babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I agree those automobile industry, forestry, airline, aerospace, construction , forestry, plastics and pipeline workers (just to name a few "imperialist" supporters who are workers) seem to not quibble too much as it is bad for the businesses they work for and most likely invest in. Oh and I won't leave out farmers, educators and public servants cause they too uphold "imperialists".
hmph...after some more thoughts on just who amongst the workers of Canada could possibly be pure enough to distain so much it came to me that no settler in Canada can.
Yeah, and the Germans soldiers that they slaughtered, and that slaughtered them, believed they "fought and died for their country" too.
Funny that--some reports indicate they too were humans with families that missed them. Yet they too were dupes of the same absurd tribalistic nationalism promoted then and now.
Stop the insanity.
Any party that thinks they represent "this country" enough to comment on this mindless slaughter should offer abject apologies and contrition --,not further glorification that encourages the current and next generation into further murderous obscenities based on the eternal lie, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori".
I find it quite useful as well to try and properly situate ourselves in order to do an accounting of who actually benefits from war and imperialism.
Look, I didn't say that I thought war was wonderful. I served 25 years in the Navy, and I think I get that part. All I was saying is we are remembering their sacrifice, not the reasons behind the war itself.
My dad (blessed be his memory), signed up the day he turned 18, and went overseas just over a year later as a 19 plus years old Sargeant Major. These guys were kids. My dad came from a family steeped in the tradtions of the 19th century English Labour Party, and was a life long CCFer/New Dem. As my father before me, I served as well, but very fortuneately never shot, nor got shot at. I WAS LUCKY. My Dad's generation and his peers didn't have the same luxury of a say in it
Ok, I truly do understand seeing this as glorification of war. Maybe there are problems with how we speak about this, but it simply makes no sense to think you are doing past warriors and vets any real tribute by dismissing their efforts. That is what this is about, and that is all it is about. What is so hard to understand about that? We had better find a way to speak about this that reonsates with Canadians or it will become shrill and ultimately set us back electoraly, moving that "New Jerusalem" of a NDP government at the Federal level, once more further down the road.
Why couldn't the NDP just not say anything? Why now? Is there some real significance to the 95th anniversary?
The NDP in the past has not noted every anniversary of Vimy Ridge. Seems to me that the only difference in this new age is that the MSM controlled by our media oligarchs are engaging in ongoing military propaganda to manufacture consent for NATO's murderous attacks on other nations.
Is is really as simple as the fact that the media moguls are setting the agenda and the NDP is just dancing the only jig they can given the tune being played. Maybe they should just leave the dance floor to the other parties and move on to a better party not sponsored by the military industrial complex.
As my mother used to say, " if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all." The NDP didn't need to insult the troops but they also didn't need to say anything at all.
Kroptkin 1951, you make a really telling point, and in that light, this is worrisome. New Dems need to focus on what we believe and why, not what we think people should think we believe.
It's remarkable that from one era to another, the reasons have remained largely unchanged as to why no past or present contending politician would ever dream of questioning for instance, our decade long involvement in Afghanistan. Sure, there's maybe a preference for one mission over another within the context of Afghanistan, but no one would dare say it was an ill-advised sham from the get go... that those troops died and were maimed in the service of a sham. So instead of paying tribute to those who got blown to pieces by demonstrating the political resolve to not allow any such thing to occur again, our politicos will continue to fill heads with tales of sacrifice, bravery, selflessness, and heroism for one's country, which helps to inspire the next generation into unquestioned servitude to the imperial powers.
ETA: On second thought, maybe it's not so remarkable after all when the same techniques are applied over and over again, because it works. It's like playing fetch for the umpteenth time with a mutt that never seems to grow weary from it.
cause they don't speak for just you. They also speak to or for millions of Canadians who have feelngs like mine and my families.
And all I'm saying is that doing the former without doing the latter leads one down the path of glorifying past and present imperialist wars.
My grandfather was in the Canadian Army in the "Great" War. He was gassed, and he got typhoid and the Spanish flu, but he survived. He made a huge personal sacrifice, but he never pretended to be anything other than a victim. He had no illusions that what he had done had liberated Europe - especially after Hitler came to power in Germany.
You're missing the point. Did they issue a statement on the anniversary last year? The year before? The year before that? If not, why not? What makes this year any different than previous years? Is it just because this anniversary is a multiple of 5? That seems rather silly and arbitrary.
Probably to steal some light from the Cons on this file. Probably thought the Cons were going to make a big deal of this, and jumped on the wagon train.
E1 including yourself upholds "imperialist" Canada. Whether they admit to themselves or not like you do seem to not do is another story.
I am not missing any point 5 year anniversary marks are always noted. 5 years prior they were NOT the Official Opposition representing millions of Canadians who as I said feel just as I do.
The self-imposed purity around here is astounding and toxic.
Most definitely. I wrapped up a 28 year military career just a few weeks ago.
Very well put, MS. Transforming all the poor, misled soldier-victims, whose lives have been thrown away for the sake of the ambition and greed of various rulers throughout history into heroes serves only the interests of those sociopathic bastards who want to do more of the same. While reasonable people may debate over the justification for WW2, Vimy Ridge was part of a war that clearly has no such ambiguity. It was an old fashioned war between rival empires, and every single death was a pointless, criminal waste. I agree with Kropotkin that the NDP should just be quiet about it.
" Vimy Ridge was part of a war that clearly has no such ambiguity. It was an old fashioned war between rival empires, and every single death was a pointless, criminal waste. I agree with Kropotkin that the NDP should just be quiet about it."
You don't have to be Left or even very progressive to think this way. I'm as conservative as they come, politically, and I totally agree with the statement that every single death was a criminal waste. However, since it was the grandparents of people now living whose lives were thus wasted, it's probably best to be low-key about it, if not for moral reasons, then for practical political ones.
But you are a supporter? Correct me if I am wrong but I am presuming from the tone of the post that you have been an NDP supporter in past years when Vimy Ridge was seldom raised.
Part of my point is they have not celebrated Vimy Ridge every year so why now? What kind of protest did you raise in the years they neglected to heap praise on our brave boys who got suckered into becoming cannon fodder? Did that non event by the NDP really have a significant impact on whether or not you voted for the NDP?
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
This is disgusting warmongering pandering *disguised* as honoring the troops, disgusting. We've seen this in the Bush fascist playbook to negate criticism for war crimes. "What? You dont want the bombing to death of 200 000 men women and children? How dare you disrespect the troops!" Its almost starting to sound like the NDP could be Canada's version of Tony Blair wolf-in-sheep's-clothing New Labor, that was anti-labor and pro-war alternatives to the anti-labor and pro-war Tories.
If anyone is interested this board has had a similar discussion in the past.
http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/no-militarized-patriotism-vimy-ridge
Of course there is no reason for the NDP to point out the actual history of WWI it will only confuse the MSM discourse. The people of Canada understood Vimy Ridge and that is why when conscription came into force 90% of those sent notices applied for exemption. Those were the Canadians that people like J.S. and Ginger spoke for.
Why are their voices not also honoured by the NDP? In 1917 the country was divided with many people opposed to the war but in 2012 we are to believe the whole nation was backing our brave boys who poured out of the mines and factories to fight for King and country. That is not history it is propaganda.
http://passchendaelethemovie.com/Canada_In_The_Great_War/notable_la_bell...
prove it.
Why couldn't they have honored those feelings by just mourning those that were lost, while also reminding the nation that the war was nothing but a fight for Imperial and corporate power? Who would have objected? Certainly no one who'd even have considered voting NDP.
Does Mulcair think there's some massive "militarists with a social conscience" constituency he needs to appeal to? If so, where the hell is it?
There wasn't anything heroic or positive about anything in World War I. All that war did was create the conditions that led to World War II. it liberated no one and saved nothing.
I seriously doubt that there's anybody in North America, let alone anybody in a Tory-NDP marginal riding, who STILL has it in for the Kaiser, for Goddess' sake.
No, that's not all the NDP statement was doing (thanking someone without supporting their boss). That is the point. And then they supportively linked it to the wars that Canadian troops are fighting now.
There were several people in this thread who, before your post, said that the NDP could have acknowledged the loss of the soldiers while not glorifying the war or claiming that they died for something important, when really, they died for nothing.
As someone else said, they believed they were doing the right thing because there was a massive peer pressure campaign against all men of fighting age to join up. And then, as the war wore on and even that wasn't enough to make men volunteer to be cannon fodder for nothing, they brought in conscription.
Say, how did conscription go over in Quebec?
Oh well, I guess that's not important! It's only important that we glorify the "sacrifice" for king and country! They died for me! For ME! I know I wasn't born yet, but gosh, if they hadn't died for me, we would all be ruled by the Kaiser's grandson and the rest of those damned Huns now, and eating bayonnetted babies for breakfast every day! Right? Can I get an amen, everyone?
This would have been the wisest course of action. I think it might also be a nice idea for the NDP to sometime acknowledge those who fought against Conscription and who were conscientious objectors in the face of unbelievable peer pressure and persecution as war heroes. Maybe not on the anniversary of Vimy Ridge - leave that to the jingoists. But perhaps on some other date that is significant. (Like maybe the anniversary of the Easter Riots or something?)
Yes, yes, and yes:
Statement by New Democrat Leader Jack Layton on the 94th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge
Statement from New Democrat Leader Jack Layton on the 93rd anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge
Statement from Jack Layton on the 92nd Anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge
Some of us here have been using microscopes, throughout the months, to identify "differences" between Mulcair and the glorious old NDP. There are none. The anti-war NDP which sides with the oppressed of the world never existed. Please let's not allow our preconceived notions to colour our view of history. Otherwise - like the warring nations of a century ago - we will be condemned to repeat it.
Someone, perhaps. No sense in creating a controversy over a press release for a 95 year old event that otherwise probably wasn't even going to be read.
The US Navy's new advertising motto, "A Force For Good in the World," doesn't necessarily make it so, no matter how many of it's members believe it. What we can observe is that the US Navy rank and file have either bought into the concept lock stock and barrel, have disregarded it as crass sloganeering but figure they have their jobs to do anyway, whatever they may be, or perhaps there's a mixture of both. The question for the NDP is which observation best fits y'all where it concerns the party's relationship to the Canadian people, in addition to it's real world view of the purpose of our military.
ETA: I'm in a generous enough mood today to give you the mixture one on both accounts.
Well, I don't think I deserved all the sarcasm ok? I can't speak for anyone else, but I know why I signed up, and I know why my dad signed up. So just maybe, you should at least make like you actually read what I posted. You don't have to agree with it, but I don't think I like the fact you appeared to just completely discount what I said. That is how I read it Michelle. I don't like it. You are entitled to your opinion certainly, but I don't like the tone of what you wrote, at all.
Its true there was plenty of peer pressure during WWI. I don't think it was the same in WW2; at least that was not my dad's impression. If you read what I wrote above regarding my dad, conformist is not a word you would associate with him. I don't claim to be an expert at all, but I know what motivated my enrolling in the service, so I think I have at least a little bit of insite, unless I am totally off, which I will be the first to acknowledge could be true. It isn't about what they did for you; it isn't about you, me or anyone else. It is about national service. I don't judge others who don't make the same choices, but that was a good part of why I enrolled. I thought I owed the country something back. That sounds old fashioned and goofy, but its true.
Anyway, there it is. Take of it what you want Michelle.
My dad enlisted - underage - for WW2. I recently got his military records from the National Archives. It says right in his records, in a note written by some superior, that the reason he gave (long after the fact) for enlisting was "to prove to my father I was a man." I found that incredibly sad.
My Dad and Uncles fought in WWII and it was they who taught me that war is to be avoided at all costs. My dad who voted Conservative all his live took me to Remembrance Days at the local cenotaph and always reminded me that the message from the WW's was NEVER AGAIN. My favorite Uncle died too young from alcoholism induced by the PTSD he gained fighting Germans up the spine of Italy. He never glorified war.