Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?
HMM, my post was mysteriously censored!! -- what my post included was an article that paralleled this discussion of Iraq and US opposition vs. the Cold War and anti-americanism during the cold war which was rampant in some countries who accused the US of being the true aggressor. The article in particular was about Canadian Nationalists against the US during the Cold War who, for instance, compared the US with the devil and accused their government of "selling out" to the USA (sounds familiar to what's going on with Tony Blair!) It could be another(!) nasty case of history repeating itself.
A Russian emigre, Jamie, who has a Ph.D in history from York University in Toronto wrote the article. He was amazed that HISTORIANS in his Toronto university told him he was focusing too much on the past (!) when he brought up Canadian Nationalist's mistakes and blatant anti-americanism during the Cold War.
He said about the Canadian Nationalists, "Like many of their anti-American counterparts throughout the world, they have no choice but to confront the consequences of the American victory in the Cold War. That means that they must accept the disclosures that have surfaced from the Soviet archives and former Soviet officials. In other words, it means they have to accept the indisputable fact that the Americans were the good guys in the Cold War."
He also said, "Revelations from behind the former Iron Curtain have devastated anti-American cliques who made a career out of vociferously espousing the “moral equivalency” thesis regarding the superpower conflict."
-- instead of trusting that their government knew more than they did, they assumed they were just cowtowing to the United States, but documents revealed at the fall of the Soviet Union "devestated" their views.---
He also said, "being a 'proud' Canadian often means that one has to be a strident anti-American. That is why so many Canadian nationalists engaged in Gulag denial during the Cold War – and continue to do so.....What I can’t figure out, however, is why Canadian nationalists spend their time attacking me for my critiques of Canadian nationalism, when they should be focusing on the pernicious lies that Canadian nationalism spawned during the Cold War. Because of their neurotic and pathological need to define themselves in opposition to Americans, many Canadian nationalists demonized the United States, and exonerated the Soviet Union, in the Cold War. They accused the Canadian government, which was allied with the U.S., of having “sold out” to the Americans. Although common sense always instructed otherwise, the historical record now confirms this position to be not only distorted, but unethical. It is now irrefutable that Canadian policies, like American ones, were justified, and that Canada was right in promoting U.S. leadership in defense of the Western world, and in cooperating with the U.S. containment doctrine. What is interesting, however, is that there has yet to be even one apology, even one admission of error, from a Canadian nationalist on this score. I can’t help wondering: where are all the Canadian nationalists who condemned the Canadian government for its pro-American and anti-Soviet stance? Their mistakes have not been brought to public light, nor received any attention in Canadian academic scholarship. Why? Because Canadian nationalists cannot shed their anti-Americanism without losing their entire reason for being. For an entire lifetime, they built their statuses on, and gained incredible material and cultural rewards for, their anti-Americanism. Second thoughts are far too risk-laden and precarious at this stage."
--This would be parallel with the anti-war protesters who are really more anti-USA than anti-war. Their prejudice of the US is so great that they cannot see beyond that and their real motive is to just disagree with the US, spread propaganda about the US, demonize the US and make themselves feel morally superior - has nothing to do with the innocents in Iraq.
--
He went on to say, "In their desperate desire to build for themselves an “identity,” many Canadians began to regard the East–West struggle through the “moral equivalency” lens. This perspective held the United States and the Soviet Union equally responsible for Cold War tensions (if not the U.S. more responsible), and considered no side morally better than the other. These views were later well represented, and nurtured, by Canadian “nationalist” interpretations of the Cold War, the three most popular framers of this tradition being John Warnock, Donald Creighton, and James Minifie. Warnock, Creighton, and Minifie all held the U.S. to be an aggressor. They maintained the “intimidated satellite” theme, which contended that the Soviets did not pose a threat to Canada and that Canadians knew as much, but that the Canadian leadership was pressured by the Americans to accept and contribute to the containment doctrine. We now know that this interpretation is simply absurd. Creighton, one of the most prominent Canadian historians of this century, led the war cry in condemning the Canadian Liberal government for seeking an American alliance and pursuing the policy of continentalism in the mid-1950s. He believed that Canada “sold out” to the United States. Like his ideological allies in Canada, he practiced selective condemnation, censuring American and Canadian leaders for their actions, while remaining profoundly indifferent toward Soviet behavior. In The Forked Road, his highly lauded work on Canada in the 1939-1957 period, Creighton condemned Canada for following American foreign policy. Yet he only glossed over Soviet actions — referring to Eastern European countries only to explain that these “associates” of Moscow decided on their own to reject Marshall Plan aid. If common sense was not enough to suggest that all of this was simply false, the revelations from the Soviet archives have now confirmed it."
Warnock, a Canadian Natinalist made the United States out to be the aggressor in the Cold War. He referring to the US as the “devil” throughout his work. The First chapter “Walking with the Devil” is about Canada’s alliance with the United States. Meanwhile, he made light of Stalin or left Stalin out of the mix entirely.
The writer went on to discuss his time studying in Canada for his Ph.D in history, " I would confront my Canadian nationalist colleagues about these issues. Why, I asked them, were they reluctant to face the errors of Canadian nationalists vis-a-vis the Cold War? Were they not aware of how the documents from the former Soviet archives were discrediting almost everything Canadian nationalists had said about the Cold War? My colleagues’ favorite response was to shrug their shoulders and to dismiss my arguments as being too “hung up” on “the past.” The Cold War “was over,” they told me, and it was silly to chase down “old ghosts.” They informed me that my “obsession” with the Soviet archives was analogous to necrophilia. And these were historians! <span style="text-decoration:underline"><em><strong>It simply flabbergasted me that, in a graduate history department, I would be counseled to “get over” looking into the past......In the end, it is all about the deep-rooted illness in the Canadian nationalist psyche, which demands the veneration and idolization of anti-Americanism above everything else</strong></em></span>. It explains how and why Canadian “historians” can end up discouraging a “preoccupation” with “the past,” and how supposedly intelligent people with Ph.D’s can write books on Canadian Cold War history without even mentioning Joseph Stalin."
He went on to finish, "This is my problem with Canadian nationalism. And it is personal. As a Russian émigré, I am not humored by Gulag denial, just as a Jew wouldn’t be overly excited with Holocaust denial. For years I have lived in a country where “proud” Canadians ignore and downplay some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century – all for the sake of making it clear that “we are not like the Americans.” Well, whether or not we are like the Americans happens not to be one of my biggest concerns. My biggest concern happens to be why and how, in the name of equality and “social justice,” the socialist experiment liquidated more than 100 million people in the 20th century. To deny that reality is a criminal act. And that is why, despite how much Canadian nationalists hate me for it, I long to see Canadian nationalism end up where it belongs – on the ash heap of history. "
THIS reminded me of what is going on to day for many reasons. A) the US being accused of being an aggressor, Bush being called "Hitler" by some B) Tony Blair being called a poodle, being accused of "selling out" to America C) people saying Iraq does not pose a threat to them, as they said of the Soviets in the cold war did not pose a threat, which was discredited after classified information was revelead at the end of the cold war (people apparently did not trust their governements to know what they were doing)
Even Peter Jennings admitted he was brought up to be anti-american and it was "in his blood" but now that he's lived here and worked here for years he considers himself Canadian-American and "america is in his soul"
I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of prejudices in the United States, and this a big reason for many people not backing this war and that is the wrong reason.
Other reasons protesters said they were against the war
1) we don't want to be a terrorist target
2) its going to hurt the economy
and yes (3) (the favorite reason) we want to be different from the USA.
I didn't hear any of the protesters voice any concern for Iraqi people. I doubt they actually care. If they were living in Iraq right now, they'd probably be wondering when the hell somebody was going to come and save them.
I am working on a link as I pressume somebody who is upset about this revelation will try to have it censored again (is this CHina we are living in? or Iraq? I forget). It is amazing to me to hear people complain about wanting TV shows taken off the air because a joke was said that offended them or want a book banned because there is a sentence in it they don't like. I think these people need to go live in IRaq for a spell to really appreciate the true meaning of living in a free society. People are allowed to disagree - without silencing one party completely. It is very disturbing to me to see history completely repeating itself and people not even willing to open their minds to learn from it.
