Friday, October 06, 2006
It has never REALLY changed..
In class the other day, studying Contemporary Issues in Global Politics, my professor made reference to the bombing of Dresden in World War II by British and American forces. The fire storms caused by these fires killed over 20, 000 innocent civilians in a matter of days. The drafts were so strong from these fires that people were actually sucked into them. While searching through various links and related web sites I came across and excerpt from "Rogue State - A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum. Not unlike the sequence from Fahrenheit/911 which displays various pictures associated with the many questionable acts taken by former presidents in their foreign policy, this section of the book describes various acts of harshness by leading American figure heads, past and present. The list is long and disturbing and shows the length of time over which these atrocities have been taking place. As long as humans run our governments these kinds of things will take place, no doubt. I, however, often make the mistake of thinking that things must have been pretty peachy "back in the day" when the Allies stood for justice, freedom and everything good in the world. Whatever, one day I'll be the president, and everyone will eat chocolate ice cream for free!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
That was back in the modern era...when there was a perceived right and wrong and we were "the good guys". Ahh, to live with that kind of certainty. I don't know why, but with the shift to postmodernism and all this friggin' uncertainty, we get so self-righteous when we are able to point out the flaws in those who saw themselves as "in the right". The truth is, there probably is a sliding scale of truth...I still refuse to believe that there is NO truth, as some of my postmodern contemporaries would argue. For instance, I would still say that even though the US bombed the turd out of innocent civilians (women and children) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at least they THOUGHT that they were doing it for the good of world. How many more people would have died if Japan had "fought to the last man" as the US seemed to believe would happen? Atrocities and war just go hand in hand. The only way to limit the former is to avoid at all costs the latter. But, then again, there is always going to be someone who is thinking "big picture", starts an ill advised war over something trivial like oil. Bah.
I don't know that those people really saw themselves as in the right. It seems to me that the governments of old were just as willing to lie and deceive the public about their intentions as they are today. For instance, I think it's in Why We Fight, that someone points out that the Japanese had apparently been trying to surrender for some time, but the states did not want to listen, more intent of dropping the BOMB on japan to show Russia a thing or two about U.S. power. Ulterior motives, always the problem with governments of any day, in my view anyways. But I agree that postmodernism does leave the ultimate truth a little too vague... It's all about the post postmodernism baby yah! The search for balance between the modern and post-modern, but as we all know, it's a constant search for the true ideology. I wonder what we'll be into in 100 years....
I think true moral reletavists are few, and they are usually pretty disconected with reality, cegep humanities teachers, Woody Allen... I think one of the dualities (paradoxes) inherent in a more down-to-earth post-modernism is that we assert on the one hand that there is no certainty for us about the details of right and wrong, but at the same time operate under the understanding that there is however an elusive right and wrong out there somewhere, however mysterious and liquid.
I don't think it's "self-righteous" to make the blanket assumption that we will not find the "right" on a particular side of an armed conflict. That is one of the few things that is not very mysterious.
Enoch: if the issue of the US's actions in the past not necessarily having been "good" as advertised at the time throws you into a relativistic crisis try this:
A) US bombing the shit out of people with alterior motives= wrong
B) abolishing slavery, whatever the motives= right
C) calling a war over oil a war over "freedom"= wrong
D) civil rights, however reluctantly= right
At no point were we the good guys, but some good happened anyways, and there is a clear-cut right and wrong. It's not, oh no, now I don't know what right andd wrong is.
All's I'm saying is postmodernism seems to be more about poking holes in the Truths of modernism than anything else. And if you think you don't get off on it too...bullshit. It's always been the priviledge of the young to think they know more about what's going on than the old. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
self-right·eous (adj.)
Definition:
believing in own virtue: sure of the moral superiority of personal beliefs and actions, usually to an irritating degree
Definition 2...I was watching the Hour the other night with George Strombol...lolopalooza...and there was a "disinformation" segment on Ghandi (http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1156). Apparently, ole' Mahatma had some skeletons...but whatever, he was still responisible for sparking a relatively peaceful revolution, was he not? Good came from it right? Am I not making sense here? We eat that kind of shit up because we feel like we're in on something. I still say it's self-righteous because we get such a kick out of it.
me·di·o·cre (adj.)
Definition:
average: adequate or acceptable, but not very good
Sure, why not?
I also saw said segment on Ghandi. My gut reaction was similar to Enoch's in that I immediately thought, yeah, well, he was an old fart who had a couple of really weird things in his past.... and therefore all the vast good for thousands that came about because of his efforts are void. I'm sure MLK did something gross in his lifetime too, If some one told me otherwise I'd have to doubt he ever existed! Because nothing is more unlikely than a perfect human. So yeah, I was underwhelmed by the supposedly "revolutionary" tone that segment takes on.
In response to Enoch's comment about how youth get all upity and think they got it all figured out and that old people are F-ing it all up,... well, it could be due to the fact that the youth have a much more innocent and untainted view of things (faith of a child sort of idea) and not a whole lot has snuck into our minds to create the small devides between reason, responsibility and what actually comes out of our mouths. Or maybe us youth are just stuck up morons who will realize how little we have figured out in the next ten to twenty years and have small nervous break downs that result in us converting to a monastic, sedentary life style in the Himalayan Alps... YAYAH!
Cogn8...yeah, hopefully I've already had my nervous breakdown for this lifetime...that monastic, sedentary lifestyle in the Himalayan Alps sounds about as appealing as anything I can think of. But hopefully a realization of the pointlessness of materialism, capitalism, religiosity, and the idolatry that surrounds us will bring about another enlightenment of sorts....ie...one that doesn't require such seclusion. What about an ascetic, monastic nomad...an "Abel", if you will. Perhaps with a trade to generate income...much like Paul in Acts. But the Alps sound cool too, don't get me wrong.
Enoch, I hear yah about the nervous breakdown part, although I guess I just kinda finished my second, if severe paranoia, debilitating panic attacks and chronic fatigue fall into that category, but hey... I'm all for the lucky three... hahahaha... Dark, I know. But I do feel these are the last desperation signs (From who I can only assume) that I need to be kept in check.
But back to the monastic, ascetic, nomadic/sedentary life we were talking of earlier, I do agree that a more nomadic lifestyle is probably more appropriate. I do feel that Jesus would openly scorn those who hide from society in an attempt to stay pure and to avoid the evils of day to day living. However, I must admit in all honesty, that there is a deep longing within in me to do just that. What better way to escape the torments of this chaotic life, strewn with mishaps, conflict and the loss of priority. I long to be controlled, and if I am falling short due to my weaknesses that are only fuelled by this society's norms, than so a recluse I may have to become. I feel somewhat ashamed to say it, but I feel like it is my only way out of this craziness we call modern (or post-modern now i guess) society. I do recognise however, that this is not what we are called to do as followers of Christ, and that this sort of behaviour would no doubt be frowned upon by he himself.
In retrospect, it would seem that a nomadic life would be justified more out of it’s ability to allow the individual to interact with the world, to spread their faith through whatever means they have, even if it is in mere pleasantries expressed in passing. The sedentary individual essentially hides from society, leaving who to carry out Christ’s teachings of loving one’s neighbour as them self. I’m ready for bed, and hope I have not rambled on too much for I fear I have made a fool of myself. Goodnight, and may we all (enoch and earl) meet on the lush hill sides of the Himalayan Alps to live a monastic life of purity and devotion, while tending to sheep and working our lots of land.... One day........
Post a Comment