House of Eratosthenes

“From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

Two pieces of ignorance bundled up into one sound bite. They’re both much, much bigger than being-a-good-liberal, and bigger than Hollywood.

Some of the left-wing service members I’ve met — they seem to huddle up together — offer a really disturbing viewpoint of their service. They held their boss at the time, George W. Bush, in contempt for sending them and their comrades-in-arms into a war. Fine and good, but they didn’t deny Hussein was a dangerous character; their argument was “If we’re going to go after him, then why not go to this other hot spot in the world, or there, or there, or there.” It wasn’t the Powell argument about having an exit strategy. There was no specific demand of what conditions should be fulfilled before the military should be sent someplace. It was more of a dislike that the call had been made — at all, ever.

M-u-u-u-c-h discussion of educational benefits involved in enlisting. Lots of recalcitrance with regard to what kind service might be asked of them. It’s as if, their expectation was that there should be some kind of vote — as if the military is not a dictatorship. Or worse, yet, that somehow anything with violence involved should be left off the table. As if the whole point to having a military is to provide free tuition to people who sign a form.

The other canard is straight out of (Berman) Star Trek. Contests of force take place because of, and only because of, misunderstandings. People who want to promote this should really stay away from World War II. We had two primary opponents in that greatest of all wars; one was a country filled with brown people, the other was a nation of Aryans. We fought them with equal ferocity.

I’m not sure which of these two is more dangerous. The first one offends me greatly because it shows an unwillingness, or inability, to recognize heroes. Everyone’s-a-victim. And it’s a sick, terrible, contagious problem because so many people are under this spell and don’t realize it. They introduce you to a friend of theirs, and within the first few minutes of getting acquainted there are no, or few, strengths. Everybody knows everybody else by their weaknesses. Carpal tunnel. ADHD. Dyslexia. Even if the guy is in business selling something, like insurance policies maybe…it isn’t that he has something that will help you out — he needs you to buy it, which is quite a different thing.

So the finest-of-the-finest among our young, are just a bunch of walking dead riding in a boxcar with all kinds of mental health issues. Hey, glad to hear it Tom.

Cassy has a wonderful answer for your question, by the way.

How can they cope with that?? They can cope with that because they’re good men, they’re good soldiers. They cope with it because most of them are coming home to their families, to their homes. They’re happy, believe it or not. And they believe in their mission.

As to the second…good gracious. Obviously, this has a blinding effect. Tom Hanks, I’m sure, must be plenty smart enough to figure out if he goes the “we wanted to annihilate them because they’re brown and don’t have round eyes” route, someone might mention Pearl Harbor. A fifth-grader, not daydreaming, should be able to anticipate that. But Tom Hanks evidently cannot.

It is a mindset that proves itself manifestly unhelpful anytime there is someone who wants to kill somebody else. Which is a good deal of the time, actually.

Funny thing about these imbeciles is, any time the subject turns to something else, you haven’t long to wait before they’re taking up that other tired monologue: Nation of immigrants, white people not breeding, “they” are going to be a minority by 2050, America is not a Christian nation.

Okee dokee, then. If we’re a mixed nation just chock full of people of all colors, then we’re not a bigoted nation…or, at the very least, it becomes impossible to assert we have some “hair trigger” that goes off anytime we see someone with dark skin. That would be like two rabid wild dogs tied up in a bag together wouldn’t it?

No, the fact is that sometimes fighting is necessary because someone — of a non-determinant, irrelevant skin color — is trying to kill you. And a strong defense is what responsibility and racial equality happen to be.

I respect that some people just can’t get that because they don’t want to get that. Fine, then. Stay home and watch Star Trek when the rest of us go out to vote. Maybe you can watch Mr. Hanks’ “overhaul” of history. Living in a fantasy world is one thing, forcing others to live in it is a different thing entirely. And some of these decisions we have to make about what’s going on, have something to do with those whatever-colored people who are trying to kill us…and you…and your family…and all kinds of other nice folks who also have all kinds of colors to their skins. If that’s just too much for you to think about, then so be it. Don’t be part of the process. Leave it to people who can handle it, and form some coherent thoughts about it.

Okay, let’s break this down:

“From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us?

Hasn’t re-integration of combat veterans into society always been an issue, especially with regard to those suffering from what’s now called PTSD? This problem was especially acute in the wake of the Vietnam War – one day you’re in the jungle getting shot at, rockets and mortars coming in at night….48 hours later, you’re walking down Main Street in Anytown, USA. It’s not an easy adjustment.

Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different.

Both of the major Axis powers were extremely nationalistic and xenophobic. Both used elements of racial superiority (yes, the Japs too) to rally their countrymen to the cause of regional (and eventually, worldwide) domination. Both looked down on other peoples as inferior in one way or another, and it showed in the brutality with which both armies treated the civilians of the countries they occupied.

But it’s a HUGE mistake to drag religion into it. Two major Christian countries – the US and the UK – allied themselves with an atheist one – the USSR – and joined in combat against a second atheist-led country (Nazi Germany) and its ally, a Buddist/emperor-worshipping one. World War II alone puts the lie to the modern bit of boilerplate that “all wars are about religion.” Hogwash, and a historian has to go all the way back to the Middle Ages to find a clear example of one that actually was. You cannot even say that about the War on Terror – a multi-faith’ed armed force has entered combat not against Muslims, but really on behalf of them…against extremists of their own faith.

We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?

Not really, Tom…unless you mean it sounds familiar in that in both cases the United States and her allies were on the receiving end of an unprovoked, dastardly attack by foreign powers – whose ultimate aim was to erase Western Civilization from the face of the Earth.

We don’t give a rip about the enemy being “different,” either during WWII or today. We want to annihilate them (well, the reasonable ones among us do) because they seem bent on destroying us. I really don’t care what the likes of the Taliban say about my country in some mosque, or what color they are or what god they pray to. When I get involved is when I find out they’re planning to kill me, my family, and my fellow citizens. THAT’S what makes me call for their destruction.
- cylarz | 03/13/2010 @ 19:48
I’m fairly certain that Hanks’ understanding of the Pacific War begins at Pearl Harbor and ends with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I doubt that he knows much about the practices of the Japanese army in China, or their treatment of POWs and captured civilians. I’m certain he knows nothing of Unit 731, which was developing biological warfare agents and testing them on the Chinese.

I would bet that he doesn’t know that the ferocity of the Pacific fighting was in direct response to the Japanese aversion to capture, or the propensity of Japanese wounded to attack soldiers from behind. I would also doubt that he knows of the complicity of the Japanese army in the mass suicide of civilians on Saipan, which horrified the Marines who witnessed it.

The Empire of Japan got what it deserved in WWII.
- chunt31854 | 03/14/2010 @ 13:01

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“We Wanted to Annihilate Them Because They Were Different”Saturday, March 13th, 2010

“We Wanted to Annihilate Them Because They Were Different”
Saturday, March 13th, 2010