Comments on: I’ll take a good atrocity over slavery any day

By: johndoraemi

johndoraemi — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:25:32 +0000

Since Nuremberg, the “leaders” who wage aggressive war have been responsible for all the atrocities committed in the conflicts.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

War has known consequences. That’s why it is illegal.

“While I am sure our government has lost its way on issues like Gitmo, most often the immoral acts are the result of individual or small unit actions taken under extraordinary circumstances that few others can comprehend.”

The entire war enterprise is immoral. Those who lied their way into starting this war should be incarcerated and face war crimes charges. Period. The double standard that the “superpower” can bomb with impunity is not so hard to see by the rest of the world. The “leaders” commit war crimes that they punish other leaders for committing, the same offences, and oftentimes much, much worse. At least 1.2 million Iraqi civilians have been killed since 2003, and the total since 1990 is something near 3 million. These are Crimes Against Humanity, and the US State Department would be calling them that IF some other nation had perpetrated them.

By: NoOneYouKnow

NoOneYouKnow — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:55:10 +0000

I disagree with Bob. Lincoln’s statement wasn’t a high water mark of mid-19th century progressivism (aka humanity). There were plenty of people, famous and not, who were as progressive in their thinking then as we are now, and it ill serves history to forget them. I’ve never been sure how much of Lincoln’s racism was genuine and how much was his trying to cover the political distance between himself and the white-supremacist Democrats of the time and possibly head off civil war. However, Bob thinks too poorly of them and too well of us.
I believe the mentality that allowed slavery in that era is the same as that has allowed war crimes, genocide and labor abuses in ours: laziness, greed, cruelty, selfishness, and willful ignorance. Slavery and its aftermath affects our nation still because it was never atoned for. Slavery was a monstrous wrong, and the U.S., especially the South, has never faced that; slavery and Jim Crow were maintained because they made life easier and richer for so many, especially those in power.
In the same way, the U.S. tolerates war crimes and massacres and virtual slave labor in sweatshops and migrant fields because not to do so might inconvenience us; it might cost us money, cause us to work harder, not allow us to bring home one more pair of Nikes.
Germans rationalized their participation in the system that made the Holocaust for the same reasons; it was easier than fighting it and they could probably escape blame.
If we’re not actively fighting the wrongs of our time to the best of our ability, then we are complicit in them, and I don’t exclude myself. People have always been able to tell right from wrong; it’s the doing something about it that’s the challenge.
BTW, to say that our modern massacres and war crimes are the result of small unit actions and battlefield stress is naive at best. DU munitions, the reliance on air attack rather than more discriminate ground forces, the turning of cities into free-fire zones, the infliction of embargoes that kill millions of children are decisions made at the top. Typically, it’s only the rank and file trigger pullers, the “bad apples”, who get the blame and punishment. Because to punish the powerful in our culture is too “difficult” for most of us.

By: jeff watson

jeff watson — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:58:02 +0000

Russ,

One of your best articles, ever.

Jeff

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:06:43 +0000

I believe it is unfair to compare institutional slavery to the plight of those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although I believe time and distance have insulated us from the true impact each has on our moral compass.

I think the statement about a culture acquiescing to the existence of slavery is right on the money. I cannot imagine living in that time, but had I lived then, I would not be the same man I am now, as I would have been a product of that culture.

For instance, the great emancipator himself didn’t think of blacks as equals at all, yet Abe Lincoln is regarded as a pillar of civil rights. This doesn’t detract from the courage he showed or the correctness of his decisions, but it really underscores the prevailing attitude of the day. Read the following quote and remember- this was as progressive as it got back then.

From the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate: “I am not, or have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races….of making voters or jurors of Negroes, not of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living on terms of social or political equality”

(Taken from the book 1858 by Bruce Chadwick: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/1858/Bruce-Chadwick/e/9781402209413)

Atrocities committed in a theater of war are horrible. While I am sure our government has lost its way on issues like Gitmo, most often the immoral acts are the result of individual or small unit actions taken under extraordinary circumstances that few others can comprehend. Attempting to raise these atrocities to the same level as slavery only diminishes slavery’s horror.

By: johndoraemi

johndoraemi — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:00:20 +0000

“But acquiescing to slavery required cultures to exist in a trance state for hundreds of years.”

“While slavery, though still extant, has become abhorrent to us, most of us turn a blind eye to massacres, which, for a while, were a way of life in Iraq.”

I would argue that the alleged “hysteria” is wrong. It is more the “trance state” accounting for atrocity, but even that is hunting for exculpatory arguments to alleviate the guilt that populations are complicit, responsible and morally corrupt.

Like slavery, atrocity has co-existed during that same time period. The “savages” even made it into the Declaration of Independence. They were exterminated with glee by the “heroes” who founded the nation on the corpses of millions of natives.

Very little has changed, except that the propaganda and the technology have become more sophisticated. The morality is hovering around the same place. As the “savages” had to be saved, educated, dealt with by any means necessary, today the “terrorists” and those who “harbor them” have the same place in the script.

Who’s a “terrorist?”

Anyone the government says is one.

Who “harbors” them?

Anyone the government points a finger at.

Very little has changed, as the masses are in no way calling for an end to this bogus “war on terrorism.” They don’t care to investigate the reality, and they don’t care if little brown foreigners half a world away are bombed like roaches.

That’s my take on it, anyway. I wouldn’t mind being proved wrong.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/