Got change? Want change? Spare some and get some by becoming a member of rabble.ca today.
I prepped for the outbreak of birthday festivities for the War of 1812 -- they start today in Toronto and Monday marks 200 years since the U.S. declared war on the British Empire -- by watching the last episodes of this season's Justified. It's based on crime writer Elmore Leonard's stories about Raylan Givens, U.S. marshal. They're set in Kentucky today, and are highly violent and primitive. All growing boys get a gun, and some girls. "I killed one Crowder, I'll kill another," says Raylan's 18-year-old girlfriend to the meth king of Harlan county. Fathers and sons hate, shoot and kill each other without sentiment, though there are rules. ("I ain't goin' anywhere, they killed my daddy," says Crowder fils. "You came here to kill your daddy," says Raylan. "That's different," is the answer.)
Watching it may help think your way into how Canadians felt in our part of that war -- southwestern Ontario and the Niagara peninsula -- where Kentuckians were a major source of fear, and some of them don't seem to have changed much. The state experienced a "delirium of celebration" at the declaration of war, wrote Pierre Berton in his two-volume history; so many Kentuckians volunteered that lots had to be sent home. There were towns along the Mississippi where their reputation was "more terrifying than that of Indians." The parallel fear on the U.S. side was over the "savages," led by Tecumseh, who allied with the British. They caused so much panic among Americans that Fort Detroit surrendered without a fight, to Tecumseh and Gen. Isaac Brock. What First Nations people felt is another story: watching an endless flow of invaders with ever-new weaponry, who refused to recognize their right to exist in their own lands. It led to that shrewd but ultimately ineffective alliance.
1812 was really a pretty disconnected set of clashes, all peripheral to the final phase of the Napoleonic wars in Europe: some combat between regulars, naval battles on the Great Lakes, a fierce British attack on Washington -- but the fighting around here was more like recent, ragged, ill-defined conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan than the set-pieces between armies at Waterloo or the World Wars.
We know the Harper government has put a big push behind the 200th birthday party, as part of their campaign to glamourize Canadian wars (versus the wussy peacekeeping that Liberals were supposedly into). And to justify billions of dollars on jets whose purpose they can't explain, while dismantling support for the unemployed and research into budget items like climate change.
But the glamourization of war is odious not because of what it claims; it's because of what it omits. I knew the kids of a Canadian general who wanted them to know that basically war is about killing people. That isn't exactly a secret but it still manages to hide. It's possible to lose track of the fact, as in sports, that the other side is trying to win too. They don't know you either but they're out to get you and if they feel they're defending their homes while you're far from yours, like Canadians in Afghanistan, you may suddenly comprehend their motives better than your own. That would be pretty scary. I also knew of a decorated World War II vet who told his daughter, when her son was born, to get the hell out of Canada with him if another war ever began.
I'm not saying all wars are avoidable, I'm sure they aren't. But glorifying them goes a step beyond that. The most physically courageous people I've known don't talk much about it; they just do it, if they feel it's necessary. It's tempting to say this gaudy celebration of a war that happened 200 years ago is obnoxious chiefly because it's being done to justify the pointless carnage of young Canadians in Afghanistan -- along with similar, equally pointless adventures yet to come. But the glamourization of any war in any century stands as ugly on its own. Most of those who died back then were young and innocent too.
Still, at least it was a time when governments had the guts to declare war instead of backing into it. Almost makes you nostalgic.
This article was first published in the Toronto Star.
It figures. Unlike Harper, I served in the Canadian Navy for 20 plus years and don't see anything worth "celebrating" in war. Harper, not only never served, I have doubt it never even entered his mind. Why would anyone be surprised by this? Right wingers love having others go fight their fights. Getting you hads dirty is something "the little people do", dontcha know?
I never "served" in the armed forces. I guess that lumps me in with Harper and anyone else who never "served" (served whom, exactly?) as being content to let others fight "my" fights.
Why does Arthur Cramer feel he has to wear his "service" in the Navy as a badge of honour?
I don't think Mr. Cramer is wearing his service in the navy as a badge of honour. I think he's using that fact to illustrate he's seen the situation upfront and it's not something to celebrate. I've never been in the military so have more interest in Mr. Cramer's point of view than Mr. Spector's sniping. (Have assumed you're both men. Apologies if I'm wrong.)
I think A Cramer makes an excellent point.
Cramer is clearly using Harper's not having "served" in the military as something to reproach him for. Moreover, by directly comparing his own "service" with Harper's not having "served", Cramer is explicitly suggesting that he is somehow morally superior.
I reject that suggestion categorically.
There are many reasons to despise Stephen Harper, not the least of which is his warmongering. But not having "served" isn't one of them.
M. Spector,
I do not see Mr. Cramer as climbing on the soapbox of "moral superiority". Yes he does reproach the Prime Minister for talking though his hat ... there is nothing glorious about war, it is a manifestation of our failures as an intelligent, compassionante species.
Perhaps if Mr. Harper had "served" something bigger than himself earlier in life, he might be a better Prime Minister.
What the hell does that even mean?
M. Spector,
I have read many of your past posts and, from them, infer you are intelligent. Consequently, the odds are good your question is retorical and intended as a slight.
However, in the event my interpretation is wrong and your question genuine, my intended meaning was:
if he, Mr. Harper, had "served" society in a capacity where his personal ambitions were second to the needs of those being served - which is precisely what young Canadians pledge when they enlist in the armed services - when he was younger, his present "service" to Canadians might be more genuine and beneficial to society than it has been.
OK, then, I'll put you down as someone who thinks it's a good idea for Canadian youth to enlist in the armed forces (or "services" as you call them).
Because apparently the armed forces of Canada are serving some kind of need Canadians have to send our youth to foreign lands and kill people whose governments refuse to fall in line with the dictates of Washington and Ottawa. And of course doing so makes them better candidates to be politicians and run the country in a more "genuine and beneficial" manner.
Hi! I think it has a certain interest that Mr. or Ms. Cramer, as a retired member of the armed forces, is of the opinion that there's nothing to celebrate in a war. It's actually a fairly radical position for somebody in the DND. When I see a "support our troops" sticker on a car belonging to a member of the armed forces I tend to snort a little less vehemently than I might when (I imagine) the driver to be an ordinary nemish like me. Armed forces personnel are subject to enormous amounts of brainwashing, after all. (And I believe the use of the word serve/service/serving is a bit of military dialect. It sounds funny to outsiders, but I wouldn't read too much into it.)
I suppose Stephen H. is interested in war because (a) businesses can make money off it; (b) the U.S. makes war often and Canada can curry favour by joining in, thus perhaps getting special treatment for its businesses; (c) it distracts us from local problems; and (d) it disposes of the underclass. Insofar as Stephen wants to appeal to people who want to get tough on America's flavour of the month, or look tough, it might be of some interest to think about Stephen's lack of personal involvement. I dunno.
For what it's worth,I'm not anti-soldier...I have family in the Armed Forces (or military or how ever you'd like to call them) and I have to admit,when I see or hear stuff on bumper stickers and the like 'If you don't stand behind our troops,feel free to stand in front of them' from those without any military background,I get pissed off.
I SUPPORT 'our' troops...This is why I want them OUT of Afghanistan or any other war zone...I wonder if Harper,MacKay or Toews,etc...have any military background..I know Harpie and MacKay don't but they sure like war (MacKay even abuses the military with joy rides)
Teach them how to assemble an M-16 or fly a fighter jet and THEY can fight THEIR war.
And as A Cramer said,it's funny how these right wingers love war but,for most of them,never served..and it's unlikely they have any immediate family in the military either.
It's so easy to declare war when you have the under-class to fight it for you.
These shit bags in suits should be sent to the deserts,the jungles and everywhere else they declare wars..Maybe if they had to live in the reality they've created for us(whether it be war,cuts to social programs,jails,Canada Pension,etc...) they'd all be singing a much different tune.
I suppose then that if retired Generalissimo Rick "scumbags" Hillier or Gen. Charles "The Butcher" Bouchard became Prime Minister, we'd have no cause for complaint about Canada's imperialist wars because, after all, our PM would have a "military background" and would have "served" his country for many years.
The fact is that all Prime Ministers, whether military veterans or not, send Canadians off to die and kill others in foreign wars. Criticizing some of them for not having done their part ("served" their country) by personally participating in these foreign adventures seems to me to completely miss and indeed obscure the real point of why their wars should be opposed. In addition, it plays into the same narrative that is used by warmongers against anti-war individuals (such as me) — the one that says 'you don't know what you're talking about because you never "served" in the armed forces'. As if you need some kind of "credentials" to have a valid opinion on issues of war and peace.
"OK, then, I'll put you down as someone who thinks it's a good idea for Canadian youth to enlist in the armed forces (or "services" as you call them)."
M. Spector,
Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to put others down. In my post, I did not make a value statement on whether it is a good idea or bad idea for youth to enlist ... the value statement is entirely your own.
I could have used Volunteer Services Overseas, Canada World Youth, Katimavik, or a myriad of other organisations in my posting. The oganisation was not the point of the message, the idea of placing yourself in service to society was.
Yes, I understand that. And my point, which seems to have eluded you, is that enlisting in the Canadian armed forces — unlike enlisting in VSO, CWY, or the late Katimavik — is not a "service to society". It is a service to Canadian and U.S. imperialism and the ruling classes that benefit from it.
That much should have been clear from the second paragraph of my post, which you didn't quote.
M. Spector wrote:
And my point, which seems to have eluded you, is that enlisting in the Canadian armed forces — unlike enlisting in VSO, CWY, or the late Katimavik — is not a "service to society".
M. Spector,
Your point did not elude me and neither did the smugness. Knowing nothing of my situation and background, you once again pass judgement. Yes, I spent time in the military, I even went to "charm school" - for me it was the shot I had at an univeristy education. It is also where I learned who I was and that I was in the wrong place. I have also worked with VSO and Katimavik ... sometimes life is not black and white.