Previous posts in this discussion:
Poston Hate (Robert Whealey, USA, 02/28/12 5:41 am)
The word "hate" should never be used in public discussion by any politician or journalist. It is a word used emotionally by 18 year-olds who do not know how the world works. Orwell's "hate week" in 1984 was a satire on Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin. Orwell had little use for the British and American press, which every week told the world how much they all hated "communism," or "fascism," even though few American politicians ever read 20 pages of Karl Marx.
My few students who denounced "fascism" knew much more about Hitler. I had perhaps 10% of the students who could attempt to explain some of Hitler's deeds, but none ever voiced a kind word for Stalin. In a 300-level class, it was difficult for even History majors to read an essay written by Lenin and understand what he was trying to write in 1917.
Hitler arrested millions of nameless Jewish people later killed by the SS machine, but apparently Hitler did not hate the Jewish doctor who treated his mother in Austria. The art Hitler produced in Vienna was sold to a Jewish art dealer. Adolf Eichmann did not hate the nameless Jews he arrested. They were merely numbers on a passport. Hence the Banality of Evil. Eichmann was evil because of his war crimes which had to be proven in a public trial, but his motivations in 1938-1941 were banal.
The American pilots who bombed Hanoi 1965-1973 did not hate Ho Chi Minh. They were just carrying out orders.
In 1983, I attended a history seminar in West Berlin. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany gave a talk in which he said, no West German "hates Americans." A minority of West Germans hate what the US government sometimes did in Vietnam or in the State of Alabama. I make no comments about Iran or Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich. I do not speak Farsi and I have never met either Soraya or Joe Listo. I agree with JE, "hate" should be dropped from the conversation. I shall add as an afterthought. If President Obama bombs Iran before the US election will probably lose.
JE comments: I don't recall saying that "hate" should be dropped from our conversations, merely that we shouldn't practice it.
Shall we further discuss Robert Whealey's last point? News reports this AM inform us that Israel has reserved the right to attack Iran's nuclear facilities with no prior notice to the US. Putting aside humanitarian, economic and strategic issues for the time being (though we should return to them), isn't this an overt Israeli nose-thumbing of Pres. Obama?
on Hate; Israeli Attitudes towards US
(Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, USA
02/28/12 2:23 PM)
JE commented on Robert Whealey's post of February 28: "News reports this
AM inform us that Israel has reserved the right to attack Iran's nuclear
facilities with no prior notice to the US. Putting aside humanitarian,
economic and strategic issues for the time being (though we should return to
them), isn't this an overt Israeli nose-thumbing of Pres. Obama?"
This has been the Israeli attitude towards every US president since 1947.
Nothing makes this more clear than a book entitled The Passionate
Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present (1992)
by George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball. They claim that three presidents at
least attempted to resist (Eisenhower, Carter, Bush Senior), but they
ultimately caved in. Incidentally, as some may know, the senior author of
the book, George W. Ball, a former diplomat, was Undersecretary of State
(Economic and Agricultural Affairs) in two US administrations, as well as US
Ambassador to the United Nations in '68. Hardly someone whose words can be
dismissed or be called anti-American. They are not the only American
statesmen who speak of this relationship in those terms.
Things are worse today than they were in 1992.
At the risk of sounding "anti-American" and raising the ire of some in the
Forum, it is up to any individual who claims to love America to 1) become
informed, 2) make sure they inform others.
- on Hate in War Propaganda (Mike Bonnie, USA 03/05/12 1:30 AM)
Robert Whealey wrote on 28 February: "The word 'hate' should never be used in public discussion by any politician or journalist. It is a word used emotionally by 18 year-olds who do not know how the world works. Orwell's 'hate week' in 1984 was a satire on Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin. Orwell had little use for the British and American press, which every week told the world how much they all hated 'communism,' or 'fascism,' even though few American politicians ever read 20 pages of Karl Marx."
I agree with Robert's perspective on the word hate in civil discourse. Hate was/is also a pernicious product created in people's minds through a social aspect of war. Indifference (lack of emotion) and a deep abiding sense of nationalism produce toxic hatred and war.
Anthony V. Navarro presents a comprehensive view of propaganda preceding and throughout the WWII in the Pacific. See "A Critical Comparison Between Japanese and American Propaganda during World War II": "How well did each country play the race card? Japan took no exception to whom they directed their racial slurs, but they painted a demonic image of the Allies much more than they did their Asian opposition. They could not insult their own 'brethren,' as they would put it, if they were to be won over to the Japanese side. The United States, on the other hand, fixated on the dehumanized depiction of the Japanese, presenting them as monkeys and gorillas. They tended to shy away from any animal or demonic portrayal of their European foes partly because the majority of Americans were of European decent. To dehumanize the Europeans would be to dehumanize themselves. They felt no ethnic ties to the Japanese whatsoever. Both countries realized the importance of eliciting an ethnic hatred for the enemy as well as creating a subhuman image of them. It is much easier to kill a big hairy white mongrel or vine-swinging, gun-wielding monkey than it is to kill another human being. The enemy was not human."
No holds were bared throughout history. In China the figure Hua Mulan has been used to motive men to wars. The Disney cartoon version of Mulan is filled with historical inaccuracies and diminishes the role of women in war to that of a male proxy. Joan of Arc is seen in French and American poster art leading the way to war. Rosie the Riveter (WWII) is seen in several contexts as the epitome of feminine strength and endurance to defend nations and social causes. A classic WWI propaganda film to watch is Sergeant York, based on a true story.
World War I posters: http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/usa2.htm
University of Washington war poster collection: http://content.lib.washington.edu/postersweb/index.html
Not at all to be appeasing of Nazism in any way, a unifying voice during WWII was that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who also evoked deep emotions of animosity toward dark forces (hordes). "For we are fighting on the same side with the British people, who fought alone for long, terrible months, and withstood the enemy with fortitude and tenacity and skill. We are fighting on the same side with the Russian people who have seen the Nazi hordes swarm up to the very gates of Moscow, and who with almost superhuman will and courage have forced the invaders back into retreat. We are fighting on the same side as the brave people of China--those millions who for four and a half long years have withstood bombs and starvation and have whipped the invaders time and again in spite of the superior Japanese equipment and arms. Yes, we are fighting on the same side as the indomitable Dutch. We are fighting on the same side as all the other Governments in exile, whom Hitler and all his armies and all his Gestapo have not been able to conquer."
Address on the 1942 State of the Union (p. 41)
JE comments: Legend has it that Rosie the Riveter was based on Rose Will Monroe, a Kentucky-born woman who worked at the Willow Run Aircraft Factory in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
- on Hate in War Propaganda (Mike Bonnie, USA 03/05/12 1:30 AM)