Justification for war
Here is a Marxist article illustrating how wars may benefit certain classes more than others. Irrespective of one's views on class warfare, it's hard to disagree with this basic premise - some people do make lots of money from other people's misery.
The article deals with the propaganda used to drum up public support for wars and it outlines the justifications for different wars by various US governments.
The article deals with the propaganda used to drum up public support for wars and it outlines the justifications for different wars by various US governments.
President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846.
[...]
President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba
[...]
He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines
[...]
President Woodrow Wilson[...]lied about the reasons for entering the First World
War
[...]
Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was “a military target.”
Everyone lied about Vietnam
posted by amitav at 4/03/2006 10:06:00 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Well, I don't see what the big deal is. Countries go to war, but to have a war you need guys willing to die. Having a good reason to die tends to increase their enthusiasm. A similar list can be made for any country.
I suppose in the good old days before nationalism, things were simpler. You had the core of the army, the professional soldiers and maybe some mercenaries and then you had some unfortunate guys who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and were told to join up or else. They tended to play an important part as cannon fodder. But you did not have to come up with bullshit that the enemy was somehow more evil than you, or that you were fighting for some ideals. No, it was all about plunder and expanding one's real estate, and noone was ashamed to admit it.
The author does raise an interesting point though, about people's inability to look back at past conflicts and draw relevant conclusions.
"The author does raise an interesting point though, about people's inability to look back at past conflicts and draw relevant conclusions." -A
i would agree... though i think this has to come down to the teaching of history in schools. If teaching history in the US is anything like what I learned about history at school then i am not surprised...
after leaving school i could have told you lots and lots about 1066, english kings & queens and the spanish armada, spitfires & WWII: tally-ho chocks away, barney-bailed over custard, jumped a rongo and woo-hoo shot jerry to pieces etc etc etc
but i knew absolutely nothing at all about Britain & the Middle East, nothing about Amritsar, India, nothing about the slave trade, zilch regarding Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Kenya, i didn't even know what a constitutional monarchy was... and certainly not that i lived under one?!? :)
Baltar: thanks for the book tip. I read some other reviews of it, it seems rather interesting. Emule is taking care of it as I type.
Barry: I agree with you that what is taught in history classes has an important effect on how one views the world and current events.
Unfortunately it's impossible to cover all history from all points of view. There will always be bias. The trick is deciding what this bias should be.
It's a shame that issues such as the contents of school curricula are not taken more seriously. Since they do have such a huge impact, it would make sense to have a public debate on this. In fact each time there is a big change in what is taught in schools, there should be a public referendum.
The obvious argument against this would be that we should not politicise school subjects. But I think it's better to state your bias openly, rather than to covertly brainwash the next generation of kids.
Post a Comment
<< Home