''Thank a dead soldier you can say that''?

[LiaSofia]

The statement in the title was a response to someone who said something vaguely pacifist-sounding. It seems to be a prevalent idea, that we should be thankful to soldiers who died because they are somehow responsible for defending our freedom of speech. I don't understand this at all and was hoping someone could explain the reasoning behind these arguments.

[Atsumari]

In America, the military worship is incredibly Orwellian. We thank our soldiers for defending our freedom and liberty while they are occupying other countries.
In almost every country, the military represents an organization the upholds the nation's values and fights it enemies. In America, the values are freedom and the enemies are those who oppose freedom. So whenever someone speaks out against our troops, many people make the fallacy of assuming that because they oppose a policy of the military, they oppose our values regarding American liberty and freedom. I assume this mindset applies to Britain and Australia as well.
Personally, I like to think that this is just a silencing tactic.

[Q]

As a child I sometimes heard the "If the Americans didn't make their huge sacrifices, we would all be speaking German now. We should be thankful for that" line. Basicly there isn't much reasoning to it. It can be undermined by facts in several ways.

It's just some bourgeois mythology designed to respect the ruling order.

[Culicarius]

Well take a look at who typically says this -in my experience it's usually people who sit somewhere to the right or center. Your location says you're in England so I can't speak for what it's like there, but the USA has a culture that admires and worships soldiers as Atsumari said.

People see soldiers as heroes defending the USA from her enemies and that they're beautiful protectors of justice and freedom. And don't forget to never critique soldiers and the army - you don't want to be some god-hating, anti-american commie!

Same thing goes for cops too. All the time I hear thank the cops for doing their job and keeping us safe. Yeaaaaaaah ok.

[RedWorker]

Thank dead workers for freedom of speech.

[consuming negativity]

As a child I sometimes heard the "If the Americans didn't make their huge sacrifices, we would all be speaking German now. We should be thankful for that" line. Basicly there isn't much reasoning to it. It can be undermined by facts in several ways.

It's just some bourgeois mythology designed to respect the ruling order.

i didn't realize that myth existed outside of america

[Sasha]

''Thank a dead soldier you can say that, because if he was alive he might shoot you for it..."

[Bala Perdida]

As a child I sometimes heard the "If the Americans didn't make their huge sacrifices, we would all be speaking German now. We should be thankful for that" line. Basicly there isn't much reasoning to it. It can be undermined by facts in several ways.

It's just some bourgeois mythology designed to respect the ruling order.
I heard the same statement but from a tankie praising the red army.

[Q]

I heard the same statement but from a tankie praising the red army.
In case of the Red Army it's actually much more correct too.

[Red Star Rising]

"Thank a dead Chinese child-labourer that you can tell me that via your iPad."

[Wonton Carter]

I usually avoid these things. It's not worth arguing about in a conservative area. Conservatives tend to gang up on folks who dare to disagree.

[Subversive]

It's all wrapped up in Nationalism.

The governments, particularly the US, endeavor to make the general people Nationalistic.
From the moment they set foot into the school system they are told to give the "Pledge of Allegiance" every morning. Campaigns all over daily life are run devoted to enforcing a nationalistic ideology on the masses.

Furthermore, every family whose ever had a member leave for the military must believe in it as a 'sacrifice for the greater good'. It is their only means to psychologically cope with their loss (no matter if the loss is temporary or permanent) and to cope with the morally-unclear action of killing others. They send their soldiers off as "heroes", no matter what crimes they commit in war. They see it only as a part of war, because they are told to believe that. 'Why else would they do this?' They ask. They believe that if they love this person then what they choose to do, at risk of their own lives, must be right. The alternative belief is that they are doing something truly wrong, a belief they cannot accept for the sake of their sanity.

Governments also make their politically-hostile situations black-and-white as much as possible.
They strive to appear as if they are fighting for idealistic goals, like "freedom" and "equality" and such. Meanwhile their enemies are fighting to destroy, to oppress, to corrupt, and to just outright murder. No matter who their enemy is, they depict them as "evil", because they depict themselves as the "good".
The soldiers then become like angels, harbingers of justice. They are 'heroes'. Fighting for the greater good against evil forces. The enemies are like demons, being satisfied only by blood and destruction and pleased only when they rule over all with an iron fist.
You'll see this sort of imagery everywhere in places like the US.

War's cartoon-like appearances are then empowered and expounded by the media, which is operated by private individuals with political agendas and often-times informed only by the government themselves. This emphasizes the black-and-white and nationalistic thinking, and thus the result is a general populace who is informed only by one-sided news stories.

So finally, it is socially 'offensive' to not respect soldiers. Because those soldiers are believed to have gone to war and sacrificed for you. All soldiers in your nation were sacrificing at least part of their lives to maintain the status quo - the unchanging presence of the government force of which almost everyone is devoted to from early-childhood and onwards. And it is the individual families, whom have sacrificed their husbands, wives, sons, and daughters, to the war-efforts that you offend the most - because they are the ones unable to cope with the reality that it was all meaningless. That the sacrifice was for wealthy white men to continue ruling.

And that is the truth of the matter: That the people who say this are simply just unable to face reality.

[Bala Perdida]

In case of the Red Army it's actually much more correct too.
That's what I was thinking too. The US wasn't doing shit, till Stalin told them to attack from France or something. D-day basically.

[The Idler]

'You can thank a dead soldier you can say that.'
Who can we thank for internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, shooting of unarmed students at Kent State Massacre in 1970 or internment in Northern Ireland during the Troubles?

[Subversive]

'You can thank a dead soldier you can say that.'
Who can we thank for internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, shooting of unarmed students at Kent State Massacre in 1970 or internment in Northern Ireland during the Troubles?
They would just argue that those were isolated incidents by misguided individuals or that they were merely just fulfilling their duties/orders and weren't able to prevent those events (ultimately blaming the victims).
You really can't argue with this ideology. It is circular logic. For lack of a better word, they are "brainwashed". All of their beliefs are intertwined in this ideology, to break out of any of those beliefs is to shatter the paradigm: to crush their entire reality.

It is only when they are truly faced with facts of reality and are unable to deny them any longer, and after suffering months or years of cognitive dissonance, when they finally begin to perceive the way things really are.

[The Idler]

They would just argue that those were isolated incidents by misguided individuals or that they were merely just fulfilling their duties/orders and weren't able to prevent those events (ultimately blaming the victims).
You really can't argue with this ideology. It is circular logic. For lack of a better word, they are "brainwashed". All of their beliefs are intertwined in this ideology, to break out of any of those beliefs is to shatter the paradigm: to crush their entire reality.

It is only when they are truly faced with facts of reality and are unable to deny them any longer, and after suffering months or years of cognitive dissonance, when they finally begin to perceive the way things really are.
Then it depends on how much you're prepared to waste your time on such wilfully ignorant individuals. Those examples are just off the top of my head, I'm sure many more examples could be given with more thought. Perhaps you could challenge the idea of armed force bringing freedom of speech, if you thought a different approach would work. Are they thinking philosophically or are they not thinking at all and just parroting dogma?

[LiaSofia]

In America, the military worship is incredibly Orwellian. We thank our soldiers for defending our freedom and liberty while they are occupying other countries.
In almost every country, the military represents an organization the upholds the nation's values and fights it enemies. In America, the values are freedom and the enemies are those who oppose freedom. So whenever someone speaks out against our troops, many people make the fallacy of assuming that because they oppose a policy of the military, they oppose our values regarding American liberty and freedom. I assume this mindset applies to Britain and Australia as well.
Personally, I like to think that this is just a silencing tactic.

I understand what you are saying about militarism and why these attitudes are so common in the US (and yes, it is just as bad in Britain - don't know about Australia). If these ideas came just from conservatives I would dismiss them as typical right-wing rhetoric. Problem is, I've heard it from self-described 'left-wing' social democrat types as well.

This made me wonder whether there is in fact some connection between freedom (as in democracy, free speech, protection from threat & whatever else comes under that label) and the role of soldiers/armies.

I suppose you could, to use a general example, say the troops that were active in stopping the Nazis had a role in upholding freedom of speech. Or you could point to any uprising where the aim is to overthrow a corrupt or totalitarian regime.

But they are surely exceptions rather than the rule? WW2 German occupation is the only example I can think of where anyone was actually under threat. The role of so-called rebel groups doesn't count because often they are in direct opposition to the army (who are acting on orders from the state) so they are working to subvert their leadership rather than to protect it. They're also comprised of people who aren't technically soldiers, far removed from the military-industrial complex. Besides, they are almost always non-Western examples and not what anyone is thinking of when they're calling for us to 'honour our soldiers'.

Aside from the WW2 Red Army example, which wars with Western involvement in 20th-21st century history involved fighting for our freedom or protection in any way? Genuine question - were there any? WW1 was basically a pointless war over absolutely nothing, Vietnam was based on an entirely fictitious engineered threat - the 'domino theory' which clearly had no basis in reality, the 'war on terror' actually made the West more of a target than it ever was before, and turned groups whose attitudes towards North America were neutral into IS recruitment fodder. Even today, when people speak of the need to defend our countries against Islamic extremism, what does that actually mean in terms of the army's role? I just don't see how they're helping or why I should support them.

More often than not, wars are started under some pretext, with the intention of gaining either territory, increased political power, access to some economic resource or all three. I reject the idea that military power either maintains or extends freedom. I'd sooner thank lawyers than soldiers.

I was under the impression that freedom of speech and democracy were concepts that developed over time, were implemented through various reforms, and evolved without the need for military intervention. Was any war necessary for democracy?

Also, I'd ask 'whose freedom?'. The military has, in the name of 'freedom', justified the mass imprisonment of ethnic groups, prisoner of war camps etc., and they've been used to attack and/or oppress citizens of their own countries in a number of occasions (Kent State, as the Idler mentioned). What any soldier actually represents and fights for is arbitrary simply because their commitment is to authority - their obligation is to follow orders - rather than to freedom.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd rather be speaking French and Mi'kmaq than English ...

In all seriousness though, it's amazing the disconnect between people's own histories and the ideologies they internalize vis-à-vis the national states in which they reside. It seems to me that, in having it out with any given person on this issue, it's often best to trace particular histories that led to their current national identity in order to dislodge it.

This may not always be the case - I imagine, for example a post- or neo-colonial setting being significantly more complicated.

Enh.

[Mr. Piccolo]

What saddens me the most is that the United States used to have a healthier attitude with regard to the military. Americans used to admire men like Mark Twain who criticized jingoism and blind patriotism.

Not anymore. I imagine that if Mark Twain were alive today Fox News, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the militaristic Right would be calling him a traitor who hates freedom and kicks puppies.

[Subversive]

This made me wonder whether there is in fact some connection between freedom (as in democracy, free speech, protection from threat & whatever else comes under that label) and the role of soldiers/armies.
The way I have always seen it is simply this: "Freedom" is a lie.
It is a lie told to people throughout time to suppress them; To make them content. It does not really exist.

'Democracy' cannot exist in full form within Capitalism and prior systems.
The natural dictation of power would mean that someone's voice is being oppressed by the majority vote, or any other indicative rule of voting. Democracy acts on favor of the majority only because of the superficial and so-called 'pragmatic' belief that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. But nothings stands to reason that this belief is true or valuable - it is merely what is deemed 'pragmatic', which is held with the highest honor so much so that it cannot be glanced upon by mortal eyes, and certainly no one can disagree. The reasoning for holding this worship is therefore very simple: 'Because I said so.' It is therefore inescapable to argue, if you are a dissenter, but arguing is fruitless because you are a dissenter.
And of course, concentration of power in these systems allow only that their "democracy" be driven by the majority of the ruling classes, not of the majority of the people. A further limitation on an already limited ideal.
And even if we were magically able to somehow define a system to alleviate these problems of the inevitable majority-oppression, you still can't get everyone to vote. Even accomplishing a system wherein everyone could feasibly do so in real terms, many would still choose not to.
You can give "freedom" to a man but by the very definition of this ideal you cannot force them to use it.

'Free Speech' cannot exist. There are some horrible people in this world with some horrible things to say - the things these people say oppress others, and in doing so we must act to oppress voices in order to free others. Who we choose to oppress is rather arbitrary. This is merely a superficial ideal set forth by Americans who are unwilling to truly understand what their "Free Speech" entails. It is a lie they have told themselves, one that has garnered momentum throughout the western world due to it's superficially nature of appearing true to those who do not think it through.

'Protection of threat' - in what conceivable world has any government ever been able to actually protect anyone? Instead, they generally ignore threats until they are acted upon. You cannot arrest someone for murder before they become a murderer, you can only do it after they have murdered.
You cannot stop them from murdering, because this would mean having a policeman, no-less than a perfect one, at every individual's house every day, every hour.
You cannot realistically be protected, even theoretically if you could be: Everyone around you loses their freedom, including yourself.
If you were guarded every minute of the day, you do not even have the freedom to go to the bathroom by yourself, let alone go somewhere or say something that might be considered dangerous. You lose your own freedom.
If you were guarded every minute of the day and people acted against you, or even appeared to act against you, they will lose their freedoms, as well, by force.
There is no such thing as protection from threats, in the interests of "freedom", it is impossible. You cannot be given protection without losing your freedom, and it is not feasible for everyone to be protected.

All of these things have been lies. Most of these specific ones conjured up by the US government, though the relationship of them to the concept stemming back to the dawn of humanity. The US government, particularly, uses these superficial-truths in order to instill nationalism, pride, and contentment among the populace. The stronger someone believes in these ideals the more they will believe in their oppressive government who pose themselves as upholders of these ideals. The individuals under the government never realize how faulty this scheme is - how they overlook the government's oppression of real freedom, how they only pretend to enforce the ideals but meanwhile do exactly the opposite - only ever giving their own citizens a false sense of freedom, just so they don't ask questions.

And most in the the US government itself have fallen victim to this perpetration. They really believe that what they fight for is "freedom". That the beliefs they hold are not ideals but truths. That they are fighting for a 'greater good' rather than understanding the superficial, ignorant, and cowardly nature in which they fight and maintain these ideals. They perpetrate heinous crimes against the very nature of humanity only to uphold these false ideals - these things they truly, and mistakenly, have led themselves to believe.

It is a social manipulation, of the highest magnitude. "Freedom" is what people have fought and died for since the beginning of history. They understand their own stuggle - they feel their oppression - but they do not know what it is they want. They call that abstract ideal "Freedom". It is not necessarily wrong - but in having accomplished a known identity for something that is inherent in the want of humanity, no matter how abstract, we have therefore given it away. We have given it to our possessors, those with power to control us, those who dominate us.
The slaves would give "freedom" to their masters. The serfs would give it to their feudal lords. The bourgeois would give it the nobility. The proletariat give it to the bourgeois.
We do this, because they hold the power to give or to take "freedom" away, not understanding the truth - that "true freedom", if such a thing exists, exists within us all, fully and completely, as individuals.

The lie being, as it has always been - that we do not have any to give away.

[contracycle]

This made me wonder whether there is in fact some connection between freedom (as in democracy, free speech, protection from threat & whatever else comes under that label) and the role of soldiers/armies.


Read Heinlein's Starship Troopers, in which precisely this issue is discussed.


But they are surely exceptions rather than the rule? WW2 German occupation is the only example I can think of where anyone was actually under threat.

The Peloponnesian War is actually another interesting case. It essentially prefigures the Cold War; democratic movements in Greek city states declared for, an expected help from, Athens, while aristocratic groups curried favour with the Spartans. Both sides were quite clear that they were acting in support of a political model; both sides were dragged into conflicts in which the only thing to be gained was the demonstration of their willingness to come to the aid of those who asked them for help.

Most historical wars, by number, have been conducted for personal gain. But the Peloponnesian war was distinctly political.

[LiaSofia]

'Protection of threat' - in what conceivable world has any government ever been able to actually protect anyone? Instead, they generally ignore threats until they are acted upon. You cannot arrest someone for murder before they become a murderer, you can only do it after they have murdered.
You cannot stop them from murdering, because this would mean having a policeman, no-less than a perfect one, at every individual's house every day, every hour.
You cannot realistically be protected, even theoretically if you could be: Everyone around you loses their freedom, including yourself.
If you were guarded every minute of the day, you do not even have the freedom to go to the bathroom by yourself, let alone go somewhere or say something that might be considered dangerous. You lose your own freedom.
If you were guarded every minute of the day and people acted against you, or even appeared to act against you, they will lose their freedoms, as well, by force.
There is no such thing as protection from threats, in the interests of "freedom", it is impossible. You cannot be given protection without losing your freedom, and it is not feasible for everyone to be protected.

This is an interesting perspective. I agree with 99% of what you're saying, however there are a couple of points I'm not sure about. First, what you said above about protection - I'd argue that it is possible to arrest someone for murder before they have murdered (in a sense) - many potential disasters have been averted when would-be terrorists have been found before they've had a chance to use their bombs etc. There was a case last year I think; two white nationalists were arrested for planning an attack on a mosque. Second, while true democracy and free speech may never be achievable, we still have relative freedom. I can be critical of Britain and Christianity on Revleft without any consequences. If I were in Saudi Arabia then I'd be in the same position as Raif Badawi - surely that proves that what we call 'free speech' is more than just an ideal?


What saddens me the most is that the United States used to have a healthier attitude with regard to the military. Americans used to admire men like Mark Twain who criticized jingoism and blind patriotism.

Yes, I remember reading Mark Twain's comments on patriotism. If you have to be a patriot, be the kind he talks about. I saw a meme circulating on Facebook a while back that said, ''America - love it or leave it. Don't try to change it'', which is exactly the kind of blind patriotism that he warned against. It's absolutely idiotic and dangerous to think that anyone who wants to change any aspect of a society should leave.

Another thing I've been hearing a lot - people who say they don't support the war but they do support the troops. Questioning this mentality is likely to lead to being chased away with torches and pitchforks. I know all kinds of people who identify with typical leftist causes - they're vegetarian, environmentalist, pro-LGBT, have socialist tendencies when it comes to economics, they call themselves hippies, they hate conservatives - but every single one of them believes that we should ''support our troops''. Saying that you don't is surely one of the most taboo statements you can make at the moment.

[Comrade #138672]

Yes, thanks for using the soldier as cannon fodder in an imperialist war to protect your imagined "freedom of speech".


I saw a meme circulating on Facebook a while back that said, ''America - love it or leave it. Don't try to change it'', which is exactly the kind of blind patriotism that he warned against. Without change, America would still have slavery.

[Subversive]

This is an interesting perspective. I agree with 99% of what you're saying, however there are a couple of points I'm not sure about. First, what you said above about protection - I'd argue that it is possible to arrest someone for murder before they have murdered (in a sense) - many potential disasters have been averted when would-be terrorists have been found before they've had a chance to use their bombs etc. There was a case last year I think; two white nationalists were arrested for planning an attack on a mosque. Second, while true democracy and free speech may never be achievable, we still have relative freedom. I can be critical of Britain and Christianity on Revleft without any consequences. If I were in Saudi Arabia then I'd be in the same position as Raif Badawi - surely that proves that what we call 'free speech' is more than just an ideal?
On your first pointed, as I admitted if protection is possible - then freedom is lost.

In such a case, how is it known that a bomb-plot is going to take place? It can only be at the cost of individuals' privacy where the government, or other individuals, may have interfered with private concerns.
There is a way the governments find these things out - and at a cost to everyone's privacy. It is an issue the world is facing right now against most of the first-world governments.

The only instance wherein someone can call it 'protection' is if the individual was publicly stating their intentions - but what sort of person would do this? Would taking them to jail for a crime they didn't commit really solve this problem? They were seeking more than just destruction. If they were publicly announcing plans to murder, they were likely seeking attention.

The real question here is simple: There is a trade between what is 'freedom' and what is 'protection'. So what is the fair trade? Perhaps we can call the act of this trade, itself, 'true freedom'.

A 'truly free' individual would have the right to choose how they are free and how they are protected.
They must be economically free, politically free, and socially free to choose.

So perhaps it is not a false ideal. I meant that only in the aspect of current society as a whole. What 'freedom' is, currently, is a corrupted, twisted, and abused form of a real, true "freedom". It is a 'thing' that humanity has always sought but simply fails to understand because the concept is so distant from what we currently have today.

"Relative freedom" is another topic entirely. Everything is relative in a society.
The 'green-ness' of your lawn is relative to the green-ness of your neighbor's lawn, both of whose lawns are relative to the green-ness of the lawns of people in other countries. All humanity's lawns are relative to the green-ness of either idealized grass or "grass" existing elsewhere in the universe.

In any case, my point being that surely relative freedom exists - but what does it matter when the highest form of comparison is far away from the idealized form?
What is the point of saying "my lawn is greener than yours" if both of our lawns are dry and yellow or covered in snow?

This "freedom" we know of today, relative or not, is not attributable to real freedom. It is a foreign concept.
Just as is the 'yellow-ness' or 'white-ness' of our lawns to things which are truly 'green'. We can not truly call it 'green' until it is 'green', even if only mildly green.

I am essentially saying: No freedom currently exists in this world. Humanity is born into shackles.
Some of us might be born with longer chains but that form of "freedom" is merely an illusion and always will be.



Yes, I remember reading Mark Twain's comments on patriotism. If you have to be a patriot, be the kind he talks about. I saw a meme circulating on Facebook a while back that said, ''America - love it or leave it. Don't try to change it'', which is exactly the kind of blind patriotism that he warned against. It's absolutely idiotic and dangerous to think that anyone who wants to change any aspect of a society should leave.
And the irony? The act of leaving, itself, is considered a crime.
Whether it be through suicide, revolt, or simply escaping to live somewhere else.



Another thing I've been hearing a lot - people who say they don't support the war but they do support the troops. Questioning this mentality is likely to lead to being chased away with torches and pitchforks. I know all kinds of people who identify with typical leftist causes - they're vegetarian, environmentalist, pro-LGBT, have socialist tendencies when it comes to economics, they call themselves hippies, they hate conservatives - but every single one of them believes that we should ''support our troops''. Saying that you don't is surely one of the most taboo statements you can make at the moment.
Eh, it depends. Saying "I'm a Communist" tends to get a worse reaction, from my experience.
And I've told people before that I don't support the troops - whose family members, or themselves, were in the military.

I've said numerous things before to people which seems to get a rather bad reaction. Though I will agree that stating you don't support the American troops is 'one of' the worst. It's on the list, at least.
Any sort of Communist-mentality generally gets rather horrible reactions from the average American.