The USA, Great Britain and History

When I first began writing "Rock And Roll Children," I did so with the intention of writing about heavy metal music back in the 80s. While the book is fiction, there are many historical facts both relating to music and not and I went through great pains to insure the historical accuracy of the events mentioned in the book. However, as an American who has lived in the UK for nearly half of his life, I have discovered that the British and Americans view historical work such as books and films in a totally different light from one another.
First, let me address the belief by many British people that all Americans believe that films such as "Saving Private Ryan" is 100% historical fact. They don't. I know the BBC likes to find one redneck who lives in Backwater USA and who believes that the film is actual history to draw the erroneous conclusion that all 280 million Americans think the same, but the truth is, the great majority of Americans don't. Many Americans already know that Hollywood does tend to over romanticise things in films and adhere to the formula that the film or book is 10% fact and 90% fiction. Therefore, when most Americans go to view a "historical" film or read a fictional historical book, they do so with this in mind.
The British, on the other hand, are a totally different kettle of fish. It appears that many British people want the film or book to be in accordance with historical fact and get very upset when Hollywood doesn't do this in films. Their beef with "Saving Private Ryan" was that it was full of historical inaccuarcies such as ignoring the mistakes that lead to the slaughter of so many American soldiers on Omaha Beach and it gave the impression that Britain wasn't involved in the D-Day landings at all. Of course, in the minds of many Britons, the worse atrocity was the film "U571" which shows Americans conducting a raid that was actually carried out by the British. Which is why I won't ever watch that film. In view of the above, most Americans think, "It's only a film, so what's all the fuss?"  and will apply the 10-90 formula.  Many can not see why so many British people got so het up about it and don't realise Britain's love for historical fact.
This brings me to "Rock And Roll Children." Americans will immediately use the 10-90 formula when reading it and early feedback seems to indicate this. The blog who gave me the bad review last month balked when I referred to the book as "an accrate account of heavy metal in the 1980s." He stated that it wasn't a book about heavy metal but a fictional story with heavy metal in it. In many ways, he's right, but what he fails to appreciate is that I went through great pains to ensure accuracy in items such as: when albums were released, concerts- when and how they happened and other events such as the PMRC Congressional Hearings in 1985 and the US bombing of Libya in 1986. Feedback from British readers seems to be more appreciative of my efforts. I remember the reaction of when British reader when I confirmed that my account of a lead singer accepting a canabis joint from someone in the crowd and taking a sly puff on it before handing it back actually happened, his face lit up and he thought that was really cool.
The point of my blog here is that the USA and Great Britain view history and fiction in totally different lights.  Americans accept that a peice of fiction based in a period of history is going to be more fiction than fact and will view or read with such mindset. British people on the other hand, want the producer or writer to "get their facts right" and will not like it if they don't. When I wrote Rock And Roll Children, I was leaning more to the British side and maybe went too far that way in the eyes of many Americans.

Reagan's Forgotten War

As a result of his 100th birthday, there has been much speculation, both positive and negative, about the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Much has been said about his economic policies and how he won the Cold War, but there has been one glaring omission of a major aspect of his presidency. Reagan had an obsession with overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.

In 1979, the Sandanistas came to power in Nicaragua after a revolution which ousted the dictator Samosa who had been in power for over 40 years. The Sandanista regime went about the tasks of land reform, health care and education and on account of that, they were branded Communists by the American media and especially the Reagan Administration. Furthermore, the administration claimed that Nicaragua was going to be used by Cuba nad the Soviet Union as a jump off point for an invasion of the US. Therefore, the Reagan administration set about the task of overthrowing the Sandanista government.

To do this, US Government used a group called the Contras, most of who were part of the guard used by the Samosa dictatorship. The Contras waged a guerilla campaign that included butchering doctors and nurses and shooting teachers and many innocent civilians in cold blood. When asking Congress to vote for funds to aid the Contras, Reagan referred to himself as a Contra. The Contras were nothing more than terrorists who killed and murdered and even with US aid, were unable to hold a single inch of territory.

What Reagan's blood money achieved in his zeal to overthrow the Sandanistas was the needless deaths of thousands of Nicaraguans who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. Unfortunately, Reagan couldn't tolerate a "Communist" country at America's back door, even though they held free democratic elections in 1984. The Nicaragua travesty seems to have become a forgotten point of the Reagan years, so I feel I must bring it back into the light.

The Regan Years

Having lived and worked during the Regan years back in the 1980s. I conclude that all his so called economic miracle was to create millions of jobs that paid minimum wage. In the first two tears of his presidency, many factories and businesses were shut down and unemployment rose to nearly 11%. Once the will of the workers was broken, some of the businesses began to open up again only now workers were expected to take a pay cut of up to 30%, give up many of their hard won benefits, especially medical ones and say good bye to the unions. Even then unemployment dropped to only 7%, but the Regan administration white washed this by calling it an acceptable level of unemployment. Code: this meant if you didn't work at the conditions given to you, there was always someone out there waiting who would.
Worse still, some went even further with the unsuccessful attempt by the Regan administration to create a sub minimum wage for uner 18s. I can also remember a friend of mine who worked for Wendys. He was asked to come in on his day off where he spent 8 hours cleaning the grills. When he saw he wasn't paid for those hours, his manager informed him that he had volunteered to do that for the "good of the company."
So were Regan's economic policies a miracle? What do you think?