General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Bravo Chris Hayes !!!!
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/935592/chris_hayes_on_memorial_day%3A_glamorizing_and_justifying_war_with_the_term_%22hero%22/
Chris Hayes on Memorial Day: Glamorizing and Justifying War with the Term "Hero"
It's sure to be a little bit controversial but it's an extremely salient point: Chris Hayes, when discussing the meaning of Memorial Day, admitted that he feels "uncomfortable" calling deceased soldiers heroes. Not because they're not heroes, but because the term lionizes and glamorizes war. Hayes discussed how he feels "uncomfortable" with the term:
His guests, including John McWhorter of the New York Daily News, and Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, and Liliana Segura of The Nation, agreed, but clarified the difference between honoring soldiers, and glorifying war. A great discussion for the holiday. Watch via Mediaite:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/935592/chris_hayes_on_memorial_day%3A_glamorizing_and_justifying_war_with_the_term_%22hero%22/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... did not have to say it that way. Our soldiers put their lives on the line and they should be commended for it. War sucks and they go. My cousin went and got killed 7 years ago and he is still me hero. Now if he meant that the war mongers will use this to their advantage then I will agree with him. Separate the soldier from the policy maker. Remember the mistakes of how America treated the Vets from Vietnam, and never let that happen again.
Chris Hayes is a fgood guy who should have made his point with different words. I understand people who do not want war and do not want it glorified. I agree completely, but our soldiers are our hero's.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)"heroes?"
If we are going to say that you separate the soldier from the policy isn't that the implication of it?
Think about that for a moment.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)...chris hayes saying i am uncomfortable with calling them hero's
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)war is wrong.
And the men & women on all sides of war who participate in violent conflict, perpetuate war.
If you want to stop war hold those as greater heros, from all countries, who refuse to participate in war.
So on this memorial day, I would like to thank all those peacemakers from around the world who have refused to participate in war and the killing of their fellow men and women.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)Hell, it's just part of nature.
We all fight for dominance in one way or another. Even those who get to live lives of "peace" only get to do so because someone else is doing the fighting for them.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)The only time people get to live lives of peace is when no one is fighting at all.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)Oh yes.. never...
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I happened to catch this a few weeks ago and remembered it. Good interview:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/may/28/end-war/
I still beleive violence can be bred out of us.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)1) From your source - "The Legions patrolled the borders with success, and though there were still many foreign wars, the internal empire was free from major invasion, piracy, or social disorder on any grand scale."
2) Fairly confident that there were other folks on the planet as well in other places. Perhaps Africa, Asia and the Americas? Kind of surprised that you don't seem to think folks other than those from western European culture count.
The post I replied to said this "The only time people get to live lives of peace is when no one is fighting at all."
My point stands that there has never been a time when this has happened...
Have a great evening
lunatica
(53,410 posts)War is not human nature. If it were then veteran soldiers would be the best adjusted people on the planet. As it is they usually end up scarred for life with some profound psychological wounds. And try to explain how it is that soldiers who learn to kill so well come home after a war and never feel the least impulse to kill again.
There's a reason why governments take people who are still young and idealistic and who love their country into the military and send them to war. And there's also a reason why they glorify and glamorize war with lies and propaganda. If war is human nature they wouldn't need to lie and cheat to get young people into wars.
Having a fight with your neighbor isn't war. Killing innocent civilians and children who have done nothing to you except be where you're sent to make war is what war is. It's not natural at all. You have to train people to go to war and you have to brainwash soldiers by demonizing and lying about the inhumanity of the enemy to get them to kill.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)of killing. No normal person wants to take a machine gun and slaughter a bunch of strangers.
facetious_badger
(16 posts)You're making the assumption military personnel want to kill people.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)
facetious_badger
(16 posts)Neither is pedophilia, but society wide disapproval and punishment has yet to rid us of them. Our primate brethren are repeatedly documented engaging in what could only be called war, and will kill others for not apparent reason. Dolphins have been repeatedly documented beating porpoises to death for no apparent reason other than they seem to enjoy it. I am not trying to say that the innateness of violence justifies it, but it's ludicrous to suggest it isn't an ingrained part of our psyche.
No, the reason governments take the young for war is because it's extremely physically demanding. If you don't believe me then try to get a forty year old to carry a combat load (much less any of the other gear routinely carried in addition), and still be effective on the battlefield.
I was a Marine who deployed twice to Afghanistan. At no point did I receive any instruction, command, or tolerance of intentionally killing civilians (unfortunately the insurgency seems to do the opposite going off of their propensity for using civilians as human shields.) I hate to disappoint you, but I was also never exposed to any dehumanization of the civilians. There really was much about the insurgency either since the videos of them cutting the heads off of bound hostages pretty much speaks for itself. Their penchant for telling children that the IEDs wouldn't hurt them if they were good Muslims who faith in Allah also, imo, wasn't very neighborly.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I'm so impressed.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)See how that works? There is nothing in that post you responded so irresponsibly to that deserved your comment. Shameful.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)
I didn't realize I was conversing with a child. Carry on.
facetious_badger
(16 posts)I'm a liberal, but this is exactly why I don't bother to get involved with advocacy anymore. As soon as I mention I'm a veteran everyone gets excited because I assume they think I'm going to be their very own IVAW sideshow act. When I try to explain that I neither saw any unethical behavior, nor worked for a command who would tolerate anything of that nature I get relegated to Evil Puppy Kicking War Monger status. For all many of The Left condemn the government for treating the military as pawns, they aren't all that different.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)All you have to do is listen to the way they describe veterans and you know they've never actually met one. They have a childish, simplistic black vs white view of the military. Makes me long for an IQ test before you can post.
facetious_badger
(16 posts)I will never be a pacifist because I find it to be an realistic position that the unscrupulous will take advantage of. That said, I respect conviction and don't look down on someone just because they're a pacifist. What irritates me is their dualistic worldview and the resulting tendency to immediately embrace even the most dubious claims. I think the most telling insight into views of this subset is their constant knee jerk credulity towards 'veterans' whose statements support what they want to hear. It's no different than those who feel illegal immigrants are job thieves and criminals, and who look for and accept that 'evidence' they prefer to the exclusion of all others. Fundamentalist Christians do the same thing, except towards LGBT people.
Almost all of the IVAW membership who have ever had a significant public profile have been outed as liars. Either they flat out never served, enlisted but never got past boot camp or MOS training, never served in a combat theater, served in a nonhostile 'combat theater' such as Kuwait or some of the cushier FOBs, lied about their rank/MOS/awards (usually altering their DD-214s to support those claims), passed on rumor as fact (the military's love of gossip would give a elderly bridge club a run for their money), conveniently became anti-war once they actually had to deploy or were rightfully booted out for breaking the law (UA, theft, failing a drug test, DUIs, etc.) Almost all the real veterans who not only deployed, but also saw the conditions from outside the FOB and actually faced legitimate danger have been run off.
It isn't hard to verify someone's service. A FOIA request will get you their official DD-214, and emailing Facebook friends they served with gives you highly accurate insight into how they conducted themselves. Despite this the media and anti-war organizations almost never attempt to verify any of their claims no matter how outlandish they may be, and often accuse veterans who debunk their claims of starting a witch hunt. On top of that there was never any serious attempt to vet the membership, and allowed what was supposed to be a strictly non-partisan advocacy group be hijacked by Marxist veterans who never deployed (much less fired a shot in anger.) Instead the phony soldier's claims are taken at face value since it perfectly coincides with what they feel the military and war is like.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)anti-war people's job that much harder. Instead of concentrating on the message, the opposition (the pro-war side) only has to focus on the messengers and the righteous message gets lost. In this age of monstrous amounts of information available, the liars will be found out. In a perfect world, I could be a pacifist - I detest violence - but like you pointed out, people don't really respect that and will take advantage. Sometimes the only way to prevent someone from hurting you is the fear of you fighting back harder.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)We have the ability to choose. Imagine if the "natural" rationale was applied to civics instead of war. Theft, rape, murder... would be accepted as commonplace, so why bother with law or enforcement? War has always been a choice.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)That assumes that everyone will make the choice to put aside violence.
The reality is that as soon as you do someone comes in who chose violence and they now have power over you.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)over others is an instinctive need. If that were true how do you explain behaviors like returning other people's lost valuables? It would seem such a situation would give you an advatage over others without any visible negative repercussions your desire to take the lost property for yourself. And i hear it is a common occurance in Japan for people to leave lost items, even wallets, where they found them or attempt to return them to their owners. Why would anyone do that if the instinct toward power is a drive in our nature?
I think it really depends on what you are taught.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)It's a spectrum and everyone has a bit of both sides in it.
I am the type that will return a wallet or walk back into a store if I haven't been charged.
I am also a military professional and know that there will always be someone out there who will use violence.
Even if you choose not to use violence (and 99.99999% of the population will at some point) there are others who use it or the threat of it on your behalf.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)But that doesn't mean it can't be bred out of us. When violence becomes an intolerable solution to problems (and it clearly is becoming that every day now) the people who engage in force and violence will be shunned and unable to reproduce. In other words, the only reason force and violence is perpetuated is because it is rewarded with sex and reproduction. Stop rewarding it and it and war will be bred out of us within a couple of generations. War may be in our nature now but Peace can also be made in our nature. It's just a matter of what we reward. Violence is a trait like an oposable thumb or the degree of melanin in our skin, not a given. It can evolve into and out of complete dormancy to the degree it we use it and to the degree it benefits our survival. If it stops benefitting our survival as a species or even as an individual the instances of it in the population will become less and less and conceivably disappear altogether like the webbed feet of our amphibious ancestors.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)for the same reason that psychopathy can't be bred out and eugenics doesn't work: the inescapable randomness in the universe ensures that in every generation, all traits are distributed under the usual curve. So we always get a few percent of obligative psychopaths, a few percent of obligative "saints", etc.
facetious_badger
(16 posts)You're referring to reciprocal altruism, and making the assuming it's one or the other. Both are innate aspects of our nature. Even if you controlled the breeding and upbringing of every person in the world you will never be rid of violence. Nature versus nurture is murky. There will always be sociopaths, just as there will always be those who are unscrupulously ambitious, and those who will do anything for monetary gain. That does not justify malicious behavior, but the justifiability of a situation is moot when when you are faced with someone ready to commit violence. All the hugging and platitudes in the world won't make the stick he's carrying any less capable of whacking you on the head.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)but today they are usually rightly identified as sociopaths. In the same vein, is it so improbable that those who go to war as a solution for disagreements will be regarded by the future majority as unique aberrations and horrible anomalies much in the same way we regard a cannibal? It seems if you are right and violence is built into us, certain forms of violence, like cannibalism, would never fall out of favor or practice. We'd make excuses and engage in mental gymnastics to justify and continue such behavior and certainly practices even more horrific than we could imagine would continue to rise forth. But that's not the case. I believe the statistics show the planet is moving toward less violence and it is smaller and smaller minorities that are causing most of the problems we have today.
Where did openly sanctioned slavery go? Where did human sacrifice go? Where did the state sanctioned racism of Nazi Germany go? Where did seizing territory just for the sake of seizing territory (military expansionism) go? Where are all these violent human behaviors and excuses for violence disappearing to if violence is built in to our nature? What is more likely happening is we are evolving beyond these behaviors. That they are not innate but can be shed from our personality from lack of use and denial of rewards, just like any underused physical adaptation.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)For the first umpty-thousand years of our human existence, community elders watched for budding psychopaths and, if they appeared to be obligative (i.e., couldn't/wouldn't conform their behavior), they were killed.
It was only when communities grew too big for the elders to monitor all the children that some psychopaths were able to grow to adulthood and seize power as chiefs or priests. All the horrors we have today are down to psychopaths that survive to adulthood.
But they're still killed today in traditional communities, because the keepers of the culture know that psychopaths will destroy the community if tolerated. So they get the chop -- in the case of the kunlangeta, pushed off the ice.
Look around you. Pretend you're a psychopath and imagine how you'd construct the laws. See any similarities?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)It's about as much "just part of nature" as rape is.
But, it is glamorized and sentimentalized by the bosses to keep the next generation ready to kill on order.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
facetious_badger
(16 posts)Proof, please.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Just look at the biggest war in history. WWII. For one thing, it wasn't really a "World War". Even in the countries most involved Germany, the USSR, China, etc, much of the population had no direct experience of battle or destruction. The vast majority of Americans in almost all of our wars never endured the "horrors of war". Most American GIs never got shot at. Hell, in much of the world, ordinary people went about their business and didn't even know there was a war going on.
People don't "naturally" go to war. It's not in their genes. They don't go through their lives yearning for a war to fight. Most people are too damned sensible to want to kill other people for something as nebulous/ridiculous as "My country" or "God" or "Mom and Apple Pie".
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That post was reasoned and well-thought out.
Read it again and learn.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Mairead
(9,557 posts)The nature of any species consists of the behaviors common to all unimpaired members. It does not consist of any behaviors that must be coerced from them (e.g., dogs do not have a walk-upright nature just because some individuals can be taught to briefly walk upright)
If we define "war" as the uncoerced willingness of the members of one community to, as a community, act violently toward the members of another community, then war is very definitely not part of human nature.
The vast majority of humans must be coerced to behave badly toward others. The only ones who don't need to be coerced are not truly human. They're more like human-shaped reptiles, with a reptile's self-centeredness and inability to feel empathy or remorse.
The most important part of human nature is our ability to adapt our behaviors within our individual lifespans. We can choose our behaviors far more easily than any other species we know about.
And most of us do not choose war.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Was the invasion of Iraq something that our basic human nature made impossible to avoid, or was it heavily sold?
I'm not so sure that war is human nature. Most of them seem to be matters of choice, made easier to sell when the audience is already conditioned to call every participant (from their own side, of course) a hero.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)does not engage in warfare like its cousin the standard Chimpanzee does.
But then again, Bonobos are a matriarchal society 
facetious_badger
(16 posts)The problem is we will always have war. It's as much as part of our species as the urge to procreate and love of your children are. Breeding out the propensity of violence is as realistic as trying to breed out mental illness or the sex drive.
Military personnel are the staunchest advocates that war is not good, but sometimes it is necessary. The military stays out of politics for good reason, but a pillar of that tradeoff is that the public is entrusted to be judicious in declaring war. War should not be worshiped, but neither should peace. Peace does not guarantee liberty and prosperity any more than war. Despots often count on those who make that assumption, and the accommodation and capitulation given by those who deify peace. Neville Chamberlain is an excellent example. The desire for peace at any price hoodwinked the British into facilitating a treaty with a regime most found repulsive, and inadvertently assured the Germans that there would be no serious foreign opposition to invading and annexing more territory. Any lives the agreement might have saved were rendered null and void many times over in the resulting war.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)This is simply not so. The evidence that it's not so is all around you: we do not voluntarily make war against others. If we did, our streets would run with blood.
War is a product of psychopathic greeds. All, or nearly all, members of the political ruling class would be diagnosed as psychopaths were it not for their having coerced the definition to exclude the wealthy and powerful. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself: to get a psychopath diagnosis (Antisocial Personality Disorder in DSM IV) requires violent behavior, and the rich and powerful are almost never personally violent--they hire out. They can therefore abuse us, start wars, do whatever they like in the assurance that the cops will never gather around them with tasers.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Way to go Chris!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)All it has done is distract from the real issues and instead of talking about how the pubs want to throw this country off a cliff, we're talking about this nonsense. Nice going, Chris (and the short sighted among us that think this was a good thing).
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Memorial Day is pretty much sacred for all veterans.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I think he picked the perfect day to say it.
facetious_badger
(16 posts)How? They're the reason he can say it without fear of being shipped off to a gulag. Unless you'd rather the Nazis won WWII?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But by all means go for it.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)And the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
dionysus
(26,467 posts)he may be right, in a way. horrible timing.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Unless you want to please everyone all the time, in which case you're doing the etch a sketch thing.
i'll take "stupid shit to say that turns people off to liberals" for $1000, alex.
I have read every word written on this and every thread about this uproar, trying to find where I could be so wrong in my personal understanding of human nature, to covet that which his neighbor has.. This isn't true of everyone to take an action to do something about that desire.. However, those that get the enough power to actually move on that impulse, usually force others to fight back.. Thus, double bolt locks and alarms on doors, or on a much lager scale, WAR..
We have armies to be prepared to protect, and sometimes take action to prohibit that impulse from acting out their aggression on us..
Some on this thread and others describe folks like me and others who felt an obligation to be involved in our defense of our liberty, to insure a stable deterrence against that next tyrant that wants what we earned..
Some here call us names that we never deserved, Killer, or Hero, but unless there are people like us the subject will be moot in almost every generation of history, and in the future..
Have we and others misused the power we have, so be it, it's horribly fucking wrong, BUT I can tell you from my experience, I'd rather condemn those that abused that power than have to explain our losing the fight that comes at us. I've been on both ends of a fight, I'll take winning every time..
I served with a cadre of HERO'S.. Too many to let a bunch of pussyfooted losers discredit them..
renate
(13,776 posts)I think what he's saying is actually brilliant and obviously important, but I also think the point he's making requires a deep look at his words. (And not just the words "rhetorically proximate" --are Fox viewers accustomed to understanding language like that?) It's hard to put his meaning into a nutshell, and if the take-away message for people who don't have the time or inclination to think deeply is "dead soldiers aren't necessarily heroes"--especially from someone who isn't a veteran--well, I just hope he's not surprised by the negative reaction.
Choosing a different day to say this might have been wise. I love Chris Hayes and I hope there's no serious backlash from this.... 
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Why would anyone think that pleasing the Right is so important? I agree with Chris Hayes and even want to go further to the Left than he did. Taking on the glorification of war and believing it's somehow sacrilegious to criticize war on this one day is to buy into the cynical hypocrisy and the manipulation and lying propaganda that gets our youth killed while killing the so-called enemy just because it's the thing governments do. In my view if you're against war then you have an obligation not to fall for the cavalier hype and the imposed obligation to make this day some kind of holy ritual in which the dead soldiers are made into some kind of saints. The fact is they are dead soldiers who were used to further their governments agenda of supremacy over the people of this planet. Chris wasn't denigrating the dead soldiers. He was making a point about war. One I happen to believe is the correct point to make.
What other day should he have chosen?
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)You just can't say it at the wrong time (like on one of the High Holy Days of the High Church of Redemptive Violence when everyone is feeling so good about our violent ways and honoring its greatest practitioners), or about the wrong people, or make obvious points about who pays and who benefits, or, or, or . . .
Now, for your penance, you have to say four Acts of Appreciation to the troops who defend your freedom and who benevolently bestowed your rights (which you really shouldn't use too often) upon you. Go your way and sin no more.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But, it is not worth starting a controversy among people who are naturally offended because of their personal relationships with, status as veterans, or even their personal construct of patriotism.
The concrete emotion that comes with what happens in the actual theater of war can not be fully understood by all parties- particularly non participants. The veterans I have talked with speak of very specific personal feelings and experiences. It is extremely painful for most of them.
Classifying veterans as heroes is a way we have found to help validate participants who have lived through terrible experiences. For some, it comes in spite of what they have lived through. I think that it is worth remembering that someone else was not there involuntarily because of them.
Our objections are worthy of debate, but not in a context that devalues or hurts the people who understand this at an entirely different, very painful level.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...and twerpish.
