Saturday, March 7, 2009

Propaganda and War

In the places I visited in Vietnam the monuments and most prominent displays were of the war with America. There is very little mention of the wars preceding and following the Vietnam War. Meaning little is said about the war with the French (before) and about the war in Cambodia (after) and with the Chinese that followed the Vietnam War. Some of the translations were pretty comical, and clearly not done by fluent English speakers. The translations were much harsher than what one would find in a historical monument in the US. Instead of referring to the Southern Forces in a governmental term the translations often referred to them as the “Americans and their Lackeys” or something else derogatory.

Having a chance to interact with Draftees of the Vietnam War it is not surprising to get the sense that they were not really interested in the political side of the war, meaning they only fought because they had to. Spending time in the countryside brings the understanding that wars are conducted by the rich for the interests of the rich and usually fought by the poor. A rice farmer who is happy to makes enough to have 3 meals a day. His free time is spent socializing with his neighbors and family over a cup of tea. He doesn’t have the money for other options. Why would he care whom he pays his taxes to? Why would any government care what is doing out in his rice patty as long as he was not being disruptive? Yet it is the poor rice farmer who was drafted into the wars. It was the draftee rice farmers that were hit by the 500,000 bombs in the front lines, the victims of environmentally destructive chemicals. What happens when that farmer’s family is slaughtered or mistreated because soldiers are incapable of distinguishing the enemy? This sounds like certain elements of Abu Ghraib doesn’t it?

There are always two sides to every story. Somewhere between the two stories lies that truth. The truth may not be a single absolute point but rather a fuzzy region that resides with elements of both perspectives. As American children in the US educational system during the eighties we were brainwashed to be terrified of the communist specter. We were told that democracy is the best form of government and that almost everything else was evil. Does that kind of remind you of Bush Junior’s “Axis of Evil”? We were told how we were so heavily oppressed by the British so we had this glorious revolution leading us to believe that everyone in the colonies were furious with the tyranny. I got straight A’s in history, so I was pretty good at absorbing the propaganda and repeating it back to the educators what they wanted to hear even being classified as “Gifted and Talented” in that subject. If one has and interest he can find out that the majority of American’s did not actually actively participate in the revolution. The various historical accounts put the Patriot support at less than half of the population. About 20% of the population were Loyalist and actively supported the British. The victors write history.

Communism was the specter that every American kid was taught to fear in the 80’s. In my time traveling through Vietnam and China there really were no immediately visible effects of Communism, of course I wasn’t trying to find any censored websites or have political discussions or anything as aggressively foolish like that. My ex-girlfriend and I went around China without anything that hindered out movement or activities. Like wise in Vietnam. So is it really the end of the world if not every country is a Democracy?

The collapse of every democracy has been decay from within. The majority population feels apathy for the system and when the remaining figure out that they can vote themselves rich. Consider the voter participation rate and the socialistic actions like Social Security. A bunch of 50+ year old legislators vote into effect a policy that says that they pay in for a few years and then collect money for the rest of their lives. A stroke of genius if you were category to benefit, was it an altruistic policy to benefit society?

1 comment:

l4k said...

You have made some excellent points. However, I am not sure it is a question of communism verses democracy, but of statism versus liberty. A democracy can be statist (as you have pointed out with your paraphrase of Alexander Tytler’s quote on voters voting themselves largesse from the treasury) and without a vigilant populace will more than likely become so. But a dictatorship will almost always be opposed to the liberty of its citizens. Under a dictatorship, power has already been consolidated. So usually the freedom of speech, worship, and association and the right to own a gun are restricted.

The founding fathers realized that power corrupts and they were attempting to limit the corrupting influence of power. So they gave us a constitutionally limited democratic republic where power is dispersed among the three branches of government. These men were no fans of democracy. As Ben Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” So with this understanding of power and liberty, the role of government is severely limited by the constitution. The 10th amendment limits the powers of the federal government to only those areas expressly granted in the document. All other powers remain with the states or the people. My guess would be about 10% of the government currently does is actually constitutional.

So I think we were given a governing document that was as close to perfect as could be expected once the Bill of Rights were added. Unfortunately, we are no longer governed by the original understanding of the governmental limits outlined in the Constitution.