Author Archives: trotskyite

Is Batman a Fascist?

Posted on July 26, 2012 | 7 comments

Earlier today, I came across this article over at Kasama and I felt that the subject material was topical enough for me to put the difficult issue of violence in media (which I had promised to write on earlier this week) on the back burner.

Is Batman a Fascist?

It’s not the first time the question has come up regarding superheros- in fact, it’s the idea has been around for a while, but with the popularity of Nolan’s trilogy, the debate has again found itself in the mainstream- or at least, as mainstream as comics get.

Of course you could approach this whole debate with some skepticism- with every major event, there’s always some stylishly iconoclastic deviation, like the argument that the Civil War wasn’t actually about slavery, or the like. The critique of superheroes as being responsible for supervillains (see the “escalation” conversation at the end of Batman Begins) could be argued to be the latest soapbox for contrarians. That said, it can’t be denied that the arguments against Batman have some really solid points (just look at anything on him over at Cracked.com)

Let me break the argument down to it’s basic points:

  • Batman is just an out-of-touch, or straight up disturbed, rich kid who uses his wealth to nurse pathological guilt over his parent’s death. Had he been poor, he probably would’ve wound up being the kind of petty criminal Batman typically takes out.
  • Batman’s very existence creates a cycle of escalation- in response to his extreme vigilantism, extreme criminality is created.
  • Batman acts outside the law, respecting no privacy, due process, or legal rights of any kind. He uses force to try to create a world compliant with his own personal morality.

That’s all pretty hard to argue with, but I’m going to try it anyways. Continue reading →

7 Comments

Posted in comics, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bad Influence

Posted on July 24, 2012 | 4 comments

Last night, I watched Brideshead Revisited, and let me tell you, it is one festering pile of garbage.

Seriously, **** this movie…

Now before anyone launches into a tirade- yes, I am aware that Brideshead was originally a novel and, from what a lot of critics have said, one that was infinitely better than the movie, the later of which reduced all of the author’s points on culture, religion, and relationships to a couple hours of pretty set design and not much else. Simple fact of the matter is Everyone Poops could have been adapted for the big screen and still have been better than this confusing mess.

Michael Bay was going to, but the book was too cerebral for him…

Look- I can’t speak to either the novel or the author. People who have read the book say it was better than the film, and while I have difficulty believing that, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m not hear to address that- I’m here to address the fact that someone at some point did actually think that what they presented in the movie was somehow not only worth watching, but worth paying for.

It aint- in case you haven’t gotten that message yet…

I’m not a fan of British period-pieces; if I wanted to see eloquent people with miserable lives, I’d talk to English majors.

What we have in this movie is a group of extremely rich youngsters lounging about an elegant mansion, downing enough alcohol to make newyears in Vegas look like a Baptist ice-cream social, and whine and wail for over half an hour about how miserable their lives are. Not in any existentialist sense, mind you- these characters aren’t disillusioned with luxury, they’re just frustrated that they can’t have everything that they want when they want it the way they want it. This is essentially Walden without any redeeming qualities- just pasty, entitled brats with delusions of insight, giving trailing speeches about their long “suffering”.

And I’m not bringing this up just because one movie sucked- this seems to be part of a greater problem in our culture. I’ve seen the same kind of problem in the film I Love You, Man.

Back in college, my housemates loved this movie. Suggested it every movie night just to see me shiver with horror and disgust. In case you’re not familiar with the plot line, let me break it down for you:

Peter’s getting married. Peter simply doesn’t have any guy friends outside of his brother (played by Andy Samberg, who was the only good part of the movie), and he one night overhears his fiancee’s vile, harpy collection of friends gossiping that it’s weird Peter’s not going to have a best man at his wedding. Peter, who apparently bases his self-esteem on the idle chatter of obnoxious strangers is filled with self-doubt and embarks on a quest to get himself a male friend- because, you know, what will his future wife’s evil friends think of him if he doesn’t?

If you’re trying to jump through the screen, grab this guy, and slap him across the face while screaming quotes from Nietzsche- don’t worry, that was my first reaction too. How we’re supposed to sympathize with this self-pitying sadsack is beyond me- the guy makes Ted from Scrubs look like Teddy Roosevelt by comparison.

I’m not trying to say that every character in a movie- or even every main character- has to be someone admirable. Just look at American Psycho. I’m not saying that these characters have to be ultimately successful. Just look at Goodfellas or The Godfather trilogy. I’m not saying that the characters have fit a classic/stereotypical form of “manliness” (in the case of male characters, anyways)- just look at Zombieland, Superbad, Napoleon Dynamite, or Scott Pilgrim vs the World.

Between movies like Brideshead Revisited, I Love You, Man, and pretty much every romance movie that ever has or ever will be made, there’s this common attitude of entitlement, self-pity, and melodrama.

Ok, you could kill yourself or- OR– spend some time working at a homeless shelter, petition on behalf of political prisoners, overthrow corrupt dictatorships since you are, y’know, immortal…
Just say’n…

Now I know you must all be saying “But Gordon, you charming devil- what’s the big deal? So what if a section of film is dominated by this lousy message of egocentricity, ignorance, and impotence?”

Let me show what the big deal is.

See this guy here? This is goth shock-rocker Marilyn Manson. If you’re not a fan, chances are you’ve still heard of him- in the days that followed the Columbine Shootings, Manson was argued by many conservative and religious critics as having been responsible for influencing the shooters. And obviously, that’s just a single example- whether it’s true or not, we’re all familiar with the outcry against violence in the media- be it anything from video games (see any GTA game) to music (Wu-Tang Clan aint nothin’ to fornicate with) to movies (just take your pick).

Let’s assume, just for a minute, that this is all true. I’m going to discuss the whole “does-violence-in-media-cause-more-violence?” question later in the week, but for now, let’s just say that the answer is “yes”. If these things have a serious negative effect on the views- especially young viewers- and deserve to be censored or even banned on that logic, surely the same can be said for the equally detrimental attitudes and actions (or lack thereof) found in movies like Brideshead Revisited and the like. What do these things teach us?

I was going to say “Stalking and manipulative relationships are romantic”, but I really didn’t have the stomach to slog through countless Twilight posters looking for Edward crouched in the window- enjoy this picture instead…

Again- the problem isn’t with romance as a concept or a plot device or anything like that. I’m not a sensitive guy in even the loosest use of the word, but despite my callousness, I really don’t have a problem with romance- it’s just that romance, as a genre, tends to produce these awful, reprehensibly selfish attitudes, and at the same time make the actual relationships pretty dumb as well. Though no one is ever going to admit it, couples like House and Cuddy or Scully and Mulder are both more believable, moving, and inspiring at their worst moments than any Romance film couple at their best.

Obligatory “Still a Better Love Story Than Twilight”…

What else can I say? Romance movies, and indeed, all media that promotes this whiny, entitled message seems to be just as harmful- if not more- than the bloodiest action flick or the most violent rap or rock. I’d be just as worried about the effects of such media on young minds as I am about the most car-stealing-liest-prostitute-beating-iest video game ever made. Allow me to leave you with this brilliant tweet from comedian Dave Chapelle to drive my point home.

4 Comments

Posted in film, literature, media, television, video games

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boy Scouts of America Maintains Ban on Gays

Posted on July 17, 2012 | Leave a comment

About a week ago, I had added my name to a petition being sent to a member of the BSA (that’s Boy Scouts of America) Board of Directors, demanding that the organization’s notorious ban on gays be overturned. A few minutes ago, I found this article at BBC World stating that the board had unanimously rejected the petition.

 

See, I’m an Eagle Scout. I worked my up from cub scouts. I’ve been to the camps, memorized the oaths, and folded the flags. I’m proud of the skills I’ve learned. I’m proud of the leadership training I’ve had. I’m proud of the values of civic duty, environmentalism, and honesty I’ve been given. And I am so very deeply ashamed that even now, an organization that’s been synonymous with decency and helpfulness is choosing to maintain a policy of unabashed bigotry.

 

According to the BSA, homosexuals (both men and women) are prohibited from holding leadership positions in the BSA. Despite maintaining a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell”-esque policy, any individual (employee, member, or even volunteer) who is found to be gay is expelled from the Scouts. The reason given for this was that

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,”

-Chief Executive Bob Mazzuca.

Now let’s just run with that. What Mazzuca seems to be asserting here is that the reason for banning gays from the BSA is that a scout’s first introduction to the controversial topic of homosexuality should be with his parents/pastor/etc. Now maybe you could point out that in this culture, the chances that a kid is going to be exposed to the concept of homosexuality before his parents introduce it to him is pretty dang high. Maybe you could point out that it’s really not something you have any actual control of, and that Mazzuca’s reasoning is just an insultingly shoddy veil for the fact that Mazzuca and the rest of the board just don’t want gays in period. But if we live in a world where a kid won’t encounter homosexuality except by introduction of his parents, there’s still a pretty gaping flaw in that already questionable logic.

 

You remember the bit where I was talking about the stuff I did in boy scouts? Where I said I’ve been to the camps, memorized the oaths, and so on? Yeah, I did more than just that. I shot guns. I fished. I learned to set snares. I threw knives and axes. I used bows.

 
In short, I learned how to kill things.

I gotta ask, which is the more traumatic? Learning that my scoutmaster likes other guys, or learning to shoot a deer or gut a fish?

Surely if I can be trusted to tie knots, use knives, and start fires, I can be trusted to learn that homosexuality exists without going insane and re-enacting Rambo: First Blood, right?

I could only find GIFs from Rambo IV, but the principle is the same…

Interestingly enough, I was exposed to homosexuality in Boy Scouts. Despite Mazzuca’s assertion that the BSA takes no part in bringing up sexuality with its members, the scout troop I was with did take it upon themselves to have a showing of A Time to Tell, an informational video on sexual molestation. The film opens with the host asserting that “…It might feel uncomfortable presenting this subject to an 11 to 14 year old male audience for which it is intended, however, it is because of the unique physical and psychological changes young men experience in adolescence that the subject of sexual molestation should be directly addressed.”

 

Huh- so bringing up the extremely dark and painful subject of sexual abuse is both right and necessary, but any discussion of homosexuality should not be touched.

 

But let’s ignore the lousy excuse offered by the BSA board, and look at some other reasoning. One might try to take up the same line of reasoning used in the argument against gays in the military. That close quarters between straight and gay scouts will make for some seriously awkward and uncomfortable dynamics, and essentially prevent the troop from functioning with the kind of camaraderie it’s intended to have. Of course, I could use the whole logic of “people-sexually-attracted-to-each-other-can’t-work-together” to make a case for segregating men and women. The assumption at play is here is the idiotic old myth that gay guys are attracted to all other guys and just can’t help but act on their impulses.

Case and point.

Ok, so gay guys really don’t have any reason from being just as prepared and honorable as their straight counterparts, but what about scoutmasters? Surely gays shouldn’t be in charge of troops of young men!

Here’s where I think the clincher really is. Once upon a time, people didn’t make any distinction between being gay and being a pedophile. Just take a look at this horrific 1950s PSA labeling pedophiles and child molesters as “homosexuals”.

Crazy, right? If you want to see another interesting take on this, there’s an old Law & Order episode that deals with the whole gay/pedophile distinction not existing in the 50s. But of course, that was all more than half a century ago, and while at the time this may have been the reason against allowing gays to take up leadership positions in the BSA, it really can’t be maintained today.

 

I guess what makes it worse is that as a boyscout, I encountered so many other scouts who were foul, lazy, irresponsible- even some who were outright bullies and sexists. I find it tough to stomach that I had to stand alongside some really lousy kids while a boy who truly embodies the oath and scout law is excluded simply because he’s gay.

 

But apparently that’s what the board thinks makes a good scout- not his values, not his actions. Not his honesty, his courage, or his work-ethic. His sexual orientation, to Mazzuca and his cronies, is apparently more important than any of that.

Leave a comment

Posted in America, lgbt, news, sex

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is “Art of Manliness” Sexist?

Posted on July 11, 2012 | 33 comments

Imagine my surprise to log on to Culture War Reporters to jot down my Tuesday post, only to find Elisa having already written something. I can only imagine that her cutting in on my territory means that she’s looking to start a fight so vicious, bloody, and prison-lunch-line-shanking-ly brutal it will make the combined carnage of the fall of Masada and the genocide at Wounded Knee look like a slap-fight between a couple of elderly Mennonites.

But I’m not here to talk about that. I’m here to make good on my promise last week- to investigate and determine whether or not Art of Manliness is sexist.


Of course, before we begin we have to define what “sexism” is. The obvious answer would be discrimination/prejudice against women, but it has got to be more than that. The stereotyping of women (regardless of whether its positive or negative) has also got to be a part of sexism, just as much as it would be a part of racism or any other form of bigotry.

Now at first glance, Art of Manliness really doesn’t touch on the subject of gender relations all that much. For every one of their articles on subjects such as “What to Wear on a First Date“, there are ten articles on how to shine your shoes, shuffle a deck of cards, hitchhike around the US, make maple syrup, and even a world history of shaving. On the whole, the blog is far more invested in trying to break from what it sees as a culture totally lacking in strength, competence, and independence.

But of course, you really can’t devote an entire blog to what makes a man a man without every once in a while stumbling across the subject of women.

For example, take a look at “Women and Children First? Down with the Ship?” or “Womanly Things We Wish Women Still Did“. In both cases, the author simply brings up the subject, allowing the readers to duke it out in the comments section on whether or not the old cry of “Women and children first!” is still right or fair (or if it ever was to begin with).

On the whole, Brett McKay (the principal author) understands that the subject of feminism and feminist issues are still quite controversial, and only more volatile in the venue of his Art of Manliness blog. For the most part, he either allows his readers to debate such questions as “should men hold doors open for women?”, or refers the issue to his wife (and co-author) Kate. Indeed, from everything I’ve read on the blog, it would appear that the single most “edgy” post on gender roles (“What Can Manly Men Expect of Women?”) really doesn’t do anything more than point out (what the author sees) as a double-standard in what men and women can ask of each other. In fact, I’ll stick my neck out there and say that the author makes some solid points on women’s issues and feminism.


When I was in college, my house was once visited by a collection of female students bearing cookies that they had baked for the men of the campus. The self-titled “Domestic Divas” claimed their mission was to call for a return to “Biblical” roles for men and women, and a rejection of “feminism”. My reaction, and the reaction of every sane man and woman on that campus, went sort of like this:


As many pointed out, this well-meaning but idiotic group had ignored the fact that their ability to be at college (or to speak to men without us having spoken to them first) was a direct result of feminism. And while perhaps not as extreme as in the case I just cited, this basic problem seems rather prevalent in our culture- many women seem to take the struggles and hardships of their predecessors for granted. The (few) benefits of 1950s society are looked back on fondly, but the abuse, neglect, and degradation is completely forgotten. I don’t think Brett McKay is sexist for decrying equality in gender roles combined with inequality in social expectations. McKay isn’t stating that its a woman’s place to dress up for a date, but simply that its as an appreciated gesture as flowers or getting the door.

No, I think Art of Manliness is sexist for completely different reasons.

And in the defense of the authors of the blog, I don’t think it’s anything intentional.

My main issue comes down to this. Art of Manliness is a good site. Heck, it’s a great site. The information is useful, the writing is concise and simple. The subject matter is instructive and edifying. Only it’s directed solely at men.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I don’t think both myself and the males of my generation could stand to toughen up a bit…

I just don’t think that the characteristics or skills in the blog are in any way unique to men. Starting fires, shooting guns, shuffling a deck of cards, picking out a good scotch, backing up a trailer, breaking down a door, wrestling alligators (yeah, that’s an article)- these are all things just as useful to women as they are to men. There’s even an article titled “How To Parallel Park… Like a Man!“.


See, I’d imagine that we’d just call that “Parallel Parking”, since driving isn’t exactly exclusive to men or something men are just better at. And I don’t want to hear the whole “Men are evolutionary predisposed to having better spatial judgment” schpeel. First, if it’s correct, it just means men are more likely to have better spatial abilities- it’s not universally true. Second, just because I’m six feet tall doesn’t mean I stand a chance against a five foot NBA star in a basketball match- training trumps negligible physique every time. I’m a man and a relatively new driver- I’d bet that every woman driver in the city I live in can parallel park faster and better than I can.

Case in point…

The real problem with Art of Manliness isn’t so much the content but that the content is labeled as being “for men”. Even the abstract qualities brought up in the blog are good for men and women alike. The post on the virtue of justice uses an illustration in which justice is depicted as a woman, for ****’s sake. Bravery, intelligence, perseverance, leadership, heroism- can you really tell me that these aren’t just as admirable in women as they are in men?

(Just as a final note, I want to thank and recommend Reaction Gifs, from where I frequently borrow my illustrations- it’s a neat site, check it out).

33 Comments

Posted in America, blog news, feminism, internet

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Where’s the Counter-Culture?

Posted on July 3, 2012 | 4 comments

In my last post, I grossly oversimplified a Marxist concept called “Alienation”. Today, I’ll be grossly oversimplifying the Marxist concept of dialectics.

Don’t give me any of that “Hegel said it first!” crap.

Boiled down to its basic components, it functions more or less as Newton’s third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that applies to society as well. Every spirit of the times is accompanied by a little inverted version of itself- or at least, its key values. Now according to dialectics, the conflict between these two opposites ultimately resolves in an evolved combination of the two, but in this post, we’re only addressing the first part.

Or at least, we would be if I could figure out what today’s counterculture is…

Think about it…

Look at the 1950s. For all the white-picket fences; sagely, pipe-smoking fathers; dutiful housewives/mothers, general patriotism and decency, and terror at the prospect of infiltration by degenerate Commies, there were greasers and bikers.

Despite the 1950s conjuring up images of idealized suburbia, this decade was the one that gave birth to rock and Hells Angels. Trafficking and dumping excrement and urine on their initiates doesn’t quite mesh with the general ideals of the time.

The same can be said for the sixties, which produced the hippies and the civil rights movement in the face of an otherwise conservative culture desperately trying to maintain the status quot.

Or the 70s, whose militancy and pessimism were a rejection of the peace, love, and hope values that arose during the previous decade.

Or the wildly egotistically and self-centered 80s producing (or at least, nurturing) anti-establishment and anti-corporate punks culture.

Even the 90s saw rise to goths, opposing the (comparatively) cheery and consumerist zeitgeist of the time.

So why not our era?

The Occupy Movement? I did consider them, but they don’t really fit the profile.

Despite being viciously cracked down on by the powers-that-be, the OWS protestors never really presented anything shockingly antithetical to the values we hold today. At least, not entirely.

Violence is (almost) universally decried as a means of protest and social change by all but those doing it. While America hasn’t seen much of it, continued rioting in Europe could very well mean not so much a brief outburst of rage as a entirely new perspective on what is and isn’t acceptable in society in general.

That’s one way of calling for social change…

Hipsters? I did briefly consider the whole Indy/Hipster movement as a possible subculture, and generally despised, the hordes of lost lumberjacks wandering the streets really don’t stand for anything that mainstream society is opposed to.

You are NOT a lumberjack and this is NOT Ok…

Annoying? Absolutely. Opposed to the spirit of the time? Not really. At most the hipster culture is guilty of desperately trying to cling to childhood nostalgia in the face of creative bankruptcy (see Evan’s post) and espousing thriftiness in the middle of a major economic depression (see my old post).

Bros. Everyone hates ’em, from their obnoxious machismo to their flaming skull t-shirts and spray-on tans.

Problem with this group is that it’s not a new group- just the latest reincarnation of the same kind of people. The same basic mentality can be found clear on back in Shakespeare’sRomeo and Juliet, which essentially starts with a bunch of bros crashing a party to pick up girls.

the 1890s, when “Bros” were called “Chums”…

Ok, so what if we look at what we have in society today and just invert it? What’s the major defining element of our generation? Technology. Internet and smartphones. Social media and memes. Anonymous and scams. The opposite of all this would be the primitivist subculture, right? The people who don’t wash or shave and live in compounds in the middle of nowhere.

And while it makes sense theoretically, we’re just not seeing a vibrant primitivist counterculture or even subculture. Even when you add in the survivalist subculture (in case you don’t know, those are they guys who think the gum’mint out ta git ’em), there’s still not exactly a rising trend in people learning how to skin squirrels or live in total harmony with the earth-mother.

What about these guys?

This site (which I’ll be delving more deeply into next week) really does seem to have an actually beef with contemporary culture- specifically in regards to men. Offering instructions on how to polish your shoes, store your fedora (you’re expected to have one, and if you don’t, to go out and get one), shave (or trim your beard, if that’s your thing), throw a punch, or patch a hole in your drywall (holes may be caused by punching it). In a lot of ways, the reverence this site has for the “traditional” concept of what a man ought to be like is reflective of a more general reaction against skinny jeans and YouTube comment section debates. While the site itself has a devoted cult following (and not a ton else), I have seen this general sentiment expressed, and I’m seeing it expressed more and more. Granted, I might be too close to the issue to be seeing it clearly- I myself think guys wearing skinning jeans should be put in stocks for all the village children to throw dead animals at- but perhaps you’ve run into this too. Just last night I heard a comedian complaining that the current generation were (in short) wimps. Gone, he said, were the days when you could chuck a television set out of a hotel window after some drug-fueled rock band had just given human decency the finger via a seven minute guitar solo. Another comedian remarked that “Our fathers would never take the crap we’re taking… the founders revolted because of a 3% tax increase- we won’t even riot when we’re being forced to strip down at an airport!”.

There is doubtlessly a certain mystique and appeal to the figure of powerful, well-dressed men, sitting around roaring fires, puffing on cigars and sipping aged scotch to celebrate that they were in complete control of their lives. Plenty of guys today would give their right arms to be Don Draper.

Though ideally minus the aggressive lung cancer and liver failure…

And interestingly enough, this general “Manly” reaction against emotionalism, appearance (over functionality), pacifism/nonviolence, and interdependence has elements from each of the cultures I described above. There’s the primitive concept of being free from dependence on technology that bears a similarity to the DIY slogans espoused by the “Manly”. There’s the “if you gotta punch a guy, you gotta punch a guy” mentality that seems related to the Black Bloc protest tactics. The simplicity of the Hipsters is here, and even the general “I am Man, here me roar” vibe seems to be a more sane version of Bro machismo.

But that’s all just a theory. Might be true- might be just a passing fad, though if it is just a fad, then we’re back at square one with a rather uncomfortable question.

If there is no counter-culture- what does that say about our culture today? Have we reached a point where we’re so pluralistic and tolerant and multicultural that everything’s acceptable- or is there just nothing substantial to rebel against? If there’s no antithesis, is there even a thesis?

4 Comments

Posted in America, internet, media, music, news, politics, television

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why We Need Graphic Violence

Posted on June 27, 2012 | 8 comments

Once upon a time, a lion was sent to the king of Sweden. After it died, its skin and bones were sent to a taxidermist so that the animal could be stuffed and preserved- the only problem was that this was the eighteenth century, and the taxidermist had never seen a lion before. His resulting work was this:

With only the most cursory knowledge of what a lion was, the work turned-out something that looks like it was pulled straight from a Looney-Tunes episode.

I’d suggest laughing at that picture for as long as you can- the rest of this post is going to be pretty unpleasant.

Most people’s Facebook news feeds are made up of snippets of conservations between friends, invitations to apps you’ll never use, the occasional rant, and baby pictures. Most people, but not so much me- only I do get to see pictures of babies, but more on that in a minute.

See, I grew up in the Middle East, specifically in Syria. For those of you who don’t keep up with the news (at all), my adopted homeland is currently in the grips of a brutal civil war. One of the ways the rebels and dissidents spread news is through social media- especially Facebook, and having “liked” such pages as “Syrian Days of Rage” and “Syrian Revolution 2011”, my news feed is mostly comprised of grainy YouTube videos of soldiers declaring their defection to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), or pictures of mass protests, or of a solitary Republic flag tied to a streetlight. Or a baby.

I warned you before that things were going to become unpleasant- again, if you’re sensitive, stop reading now.

This picture was of a baby who was killed in Gaza during the short-lived but brutal Gaza war in the early weeks of 2009. It was a bombing that killed the child. It was burned so badly the skin still on it had been turned soot-black, and was tight and shiny. You might mistake it for one of those life-sized baby dolls if two broken femurs hadn’t been sticking out where the legs should have been, or if the flesh around the left arm hadn’t melted off the bone.

It was frozen like that. Eyes closed and head rolled back so that against all reason, it looks like her or she could have been sleeping. The body’s held up by a Red Crescent paramedic, and there are no words in any language that will ever describe the look that’s on his face.

There are more of them. A young man on a hospital bed, the right side of his jaw ripped open and hanging against his neck, smiling as best as he still can and gesturing the peace sign. A man killed in a shelling bombardment, held together with white gauze and bedsheets.  A little boy, dead on the floor, drenched in blood and the right side of his body blown off.

That last one was from earlier today.

Last week, I mentioned how this generation is living in the longest war in American history, three times as long as WWII. I want to underscore this. I’m twenty one, and more than half of my existence has been during a period of uninterrupted conflict. I was eleven years old when the US went to war in Afghanistan, and today I could join up to fight in that exact same war. In a couple years, we’ll have kids going to high school who have never had a day of peace.

But this isn’t about that. I’m not here to rage against war, or take a stand for it. I’m not going to throw up my hands and declare that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Though it wouldn’t too far from the truth…

I’m not going to talk about what war does to us so much as I’m going to discuss what we do to war.

Let’s face it, for many of us, the current wars the US (and other nations) are involved in don’t affect us much. We’re not on rations, or ducking into bomb shelters, or being told that if we don’t carpool the Axis wins.

Not in so many words, anyways…

Whether a village in some valley in central Afghanistan is controlled by American or Taliban forces really doesn’t change our plans for the day. A harsh as it sounds, whether or not people are killed in Afghanistan doesn’t have much bearing on anyone but the families of the deceased, and it’s there that the problem lies.

See, we have had a problem in our society for a long time, but with the advent of the internet and similar technologies, it’s becoming worse and worse. Alienation. If you’ve heard it, it was probably in relation to Karl Marx, talking about the separation of workers from the ability to control their lives.

Because we’re dealing with some rough stuff, here’s a picture of Marx smiling…

In a more general sense, it’s simply it’s the separation of things that should naturally go together. Profit shouldn’t be separated from work, and work shouldn’t be separated from profit. Merit shouldn’t be separated from recognition, and recognition shouldn’t be separated from merit. Above all else, actions shouldn’t be separated from consequences- only that’s exactly what we have today.

Most of us are more than willing to wolf down a juicy hamburger, but how many of us would be willing to watch the cow be killed, let alone kill it ourselves? How many of us who wear shirts and shoes made in sweatshops would be willing to stand in the sweatshop hurling profanities and threats at the twelve year-olds hunched over the machinery? How many of us enjoy the advances of the civil rights movement would, back in the 60s and 70s, face off police dogs, hoses, and fire-bombs?

See, we’re a nation that enjoys the hard work of other people. We’re a nation that doesn’t like getting its hands dirty. We’re a nation that has no problem sending kids off to fight, kill, and die on some windswept ridge in Afghanistan because we don’t have anything to do with them afterwards. War is cheap for us. The men and women of our armed forces are expendable to us. Again, I’m not trying to condemn or vindicate the wars we’re in, but what I am saying is that we can’t make reasonable decisions about war until we’re actually confronted with the ugly, bloody, gritty consequences of it. We need pictures of the dead. We need them shoved in our faces on a daily basis. We shouldn’t be able to turn on the news without seeing rubble, the smoke, the wounded, or the dying in graphic detail. For all the outcry against violence in our media, the truth of the matter isn’t that the problem is with violence, but with violence that has been tailored to give us satisfaction and strip away all meaning to it. War, for good or ill, is all for nothing unless we actually understand it. Can we honestly say that we’re acting in the same way now we would be if we actually had to witness the consequences of our actions?

Until then, we’re just the same Swedish taxidermist, making ridiculous travesties out of things we don’t understand. We need graphic violence.

8 Comments

Posted in America, news, politics, television, video games

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,