orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/07/85)
While Don Black's very extreme view of "White Anglo Saxon Protestant America First" is held by only a handful of Americans, unfortunately views of "America First in Violence and Militarism" are widely disseminated by the media. Thus Mr. Black's comment: > > This rash of bombings, arson, and murders has apparently been > precipitated by the movie "The Execution," a story about a group of vigilante > Jews who take the law into their own hands and kill an alleged Nazi. This > movie was filmed in part at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The > center also provided "technical assistance." > > Rest assured that if the Klan had made such a movie, any theater showing > it would be picketed and/or firebombed. ....... > --Don Black Is quite ironic given the rash of movies, "Missing in Action", "Rambo", "Red Dawn", "Invasion USA" and other movies promoting the same sort of "America First" violence and paranoia promoted by Don Black and his colleagues. To my knowledge none of these films has been picketed although I have felt the urge to do so. These movies attempt to make war and violence glorious and heroic in contradiction to the likely extinction of the human race which could occur by continuing to support the institution of War. Moreover such movies as "Missing in Action" and "Rambo" promote several right-wing myths about Vietnam: 1)we could have "won" in Vietnam if only enough force had been applied. Incredibly enough Richard Nixon, who continued the War to the bitter end, has recently written a book blaming Congress and the lack of force for "losing" the Vietnam War when that same Congress provided funds for Nixon to drop more bombs on tiny Vietnam than were dropped in all of World War II. This of course assumes that: 2)we *should* have won in Vietnam, notwithstanding the fact that the War began as a struggle by the Vietnamese themselves to gain their independence from French colonialism. Rather than saying we "lost" Vietnam it might be more accurate to say that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam in the same way that we won our independence from British colonialism 200 years ago. And 3)that there were significant numbers of Americans still "missing in action" held in Vietnamese prisons for spite rather than simply missing. There were far more Americans listed as missing in action after both the Korean War and World War II, yet nobody claimed this as an excuse for vengeance or as anything more than one of the unfortunate consequences of War. Pilots whose planes are downed over the jungle, and others will always be "missing in action" when their dead bodies are rotting away deep in the jungle. Given the difficulty the right-wing had in justifying the Vietnam War they have manufactured the bogus issue of "missing in action" to justify their spirit of revenge towards Vietnam for being the first country to defeat American militarism. What I find scarey about the chauvinism promoted by this rash of glorifications of War is that it seems similar to the sort of false pride in a country's military strength promoted by Hitler to salve German humiliation after losing WW I. We cannot afford this sort of chauvinism and militarism in the nuclear age. The next World War will be the last....... tim sevener whuxn!orb
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (10/09/85)
> began as a struggle by the Vietnamese themselves to gain their independence > from French colonialism. Rather than saying we "lost" Vietnam it might > be more accurate to say that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam in the > same way that we won our independence from British colonialism 200 years > ago. I suggest you talk to some of the Vietnamese who have escaped from Vietnam since the fall of Saigon. The ones I have talked to would disagree with your statement that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam. It is possible these refugees were unable to adapt to the new egalitarian regime and those remaining are better off, but that is a matter of opinion and of ability to interpret history.
awinterb@udenva.UUCP (Art Winterbauer) (10/15/85)
In article <391@ssc-bee.UUCP> bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) writes: >> began as a struggle by the Vietnamese themselves to gain their independence >> from French colonialism. Rather than saying we "lost" Vietnam it might >> be more accurate to say that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam in the >> same way that we won our independence from British colonialism 200 years >> ago. > >I suggest you talk to some of the Vietnamese who have escaped from >Vietnam since the fall of Saigon. The ones I have talked to would >disagree with your statement that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam. >It is possible these refugees were unable to adapt to the new >egalitarian regime and those remaining are better off, but that is a >matter of opinion and of ability to interpret history. As a matter of fact, I wonder what happened to the Tories sympathetic to the British cause during the American revolution. What happened to them after the war? Did they become boat people too? If questioned, did they paint a rather grim picture of the United States? Any historians out there? I vaguely recall reading that they were made to feel uncomfortable.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/18/85)
In article <905@udenva.UUCP> awinterb@udenva.UUCP (Art Winterbauer) writes: >In article <391@ssc-bee.UUCP> bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) writes: >>> began as a struggle by the Vietnamese themselves to gain their independence >>> from French colonialism. Rather than saying we "lost" Vietnam it might >>> be more accurate to say that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam in the >>> same way that we won our independence from British colonialism 200 years >>> ago. >> >>I suggest you talk to some of the Vietnamese who have escaped from >>Vietnam since the fall of Saigon. The ones I have talked to would >>disagree with your statement that the Vietnamese people won Vietnam. >>It is possible these refugees were unable to adapt to the new >>egalitarian regime and those remaining are better off, but that is a >>matter of opinion and of ability to interpret history. > >As a matter of fact, I wonder what happened to the Tories sympathetic >to the British cause during the American revolution. What happened to >them after the war? Did they become boat people too? If questioned, >did they paint a rather grim picture of the United States? Any historians >out there? I vaguely recall reading that they were made to feel uncomfortable. They did, in fact, become Boat People -- at the time, they were called the United Empire Loyalists, and they settled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia -- and in those provinces then called Upper and Lower Canada. In fact, in Upper Canada a group settled on Lake Ontario at a place called Hogtown. Lord Simcoe later built a fort there (Ft. York) and in due time the place was renamed Toronto. -- Rick.