Ghost of a flea

Haven't you heard, Professor? We're peacekeepers. We don't do that nasty war stuff. Only the morally blinkered types of this world, like, say, the Americans (*shudder*), do that sort of thing.

We're civilized and progressive. Wait, no, we're not civilized, because there's no such thing as "civilized" and "uncivilized". Unless you're talking about George Bush. Because he's dangerous.

[/end snark]

What is it about the way that we teach history in the West that we can get people like this out of our education system? The very idea that Churchill is just Hitler with better press is insane and only functions if you don't really know anything about either man or the greater issues involved. ARGGGH! Funk smash!

I don't think that is the right response, Ben. It is not moral relativism to have a some sort of latent affiliation for Hitler as for example was found in certain members of the Airborne Division before it was disbanded or for the right to airms militia movement in the states, gone silent since 9/11, quiet by Oklahoma. It is support for anti-democratic principles under the protection of democratic free speech. Hitler's scum took out my great-grannie's roof, tried to flatten my father's home and engaged in dogfights over Mom's place. There are people who admire the Nazi in Canada and the US who are not skin heads or thugs but wear suits in offices or teach in schools spreading these little hates. Heroes died fighting the fascist and, as was seen in Bosnia, die still - far worse than any fear of relativism (which is admittedly often itself a shroud for intolerence but of the dullard sort).

I have much older relatives who still tell me that Hitler was a "good guy" who did what was necessary to put Germany back on its feet, but then got "mixed up" with the Jews and the wars when his original ideals were sound.

I told them to go read Mein Kampf and tell me that his later ideas were somehow different from his earlier ones. If Hitler was one thing, it was consistent...

I then got the predictable response from members of that generation: I was told to shut up and mind my own business. Suffice to say, I wasn't invited back to Christmas next year...

-----

The limited amount of formal historical education I had was always peppered with that smug, superior "history is written by the winners" crap, which is somehow trying to strip out the good guy/bad guy point of view because someone of the losing side's ethnicity might get "offended."

For the record, I got beat up a lot when the local bullies were playing "Kill the Nazis" and they needed some minor German actors in the role of punching bag. The fact that they said that Nazis were evil didn't offend me: the fact that the thugs were kicking my teeth in 3 or 4 on 1, having nothing to do with anti-Fascist resistance, did.

The Nazis were evil, the Germans at best were complicit, if not enthusiastic participants and to state the truth should not "offend" anyone.

This was even shoved into a Star Trek episode, with its preachy "must consider all cultures/opinions/feelings equally" pap, where Picard determines that the evil Iconians weren't so evil because, well, because, because HE THINKS SO, and nudge-nudge wink-wink, we all know that history is written by the evil winners, don't we?

Hey Ray, when I was a kid in grade one in Cape Breton I was beaten up by MacDonalds for being a McLeod. That adds nothing to your point or the thread...but I feel your pain.

Alan, you think that Nick was talking to a neo-Nazi or a crypto-Fascist? I mean, I agree, of course they exist in our society, but I don't see that in his post. I see his friend as someone who believes that the winners write history, and that our side was as bad as theirs.

Army types who are Fascist-sympathisers are a different bunch, IMHO. Just as distasteful, yes, but not what was seen here.

The real question is: Why are you friends?

"I think it is barely possible that a Canadian with internet access and a university degree might have been so brainwashed by the relativism of our education system that they should now become testy when challenged on their subjectivist reading of the Second World War."

Barely possible? You've just proved it, Flea. The thing is, she's going by the very latest in historical teaching, while you're using old school history that she's been explicitly taught to disdain. I'll bet you both walked away, shaking your heads.

This PoMo way of thinking, like most other schools of thought, will get overturned - but I fear its only serving as a pre-conditioning for something worse to arrive. I just hope we won't have to start tallying numbers killed before the entire trend finally dies.

Generally I am inclined to think "Dad's side won."

I'm not surprised by the discussion though. The idea of winner's justice, winner's history, is too sacred to the aboriginal and French lobby in Canada for the idea of evil to gain much traction.

Relativism must be absolute or, Hell, we might note that Mao killed 20 million or our ally, Stalin hit that number and motored on. Which just will not do.

As we know, the winners write the history and therefore it cannot possibly be true.

Kraut:

I have much older relatives who still tell me that Hitler was a "good guy" who did what was necessary to put Germany back on its feet, but then got "mixed up" with the Jews and the wars when his original ideals were sound.

Are you sure that's not purely a matter of poor wording on their part, i.e. referring to "original ideals" rather than original policies? Even my German great-grandfather, whose wartime activism in the (opposition) Zentrums party and teaching of religion earned him grief from the Nazis, agreed that many of Hitler's initial policies were sound and needed. I don't see any particular problem with that, provided it isn't used as justification of what came later.

As an aside, my great-grandfather's son was a Brownshirt, by contrast... let's just say my mother remembers some interesting dinner-table discussions!

Just got in from soccer, Ben, so I am only seeing your question now. I see no difference as any acceptance of Nazi belief and sybolism is disgusting, no matter what the context. Those particular guys in the Airborne brought it to the job (I worked near there and knew a bit more than the papers got via military wife co-workers). The officers should have immediately driven it out but did not - that was their complicity which allowed the racists to get into and people hunt within the Somalia mission (again, repeating what I was told at the time). They are no different from the old bastards who brought their racists violent beliefs brought it to the country. I even saw in court once white supremacist skinhead nazis who were not even white. I played soccer in the mid-90s in PEI with Bosnians refugees who had been Muslim fighters, concentration camp detainees and all had odd leg wounds. It is the most fucked up (sorry Master Flea) belief system which is consistent no matter what the context. That is why it is so insidious. So the fucked up respecter of Hitler is the skinhead is the guy with the memorabilia collection. Power lovers. People haters. Alley beaters. Church burners. Trash. I was raise to spot them and hate them, really, by a generation that had incendiary and explosive devices dropped on their homes from the sky by them. I find no fine distinctions amongst them. They are all one.

That being said, a great friend of the family fought Canadians in Italy and survived to survive the Russian family and another great friend survived the war to run west before the on coming Russians for a month as an eight year old. Thses were obviously not nazis but people caught up. For me, it is the idea that is trash - from the outset to the execution - and if they won't shake the idea, make excuses or actually support and act upon it, there is nothing lower.

But Alan, I think you're still not getting this particular situation. It isn't that the person in question likes the Nazis -- it's that she has such little regard for our side. Just a general distaste for people who are involved with that stuff (the war) in any role whatsoever.

Jumping in where I shouldn't:

"Just a general distaste for people who are involved with that stuff (the war) in any role whatsoever."

I think this is off, though I can't be certain. What she apparently was getting at is there is no right or wrong, no absolute certainty, just 'sides'.

This is part & parcel to the New Historicism. War, as such, is 'just another event' between 'sides'. Because of the lack of absolute certainty on anything, she might - if pressed - even say that war is not philosophically much different than an election or widespread popular movement like the 60's counter-culture.

Actually, getting on that topic with her might be fun or infuriating, Flea. If nothing else it'll draw her out.

Varenius: Nope. According to many of them Hitler did what needed doing. And in their opinion it wasn't that "cleaning up the Jews" was the problem - the Jews made Hitler take his eye off the ball, so to speak. He became so "distracted" by them that he became erratic etc. etc. and lost the bloody war.

Insert a lot more of the same crap that holocaust deniers trot out on a regular basis...I could tell some stories, but thankfully most of the old Nazi bastards in my family have died out by now.

Back to the topic at hand: there's a perverse superiority that comes from being "above the fray." How best to avoid picking a side? Declare all sides the same and smugly state that the winners will write the history of the conflict with themselves as heroes, but "we" (the elite that are above the fray)will know better because we are more "worldly" than those that rolled up their sleeves and actually got involved.

To this line of thought good and evil are just the names of the teams involved and the final score doesn't really matter.

And if enough people are convinced to think this way, God help us all...

Ben: I think the issue is that we have not taught history, then, not that we have relativism, which is a small slader of tolerance and self-awareness. The Dutch, arguably the most tolerant and accepting and relativist nation on earth also teach historical fact in schools and their average ten year old would not have a moment's pause as to the stupidity and latent fascism of the person in question.

I think there is an useful distinction here to repeat from various comments. There is an important difference between those expressing overt agreement with the Nazis (Al Qaeda, Ba'athism, etc., etc.) and those expressing a generalized disagreement with "sides". In my experience it is much easier to debate and change the minds of those with a misguided affinity for fascism - it is almost invariably the last resort of people who themselves feel oppressed and are after some easily identifiable group to blame - than it is to reach through the evil that arises from indifference. The latter most often is found alongside intellectual and material privilege and an easy sense of superiority and entitlement. To my mind the argument I am making here is an old school observation of the left. You know, the one that was in favour of the emancipation of women, general participation in the democratic process and the astonishing project of liberating people from their chains everywhere. In other words, the left that believed in right and wrong. George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens have run into the same difficulty making it in their respective times and places so the rest of us can at least say we are in good company.

This is a friend with whom I generally avoid talking politics. I thought Star Wars was safe but, in retrospect, a discussion of how Anakin is drawn into his choice to support the Sith lead inevitably in that direction. When George Lucas thinks it is necessary to stack the deck with the life of Padme, Jedi arrogance, an elected Chancellor, Palpatine's lies, etc. and so forth then the draw of power, the simple-minded appeal of hot uniforms (in comparison with Jedi pajamas), or indeed the reality of evil itself disappear. The viewer might conclude either that Anakin had no choice (and so is not to blame for the murder of children) or that there is no substantive difference between choices (and that nobody is ever to blame for anything). All this from a man who cannot bring himself to believe Han Solo was right to fire first in the defense of his life.

So folks have argued I am being too hard on Lucas or am taking his latest films too seriously. All I can say is that the next generation is being brought up on the values his work now espouses. The world is indeed full of ambiguity, complexity and difficult choices. Some of those choices are right and some of them are wrong. Thank God for Battlestar Galactica.

I sympatize with your wish but in this respect I think affinity for fascism differs from, for example, affinity with racism. One who discriminates as a racist does so on a misconception of fact, attributing false characteristics to the denegrated group. One who discriminates as a fascist only believes in a positive use of state power to enslave. It is not based on a factual misconception but an economic and political theory that includes the enslavement of people, with or without racism but often using nationalism to exault the oppressing group. It is that desire to be included in the engagement of power over people that is the core hallmark of fascism. Where communist dictatorship is an absolute perversion of an arguable good and racism is the perpetuation of an obvious lie, fascism is a positive statement of support of use of state power to crush for an empty ideal.

To be fair about me, these are fine lines perhaps which do not actually exist or which I am advocating for poorly but these are the distinctions I make in my sorry head.

my oh my, i come to this one a bit late. which is handy, since i just saw the movie last night...

i think actually i'm going to comment on the comments more than the post, but isn't there some truth that history is told by the winners? not to say that it isn't the truth, but every story is influenced by the teller. look at urban legends and how they grow. screw urban legends, think of recounting a story, have you never embelished just a tiny bit to get the laugh or to make it that little bit more like it *should* have been?

in terms of the post itself, my question is, why is it that churchill can't still be a "hero" if he was a prick? where is it written that those who achive greatness have to be good people? i suspect in fact to achive greatness you probably have to be at least a bit of a prick, because you're not going to achieve greatness without stepping on someone's toes.

as for the movie, i don't know, in someways it has to be set up that way so that he can repent and redeem himself in the end, doesn't it? i mean, hard life does not for a second justify joining the dark side, but something's gotta lead you there, doesn't it? and our society isn't very fond of people who take responsibility for their own actions, so if he had made a concious decision to join the dark side, well, then he wouldn't deserve redemption, yes? i'm not saying i agree with any of it, but i suspect that's where it's coming from.

History is indeed written by the victors. This was the only point I could at first imagine my friend was trying to make and if that had been that I could hardly have disagreed. My point is that had the Nazis won the War and Winston Churchill been captured and executed that no matter he had lost or what lies were told that Churchill would still have objectively been a hero and the Nazis still objectively evil. This is part of the bigger point I am making from the very beginning of my post that heroism is heroism irrespective of who is writing the history, that some acts are objectively evil and we have a moral duty and absolute obligation to oppose them.

It strikes me that all of these assertions should be obvious. Those Polish cavalry officers who died under the tracks of Hitler's tanks or who were later murdered en masse by the Soviets did not win the war and their history remained obscured until the collapse of the Soviet Union. That does not change the fact of their heroism. That some Nazis would carry it out, the Soviets lie about it or all too many armchair philosophers feel indifferent to their sacrifice does not change the truth in the slightest.

Is it really, though? The history of the Battle of Kosovo, for instance, seems to have been written by the losers of it. They're the ones who held onto 1389.

I think historiography is much more complicated -- fan as I am usually of the simple, clean-cut solutions. :-)

Which brings us to the (hopefully) equally obvious point that more than one history is often in play for any given event and the (even more hopefully) obvious point that history not being over yet means we have yet to see which history will prevail (see John the Divine for one hallucinogenic version). But I think this leads us down the line into ever increasing degrees of hair-splitting banality about the status of representations in differing contexts. My concern for my friend is that she does not appear to believe there is any knowable history per se, only feebly contested fictions for Canadian socialists to feel feebly self-righteous about while someone else keeps the wolf from the door.

Something that my friend may have been right about - without understanding it - is that I have an emotional attachment to Churchill and the histories that are told about him that exceeds any particular theory of history or historiography and is by no means entirely rational or defensible on strictly logical grounds. I don't think it is just a little Englander feeling either. If we cannot simply agree that democracy, however imperfect its expression, is superior to fascism then we are living in separate moral universes. The sad thing is that my friend does not even understand that having denied the ability to judge even Nazism she has no logical basis upon which to suggest her argument is better than mine. Only sentiment and that all too Canadian fear/superiority response when confronted with a human being making an ethical choice to defend him/herself. As I say, a sucking vortex of stupid.

point taken. i guess what i meant was, the spirit of the saying (that is, the fact that history is not an absolute, it is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) remains true. the idea that history is can be a bit of revisionism in action.

but you're absolutely right, it is not always the 'winner' who writes it, especially since there is not always a clear 'winner'.

For the record, a fair number of gun control advocates also prefer to soft-soap events at Srebrenica.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
-- Winston Churchill

8-)

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)