In Vietnam, it is referred to as the “Resistance War Against America” so perspective matters quite a bit.
4 Likes
Sure, but I’d suggest that Vietnamese who were opposed to the communist government (and either fled the country or were punished for their involvement with the Americans/against the communists) also have a different perspective on what the war was and what it meant.
1 Like
Not anymore, it’s not. At least not always. Serious inroads have been made in undermining the nationalist orientation of history in recent decades, which I think is largely a good thing. Not that we should never take a national view of historical events, but that it shouldn’t be the only perspective we should attend to.
2 Likes
Poland. Actually it’s only been 9 years.
It certainly sounds that way from the President’s description…
“OK. Here’s what we did. We [were] within their 12-mile limit, and that’s a matter that hasn’t been settled. But there have been some covert operations in that area that we have been carrying on – blowing up some bridges and things of that kind, roads, and so forth. So I imagine they wanted to put a stop to it. So they come out there and fire and we respond immediately with five-inch guns from the destroyer and with planes overhead. And we cripple them up – knock one of them out and cripple the other two. And then we go right back where we were with that destroyer [the Maddox], and with another one [the Turner Joy], plus plenty of planes standing by. And that’s where we are now.”
- Lydon Johnson, 1964-08-03 (secretly recorded phone call with Treasury Secretary Robert Anderson, emphasis added)
1min phonecall can be listened to here
3 Likes
Skip to 5:30 for the most relevant bit.
Thanks for the answer. That’s indeed a different perspective.
I don’t think it is, really. With or without draft most people join the army for random reasons, such as poverty, family tradition, impulse decision, boredom, or because their friends are joining. They spend a short time in training, a large fraction will never even leave the country. They’ll make some friends and suffer some bullying. They might learn a skill they will pursue after their time in the army finishes. It’s not a big deal.
And if they go to fight an enemy, some of them will just experience a lot of boring sitting and waiting. Maybe one or two scary and dangerous incidents. Some will loose a limb or a friend. Some will be traumatized, while others will find their inner strength and will save someone’s life. Those are all formative events, but so is being in a car crash or helping a drowning child.
Fetishization of military service in peace time (and it’s been peace time in the US for a very long time) does not serve anyone any good. Military service in war time might be a bit more formative, but still it leaves a bunch of random people - some will live because they’re ruthless, some because they’re honorable, some because they’re brave, others because they’re cowards. I fail to see a pattern here.
8 Likes
Rather than the day to day business of soldiering, the perspective I was thinking of was a bit longer regarding Poland.
Theres an issue of perspective here. Theres actual fetishization and then theres how that word can be used casually just for the basic respect the US has towards active service people and veterans.
There certainly is an issue of perspective. For a non-US person what you call “the basic respect the US has towards active service people and veterans” can look very threatening.
Consider for example, the German perspective towards the military and what it looked like the last time their country saw the sort of promotion of military service and military personnel the US considers perfectly normal.
6 Likes
Bite your tongue! Sanders is a fucking saint compared to those guys. Or to the average person, for that matter.
An actual leader. Unsurprising, that we have trouble recognising them.
Depends where you go. Lots of places I’ve been in this world are not in fact respectful of their service people and vets.
BTW if you want to go to Ad Hitler Reductum, just do so. Never go half Godwin!
By any reasonable standard, the US attitude towards military service is an extreme outlier.
A respect for veterans expressed through social welfare support, historical commemoration and an overt commitment to avoid war whenever possible: normal. Constant idolisation of the military at weekly sporting events, social expectations of rote genuflection (“thank you for your service”) and an administration packed with generals: severely abnormal.
American attitudes towards the military are way into the skinny part of the bell curve. If American practices do not constitute fetishisation of the military, nothing does.
10 Likes
He doesn’t even go at Hitler. Contrary to public perception, the military isn’t disrespected in Germany. Apart from the “all soldiers are murderers” crowd, it’s basically seen as a mainstream job with professional who should draw a decent wage and good benefits when they leave the service or, even more importantly, when they get injured in their line of work. Mental health included.
But they are not seen as targets of adulation, which is basically what US mainstream reaction to your military looks to us.
As with with police, you don’t need to build up veneration to push up a profession. Though I guess it’s a feature of US politics: Make soldiers and police officers into heroes, so any critique towards them or their organization can easily get spun into Nestbeschmutzug. (The English translation for Nestbeschmutzer seems to be Whistleblower, but I don’t think that it applies here very well.)
7 Likes
English does have the phrase ‘to foul one’s own nest’ but as far as I know no noun to describe the person who does it.
It also doesn’t seem to have the connotation that it’s something that you get censured for - the implication seems to be that you foul your nest, you get to sit in it, rather than that you’re dirtying the nest everyone else is in and you should stop it.
I suspect that “whiner” is closer to the intended meaning. Or “snitch”.
I’d be very interested in your views on why militaries exist. I’d love to know the justification for maintaining a standing expeditionary military designed not for protection but for attack; whose primary business these days seems to be participation in unjustified acts of aggression towards weaker nations whose natural resources are coveted by the corporate interests with imperialistic designs to inciting regime change.
4 Likes
I think it’s a bit more than whiner. It’s similar to ‘Remoaner’ in that there is that connotation of being unpatriotic.
Snitch is closer but it’s not so much that you are telling other people stuff but more “you are bringing up unpleasant stuff that makes us all look bad so stop it”.
Since you’ve already set forth your terms that way, perhaps only the defenders of castles and walled cities, minus of course any archers, would be satisfactory?
That is to say I’m uncertain you are arguing in good faith.
