O.K., I’ll bite. Which nation in the history of the planet is/was the most benevolent fighter, conqueror, and occupier?
There’s no need to counterbalance anything in fiction. It’s not a defamation of character because it’s fiction.
Besides, the reason why you’ll see Americans commiting atrocities is because in American fiction, characters are generally Americans. The public wouldn’t be much interested in the story, relate to the character or understand the references if the traumatized American Vietnam war veteran was replaced by, say, a traumatized French Algeria war veteran.
If you don’t want an American, you have to introduce characters or events well known to the public. For instance a former nazi or an islamist terrorist. The number of possibilities is limited. And besides, if you introduce such a character, you can only make it one-sided because the public won’t accept a nazi murderer with redeeming qualities or mitigating circumstances, while they will if it’s an American soldier. So it would again severely limit your options scenario-wise.
Finally, it’s not like American fiction lacks heroic American servicemen involved in events that never happened and aren’t really credible. Do you complain too about it being imaginary, one-sided or pushing the enveloppe in those cases?
Probably one of the current Scandiwegian countries. Note this doesn’t mean it’s time to trot out a list of Viking atrocities,I mean e.g. current Norway or Denmark when taking part in Kosovo - they’ve only been countries for the last 250 years or so, AFAIK. Pretty close to the US timeline, anyway, with much less slaughter
You can’t really blame Hollywood for that. Everyone everywhere is working to raise awareness about the issues returning veterans face, and one of those issues is reintegrating into civilian society. Like it or not, some veterans do come back a little or a lot off their rockers.
Sure, there are millions who come back and go back to whatever they were doing, but in an analogue to clairobscur’s point, normal people do not appear in fiction.
Well-adjusted people don’t exist onscreen, except in sitcoms, and veterans’ groups would be up in arms if CBS trotted out a comedy about a returning veteran.
Which is the nicest murder, rapist, thief and poisonous snake?
[QUOTE=toofs]
Yes, we did plenty of raping, pillaging and butchering. No disagreement there. His point still stands, especially the conqueror part. Looking at WWII specifically, imagine if the USA occupied Japan, Germany, Italy, even France in the same fashion as the Soviets. Look at the differences between East and West German occupations, the effects of which are still present.
We could have kept Japan a third world province of our war spoils. We didn’t. We also did not do that to Germany. Or Italy. Imagine if we did.
[/QUOTE]
The USAAF (and the RAF as well) bombed the hell out of German cities and killed hundreds of thousand. You literally nuked Japan. And as for not keeping the Germans and Japanese as "third world provinces"well that is exactly what the plan was and what was implemented. It was only abandoned when priorities changed due to the emerging Cold War in both Europe and Asia. It was done in self interest not benevolence. There is nothing wrong with that, all nations follow their own perceived interests, but it does not make the US "any different from any other nation.
I don’t know. They say if you had to get wacked, you wanted Jimmy “Affable” Ciccerone to do it.
The answer is “Black Mamba” for at least two or three of those.
Compare the Allies treatment of Germany and Japan to how ze Germans and the Japanese treated the nations they conquered.
That’s asinine. Occupying armies/nations vary dramatically in the severity of their actions and their effects on the people they occupy. We actually helped to rebuild the nations we occupied after WWII–which kind of stunned the Germans in particular, who knew what they had done and were expecting a Russian-style occupation like that which had occured in Prussia in 1944 and Berlin in 1945, with mass rape and murder, and thorough wholesale looting (the Russians even carried off the toilets).
An even simpler argument would be this: we didn’t keep Italy, Germany, and Japan. Nor did we reduce them to powerless client states. They became prosperous democracies precisely because we were benevolent conquerors.
Take off your America-hating blinders (fat chance!), examine history, and you’ll see that this is true. Or, go on asserting that we slaughtered millions during our occupations of the defeated nations, if that’s the reality you want to continue to live in.
Ask anyone who has lived through the experience if they would rather have been occupied by the Americans or someone else, say, the Russians.
Is “At least we’re better than the Nazis” really where you want to plant your flag?
Whatever side you want to take on the humanitarian aspects of the US military, particularly in victory, there is no denying that there’s almost no international precedent for the US Marshall Plan which re-built our WW2 enemies and their allies into modern democratic states with better economies than they had pre-war. When we turn swords into plowshares, we do it right. But those were of course established nation-states with stable cultures. Modern nation building efforts on our part have been less successful. So much of success in this area has to do with how smart you are going in to the problem and how well your solution fits the needs of the locals.
He’s afraid of losing the Sanguinista vote.
We’re talking about True Blood here. I wouldn’t say that. The writers are likely to introduce Mephistopheles next season.
I’m beginning to get that impression…which makes me think I’ll stop after season 1.
Canada? They don’t really do anything, do they? They’re just sort of there.
Whatever, Mr. “Why can’t you be more like Norway.”
It has its ups and downs. The part where Russell Edgington is a major player is very good.
Then there’s the story about the doll…
I think the US is up there with the least bad, but the Persians had a good thing going, too.
Probably anything you can imagine has been done in wartime. So to object (to its depiction) on moral grounds seems a little weird to me. For something like a TV show or a film I would rather ask whether it’s bad art or not.
Already answered in AK84’s post above yours:
There’s also the problem is that the treatment of Japan and Germany was a historical aberration. Go tell the surviving Native Americans how nice we are. Or go to Iraq and tell the people there.
I would imagine the vast majority of the Iraqi people would report that our soldiers behaved correctly and honorably.
We did mistreat the Native Americans, but not really so by the standards of the 19th century. We treated with them and respected their sovereignty, at least up to a point. Much of the later mistreatment and resultant warfare was due to the actions of settlers who openly defied the U.S. government, for instance, in violating the Black Hills Sioux reservation in search of gold.
The post you refer to was idiotic, in that it used examples of acts we committed in the course of warfare, while active hostilities were still taking place, to support the lunatic contention that we were brutal, homicidal postwar occupiers.
I’m sorry, but no matter how you twist the facts, you can’t defend your depiction of America and America’s soldiers as bloodthirsty demons.
In our place, the Canadians would be trying to teach the Afghans hockey. The Afghans would substitute hockey pucks made out of plastic explosive, or possibly use severed human heads instead.