My, How Far We've Come...

Taking a look at current American values and priorities is a truly eye-opening experience, when so done in the context of American history. With regards to the war in Iraq, it would seem that something, be it geographic distance or time, has seriously altered, not only our priorities as a nation, but our definition of important concepts like freedom, patriotism, and self-determination. Let's take a look at some of these, with reference to past and current statements and definitions.


Freedom


It is interesting to note that our forefathers saw freedom as just cause for armed rebellion, and the context in which they did so. They were not facing genocide, nor even mass imprisonments and excecutions...what they were facing was merely restrictions on their ability to practice self-determination, and excercise rights they felt were due to them as human beings, and as Americans in their own land. And, this is important, they did this at risk to their lives. In other words, mortal peril took second place to restriction of liberty. Now, remember that was the basis for our creation as a nation...take note of quotations like Henry's immortal words


GIve me liberty, or give me death!


ANd juxtapose that with the equally notable and teling words of one of our own war supporters when discussing whether or not the Iraqis should have the right to have whatever type of government they want, and which reflects their culture, in their own country:

"WHy should we have expended all of those lives and treasure to get a another Iraqi govt. that hates our guts? An Islamic govt. would not be a democratic one and we are going to have to teach the Iraqi people what true freedom really means. If they want that, they need to be re-educated on what true freedom means. And as for me believing in freedom, I also believe that all of our casulties were not so the Iraqis could put in a ignorant theocracy in charge there."

Now, this is interesting. Let us reflect a moment on the British perspective at the time of the Revolution. They had just expended lives and monies on a war abroad to save the British colonialists from takeover at the hands of the French, and as such felt entitled to dictate to us the terms of our reciprocation, as it was tot ake the form of repayment of debts incurred, and fairly limited say in the form of our own political representation. Sounds damned familiar, doeasn't it? But did this make their position the noble one? Were we the ingrates they termed us when we responded, not with appreciation, but a call for greater self-determination, citing that their war in our land had also benefited them, economically and strategically? Again, familiar, no?

And before people get all up in arms of the obvious virtues if American democracy from which the British were selfishly depriving us, it is important to note that that was, in no way, what the British believed was the case. As the U.S. does now with Democracy, the British at the time represented what they believed to be the greatest political format on the planet, and their Empire was, they felt, just evidence of same. When Americans rebelled against that system, Brits of the time believed that they were imperilling themselves, and expected that any American success would inevitably result in either political anarchy/chaos, or takeover from another established power, most likely the French.

Remember, too, that there was nothing in history to suggest that the American Revolution would succeed, and even less that the American experiment with democracy would achieve anything but disaster. As such, as many Americans do now with the idea of an Islamic government in an Islamic nation, the British of the time thought that they were fighting to better the lot of the rebeles who, out of ignorance and naivety, sought their own destruction or takeover at the hands of the Papist ( and therefore, in British eyes, oppressive) French or Spanish.


That this is true, and that this was, from a British perspective, the only realistic view to take on the Revolution is not disputed, and yet it has in no way removed from same the condemnation of history as arrogant, jingoistic, and Imperialist. Examine the parallels with the current circumstance in Iraq, and the implications about how far our definition of liberty has changed, as has our view of the rights of super-powers over lesser peoples in their own land. We have fought a war for Iraq, yes. The Britis had fought a war for the American colonies. We have spent a great deal on that war, as had the British. Why do we dismiss the British view that such expense and action earned them the right to tell us how to live, while at the same time take the exact same position with regards to Iraq?

But more importantly, how far has our definition of freedom altered? In 1776, life and peril took second place to liberty and self-determination. As a further reflection of Henry's strirring words we also often quote the later words: " I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees." The obvious point of both of these qutations, which we have long linked with our definition of human liberty, is that nothing, not even life itself takes precedent of a people to determine their own fate. And yet, as we suggest several times a week, the fact that US troops removed the ever present threat to the lives of Iraqis has, it is suggested, given the US the moral right to ignore and indeed overrride the desires of the Iraqi people regarding their own self-determination.

How does that work? Where did it go from " Give me liberty or gove me death!" to " If we save your lives, we can then tell you what to do with the freedom we have given you!" The former made a distinction betwen life and freedom, the latter equates them to such an extent that if and where they differ, life takes precedence over Liberty. Is that only the case when it is other people? Or ar we, as the British were, so arrogant about the superiority of our own way of life that we equate Our Way with The Right Way, and in so doing alow ourselves the right to ignore what we hold to be true about human freedom of others in order to give them the omni-important benefit of Our Way, and assume that Liberty will understand?


Patriotism


Another interesting shift in definitions evident in the pages of this site itself is that of patriotism, or the duty of a citizen to his/her country. Thomas Jefferson said:

" It is the duty of every citizen in a responsible state to challenge the authority of the government."

He went further, and said that citizens were shirking their responsibility of they did not do so, and gave monarchial power to their leaders by virtue of not questioning their actions/decisions. Note, he was not saying it was our right, or our privilege, but our duty.

Contrast this with another quote from one of our resident war supporters regarding this war:

"We are winning! We will triumph! To say otherwise is ridiculous and is simply aid and comfort to the enemy."

So what was once patritiotism, challenging authority to preserve the liberty of the people, is now treason? My, how far we have come...Remember, too, that Jefferson gave little thought to the reparations of Loyalists after the Revolution because he said they had neglegted their dutiy as humans and Americans, and instead taken the easy path of doing what the authority said...and as such, he reiterated the ideal that Americans have an active responsibility to their nation, not a passive one, and that merely supporting what the Authority said was not only not patriotism, but when it concerened serious issues, could in fact be treason in and oif itself. And yet now we have bama saying:

"WWII took YEARS to win! If we had the great group of candy ass people like we have that whine and complain here about how the war is being lost and was a great lie and how we are just destroying the world for no great reason, we would've lost that war. "

...and an interesting question to ask might be, what if people had taken the definition of patriotism currently in voogue among war supporters ( ir. challenging the decisions of the government= treason) at the time of the Revolution. Indeed, would there have been a Revolution at all?

And, obviously, another historical note worth making for some, when dealing with WWII v Iraq, was that in the former the war was forced upon us, very much against our will, whereas we forced this war upon others. As such, obviously, the degree to which the people should question the actions of the government would seem to be obviously higher. But I am getting off topic...



Self-Determination


When speaking to the French, Jefferson said that " there are as many definitions of liberty as there are directions of the wind, but that the authority bestowed upon a people to rule their own land is unquestioned by all who recognize freedom for what it is."

The implication being that, while we, as humans, have inalienable rights, the form those rights take in practice, and the system with which they are ensured is subject only to the will of it's people. Rememeber, too, that at the time of his speaking, and at the time of the Revolution itself, the British considered themselves the people most free on earth. A common saying was that, if you sit down to talk with a British man over a drink beofre a fire, the conversation would inevitably turn to the favorite subject of a British man, and his source of greatest pride; freedom.

That a Brit considered himself free did not, in practice, restrict the rights of other interpretations of freedom from being expressed or, as in America, enacted. And as Jefferson said,arguments over the 'right' form Liberty takes in government is as likely to arrive at correct and universally applicalbe answers as is a house built on sand to stand for long...In fact, examine the form "Freedom" originally took in US political practice, which we deemed to be correct, and the alterations to same over time itself shows how, even within one nation and culture the form needs flexibility. But to assume that whatever form we currently have now is so beyond reproach that we can, without reservation, enforce it on others in their land, for their culture, and contrary to their desires seems to me to not only contradict common sense, but our original definition of self-determination as stated by Jefferson.

The basis for the Revolution was not that ours was the one and only way to practice Freedom...as the Brits themselves considered themselves free...but that our right to determine for ourselves the form our Freedoms would take, and ensure for ourselves that our freedoms would be upheld, as the system which the British felt worked for them did not work for us in our land. Enforcing self-determination on others, and defining for them the form that self-determination will take whether or not they like it is oxymoronoc, and a living version of that joke " When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."


As such, here's an example of that kind of attitude in action. When MC Mark, reflecting Jefferson's principle of a people's right to their own self-determination, asked bama this:

"But if it's a democratically consented constitution by the Iraqi people shouldn't we accept it even if the US doesn’t agree with it? "

bama responds " Not if it leads to an Islamic state. In that case, we can not allow it."

and later adds " But an Islamic state is not free at all. Guess we have to save these ignorants from themselves."


Once again, the pro-war argument, as represented by Bama, would seem to accurately reflect the arrogance and assumption of possession of right that the British held at the time of the American Revolution.' We are right, that is a given. If you want proof, look at how powerful we are. Anyone who opposes us is ignorant, and wrong. '


We fought against that kind of attitude when we were the lesser nation opposing the arrogant superpower...now that we are the superpower, it would seem that we feel the right to adopt the positions and self-interested definitions of concepts like freedom and patriotism which we once held to be unworthy. My, how far we have come.

 

That is your response? Not one single issue I raised addressed, nothing offered as a rebuttle other than ' I say you're wrong.' You say "Our values have not changed. ", but offer nothing, not one single thing to support that statement, let alone refute the examples I gave to the contrary...and then you, yet again, go on one of your by now boringly predictable " I'm glad you weren't around when we were fighting in WWII!" ad hominems...and try and refute claims I never even made...I said nothing about this war being too long, yet you yammer on for an entire paragraph about that, and never spend one snetence responding to any of the several points I did make. You call me a liberal, while obviously knowing nothing much about my actual political leanings. You say I am being gleefull about our failures, and yet where did I even raise our failures, let alone express glee? This is a seriously, seriously weak response.

To respond in a manner that perhaos you'll actually grasp, as evidently substantiated debate isn't your cup o' Joe, allow me to point out that of the 5 uncles I have who did fight in WWII ( 3 in D-Day alone), 2 are still alive, and when I recently asked them about this war, both of them said that the difference between WWII as opposed to Nam or this war was that in WWII, to quote of the them," We knew what we were fighting for." He said that, while on the beach, etc., things like that don't make a difference, they do over the long haul, and neither one of them siad they would have signed up to go fight in Iraq. Apparently you wouldn't have wanted the likes of them fighting for us back in WWII either, but wait...they did. Did we lose the war?


Some people, bama, are capable of seeing beyond the similarity of guns and bombs to the differences of causes and motivations.

 

Just call me Sysephus. No, really...I want to be called Sysephus, damnit!

But seriously, I acknowledge your point, and have not much hope of making an impact on the likes of bama. I just used him as an example, and then my ever-ready willingness to debate kicks in...