I was roundly cursed on Mastodon the other day for pointing out how many global horrors we ignore. The number "40,000" caused me to point out that the USA is well-practiced at ignoring this: Fascists overran France, were already rounding up French Jews, and then bombed 40,000 Londoners to death. America watched that in 1940 and for another 18 months, with their hands in their pockets, and shrugged at the dead Londoners and French.
(Side fun fact: Americans actually had to be conscripted to fight fascism in Europe, some 60%; but their kids, contra the Vietnam cliche', actually 70% volunteered to go fight communism in a far country they'd never heard of.)
I also challenge mourners of some causes to name any facts about the Sri Lankan civil war. Who were the players? Which was the underdog that was finally beaten into surrender with, yes, some 40,000 deaths in the final battles? (a good 100,000 civilian deaths in the conflict).
Basically, nobody i run into can recall that the Sinhalese (Buddhists) were the oppressors, the Tamils (Muslim) were crushed into submission. It wasn't covered.
Honestly, I wonder if nobody would be paying attention to the deaths of Palestinians if they were being killed by Sinhalese Buddhists - the same as Sudan gets no ink. We're paying attention at all, because we're basically on the other side of the war, just don't want to admit it.
Total lack of coverage, is it worse? At least, no war-cheerleading for Sudan. There's just no question that fans of Netanyahu are getting to cheer on one side, remind us daily of their Oct7 casus belli, and minimize the suffering. The National Post is just a flat-out cheerleader.
Or "monger". We're so beat down we have euphemize with "cheerleader", first saw that with Glenn Greenwald re Iraq: was stigmatized for "warmonger", and picked a euphemism.
America is buffered with an ocean on each side so they’re sheltered from being geographical neighbours of the areas where they’re busy causing or supporting conflicts. Also they’re not that concerned with actual “winning”, they just want to degrade their so-called “enemies”, and in some cases, prevent a “good example” from emerging. A good example being a nation that goes their own way, independent of the wishes and desires of the State Department. If they’re rejectionists of American military bases, corporate encroachment, insist on managing their own resources, try to set up a fiercely independent (of America) governance, then they’re a potential target, and NATO is an additional lever to use to help prevent this dangerous type of independence. Military action or war is always an option in these cases. “It is the war which matters, not the result. “Winning” is incidental. There is always Stateside to come home to. What matters is disempowerment of the adversary – degradation of state, polity, economy, infrastructure and population. That is grist-to-the-mill for the US State Department. Constantly played out by lounging analysts on buttoned leather sofas in the palatial “map room” at Foggy Bottom.”
I was roundly cursed on Mastodon the other day for pointing out how many global horrors we ignore. The number "40,000" caused me to point out that the USA is well-practiced at ignoring this: Fascists overran France, were already rounding up French Jews, and then bombed 40,000 Londoners to death. America watched that in 1940 and for another 18 months, with their hands in their pockets, and shrugged at the dead Londoners and French.
(Side fun fact: Americans actually had to be conscripted to fight fascism in Europe, some 60%; but their kids, contra the Vietnam cliche', actually 70% volunteered to go fight communism in a far country they'd never heard of.)
I also challenge mourners of some causes to name any facts about the Sri Lankan civil war. Who were the players? Which was the underdog that was finally beaten into surrender with, yes, some 40,000 deaths in the final battles? (a good 100,000 civilian deaths in the conflict).
Basically, nobody i run into can recall that the Sinhalese (Buddhists) were the oppressors, the Tamils (Muslim) were crushed into submission. It wasn't covered.
Honestly, I wonder if nobody would be paying attention to the deaths of Palestinians if they were being killed by Sinhalese Buddhists - the same as Sudan gets no ink. We're paying attention at all, because we're basically on the other side of the war, just don't want to admit it.
Total lack of coverage, is it worse? At least, no war-cheerleading for Sudan. There's just no question that fans of Netanyahu are getting to cheer on one side, remind us daily of their Oct7 casus belli, and minimize the suffering. The National Post is just a flat-out cheerleader.
Or "monger". We're so beat down we have euphemize with "cheerleader", first saw that with Glenn Greenwald re Iraq: was stigmatized for "warmonger", and picked a euphemism.
America is buffered with an ocean on each side so they’re sheltered from being geographical neighbours of the areas where they’re busy causing or supporting conflicts. Also they’re not that concerned with actual “winning”, they just want to degrade their so-called “enemies”, and in some cases, prevent a “good example” from emerging. A good example being a nation that goes their own way, independent of the wishes and desires of the State Department. If they’re rejectionists of American military bases, corporate encroachment, insist on managing their own resources, try to set up a fiercely independent (of America) governance, then they’re a potential target, and NATO is an additional lever to use to help prevent this dangerous type of independence. Military action or war is always an option in these cases. “It is the war which matters, not the result. “Winning” is incidental. There is always Stateside to come home to. What matters is disempowerment of the adversary – degradation of state, polity, economy, infrastructure and population. That is grist-to-the-mill for the US State Department. Constantly played out by lounging analysts on buttoned leather sofas in the palatial “map room” at Foggy Bottom.”
A sad but seemingly too true state of affairs.
https://polishthemirror.substack.com/p/the-mirror-of-history-and-perception
Love your article, but the truth of it is heavy on my heart.
good article. I hope you saw my email a couple of days ago
Does Kamala have a conscience?