Not arguing equivalency, not sure why you think I am.
I think the USA's a long way to go before it can even approach its own losers of history and *their* crimes accurately.
Here too. One of the main reasons is that History is politicised and it is taboo to talk about one's nations sins in the past. Somehow, pretending like they didn't happen is preferable to saying "wow, that was some fucked up shit".
This is the line I was mostly objecting to:
"Had the Allies conducted atrocities themselves? No doubt, but I think it is also undoubted that their enemies had perpetuated genuine evil and they were on the right side of the war, even including Stalin in the equation."
It just reads to me as "both sides committed war crimes, but the allied ones were OK because the other guys were really evil". It's like saying murder is OK because it's not serial killing. This is the point I'm driving at. Whilst you are right, Dresden particularly is fairly well known (even if that is largely due to revisionist history of the last 20 years, so it's a *new* thing), it still is largely glossed over; to the point where people treat it as "not a real war crime". There's no good reason to do this other than Jingoism. Please be assured that this is much more of a swipe on my own people than yours (although I think yours are just as guilty, but I have more responsibility to be a critique of my own government). This is because it is this bullshit Jingoism built on denied atrocities and false narratives about heroes that leads to have a country that is running concentration camps and has an apartheid system in place. I noticed that you tried getting to me above by pointing these things out, it won't work. Call it out, call it out loud. Say it in the streets. Write to your politicians. I do.
By denying that we have it within our own culture to produce monsters, even if those monsters were achieving ends that we believe in, we blind ourselves to reality that atrocities are being committed in our names today.
no subject
I think the USA's a long way to go before it can even approach its own losers of history and *their* crimes accurately.
Here too. One of the main reasons is that History is politicised and it is taboo to talk about one's nations sins in the past. Somehow, pretending like they didn't happen is preferable to saying "wow, that was some fucked up shit".
This is the line I was mostly objecting to:
"Had the Allies conducted atrocities themselves? No doubt, but I think it is also undoubted that their enemies had perpetuated genuine evil and they were on the right side of the war, even including Stalin in the equation."
It just reads to me as "both sides committed war crimes, but the allied ones were OK because the other guys were really evil". It's like saying murder is OK because it's not serial killing. This is the point I'm driving at. Whilst you are right, Dresden particularly is fairly well known (even if that is largely due to revisionist history of the last 20 years, so it's a *new* thing), it still is largely glossed over; to the point where people treat it as "not a real war crime". There's no good reason to do this other than Jingoism. Please be assured that this is much more of a swipe on my own people than yours (although I think yours are just as guilty, but I have more responsibility to be a critique of my own government). This is because it is this bullshit Jingoism built on denied atrocities and false narratives about heroes that leads to have a country that is running concentration camps and has an apartheid system in place. I noticed that you tried getting to me above by pointing these things out, it won't work. Call it out, call it out loud. Say it in the streets. Write to your politicians. I do.
By denying that we have it within our own culture to produce monsters, even if those monsters were achieving ends that we believe in, we blind ourselves to reality that atrocities are being committed in our names today.