Why so many Anti-American?

[sweetnpetite]

Sweetie, it's all about who controls the media. They get to set the agenda. That's why patriots like you and me are screwed while traitors like Limbaugh and Hannity are multi-millionaires.

Is this a great country or what?

How can you ask that?

You're so Anti-American!

 

[thebullet]

How can you ask that?

You're so Anti-American!

A point well taken!

 

[Lisa Denton]

Why is it that Rush Limbough and Sean Hannity are never acused of being anti-American when they complain daily about the state of this great nation. When they equate liberals with Evil- as if liberals aren't American too- or even people. When the Right Wing tries to have a President impeached, they are not Anti-American, but they are already poised to say that the liberals plan to try it on GWB, and that that is Ani-American.

Sean and Rush complain about America and Americans- they spew as much hate, anger, and intollerance as anybody here or elsewere- and claim they don't. It is all aimed at other Americans. Americans' who don't agree with *their* view of what America should be.

But for some reason, this makes them Patriots, and those who disagree with them are Traitors.

I heard a thing on the radio, it was some old quotes of Rush Limbaugh talking about pillheads, according to him he should be hung, shot, stabbed and then rehabilitated.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq and never joined into any marches or protests. Why? Because some idiot against "flyin saucers the CIA is using to control us" will always throw a brick upside a policemans head, then its burnin and lootin in the name of peace. Fun, fun. . .

It seems that you didn’t actually read Matt Taibbi’s article, or you would have seen that his whole point is that we are no longer in a society that is threatened by individuality. What is needed now is organization and discipline.

And, yes, there is always a threat of reprisal from the opposition. That is why it isn’t called a kvetching tea party.

 

[thebullet]

I heard a thing on the radio, it was some old quotes of Rush Limbaugh talking about pillheads, according to him he should be hung, shot, stabbed and then rehabilitated.

I agree with 1, 2, and 3. but 4??? I don't think so.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I don't think so.

Oh, come now, thebullet, surely Limbaugh can be rehabilitated and become a contributing member of society in a field which he has already shown a great affinity — sewage treatment.

 

[thebullet]

Oh, come now, thebullet, surely Limbaugh can be rehabilitated and become a contributing member of society in a field which he has already shown a great affinity — sewage treatment.

VB - that fact of the matter is, I just love your AV. What can I say. You are the best.

What was the question again?

 

[oggbashan]

I don’t think Lisa’s right about Kent State being the first time National Guardsmen fired on unarmed Americans.

...I guess just like in war, things look different depending on what side you’re on.

---dr.M.

The Boston Massacre was the first time soldiers fired on unarmed Americans. Depending on which side you were on, the British soldiers fired on a peaceful demonstration, or the soldiers fired while their lives were under threat from clubs and snowballs (sic) because someone in the rioting crowd gave the order to fire, not the officer in command.

Whatever the cause, and the soldiery were acquitted at the trial, the event polarised opinion against the British and was used by Paul Revere as propaganda.

Og

 

[Lisa Denton]

It seems that you didn’t actually read Matt Taibbi’s article, or you would have seen that his whole point is that we are no longer in a society that is threatened by individuality. What is needed now is organization and discipline.

And, yes, there is always a threat of reprisal from the opposition. That is why it isn’t called a kvetching tea party.

Ima sorry hon, I didn't click on the link thingie.

Uh, Im so dis-organized and un-disiplined that my puppy barks to tell me my alarm clock is going off.

Also, I dunno much about tea but if you are serving kvetching, I'll just have a coke.

P.S. (Lisa is whisperin) Who the fuck is the opposition?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

You could say that American soldiers fired on civilians repeatedly during the Indian Wars of the 1870's. Some case could be made that they were shooting at opposing warriors, but there are just too many cases of them gunning down women and children for that to be a usuable alibi.

Throughout most of the history of anti-union strike-breaking, State Militia, Pinkerton operatives, or plain old hired goons were employed. As far back as the National Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Pullman Strike of 1894 American soldiers were involved in killing civilian strikers.

Alternately, sometimes the soldiers were innocent as in the Brownsville, Texas Race Riot of 1906 which was supposedly started by African American soldiers firing on civilians.



Edit to add: The only demonstration march I can think of that is not in opposition of something is the Gay Pride Parade and if you don't think there is opposition to THEIR parade, you just haven't been paying attention.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Gosh, you all sure come up with a lots of peoples killing american citizens. Og, I think you british types was always shootin at us americans back then, cause we ran away from home.

I just thought the Kent State incident was important as something which happened in recent history involving protests and demonstrations turning bizarre.

I concede to everybody and especially to dr.M and others who cited incidents with national guard troops firing on citizens.

While I feel that protests, demonstrations and marches should be done, I don't agree with throwing rocks and bottles at cops and stuff, thats why I won't join in. I am not going to assault anyone to make my statement that I don't think anyone should be assaulted.

Peace protests with lists of injured and/or dead afterward just don't make sense to me.

It's kinda like sayin "stop the war or I'm gonna beat the shit outta this cop" which I don't think is peaceful, and I'm sure the cop doesn't think its peaceful.

 

[thebullet]

I just thought the Kent State incident was important as something which happened in recent history involving protests and demonstrations turning bizarre.

You are in fact correct, Lisa. From a national point of view, the Kent State incident (and I was on the Kent State campus a few months before), was probably the most important of the "government opens fire on the citizens" incidents.

Kent State was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back related to Viet Nam. No one could look at the bodies of those kids and not understand that this country had lost touch with reality. After Kent State, the average citizen started turning against the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kent_State_massacre.jpg

 

[BlackSnake]

.

 

[thebullet]

BTW - after the Kent State incident, 2 students at Jackson State were killed by the National Guard in a similar protest. That didn't register nearly as high on the Richter Scale, perhaps because killing students was old news by this time, or perhaps because of the racial climate in 1970.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Doc is correct in his assessment. Here it has never changed. When it comes up the majority opinion is the protestors brought it on themselves.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Somehow it figures this thread was waiting for me

I had actually been pondering posting a long thread about what nationalism really means. What loving your country really means and that the people who are the loudest in proclaiming their love for the country love it the least.

In these days where the ontological and rhetorical wars are more important than truth and fact (something that has always been true, but more apparent in these particular days), liberal has become synonymous with traitor and anti-American. If you are an environmentalist, you hate America. If you are a pacifist, you're a traitor. If you believe in Capitalism with a Conscience, you're against freedom. And so on and so forth. Of course this is bullshit, but the winds of rhetoric work that way.

The source (who knows what that was) has made it so that a liberal who complains about a particular truth of American social life or history is a traitor to America but a Right-winner who wishes the total abolition of the government except to enforce the laws of Leviticus and Paul is the greatest patriot in the world. It is a double-standard and it sucks, but liberals walked into the trap and still do. They get caught not waving a flag and waxing poetic on the ideal and intangible and so are thus in the eyes of public opinion are Anti-American.

If the Left, as some have caught on and started doing, waxed on and on about Standing up for Democracy and America as they criticize like the Right, then all is well. The intangible however has been usurped and separated from the truth because it's a symbol and symbols win the rhetorical war.

The intangible represented by American Flags that have Made in China labeled on the pole and poetic references to "ideals" such as freedom, democracy, right thinking people, etc... has come to stand for the military and war. Fighting a war (the reason, location, and neccessity don't matter) has come to be the only thing (besides maybe supporting our country's athletes in the Olympics) that has become synonymous with loving our country. Supporting the war regardless of reasons, location, or neccesity makes you a patriot. Protesting against it is a traitor's actions. If the protester actually fought in the damn war and watched his friends blown to tiny fragmented pieces, he is still a fucking traitor in the court of public opinion. If the supporter weaseled his way out of a draft and worked hard to screw the people fighting it for a few more dollars, he is still a fucking super-patriot to the masses.

This surrealist ontological attack on truth (a regular triumph of existentialism) has been perpetuated by the history trap. This means someone will make a bogus but positive statement about our nation's military history (not social or economic history because that could threaten the war over a maintenance scheme) and tricks some sucker liberal into reporting the truth of the military misadventure (cause you know, war is hell and all that shit and the truth is the glory ain't so fucking glorious). The liberal is then derided for being anti-American regardless of how they think of the whole idea of America minus military history or including military history.

Case histories: The trap of Sherman in the Union. Complaining about Sherman's atrocities against the Southerners, the actions of the Carpetbaggers, or the later atrocities commited by the heroes of that war against the Indians in the West had for a time been synonymous to being against the reunification of America, against fighting against slavery, and being generally Anti-American. There was a process (don't remember what it was called, Colly would remember) where politicians would trumpet the Civil War in glorious and most-importantly empty terms and thus win elections. It was because they romanticized the truth and made it into a beautiful glory instead of the bitter brother against brother slaughterfest that it was.

Other traps include the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This stands as the sole use of nuclear weapons in the world and was so horrific that there was an unwritten law that was made that they would never be used again unless there was no other choice. Talking about this event in any way relating to the utter devastation is not to be done regardless of how you feel about the decision. For instance, I believe that it was neccessary based on the Civil Society of Japan, but also note it as an American atrocity and the opening of a frightening door.

The fact is it has been happening for years and still happens. And it happens for every country a little bit. All countries will scramble to make their military histories sanitized and glorious. Take Japan for instance which tries to make Nanking and Pearl Harbor mere minor notes in their history classes. Or every European country on the Eve of World War I (they were fucking giddy about it in the beginning for Christ's sake). Also, militarism is in many countries also tied very heavily with nationalism. The Soviet Union's marches featured their latest missile to use against the Americans and made them the symbol of Mother Russia. And Korea...militarism is nationalism there. The military is not only glorified, but nearly deified. And let's not forget Japan before the end of World War 2 where dying in battle was the greatest honor one could ever achieve and failing a stupid order was grounds for suicide.

And so on and on loving war and carnage and death in battle is pictured as the true meaning of nationalism. The true meaning of loving your country.

I move that this sentiment is crap.

In my mind war has one good use and one good use only: Defense. Defending the people you love against invasion, against threat of annhilation. To support an invasion is, in my mind, stupid. It's Ares Worship at its base, a love of carnage and murder for murder's sake. A way to get your jollies off at the expense of living people, a jolly easily cured by playing a fucking video game or watching a damned movie. You can kill all the damn terrorists you want in a game of Counter-Strike. Watch James Bond kill all the commies you want in old movies. And there are many more games to cater to a person's death fetish and soothe away one's sadisms and violences without taking it out on real people.

But I don't matter in the scheme of things. In terms of truth it is also bollocks because America in intangible and tangible doesn't mean war or military history.

In intagible it stands for freedom, democracy, and justice. None of these things mean war. Freedom means just that: freedom. Freedom to yell, freedom to whine and kevtch, freedom to evangelize, freedom to demean, freedom to disagree, freedom to say and do what you want unless it hinders another's freedom, and most importantly the freedom to take the consequences of one's actions (freedom to insult protects the insulted's freedom to say "fuck off, wanker" or quip sarcastically).

Democracy stands for well, oddly enough democracy, a fact many have convienently forgotten. Though this is technically a half-lie. It technically stands for republic, a form of government where elected officials shoulder the burden of arguing politics for the citizens of their district and where the majority's opinion is representated yet the minority is still respected and given respect and consolation in an effort to reach decisions that the vast majority of people can get behind. Standing for this means standing against:

Politicians disrespecting their electorate
Attacks against the validity of the electoral process
Suppression of the voices of the people
Supressing the minority's voices and keeping their views from being reported to the public and showing 0 respect for said views (which means that Lefties need to support Rush and Ann existing and Righties need to support Sierra Club and Ted Rall existing and furthermore that even the psychos are given a voice)
Autocratic movements in the government

Justice stands for shock of all shocks: justice. Total and utter justice. All guilty parties punished. Corporate criminals treated like poorer economic criminals (robbers). Those who commit atrocities against other country's nationals treated as we treat those who commit atrocities against our own. And so on.

And another less reported but more important ideal (at least in my mind) and one which should be more tied to America is truth. This means appreciating truth in all its forms even its unpleasant ones. The good must be presented with the bad and all facts must be presented regardless of how that affects the "story" or "saga". The truth is a poignant force and exists to try and get us to stop making the same mistakes. Only by finding and knowing the entire truth about an event do we truly know it. For instance, the truth about war is that when the whole truth is reported it is never glorious but rather tragic. There is good, there is neccesity, but it is still horrible. If this truth was embraced by all, people would be more hesitant to enter war so regularly. There is more and lies to be dismissed from all spectrums of the political kingdom. This world would be better if this occured in my worthless opinion.

And now the tangibles. What does America stand for in the rock solid?

It represents loving the country. I don't mean saying it or waving a fucking flag, but loving the country[/]. Loving the mountain ranges, plains, forests, farms, cities, rivers, buttes, mesas, preserves, ghettos, and everything else that makes up the country. Many patriots seem to hate their country. They want to rip it up, want to eliminate its cities, want to evaporate its ghettos, want to pave over its natural beauty.

It represents loving the people that make up this country. From the Evangelicals to the Satanists, the Puritans to the Homosexuals, the Corporatists to the Commies, the Homies to the Farmboys, the Immigrants to the Mayflowers, the Militia men to the Potheads. It means acknowledging that despite your personal disagreements to their worldviews and your belief of their mental or spiritual health, THEY ARE HUMAN AND AS MUCH AN AMERICAN AS YOU. If they live on this beloved country, they are American and if they are hominids of the species Homo Sapien they're damned people! Again, the "Patriots" seem to be the ones most adamant that some people aren't people.
"Faggots" are treated as subhuman demons because of their sexuality. Damned Immigrants are often treated subhuman and abused like slaves because they are not Americans yet. And many more cases exist of people believing others are beneath them, less human, and deserving of punishment for that fact. This is not American and downright anti-human behavior.

These are what America means and a case could be made that loving the government (by this I mean government, not ruling party or individual laws) should also be a part of the tangible loves of this country. That the State and Institutions and resisting those who would abolish them are anti-American. However, I disagree with this. I believe that it is anti-Government, but not tied enough with the land or the people to be truly tied to tangible America. This avoids the nasty act of calling our Founding Fathers anti-American for rewriting the Articles of Confederation as the Constitution and also for revolting against proxy British rule.



Now, in continuation, my position on loving my country has centered around the tangible and to another degree the ideals. I love this country, it's beautiful and diverse nature, it's diversity of social life and existence, it's diversity of opinion, and the odd similarities that cross these divides. I love the way the districts differentiate, the way cities and communities evolve as their residents change, the way the sun looks when its setting over the ocean, in the desert, up in the mountains, through the forest, on a lake suface, or through a cityscape. I love this country and its people except for the notable exception of bullies and assholes for which a point can be subtracted from my Overall Score (because gosh gee the love of one's own country must be just like a fucking video game where we all scramble for the damn points like monkeys on crack) though I will gladly admit that they are as American as I and that their international stunts can stand as much for America's world image as my friendliness to visiting Foreigners (point regained, when do I unlock the B.F.G.?).

I have love for its ideals as well. Democracy and Republic are good government types and I want ever so much for it to work right, for the people's voices to be heard crystal clear, for the politicians to be indebted to the people and undeified and changes for the better (like PR) added to aid it's smooth and idealistic running against the corruption of greedy autocratic takeover. I am a firm supporter and beliver in eternal justice and it's tendrils. I support freedom of all types. I hate it when my fellow libs or lefties talk about censoring Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. We must give them freedom to rant their sick worldviews. And we must exercise our right to point out how and where it's bullshit and scary. The freedom of dissent must be protected and exercised. As well as all the other freedoms we take for granted and protecting them regardless of our feelings of the people is a good and honorable thing. And for truth, I still somehow through blind luck and bad aim on the Universe's part cling to the belief that it can be salvaged and made to be respected on some level despite the horror of its visage, despite the pain of its revelations, despite the dead bodies it unburies. And I believe in the truth inherent of looking at all sides of an event, that to know something you must take the good with the bad. This means I recognize the good and evils America has done, acknowledge the harsher moments and feel good about some of the right choices, and through it all come to love it as you would love a tragic hero struggling through its flaws to try and show its worth and beauty or how you would love an antihero, who is no better than the rest of the bunch, yet still has all those qualities and ideals that make you cheer for him. America isn't Utopialand. But it's not Hell either. It's had it's bad moments, it's had it's glorious moments. Mistakes have been made and right choices have been made and hard paths have sometimes been chosen, and through it all America has shown its mettle, its ability to heal and acknowledge its fuckups, and its desire to at the end do the right thing. This is how I have come to love America the intangible as much as I love America the Tangible and why I will cry bitterly if ever Dark Days of Neccessity drive me to immigrate.


And so in conclusion, WHY DON'T YOU ARES-WORSHIPPING ANTI-TANGIBLE AMERICA SHITHEADS CEASE THE CLAPTRAPPING CRIMES AGAINST TRUTH THAT ARE THE "Why are so many libs unamerican?" COMPLAINTS?

I respect your freedom to say that. Now accept my freedom to say "Fuck off, wanker and take your bullshit with you!"

Cause I'm damn tired of it and repeating my stance.

*mumble* Don't love my country, my ass!*mumble*

 

[rgraham666]

Applauds!!!

Ya know Luc, for the Prince of Evil, you've got a damn good heart.

 

[fifty5]

Right on, Lucifer.

I might have taken you up on an odd detail or so, but not only have I forgotten what it was/they were, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

That's a view of America that can inspire those who live elsewhere (as well, I hope, as those who live there).

I believe that it isn't unique (in essence), but that doesn't diminish your point by a single iota.

Long may you orate!

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lucifer!!!

I always like your posts.

Though sometimes I think OMGosh, did he say that?

But that time I thought OMGosh, he said that.

 

[SlickTony]

Great post, Lucifer.

 

[cantdog]

Lisa,

The impulse to violence for social change is not limited to the protestors in the streets. The list Virtual Burlesque cited is the tip of the iceberg. Union organizers in this country face violence all the time, and sometimes have from the government. If the Nazis have brownshirts in the streets, would it make sense to oppose them with violence?

It depends where you are and what kind of threat you face, whether violent means are called for. All the protesting you've seen lately has been non-violent, but people get clubbed and shot at by the police anyway. The police do not wait for violence to begin using it themselves; it happened in Seattle, for instance.

The antiwar protests do not bring out the violence in the security forces like the protests against the World Bank/ IMF have done, in Italy, in Seattle, and wherever they have met. But the nonviolent antiwar protestors face real danger from the security people, nevertheless.

With regard to Lucifer's post:

I think anti-Americanism is a valid description for the sentiments held abroad by many muslims and others these days. Rhetorical it ain't.

LDW's crapola is one thing, but a real grievance against the US is another.

cantdog

 

[oggbashan]

...I think anti-Americanism is a valid description for the sentiments held abroad by many muslims and others these days. Rhetorical it ain't.

LDW's crapola is one thing, but a real grievance against the US is another.

cantdog

In many parts of the world there is a real grievance against the US and their allies for supporting regimes that oppress people. The relations of those killed by the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, by regimes formerly and currently supported by the US and their allies even though those regimes breach human rights regularly... That adds up to a whole lot of people who do not see the US as the saviour of the world.

Many Palestinians see every bullet, shell or rocket fired by Israel as being supplied and directed by the US.

Some Muslim leaders in the Middle East honestly believe that the US is attacking their religion and wants to destroy it.

Unless the US and its allies change their approach to regime change the hatred won't go away because the hatred is seen to be justified.

We in the UK are blamed just as much. It isn't anti-Americanism. It is a response to what is seen from the other side as an unjustified war on the region and their religion.

Og

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think we tolerate too many out-dated and cowardly notions; and that War is an excellent evolution of the desire to make right a world either gone wrong or going there. The patriotic being those who can sacrifice themselves and others to ensure the desired outcome of a more perfect world. I truly believe if there were less pacifistic ideals in the highest levels of diplomacy, we would give those with the right idea the power they would need to enact it.

But, that's just me.

 

[thebullet]

I think we tolerate too many out-dated and cowardly notions; and that War is an excellent evolution of the desire to make right a world either gone wrong or going there.

Jeez, Joe, do you really believe this load of shit you are piling on us? Wars are not noble or heroic or manly. Wars are not fought to right wrongs.

Almost all wars are economic in nature. Almost all wars have at their root: 'you've got something I want and I'm going to take it from you'.

The concept of a 'noble war' is an oxymoron. Looking back at American history, name a war that was noble. Studs Terkel called World War II "the good war" and probably he was right I guess.

World War I (the Great War) was just stupid, the result of bad diplomacy and boys with toys.

The Spanish American War? Christ spare me. Viet Nam? It's thirty years later and I'm still unsure why we fought it.

Maybe Grenada! We saved all of those medical students and a possible vacation spot.

Joe perhaps you should move away from your academic paradise for a second and move into the real world, where people die, are injured, maimed, tortured, raped and pillaged by war. And for what? So that diamond mine, that oil field, those mineral deposits, that arable land that belongs to you can now belong to me. Or so that my economic system has control of things rather than your economic system.

I can't apply noble purpose to goals such as these.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Cant, yes I know sometimes they will start the violence first, or finish it like at Kent State. My problem is a proposed peaceful demonstration where a mother attends hoping to change the world to a more loving place for her children, but finds herself standing next to a deranged psycho looking for an excuse to kill a cop.

Og, I am hoping that the UK will help the US to start helping the world be a better place if/when the madness ever ends.

Joe, while I don't agree with your post I was pleasantly surprised to see you stating your views rather than your opposition to someone else's views or choice of words. Maybe you really can think outside the box, keep it up.