My Lai

[frankandcathy]

Okay, I mentioned in a previous post how I've been reading this fascinating book called Lies My Teacher Told Me. It's been VERY eye-opening about the truth of American history. Today I began reading the chapter on Vietnam and was horrified.

I am too young to have experienced any of this and have never really studied it in either high school or college as most teachers run out of time at the end of the year and rush through the last 20-30 years or so (shockingly).

Suddenly, the whole "anti-iraq war" thing makes so much more sense to me. It's in context now. Okay, I get WHY you don't want another Vietnam. I personally don't think this IS another Vietnam but I see why you would be afraid of it!

I simply had no idea that there were so many horrible, horrible things that were done in that war. Of course, some very heroic things were done as well by "our side." Those who stepped out to stop atrocities were heroes.

What also became apparent to me that no matter which political party a president belongs to, he/she has the power to make acts of war without congress' approval...and both parties' presidents have done so...and will continue to do so in the future. The problem is bigger than a political party.

At any rate, just wanted to recommend the book. It's very, very eye-opening.

~C

[nmwolfboy]

Another history book that's a real eye-opener is "People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" by Howard Zinn. i'm still working on getting through the whole thing, but his recounting of American history from the perspective of the marginalized & dispossessed provides a narrative that was lacking from any history course i took in school. ;)

[Pablo Rafael]

Cathy,

I have heard of that book. Now you have encouraged me to get to the library and check it out.(I probably heard about it on NPR; that's where I get all my news.)

It is interesting to see the evolution of the teaching of history in the United States. In my mom's school days history was a collection of stories that were chosen to teach a lesson. The infamous story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and his "I cannot tell a lie." confession is a classic example. It is total fiction, but the point was to encourage good behavior.

Those of us who got our college education in the post-Vietnam era see it differently. (We're not so interested in good behavior.) Students in my class get the less sanitized version. The United States has been involved in a lot of less-than-noble activities. The "ignorance is bliss" or "head in the sand" philosophy that so many people in our country have, only leads to more injustice. (The current war in Iraq is one such case in my opinion.) I always try to get my students to realize that all history is told with a biased viewpoint. Identifying bias in ourselves and others is a key point in understanding our world. (There will be a quiz on this at the end, so I would suggest taking notes.)

Scott, you have given me another book to read also. Howard Zinn is always fascinating. (Again on NPR.)

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[kara speltz]

Okay,
Suddenly, the whole "anti-iraq war" thing makes so much more sense to me. It's in context now. Okay, I get WHY you don't want another Vietnam. I personally don't think this IS another Vietnam but I see why you would be afraid of it!

I simply had no idea that there were so many horrible, horrible things that were done in that war. Of course, some very heroic things were done as well by "our side." Those who stepped out to stop atrocities were heroes.

What also became apparent to me that no matter which political party a president belongs to, he/she has the power to make acts of war without congress' approval...and both parties' presidents have done so...and will continue to do so in the future. The problem is bigger than a political party.

At any rate, just wanted to recommend the book. It's very, very eye-opening.

~C

Dear Cathy: I'm so delighted you're still here with us on the forum! And raising very, very important issues. I do remember My Lai because I spent most of those years trying to stop the VN war.

I felt so strongly opposed to the Iraqi war that I have actually been there twice since the war began. A very dear friend of mine, Jim Loney was taken captive for 4 months and finally rescued. What he wrote just after his rescue resonates so very deeply with me, that I want to share it with you.

"I am confronted with a great paradox. I, the Christian pacifist peacemaker, am alive, am free because of the very institutions I believe are contrary to Christian teaching.

"Christ teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who harm us, pray for those who persecute us. He calls us to accept suffering before we inflict injury. He calls us to pick up the cross and to lay down the sword.

"We will most certainly fail in this call. I did. And I'll fail again. This does not change Christ's teaching that violence itself is the tomb, violence is the dead end.

"Peace won through the barrel of a gun might be a victory, but it is not peace. Our captors have guns and they ruled over us. Our rescuers had bigger guns and ruled over our captors. We were freed, but the rule of the gun stayed.

I'm learning that there are many kinds of prisons and many kinds of tombs. Prisons of the mind, the heart, the body. Tombs of despair, fear confusion. Tombs within tombs and prisons within prisons.

"There are no easy answers. We must all find our way through a broken world, struggling with the paradox of call and failure. My captivity and rescue have helped me to catch a glimpse of how powerful the force of Resurrection is. God seeks us wherever we are, reaches for us in whatever darkness we inhabit. May we reach for each other with the same persistence. The tomb is not the final word."

We Christians keep trying to tell ourselves that Jesus didn't really mean it when he said we must love our enemies, but he did - so now how do we follow this Jewish carpenter and support our nation's wars of aggression.

Kara

[frankandcathy]

Thanks so much for the moving letter. I wish I knew more details on the incident.

I've never considered the thought of war as "anti-peace." I always considered that the peace mandate was to people but not to nations.

I just look at how God told the Israelites in the OT to slaughter entire tribes of people and then if they didn't do it, they got in big-time trouble.

How can God be anti-war if he commanded the Israelites to go to war?

What is your take on these thoughts? How do you respond when we are asked, "What if Canada (ha-ha) decided to invade the U.S.? Are we to just let them?" Are you against all war or just "pre-emptive" wars like Iraq?

Please tell me more about how you think and feel on this subject so I can better understand your views.

~C

[kara speltz]

I've never considered the thought of war as "anti-peace." I always considered that the peace mandate was to people but not to nations.

I just look at how God told the Israelites in the OT to slaughter entire tribes of people and then if they didn't do it, they got in big-time trouble.

How can God be anti-war if he commanded the Israelites to go to war?

What is your take on these thoughts? How do you respond when we are asked, "What if Canada (ha-ha) decided to invade the U.S.? Are we to just let them?" Are you against all war or just "pre-emptive" wars like Iraq?

Please tell me more about how you think and feel on this subject so I can better understand your views.

~C

Honestly, I don't believe that story, or any story about God demanding the slaughter of people. I remember when I first read the story of why God supposedly decided to replace Saul as King, and I was greatly upset by it.

To me the bible is written by people trying to express some inspiration that they've been given by God, but they often didn't get it right. Jesus is realy clear about nonviolence though. Love your enemies, turn the other cheek. We, as Christians are not bound by the eye for an eye of the OT, we are bound to follow Jesus and trust that all things are possible with God.

Your question about Canada is an interesting one. Truthfully, Canada is so much more a peaceful nation than the U.S. has ever been that it made me laugh to read it. My first thought was oh, good, perhaps they can teach us something about living and let living.

I do not believe in war. There may have been a time when war might have been, "just," as the Catholic Church defined it. But that is no longer true because war always kills more innocents than military.

I believe we as a people have a very limited understanding of the power of nonviolence. Resistance to evil is a good thing, but we must always struggle to become the change we seek. If we want a world where people listen and respect one another, than we must listen and respect one another. We Americans aren't very good at that. We arrogantly brag that we're the best nation in the whole world when, statistics are proving that we are not. We are one of the few nations that has not as yet trusted a woman to run the country. We are a nation that has refused to commit ourselves to limitations we compel others to abide by.

For instance we arrogantly tell Iran and Korea that they can't have nuclear weapons, when we are the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons against an enemy! Go figure that one out.

I'm not saying any of this will be easy, but I do believe we have to set aside war as an option and find another way. To me, nonviolence isn't a human trait, it's a divine trait that some times some of us get, when we put our lives in God's hands.

We'll fail, as my friend Jim said, but when we fail, let's acknowledge it and find a better way. It's long past time we continue to glorify war given that statistics now show that since World War II, all the wars we've fought have resulted in 90% of the casualties being civilian and only 10% military.

Kara

P.S. I highly recommend Howard Zinn's book on the Peoples History of America. It will give you a whole new insight into American History.

[novaseeker]

I just look at how God told the Israelites in the OT to slaughter entire tribes of people and then if they didn't do it, they got in big-time trouble.

How can God be anti-war if he commanded the Israelites to go to war?

This is where reading the bible with discernment is important.

The story of the Jewish conquest of Canaan is laced with atrocities -- and we should simply see them as that: atrocities. The portrait of God in these stories is something akin to a divine war criminal ordering the wholesale slaughter and plunder of an entire race. It is virtually genocidal, and it's at extreme odds with the God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, when I read those stories, I see in them allegorical meaning, and some spiritual meaning as well, but certainly in a literal sense reflecting nothing more than the projection of the biblical writer's human ideas and prejudices onto God. I certainly do not take them as an endorsement of warfare by God at all -- that is far too at odds with the morality expressed by Jesus in the Gospels to which Kara has alluded.

[frankandcathy]

I can't agree with the idea that the Old Testament stories are allegorical in nature or that they simply didn't happen.

I am wary of using "discernment" as "making the scriptures fit my theology." Of course, as has been discussed countless times, we all do this in some way.

I believe it is much more challenging to take the scriptures at face value and then ask, "Now how does my view of God mesh with these stories about what God did in the past?" I personally find it difficult as I, too, am a bit horrified to think that God had Egyptian boys slaughtered. But I also don't feel that I can say, "God didn't really do that."

Apparently the thing that both conservatives and liberals alike struggle with is, "This challenges my belief in who God is." Then we must choose whether to allow ourselves to be challenged or to just stick with what we currently believe.

There is no reason to dismiss the OT stories about God as untrue. Not anymore than there is to dismiss the gospels as untrue...or allegorical.

It is odd to me how we can be offended if someone suggests that the "Jesus story" is a mere fabrication but can say, "But the OT stories are mere fabrication." I wonder how Orthodox Jews would take this statement.

At any rate, you both made good points and are obviously thoughtful on the matter.

Kara, I feel you really failed to answer my question about people invading our country and taking over. Let's say it's not Canada. Let's say it's a facist Christian state that we all know will take over our government and murder all homosexuals. Then what would your stance on peace and war be? How is that different from those in, let's say, Austria who sided with the Nazis and "peacefully" allowed them to take over their country?

Please pardon the Nazi analogy. I myself think it is very overused. I'm trying to think of other historical references. Okay: here's one: how about the Europeans invading America and slaughtering Native Americans, infecting them with smallpox purposefully, poisoning them, burning their villages, etc. Were the Indians wrong to fight back? Should they have laid down their weapons and simply conceded?

Again, I realize this is different than talking about pre-emptive strikes but let's just talk about this for now.

Keep in mind that I have recently become aware of our failings in foreign policy. I'm not really standing for or against the Iraq war at this point. I guess I'm "for" it officially because we're in it now and I'd like to see Iraq stand on it's OWN government strength. I hope that happens. History shows that it probably will not but I hope it does.

I find myself again disturbed, however, by the dismisal of Biblical stories and principles when they don't suit us. I am striving to read all the points of view on biblical homosexuality that I can. I am trying to see other points of view. I am hoping to not dismiss wholesale the parts of scripture that don't suit me. I hope that we can all do the same.

I am unsure, if Jesus so honored and often talked about the OT scriptures, and we say that we love him and value what he values, how we can dismiss them so easily. I guess I might ask the question, "Do you think Jesus found the scriptures allegorical?" Do you think he believed the stories? What evidence suggests so or not?

This kind of goes along with the moral relativism post where someone mentioned that Jesus was quoted as speaking of the "sabbath made for man and not man for the sabbath" which would indicate some sort of "relativism" on His part.

I wonder how are we to interpret Jesus saying, I've come to divide homes, families. I bring a sword. No one can follow me unless he hate his father and mother. If anyone doesn't accept you into their home or town, shake the dust off of your feet. I tell you the truth, in the last day, it's gonna rain down hard on that town. How about the times Jesus spoke of eternal damnation? Isn't this the ultimate violence and war?

I'm rambling now, just trying to give more food for thought. At any rate, good posts and please let me know what you think.

~C

[kara speltz]

I can't agree with the idea that the Old Testament stories are allegorical in nature or that they simply didn't happen.

~C

Actually Cathy, it's not just Old Testement stories that I think are allegorical in nature. I am not one that believes that the Bible is inerrant - never have thought that, though I surely believed the stories much more in my early years than I do now. Now I ask myself what is this story trying to teach? The Catholic Church spent a great deal of time trying to decide which books should be in and which shouldn't in the early years of the Church. I am absolutely sure that there is much of God's dvine word that was left out, or misunderstood and even at times intentionally misinterpreted. And yet it still has a power to help us define our lives.
I am even more sure that God didn't suddenly stop speaking to His/Her people some 2000 years ago. And so the Bible is just part of the inspiration.

I lost track of that question around Canada, or any other country invading us, sorry. I meant to address it because I do believe strongly in the power of nonviolence. I do not believe that killing is ever right or even justified. I do believe that we, as a people, could successfuly resist any nation that attempted to invade us. Look at Iraq, look at VN - obviously in both cases it was not nonviolent resistance but they were countries with none of the technological war making capacity that the U.S. had and yet because the people refused to cooperate with them, all that technology was for naught.
There are so many amazing stories of where people came together understanding that by refusing to cooperate with their captors, they had the power to stop the oppression. Even in Nazi Germany, there were little known nonviolent actions that were successful.

I hope and pray that I will never feel compelled to take a life. The only way I can even imagine it is thinking about danger to my grandchildren who are still too young to really be able to defend themselves.

I really resonate with what my friend Jim Loney said about his situation of being kidnapped and rescued. I give thanks for that rescue, and also acknowledge that it was a miracle, because not a single person died in the rescue attempt. I believe that was the power of prayer, because people were praying constantly for their safe return, but also praying that none of the kidnappers would be hurt either.

What Jim said was his rescue was at the hands of armed forces and that was for him a failure, all he could do was give thanks for the rescue and recommit himself to nonviolence knowing in his heart that violence is not what God wanted in any of this.

There are no easy answers to all of this. All I can do in terms of my life is keep returning to the vows of nonviolent resistance and continuing to try and allow myself to continually being changed by the grace of God to a place where love is always my first response. I've said this a number of times, but I think it's important. I personally do not believe that nonviolence is a human trait, but a divine one. So it is when we are at one with God that we are capable of truly living nonviolently - in between those times, we strive to live as nonviolently as we can, always understanding that the basis of the struggle is to become the change we seek.

Kara

[belladonnacordial]

If you can stop a murder by violently knocking someone unconscious, should you? If you don't and let the other person die does that make you a murderer, or at least an accomplice to murder? If you can stop someone from killing you by fighting them physically but don't, isn't that a form of suicide?

Personally I don't think that physical defense, either of self or of another victim, is violence at all. I also view defending one's country from invasion as a form of self defense.

[marutidas]

Namaste, Cathy

As the Catholic priest of the local Catholic church I attend, Father Charlie, said this," You can not giude with law, you can only guide with law...the ten commandment are not just something to be avoided, but to be understood how to live... Law is the shadow, Love is the Reality."

So taking this into consideration,
Then it does not matter what the bible says, but what its general message is, And from I can gather, It is about God's Love. I also know that the Bible, has been and is being as a mode of Control, Giving justification for politcal action. That is no longer in my view having anything to with God, but with our ignorance and prejudice. People from every religion at one time or another has committed horrible things in the name of God. No religion is without Blood on its hands, so it does no good to point fingers.

"Love and compassion have alway been more effective means of conversion than the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun."

You may blow off my opinion for not being Christian, But I know what I am saying is right. There is alway another way than the horrible violence that is war.

"If you want peace, you don't talk to your friends you talk to your enemies."

~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[kara speltz]

If you can stop a murder by violently knocking someone unconscious, should you? If you don't and let the other person die does that make you a murderer, or at least an accomplice to murder? If you can stop someone from killing you by fighting them physically but don't, isn't that a form of suicide?

Personally I don't think that physical defense, either of self or of another victim, is violence at all. I also view defending one's country from invasion as a form of self defense.

Surely you are not saying that either Iraq or VN were matters of self defense? Are you familiar with what happened at My Lai? Do you know who it was our armed forces killed there? We Americans live in a delusion that we are a just and moral nation that only goes to war to protect ourselves, but that is a myth. Clearly VN & Iraq were wars of aggression by our country. Kara

[belladonnacordial]

Surely you are not saying that either Iraq or VN were matters of self defense?

They are most certainly matters of self-defense for the Iraqis and Vietnamese. As I said, I'm strictly anti-violence and pro-defense which I do not consider violence. I don't blame our troop casualties on defenders of homelands. Nor do I blame the military. I blame politicians (most of whom never served) who continue to sacrifice our children in immoral wars of aggression.

You really don't have to go all the way back to the My Lai (or Son My if you prefer) massacre for examples of our troops killing unarmed people. Nor are our troops the only troops ever to commit atrocities. One might say -that- more than anything is the nature of war.

You give a bunch of kids automatic weapons, teach them how to kill, deprive them of sleep, tell them the enemy could be anyone man, woman, or child, so that they are scared out of their minds for months on end and all but lost in unfamiliar terrain. What can anyone expect to happen? I'm always amazed it doesn't happen more often- though it probably does and we don't hear about it. How can any sane person equate the need for war with the need for cheap sugar or stolen crude? We all know the answer to that.

You may blow off my opinion for not being Christian

Never! I might disagree with you whether you were a Christian or not, but would always respect your opinion. I am not a Christian. I do not consider myself any more one religion than another. I do hold many Christian beliefs -they are only that- beliefs. I'm always willing to be enlightened.

[u-dog]

The current mess in Iraq is not technically a war and not a war of aggression. Its just a big, deadly, mess caused by neo-con hubris! the hubris to think they they are right and everyone else is wrong. the hubris to think that so strongly that they could lie to get the support they needed. The hubris to think they could "fix" a country with a long history of dictatorship and cultural/religious strife. The hubris to think that they could squander the lives of young Americans and Iraqis of all ages to accomplish it. The hubris to think that they could do that and fight terrorism at the same time. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Vietnam wasnt a war either. it was an extended campaign of the "50-years-war" for world hegemony between the Soviet Union and The United States. The Soviet's war in Aghganistan was another noteworthy battle in that war as was the conflict in Korea and all the little skirmishes in Africa and Cuba. One might almost argue that the Fifty-years war or World War III (often called the "Cold War") began before World War II was over. The twentieth century was a nasty bit of business all the way around. And the twenty-first isn't starting out much better.

[belladonnacordial]

The current mess in Iraq is not technically a war and not a war of aggression. Its just a big, deadly, mess caused by neo-con hubris! the hubris to think they they are right and everyone else is wrong. the hubris to think that so strongly that they could lie to get the support they needed. The hubris to think they could "fix" a country with a long history of dictatorship and cultural/religious strife. The hubris to think that they could squander the lives of young Americans and Iraqis of all ages to accomplish it. The hubris to think that they could do that and fight terrorism at the same time. Stupid, stupid, stupid.



Well, call it what you will. I don't mind what terminology is applied. Call it pre-emptive diplomacy if you like. We still invaded and occupied another country.

I do not think there is enough evidence to suggest that the current administration is interested in promoting democracy. On the contrary I think they are all for getting rid of every single vestige of it. Stealing elections, disemboweling the Constitution, stripping voter rolls- none of this speaks of a deep and abiding love of a system of government that they only seem to know enough about to work into every single sound bite. Yes, we were more a republic anyway, especially with so many Republicans about.

[u-dog]

I don't think I suggested for a moment that GWB would know a democratic ideal if it came up and bit him on the shin. I just said he wanted to "fix" Iraq (i.e. make it stable and safe for American interests).

Saddam Hussein was scum (beloved of God.. I admit... but scum nonetheless) if half the things that Bush said about him had been true it would not have been a crime to invade Iraq. However, since all of it turned out to be lies.... He (Bush) should be in jail.

[belladonnacordial]

Hi u-dog!

Laughing out loud. Forgive me I really thought you were ascribing good intentions to our current box of yo-yos. Really is hard to have a decent argument when everyone seems to think basically the same way.

Peace and better government to you, my brother, Donna

[Joe Allen]

If I had stayed another year with the 23rd Adminstration Company of the Americal Division at Chu Lai, I would have been involved with the court-martial proceedings of US Army Lieutenant Calley."

I was a clerk typist at Americal's HQ in the Staff Judge Advocate Section. The officers whom I worked for were JAG officers, aka army lawyers.

I was a bailiff at 3 courts-martial and all of the men were up on manslaughter charges which involved "accidental" killings. Two of the cases had to do with the death of Vietnamese civilians. The 3rd one involved a Helicopter crew chief (an E-5 sergeant) who was charged with killing a fellow soldier.

The men who were charged with manslaughter of civilians were given dishonorable discharges and hard labor sentences at Leavenworth, Kansas.

The other one was a 19 year old boy who killed his buddy. The 19 year old and his corporal rank buddy had gotten new side arms and they were playing quick draw facing each other while standing beside the helicopter they were assigned to man. But, the problem was that the sergeant did not remove the ammo from his weapon and since he was not used to the trigger mechanism on the handgun, he accidently fired his weapon and killed his friend.

He was given a reduction in rank making him get less pay and was put on probation.

What the others did was actually really accidental and was not done foolishly; but, the crew chief was acting stupid and should have known better.

I did type up courts-martial proceedings similar to the My Lai massacre and in my opinion, the guys were under stress and under orders, too. I did not make any judgments at all; because what I typed was the complete court martial which someone else had taken by dictation.

[belladonnacordial]

Just wanted to thank you for your service. :applause: Thank you.

Love and light to you, Donna

[Joe Allen]

Just wanted to thank you for your service. :applause: Thank you.

Love and light to you, Donna

I appreciate that a whole lot, Donna! :cowboy: