from the Mahablog
[I]nstead of actually studying the life and words of Churchill for understanding, Righties simply evoke the man as an archetype of bulldog, never-give-up tenacity. I’ve read that Bush keeps a bust of Churchill in the oval office, for inspiration. And perhaps there’s something like tantric identity yoga going on here; Bush imagines himself to be the great Churchill, the wrathful dakini of Stubbornness.
Very likely righties associate Churchill with his great oratory of World War II and know little else about him. They don’t stop to consider that in his “blood, sweat, and tears” speech Churchill was talking about a major military power capable of raining bombs on London (and, in fact, preparing to do so). Hitler’s Germany and today’s Iraq are in no way equivalent — except in the minds of righties, for whom “Hitler” has become the Demon Enemy whose spirit infests the bodies of all enemies, whoever they are and whatever their capabilities and intentions.
By the same token, Neville Chamberlain is the archetype of cowardly appeasement. Righties may know little else about the man except that he “appeased” Hitler — not an uncommon practice among right wingers of the 1930s, who considered Hitler and Mussolini to be swell guys who hated communism as much as they did.
Read the rest ...
I've often found it discouraging to try to engage Righties in a conversation about history ... particularly the history of the period from 1932 to 1945. I'm often left with the impression that they got their information from 1950s and 1960s era movies like "To Hell and Back", and "Flying Leathernecks" and TV series such as "Desert Rats" of the same period. Their understanding of the events and their significance is an amazing parody of reality.
I roll my eyes when I hear how Roosevelt maneuvered us into a war with Germany ... in spite of the fact that the actual war started in 1939 and the US didn't enter until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and Germany declared war on the United States three days later. They declared war on us. Germany had invaded Poland and Russia. Hitler had conquered France. The Battle of Britain was already past. Japan had invaded China. In short, we were about the only country of any significance with whom they weren't at war and they declared war ... yet, it was Roosevelt who was somehow responsible!
The Righties revile Hitler, yet he was more anti-communist than they are. Yet before December 7, 1941 conservatives in the United States (Everit Derkson [R-IL] in particular) opposed the Lend Lease Program we extended to Great Britain, Russia, China and other of the Allies engaged in resisting the rise of Fascism.
It's all very confusing ... mostly because I sense that they are very confused.
It's not unlike Bill O stating before a national audience (on several occasions even after being publicly corrected) that American troops engaged in atrocities during WWII at Malmedy.
History's version of the Malmedy Massacre.
Bill O'Reilly's of the Malmedy Massacre (with critique by Keith Olbermann).
As a matter of fact, it's EXACTLY like Bill O and his backwards vision of history.
And here's another example of Right-think that came looking for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment