I rest my case.
Americans have it extremly easy. I dont care about Americans. We are so rich that we (with the rest of the west) are the only society in history where the poor are actually fatter than the rich. I think more effort should be put toward rooting out the causes of the desolate depressing state that most of these nations are in. Maybe one step would be not crapping out on our “allies” when it suits us. Once you have lost your taco-bell and burger-king and are in some shit hole outside of the west where you drink from the same water you shit in then you can talk. In the meantime, sit back and drink on a nice warm latte, fill up your SUV and go back to destroying yourself and the Earth.
Don’t ya just love it when Chumpsky runs out of actual things to whine about,so he starts making up more of them on the spot? 
As to why there is not a movie telling Blackhawk Down from the Somali side, why, the answer is simple - it wouldn’t make money. Same for a Vietnam film with a North Vietnamese hero bravely killing American GI’s, or a WWII German grunt earning medals fighting Patton’s boys.
Balanced portrayals are ok for making money, as long as they’re tilted toward the U.S. (Midway comes to mind. The Japanese commanders come off a bit like doofuses - ‘Bombs! No, torpedoes! No, bombs! Torpedoes? AGAIN?’, and Henry Fonda is almost apologizing for beating them in the end - even though it’s more or less what happened, and they were pretty doofus-like.)
Chumpsky is at least partially right. I’m sure some older dopers remember the flood of U.S. film propaganda coming out of WWII. Good or not, it’s traditional to liberally apply the whitewash. If you think our props are bad, though, Chump, check out the opposition’s.
BTW, my impression of the armed services has always been that it’s filled with generally decent ordinary folk who are asked to risk their lives on inane, highly avoidable missions every few years, do so bravely and loyally, and get way too little thanks for doing so. I think this view is common, with the Hollywoodian veil or not.
Pythagras,
I don’t know whether that was a personal attack on my coment or not. But anyway, I’ll have you know that I hate SUVs, I am a big supporter of the enviroment and I hate Bush’s policy on it, I have traveled to several third-world countries and observed how these people live and feel bad for them; they are not our enemies. I am also a member of the United States Air Force, and thus I do not take my citizenship in this great country for granted, nor do I abuse it.
Fair enough. I just think its worth pointing out that as Americans, we have it really easy compared to most of the world. I believe in a war on terrorism, only if it is balanced by a kind handed approach toward the abject squalor and despair that by itself recruits terrorists.
How is poverty a driving force in international terrorism? I can see how it influences, say, the ELN and FARC, but al-Qaida?
I was actually thinking of Palestinian terrorism. Palestinians find new ways to get shit on everyday. They have no economic resources and their world is so fucked up politically that they seriously need a hand if they are ever going to become civil with the U.S. or Israel.
Al Queda might be another animal all together. Their force has far greater Islamic assets, is multinational. I honesly dont know enough about the common al-queda guy to tell you about his poverty level.
I think the point that Chumpsky is trying to make, and which I certainly got out of his posts (or at least some of them) is that the narrative point of view of these stories is the side you, as the audience, the director is pandering to. As much as I, an American, enjoy cheering for our boys in Somalia, I do so with the understanding that we are only being presented with one side as an entertainment. Blackhawk Down is an excellent example. Where were the character soldiers from the other side that we were following so that we can understand their motivation? Without that, it is only an entertainment, much as the Roman Gladiators. It might even be good drama without the alternate viewpoint. But both are propaganda when compared to history.
History is not a diary of some one who was there. It is the dispassionate review of the accounts (diaries and such) from everybody who was there on every side. These films are not that. If you folks are under the impression that these films are history, your education has completely failed you.
The movie Spartacus, for example (one of my favorites) does tend to present both sides. The fact that it cheers for the oppressed, however, keeps it from being history.
Saving Private Ryan was not history, despite the fact that D-Day was a historic event and depicted in the movie. Shakespeare’s historic plays are not really history. They are entertainments. Schindler’s List is an entertainment that portrays historic events that actually happened. It is a solemn, depressing piece of work that was necessary as art to show the atrocities of Nazis, but until it evaluates all the available evidence of the events it depicts, it is not history. I in no way mean to denigrate this very important account of the holocaust, but rather to scold the SdMB members into remembering that seeing the movie is not a substitute for reading a history book
Since the end of WWII the USA has been steadily giving up its freedoms, first with HUAC, then McCarthy, Vietnam era intolerance and now with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act.
When I see everyone in the thread jump all over Chumpsky for including another point of view (and this is about the fifth thread I’ve seen it in) I cringe and weep. Chumpsky is not asking you to agree with his leftist points of view, he is asking you to develop some goddamned critical thinking skills and giving you examples to try them out on, whether you agree or not. I recall another recent thread where someone took umbarage about Chumpsky talking down to them (another liberal who accepts the party line absolutely.) What right have any of you not to be talked down to? I mean, you think that Blackhawk done is okay to call history because the stuff happened. It ain’t history without other points of view. It’s propaganda. How can you even begin to fight your enemies if you refuse to examine what motivates them? If you can’t see things from your enemy’s point of view, how the fuck are you even going to recognize your enemy? Your friends? The point of these criticisms of these movies is that you are never put in a camera/narrative position to see why the “enemy” believes that what they are doing is right, and so right that they are willing to die for it. That might be fine for sheeple, but unless you want to be one of those masses that Herman Goering was so easily manipulating to do the bidding of the warlords, you have to look at these situations from all angles.
Thanks Sparticus.
It occurred to me that I should respond more fully to this question, as I think it is important.
The question really revolves around who “us” and “them” are. Do I care about the people who would love to kill me? Not particularly, although very often the grievances that lead to such fanatacism are real enough. But, no, I am not so much concerned about them as I am about the people, the poor and the defenseless who always bear the brunt of war and militarism, and who live out their lives exploited and oppressed so that the rich can get richer and more powerful.
The state of perpetual war is carried out for the very conscious reason of maintaining and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Great wealth can only exist if there is great poverty, as all wealth is built off of the surfeit of labor and the exploitation of natural resources. One of the most influential U.S. planners in the Cold War, George Kennan explained the situation in 1948 in an internal U.S. planning document:
Of course, the situation has only gotten much, much worse since 1948, and will continue to degrade if the masters of mankind have their way.
Here is an excellent article by Michael Parenti on the modalities and motivations behind imperialism:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
You see, the rapists and plunderers like George Bush need to get the people to see the world as “them” so that we will continue to fund their imperialist adventures.
H.L. Mencken wrote, famously, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
And, Hermann Goering explained how it works at the Nuremburg Trials: “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
We must not let our leaders drag us along as they continue to smash the world up. We must not allow them to manipulate us into seeing the poor and oppressed around the world as “them.” They are not “them”! The goal of the George Bush’s of the world is to make the whole world the Third World, to destroy every social program, to eliminate the labour movement, to eliminate public education, and every scrap of the social contract. And every battle they win brings them closer to that goal.
The sad fact is that every blow that Iraq, or whatever miserable country the U.S. decides to attack next, lands on the U.S. will be a blow for the working people around the world. Every victory of the U.S. will simply whet the appetites of the greed obsessed maniacs who run the country for more conquest, more plunder and more oppression.
The question comes down to who you align yourself with, the oppressors or the oppressed. There is no middle ground, and you must chose sides.
I think the point is that many of us have evaluated Chumpsky’s point of view and found it without merit. Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling should not make one dig a hole in the ground for protection just because Chicken Little is vocal about it.
Bluesman, on behalf of the entire world, I’d like to apologize for this hijack of your thread.
Guys, get a room, will you?
And I want my question about hot spouses answered.
I’d like to apologize as well. Sorry for feeding the troll.
Regarding chicken hawks:
Most people I knew when I was in the Navy had more contempt for politicians who were military veterans, yet did not support the interests of the serviceman or help us fulfill our mission. John Kerry comes to mind - the man never saw a weapons system that he could support. He’d have us fighting with slingshots.
Politicians who had never served, yet helped military members, were far better for us in the here and now.
That being said, I believe the nation would be better served if more veterans were in public service. It would help them keep things in perspective when they talk about “sacrifice”.
Now a question for Bluesman. Why did you choose the Air Force rather than another branch?
Bluesman,
I’ve got an offer for a commission from the USAF JAG corps after I graduate in May. Should I take it?
Folks, I know I asked you to ask me some stuff, and then two pages rolled by before I could get back to it. My initial post was done late on Sunday night, before getting up at 0545 to get ready for work. 'Bout five hours of sleep, and then my day didn’t end until 1930 (7:30PM), due to the physical training requirement that is part of my obligations. Well, I’ve just gotten some free time tonight, after a Tuesday that was identical to Monday.
I’m not saying that for sympathy or pity, but I wanted you to know why I seemingly bailed on my own thread. VERY busy at work, and I should’ve thought of all of this before I started it.
Well, start it I did, and I’ll answer as many questions as I can over the Thanksgiving holiday. (QUESTIONS, though, not rants or somebody else’s arguments about this or that.)
But here’s one for you, JC: hot spouses aren’t issued by the military, because buying from the lowest bidder purty much assures you’ll get second-best or worse.
No, you have to EARN 'em. You and a rival from another service are taken to a large circle drawn in the dirt, and your left forearms are bound together with a leather strap. You’re given a knife, and if you can stay in the ring and survive…she’s yours.
You should have seen the size of the Marine I had to kill for Lucretia.
Look for more answers (REAL answers, SERIOUS answers) over the weekend, Dopers. Sorry, but it’s all I can do right now…we’re spooling up the War Machine, and I’m just a cog in it. Okay?
Okay, maybe a couple more posts, as targets of opportunity.
Not unless you love your country more than money.
That was flip, and not really how I meant to say it. I’m not implying that you can’t be a loyal American without serving in the military, or that people who work to better their financial condition blahblahblah…you get me.
But you’ve got to want to be an officer and a leader more than a rich lawyer, because one canNOT get wealthy doing this gig.
But it’s a good life for those that are willing to give up a lot in the way of material comfort and convenience.
It has some great benefits of it’s own, though less tangible.
My beautiful and brilliant wife could write her own ticket as a civilian nurse, a 4.0 graduate from one of the best nursing schools in the world, during this acute nation-wide shortage of nurses.
Instead, she is giving up six figures (maybe not starting, but not too far away) to be the lowest-ranking of officers. WHY?
Because she’s called to do it, and there is a psychological paycheck to serving something greater than yourself.
I myself gave up a great job - nice, fat paychecks - to come in, and I’ve never looked back. I often think, while I’m doing something I could never do in my old life, how incredible this is, and what my old colleagues are doing RIGHT NOW.
Consider it carefully, because it ain’t for everybody, and I just want the people that feel the same way my true comrades do to be a part of this. But if you do join my Air Force, I’ll be there to welcome you to the Brotherhood of Arms.
Because unlike you Sparticus, he comes in with a snotty attitude and demands and insults and stuff and such and then wonders why no one hears him?
History could be a good movie but would probably be too long.
Most people have a hard time looking at their own inadequacies
Debates do not have to be insulting to be meaningful.
He does not seem to agree that anything besides what he says is meaningful. So, why should anyone listen?
YMMV
I’m a private and commercial pilot, and I love anything having to do with airplanes and aviation. I wanted to be aircrew (and was aircrew for a very short while), and I’d always been intrigued by the intelligence community. So I determined to be an airborne linguist, which is what I came in as. (And perhaps I was the very worst Vietnamese linguist ever made. Ears of stone…)
I had considered the Army, but I knew a little too much about their world, and I thought I would be a lot happier living a little easier.
None of the other services even got a look from me, though.