to achieving civil rights.

What started out as a passionate outcry for equal rights concluded with peaceful picnics and government interference.

It's no surprise that the six years following the rally were marked by government inactivity, while countless black individuals lost their lives to police violence and lynch mobs. Even when legislation was eventually introduced, it was still discriminatory in essence.

By 1967, the sustained brutality had disheartened the black community, resulting in many abandoning the principle of nonviolence and the belief that America could reciprocate love with love. This year saw the deadliest urban riots in history, instigating the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1968, intended to reinforce antidiscrimination laws.

The piece of legislation contained a significant exception, however—it explicitly specified that minorities would not receive rights in scenarios when the government deploys law enforcement, the National Guard, or the armed forces to quell civil disturbances. Worsening this development was the government's definition of a "riot" as any group of three or more individuals making violent threats.

The steady course of duplicity in military actions post the Vietnam War

The US government's history reveals a pattern of suppressing public criticism and leveraging power for the affluent minority. However, by 1972, people began noticing this skewed dynamic. For instance, when a University of Michigan poll in the same year asked participants if "the government is controlled by a few big interests looking out for themselves," 53 percent confirmed the notion, marking a stark increase from the 26 percent polled in 1964.

The escalating realization was that the established rules didn't seem to bind the ruling class. The requirement for congressional approval for military interventions was increasingly seen as optional.

A case in point was in May 1975, just weeks after the official end of the Vietnam War when President Ford authorized the deployment of 200 troops into Cambodia. The invasion of Tang Island was a response to the seizure of an American cargo ship, the Mayaguez, by Cambodia's communist regime.

While the captive crew members were treated decently, the US still felt the need to react aggressively to flex its global muscles.

Whether under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, or George H. W. Bush, the United States carried forward the foreign policies initiated by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. They backed regimes in countries like the Philippines, Iran, Indonesia, and Nicaragua—governments notorious for using torture and mass murder to suppress political dissent.

During this period, left-wing revolutionaries dubbed Sandinistas toppled the corrupt and US-backed Nicaraguan leadership to provide land, education, and healthcare to the impoverished. The Marxist ideology of the Sandinistas was perceived as a threat to American commercial interests in Latin America, so President Reagan decided to support counter-revolutionary forces through secret deals with nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, and Israel.

By the time these covert deals made headlines, Reagan was ready to deny their underlying motives and objectives, thereby avoiding legal repercussions. However, other members of his administration were not as fortunate, being convicted of aiding terrorist groups.

Continued global oppression in the grip of capitalist avarice

In 1990, John Sununu, an aide to President George H. W. Bush, was quoted in the New Yorker stating that "a short successful war would be pure political gold for the President and would guarantee his re-election."

Later that year on October 28, The Washington Post reported Republican speculations that Bush might "initiate combat to prevent further erosion of his support at home." These ominous signs were a prelude to a pivotal decision that would have global implications. On October 30, 1990, with the dual objectives of boosting his approval ratings and expanding US control over Middle East oil reserves, Bush covertly green-lit Operation Desert Storm.

The narrative presented to the public, however, was a far cry from the truth. The official story was that the United States aimed to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invaders. But this could not veil the dreadful aftermath—tens of thousands of Iraqi children losing their lives and the nation's infrastructure decimated.

Reflecting on a series of terrorist attacks against US embassies in 1998, Robert Bowman, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, astutely noted that the United States isn't the object of hatred due to its national beliefs or practices. Instead, global disdain arises from the US government's oppression of other nations to exploit resources coveted by multinational companies.

Yet, such truthful voices remain mostly drowned out. Even after the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the government has stayed its course to maintain the status quo.

A characteristic behavior is the steady hiking up of the military budget. Bowman had earlier pondered whether international resentment might lessen if the United States ceased investing vast amounts in weaponry and instead prioritized feeding children or improving clean water access.

Yet, contrary to this progressive vision, military expenditure has doubled from approximately $300 billion in the 1990s to nearly $600 billion today. Despite the alleged threats against the nation becoming increasingly nebulous, the government consistently finds avenues to reroute taxpayer's money into the coffers of the uber-wealthy through defense contracts.

Summarizing the journey so far

The formation and evolution of the US government have always been geared towards preserving the dominance of the affluent and influential. This objective has consistently been achieved through establishing strong ties with corporate behemoths, dispossessing indigenous communities of their lands, enforcing the enslavement of Africans and their descendants, and perpetuating divisiveness amongst the working classes in every conceivable manner.