History Tends to Repeat Itself
To all of my dedicated readers there are some things about me that you may not know: 1.) I'm a Cancer, my birthday is on July 5th (buy me something); 2.) I tend to laugh at inappropriate times when it makes everyone uncomfortable (like church); 3.) I'm a teacher, I teach history and drama (and then sometimes a little LD debate).
I have a history class that leaves me in hysterics. They are the most neo-conservative 16 year olds I've ever met. The following is an actual transcript of a conversation I overheard in my class right after Hurricane Katrina.
Student 1: Dude, Bush is on TV tonight.
Student 2: Yeah, I know!
(Then, they high five).
There isn't a day that goes by that one or all of them say something that's totally insensitive, racist, an/or just plain stupid. I've explained why the war in Iraq is a bad idea at least 25 times this year. Regardless of the fact that these are the most insensitive group of adolescent assholes in the world, I can't help but leave the class laughing at their small-mindedness.
This has absolutely nothing to do with this post, except for the fact that you needed to know that I teach history.
I was scanning the text book for the class the other day (we were starting our WWII unit) to double check my notes and ran into an interesting bit of information. Throughout the 1930's while Hitler was dictating Germany he preached peace and justice. In fact, Hitler managed to convince everyone in Germany that if people didn't believe in his ideals they were anti-peace. The most evil man in the history of the world thought that anyone who didn't believe in what he believed in was anti-peace. (Just so you know, it was just 3 years after this that he invaded Poland and officially started WWII).
As I was reading this something dawned on me, something that had done nothing but piss me off a few months ago. In February Unequivocal Prowess and I were watching TV and saw some news report that said that people in the Middle East were comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. Somewhere over there there was a ginormous mural of Bush dressed in a Nazi uniform, with his hand in the, "Hail" salute, and with a Hitler mustache.
I really don't like the President, I think he's a blood-thirsty, functioning illiterate; however, I also don't like the fact that we, as a people, are apparantly being compared to the people who elected Hitler. So, in a word, I was pissed.
Two days ago, however, when I read about Hitler saying anyone who opposed his ideals was anti-peace, it got me thinking. Doesn't Bush say that anyone who doesn't subscribe to his way of thinking is anti-freedom? Now, I ask you, you the American public, are the comparisons valid? I look forward to some enlightening answers and maybe even some good old American debate. Just leave a comment and I'll make sure and check and respond.
I have a history class that leaves me in hysterics. They are the most neo-conservative 16 year olds I've ever met. The following is an actual transcript of a conversation I overheard in my class right after Hurricane Katrina.
Student 1: Dude, Bush is on TV tonight.
Student 2: Yeah, I know!
(Then, they high five).
There isn't a day that goes by that one or all of them say something that's totally insensitive, racist, an/or just plain stupid. I've explained why the war in Iraq is a bad idea at least 25 times this year. Regardless of the fact that these are the most insensitive group of adolescent assholes in the world, I can't help but leave the class laughing at their small-mindedness.
This has absolutely nothing to do with this post, except for the fact that you needed to know that I teach history.
I was scanning the text book for the class the other day (we were starting our WWII unit) to double check my notes and ran into an interesting bit of information. Throughout the 1930's while Hitler was dictating Germany he preached peace and justice. In fact, Hitler managed to convince everyone in Germany that if people didn't believe in his ideals they were anti-peace. The most evil man in the history of the world thought that anyone who didn't believe in what he believed in was anti-peace. (Just so you know, it was just 3 years after this that he invaded Poland and officially started WWII).
As I was reading this something dawned on me, something that had done nothing but piss me off a few months ago. In February Unequivocal Prowess and I were watching TV and saw some news report that said that people in the Middle East were comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. Somewhere over there there was a ginormous mural of Bush dressed in a Nazi uniform, with his hand in the, "Hail" salute, and with a Hitler mustache.
I really don't like the President, I think he's a blood-thirsty, functioning illiterate; however, I also don't like the fact that we, as a people, are apparantly being compared to the people who elected Hitler. So, in a word, I was pissed.
Two days ago, however, when I read about Hitler saying anyone who opposed his ideals was anti-peace, it got me thinking. Doesn't Bush say that anyone who doesn't subscribe to his way of thinking is anti-freedom? Now, I ask you, you the American public, are the comparisons valid? I look forward to some enlightening answers and maybe even some good old American debate. Just leave a comment and I'll make sure and check and respond.
posted by the count at
6:18 PM
4 Comments:
You know, I had no idea that this was the case with Hitler but I'm actually delighted to hear this (poor choice of words) because it demonstrates a moral theory of mine. The reason the whole good/evil dichotomy is wildly unrealistic is that nobody believes he or she is evil. However, if we're going to be like the Bushies and say that evil exists, then somebody is obviously wrong. At that point you have to stop looking and ideology and start looking at things like logical consistency. I think my main problem with Bush is really just that he's wildly inconsistent. He believes in freedom, yet supports a secret NSA wiretapping program. Believes in peace, yet starts a doctrine of preemptive war. Professes to be a Christian, but aligns himself with big oil AGAINST the impoverished people who suffer the most from high gas prices.
Maybe this is why most people modernly consider hyposcrisy to be the worst offense: at its roots, it's just plain inconsistent.
By
bad-journalist.blogspot.com, at 9:57 PM
I find it interesting that you have just begun reading Wicked and you are bringing up the whole good/evil dichotomy. As I'm sure you're aware that is a central theme in the book; the whole who and what is evil is simply in the eye of the beholder thing. But lets get away from the fiction and bring it back to the basics.
Before invading Poland Hitler invaded both Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland and Britain and France just looked the other way. This was due to their policy of appeasement to Hitler, they didn't really see him or Germany as a threat because it was thought Germany was still reeling from WWI. However, it was the worlds' "Germany is a joke" idea that gave Hitler the belief that he was strong enough to win a war against all of Europe. I've always said that the worst thing you can give an underdog is hope. Now, let's come back to Bush. Bush is by no means an underdog, but I believe that his early administration laxed attitude about the job almost made him a joke to many other countries. This is what allowed him to go ape-shit after 9/11 and start unilatterally invading countries. He was the special kid in the back of the classroom that just got picked on, so you're letting him take out some of his aggressions by picking apart the chair of his desk. That's why the UN didn't really step up and say, "You can't invade Iraq" they were just appeasing him. They were appeasing him the exact same way Britain and France were appeasing Germany 70 years ago. What happened after Hitler took the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia? He got too big for his britches and tried to take Poland, which is when Britain and France finally stepped in. Bush has already invaded two countries, now there's talk of a third, and finally the UN is stepping up and saying invading Iran is a bad idea. What does Bush do now? Does he take the high road and leave Iran to its nuclear self, or does he do the stupid thing and attempt to invade? Tune in next week for another exciting episode. Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.
By
the count, at 7:20 AM
We don't refer to him as King George for no reason...
By
genderist, at 3:20 PM
I agree with angry's theory, well to an extent. I think psychologically that may be very true. Sadly, though, and I know I've referenced this before, but I believe Zizek might be more right. He says that the core of the problem is that capitalism and democracy have become trumped up versions of a popularity contest. I don't think that evaluating Bush has to do with good or evil, I do think he would never do the shit he does if he thought it was bad, but the bigger problem has been and always will be popularity for Bush.
Think back to novice debates. When you watch a novice debate, they often will get so trapped in the logic of the argument that they abandon the morality of the argument. I think that all of Washington is so far lost in political capital that maybe the bigger problem is that Bush is so hell-bent on leaving a legacy that he has lost his vision, and the fucking debate, a long time ago.
By
Unequivocal_Prowess, at 5:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home