#you cannot justify your own atrocities by pointing to the actions of the desperate people left behind trying to survive in it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anewpoliticalspin · 4 years

Text

Sometimes, the conservative side became the feel-good vote!

Denial is unfortunate reality we see people employ often, at least for some time, but sometimes for their entire lives. It’s a strategy people use that feels comforting, and it is easy to fall back onto, at least until circumstances force us to wake up. However, when it has to do with certain political issues, surrounding issues that are far removed from us, we can spend decades or even our lifetimes in denial of the reality of them, since they are issues that often don’t impact us directly.

Now, I’ve definitely seen both sides employ denial, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone not guilty of it. However, over the past few decades, and more and more in recent years, I’ve seen US conservatives use it.

Now, I’m not trying to dismiss conservatism as an ideology-which actually has a lot of elements that I like, but more on that later.

Here’s a case in point showing why I believe the brand of conservatism we’ve seen of the past 30 or 40 years has, more and more, shown denial of the difficult truths of the circumstances many people live under, even some fairly noticeable ones, such as human-made climate change causing natural disasters, the toll on civilians of our wars in the Middle East, rather than it being a war mostly devastating terrorists alone, and the true level of poverty in the United States. These are often issues that do not affect us directly, or at least in the case of poverty, that do not affect those of us who have never lived under it.

A book was put out by a prominent conservative commentator in 2004 that defended the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII and stated that the historical record and commonly held belief we had surrounding it was false. Mind you, this action by our government was seen as so horrific that monetary reparations were later paid to the descendents of these internees. What happened was a forcing of masses of people away (from their friends and everything they knew) into internment camps with perfect strangers. The fact alone that they were forced to relocate to these camps for the duration of the war, away from friends, family, and most employment opportunity, should be enough to be horrified by regardless of conditions at the camp. The fact alone that tens of thousands of people were forced to leave their homes is enough. Furthermore, it’s also agreed on by historians that the conditions of these camps tended to be poor (when you look at it, it’s expensive to house thousands of people, especially for years on end, so it’s hard to see them devoting enough resources for those people to be able to live comfortably. More on living conditions later from this author.)

The thesis of the book is: that the forced internment of thousands of people was acceptable because our national security called for it. What you can gather from this book, and I’ll give you a sampling of what the author wrote, is that the author agrees that these masses of people were forced to leave their homes to move to another part of the country, and it was a very difficult thing to do but supports it anyway:

“Ethnic Japanese forced to leave the West Coast of the United States and relocate outside of prescribed military zones after the Pearl Harbor attack endured a heavy burden, but they were not the only ones who suffered and sacrificed.”

Notice how even the author admits it was a heavy burden yet goes on to support doing it?

“The central thesis of this book is that the national security measures taken during World War II were justifiable, given what was known and not known at the time.”

Her argument was that it was required to protect lives. In the book she states,

““I start from a politically incorrect premise: In a time of war, the survival of the nation comes first. Civil liberties are not sacrosanct. The “unalienable rights” that our Founding Fathers articulated in the Declaration of Independence do not appear in random order: Liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be secured and protected without securing and protecting life first.”

“No one was exempt from the hardships of World War II, which demanded a wide range of civil liberties sacrifices on the part of citizen and noncitizen, majority and minority alike.”

I don’t believe it was even a desperate circumstance. I don’t believe that there were enough among the Japanese among us at the time who caused a large threat in the first place. Oh, and I’ll save for the fact that I’m sure the Japanese government would have been shrewd enough to plant spies in our nation if they planned on attacking Pearl Harbor. They may even have planned a few assassinations. Still, was it such a large threat, enough to justify even drastic action? While it’s possible they would have attempted violent acts of terror, it seems very unlikely, since large scale military victories are usually what are sought in war. Overall, such outcomes are small compared to the price paid by these tens of thousands of people forced into these centers for years. I think it was based on fear and not fact.

The simple fact that this author, Michelle Malkin who until 2020 was a widely read columnist and Fox News contributor, thought this was morally justified is morally bankrupt. What’s even more shocking is that this book was published in 2004, and it was until 2020 that Michelle Malkin was discredited. It took 16 years, and that didn’t happen until she openly praised an open anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and some openly racist groups like the Groypers (source here). In addition, the book was well-received by a number of people: it gets 4.3 out of 5 stars on Amazon (a biased sampling of course, since it’s her fans who read it, but how can anyone enjoy that?).

Apparently, it’s not enough to publish a book arguing that forcing tens of thousands of people away from their friends and everything they know, into boring, uncomfortable, internment camps lacking so many of the things we take for granted (privacy, being able to cook our own meals, a variety of employment or employment at all), and with perfect strangers, is somehow acceptable, especially when it wasn’t really worth the protection it supposedly provided. That won’t get you discredited. The Right did not have the courage or the spine to remove people from it’s who both support and deny the existence of serious cruelty. It wouldn’t be far from having liberals refusing to acknowledge the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.

I’m sure the biggest reason they didn’t was pride and group affiliation. It can feel a bit humbling to admit one of your members is guilty of something, but it can be done. When Ann Coulter joked that some 9/11 widows had enjoyed their husbands’ deaths after getting media coverage for their views on 9/11, conservative commentators like Bernard Goldberg, a regular Fox contributor, mentioned how vile her comments were and how she had a tendency to take things too far, and Bill O’Reilly said something about it too. However it also had to do with the lack of compassion shown. Our compassion should tell us everything that was wrong with how the Japanese living here were forced away from everything they knew and loved and make sure people don’t adopt attitudes of indifference to serious abuse.

Here’s most important reason why I bet she wasn’t disowned though: frankly, that kind of denial of the genuine hardships experienced by people, more and more became an occurrence that wasn’t uncommon on the Right. In this case, it wasn’t denial of the fact that it happened (she admits they were evacuated and kept there), it’s denial of just what an awful event it was, and how unjustifiable it was. There is even rationalization at play by means of saying that the Japanese-American internees lived in nice conditions.

“Inside, Santa Fe internees built a small golf course, two tennis courts, and four baseball diamonds. The Santa Fe-shisha Tanka Poetry Club met regularly, and camp residents attended Kabuki performances held in an outdoor theater. 25 Fort Missoula, Montana, was surrounded by twenty-four hundred feet of chain-link fence topped by barbed wire. Inside, the camp were barracks, a hospital, school, library, bakery, two-winged mess hall, and a recreation hall built of lodgepole pine that seated more than eight hundred.”

Remember how Todd Akin said that, “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down”. It’s obviously false, rape victims get pregnant with a child they didn’t choose all the time. Why was it said? To give us the false sense of security that getting stuck with an unwanted child you didn’t ask for is very, very unlikely. Sorry, it isn’t. Oh, and I am not making any stance on abortion, for the purposes of this article, but whether you support or are against abortion, you have to accept that getting stuck with a child you in no way asked for is a serious hardship that’s not all that rare.

It’s the Right that’s long denied that humans have caused climate change which has already caused deadly natural disasters.

You can find in fact many of conservative articles claiming that the poverty rate is America is actually zero when you factor in government assistance. Google it. Oh, and only by living in New York City I can tell you it’s not true: walk through Manhattan and in some parts you see at least one if not more homeless people on every block. Homelessness has always been a problem there and has grown worse during the COVID-19 epidemic.

See the pattern?

Denial is a common psychological reaction to bad news, which is blocking it out. It’s actually one of the stages of grief. We have to get past it, or we show a lack of spine and compassion.

I wrote on how conservatives in the United States in recent decades have often denied the difficult circumstances of many. Take a look, links here, and here.

0 notes

hellyeahheroes · 8 years

Photo

Cleansing the Crimes of Old Krypton: Comparisons Between Superman #1-6 and Supergirl #1-6

Ever since the rise of the comic-book anti-heroes, Superman and his family were positioned by writers in the opposition to them. This is a natural progression for those who understand the character’s roots as the hero of the little folk. Such qualities are resonating with the liberal and socialist ideals. Meanwhile, antiheroes often voice ideas that would be very terrifying if said by real-life politicians. The efficiency being presented as more important than human rights or collateral damage. The idea that the justice system only stops the protagonist from doing what’s necessary. An approach where stopping the bad guys is more important than protecting the innocent. These ideas can easily be applied to politics. And as a result, lead to authoritarian or outright fascist thinking. Don’t get me wrong. Some people claim if Batman won’t kill the Joker, he has the blood of Joker’s future victims on his hands. I’m not saying they’re cheering Donald Trump saying federal judges who overruled his ban on Muslim Immigrants are to blame if a terrorist attack happens. But we need to recognize the parallels.

Many successful antihero stories were built on exploring the consequences of this approach. You can find those themes everywhere from The Authority and V for Vendetta to Code Geass. Sadly, lately, we have a continuous increase of those problems being glossed over. And not only for actual antiheroes but even more upstanding characters. Especially in movies. Once paragons of virtue on big screen become terrifying. And yet we're supposed to cheer when they commit atrocities. Violating borders of a foreign country, intruding on people’s privacy, destroying an entire city in battle, murdering people. It all becomes not only justified but even glorified. They say it’s okay for “good guys” to do those things. Because otherwise, we’re all going to die. Because they’ll stop once the danger is gone, pinky swear. Because only the bad guys get hurt and killed. So relax and handle all the power and no accountability to those guys, they need it to protect you.

Superman stories often tackled this issue. Sometimes results is a compelling, meaningful voice in the discussion. Other times we get an awful, hypocritical story. That is given praise regardless because it sticks it up to the other side. “What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice And American Way” and it’s adaptation “Superman vs the Elite” are a prime example. There Superman proves wrong the Authority knockoffs who claim that might makes right. By beating the living shit out of them, thus proving that might do indeed makes right…. if you’re Superman. Thankfully, two stories I want to talk about do not have this problem.

For inspirations, both stories reach back. To a tale of 4 individuals that tried to replace Superman after his supposed death - Reign of Supermen. Superman books under Rebirth banner, in general, try to recreate the feel of that era. Superman is dead and his replacements start showing up. Kenan Kong in the New Super-Man, Lana Lang in Superwoman, even Lex Luthor dons the cape. But DC managed to have their cake and eat it too. The main Superman book still has it's Man of Steel. It's Superman from another Universe, with wife and son. He is more in line with old DC Continuity, compared to Superman that died. Meanwhile, Supergirl reaches to feel more like beloved TV Series, even if Kara is still a teenager. To connect with Reign of Supermen both books use a different way. They reach for its “bad” Supermen - Eradicator and Cyborg Superman. They also revamp them to have them fit a specific purpose.

Or use earlier revamps, as is the case with Cyborg Superman. Before Flashpoint this name was held by Hank Henshaw, a scientist with a grudge. In New 52 he is the man who had sent Kara to Earth from Argo, last surviving city of Krypton. Her father, Zor-El. He failed to save the whole colony and is desperate to undo past failures. He turns dead corpses of his citizens and even wife into cyborgs like him. But to regain sentience the need to consume life force of intelligent beings. Then Zor-El hears Kara cry in her moment of doubt. She question she’ll even be able to fit on Earth and how strange and, well, alien, our customs are for her. Her father doesn’t hesitate. He decides to invade Earth, harvest humanity to resurrect Argo and take his daughter back.

Eradicator was absent from New 52 era of DC, to resurface in Rebirth, with a simplified origin. Before Flashpoint it was an alien A.I. obsessed over Krypton. In Rebirth Eradicators were created by General Zod. It was a mechanical police force used against both criminals and political rivals. This one came back to life through contact with the blood of Superman’s son, Jonathan. And then vowed to protect and restore Krypton’s legacy. Starting with the last heir of House of El, Superman himself. Clark is reluctant to trust the robot when it offers to examine Jon’s health and fluctuating powers. Turns out it was a good call. Eradicator decides that being half-human half-Kryptonian, Jon is impure. And that the best way to heal him is to eradicate human part of his DNA. Jon would become fully Kryptonian, but also cease to exist as a person he was up to this point.

Both those villains have a history of representing darker shades of Krypton. In old continuity, Eradicator was a go-to explanation for every Krypton-related bad thing. Villainous interpretation of Zor-El is nothing new either. Before Flashpoint his whole motivation was "He hates his brother, Jor-El". He didn't send Kara away to save her, but to make her kill Kal-El. He had brainwashed his own daughter to make her a weapon against her cousin.

If anything, this version of him comes off as, if not sympathetic, then at least pitiable. Flashbacks show us he was a caring, loving father, who sent Kara away to protect her. It makes it much more tragic to see how far he has fallen. Even Kara starts to feel bad for him over the course of the story. She recognizes in him a man haunted by his failures, whose actions are a desperate try to fix everything. But Supergirl still calls him out. She points out that he doesn't care about anything but himself anymore. If he did, he’d see how twisted his “solution” actually is and try to find a better one. The results were more important than how he achieved them. And things like mass murder became merely means to an end. It doesn't matter how many he has to kill. It doesn't matter he turned his wife and friends into mechanical monsters. Once he gets them back, everything will be back to normal, he tells himself. He expects his wife and daughter to go back to their old life and ignore all the blood on his hands. He is delusional. When his wife regains part of her mind, she sacrifices herself to save Kara's adoptive mother. She'd rather be dead than part of this. Does it get to him? No. because for Zor-El it doesn't matter how appalling his methods are. Only that he wins.

Both Zor-El and Eradicator are operating on racist and xenophobic assumptions. They see everyone who is not Kryptonian as inferior and disposable. The whole idea of a Kryptonian living with human family is appalling to them. Zor-El several times states he never meant for Kara to stay on Earth forever. He expects her to simply abandon her new home, now that it served its purpose. He also mentions in passing wars betweenKrypton and other races. It's implied they were as horrible as what he is doing now. Meanwhile, what is Eradicator? A Kryptonian version of police brutality and law-enforcement being used for political reasons. All these factors make the reader ask a question neither of the villains bothered with. Should you bring old Krypton back? If Kryptonians were warmongering xenophobes, then why should they return? Who is to say if they do, they won’t go down the same path again? Neither Eradicator nor Zor-El makes a strong case against this argument. Not when they’re willing to stomp into the ground anyone who stands in their way.

We live in times when people in power tell us we need to give up parts of our freedoms for our own protection. That we need to do whatever it takes, no matter how unethical, to protect our way of life from “the enemy”. Even if it means crushing rights of those different from us. This is no different from many anti-heroes in comics. How often do we see one accusing more restrained superheroes of not having what it takes to “get the job done”? Or claim not only are they too weak, but people they protect are dumb masses easy to sway and control? Those themes are still being explored by creators of both books. Peter Tomasi and Patrick Gleason do it through later Superman villain, the Prophecy. Lord Havok and the Extremists serve this role in Steve Orlando’s JLA. But it isn’t enough to have heroes beat this type of villains. What is even more important is how they beat them. As I mentioned above, in that kind of stories it’s easy to come off as a hypocrite, if you play your hand wrong.

Luckily, even on that ground, the stories are on point. Neither Superman nor Supergirl can defeat their enemies alone. It is the strength of family, friends, and allies that allow them to overcome this threat. As Kara says, she isn’t on Earth to inspire humans – they inspire each other. Threat Eradicator and Zor-El present cannot be defeated by an individual. It needs the united effort of everyone it threatens. Even average people like Cat Grant or Bibbo Bibbowski have their part to play. It’s love, family, and unity that save the day.

And in true classic fashion, they are both shown mercy. While Eradicator’s physical form is destroyed, Superman’s very aware that’s not enough to kill him. Meanwhile, Cyborg Superman ends immobilized and imprisoned. The story ends with Kara hoping to find a way to save her father. If you follow solicits you know they’ll both be back in May’s Action Comics. Some might complain about the never-ending nature of superhero comics. How no victory is ever meaningful because the villain will come back. It’s one of the major problems raised by supporters of the antiheroes. But looking at those villains a metaphor for fascist tendencies, it works. Fascism can be beaten, but it cannot be killed. It will always find a way to creep back under a different name. The weakness of anti-hero stories lies in them giving the reader a fake sense of finality. They tell us we have to do whatever it takes, even if it’s immoral and unethical, to win against the evil. That once we beat it, it’s gone and we can go back to normal. But that’s not true. Evil is forever and it will keep coming at you in new forms. We can see it in today’s world as well. Not so long ago many folks would say fascism died when WWII was over. Allies victory over this evil was final and definite. The questionable choices made by them like bombing civilian cities, were justified because fascism is now dead. Once put down it will never rise to power again. And then Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon started making the news…..

The purpose of this text is not to bash on fans of the antihero characters. But when working with them it's important to show their questionable aspects. Otherwise, they can become propaganda tools for the worst kind of people.

#Superboy #Jonathan Kent #Jon Kent #Supergirl #Kara Zor-El #Kara Darvens #DC

29 notes · View notes