berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (09/09/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR INVECTIVE *** -------------------------------------------------------- >What you say is true of many people on the left side of the >political spectrum. For example, a few months ago "The Nation" printed >an article by someone (I think the name was Manning) that suggested >that maybe the Sandinistas might not be entirely the Good Guys so many >people on the left want to think they are. The screams of outrage at >this suggestion have to be read to be believed. And we all remember >the naive elevation of the Viet Cong to a position of untouchable moral >correctness during the Viet Nam sadness. > > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly --------------------------------------------------------- Bill brings up a good issue, worthy of discussion, because it touches many concerned people deeply. Unfortunately, the net is probably not the place to have any serious discussion on it. Net.politics has really degerated into a CB-radio-type claptrap. Nonetheless, a brief comment, sure to elicit righteous outrage in some quarters: I don't think the issue is as simple as Bill implies. If you accept the premise that current US Foreign Policy with regard to Nicaragua is nothing short of criminal, and that we as taxpayers and voters share significant responsibility for those crimes, then I think that criticism by us of the shortcomings of the Sandinistas should be done with utmost care and reflection. Criticism of the victim of the agression of our own government ought to be done from a context of understanding the impact of that criticism. For example, the Sandinistas have a less than honorable record with regard to sensitivity to the Miskito population, particularly during the 1979-1982 period. The Reagan Administration has used this issue as justification for its war against the Nicaraguan people. How do concerned and caring people address the issue? Very carefully, I suggest, and with a constant thought putting the shortcomings of the Sandinistas into the perspection of the far more despicable actions of the Reagan administration. This does not mean silence or ignoring those shortcomings. It means keeping a perspective on their context and on our fundemental responsibility as Americans to get our government off the back of the people of Central America. There is no easy answer for this type of question. I agree with Bill that many mistakes have be made by people with dogmatic approaches. With reagrd to the Vietnam anti-war movement: Yes, some (relatively few really) anti-war activists during Vietnam dogmatically glorified the Vietnamese. It was stupid, infantile and to some extent held back the anti-war movement. But put this in perspective! Johnson and Nixon are unleashing the greatest air war in history against an underdeveloped Asian nation. The streets of our inner-cities are reeling with the fire of rebellion of our minorities. The National Guard murders students on campuses. Some anti-war activists adopt dogmatic politics. Put the shortcomings in perspective! Criticize the anti-war movement when it deserves it, but do it from the perspective of recognizing that the movements against our government's wars in Indochina and Central America fundementally represent the best interests of the American people. Criticize the Sandinistas when they deserve it, but do it from the perspective of trying to get our government off the back of Nicaragua! Andy Berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman