Criminal
03-29-2003, 03:50 PM
This same post appears in my journal but I decided to put it here so you can all read it.
I have seen and heard a considerable amount of information as of late about how certain wartime photos and film footage is unsuitable to be seen by the public. The argument goes that it is offenseive to the family members to allow the bodies of these individuals.
Now I do have respect for the feelings of others. I do respect the emotions of people who loose loved ones. I do know that to see bodies of the dead is extremely disturbing. I know this too well.
But I also see this in another way.
Historically, there was a constant attempt by nations to sell war as something positive. To die in battle was considered a death with honor. In the middle ages kings and their commanders would view the reminants of a battle field and say that the dead died an honorable death. Delocroix, the famed french painter depicted the famed battles of Napolian. He showed the Emporer poised gallently upon his horse as the dead of a battle littered the field. Hardly did death look more grandeosque.
War propaganda in the 19th and 20th century showed battle as a test of courage. Recruiting posters from all nations showed young men in uniform marching with courage and confidence. It evoked immages of knights in armor. It showed heros from the past. It showed ribbons, badges and banners.
War has always been shown as something gloryous. When troops were marched to battle they were accompinied by military bands. Troops wore dress uniforms which were spotless. Boots were polished. Officers rode horses and carried sabers. People cheered and threw flowers. It was the same during the era of the Roman Empire as it was in WW 2.
War propaganda existed to hide the true face of war. In the Civil War, people actually watched on hills as armies fought. This happened in the first battle of Bull Run, when residents of Washington DC lunched only to be driven off by the victorious Virginia militia.
In later years writers such as Ambrose Bierce wrote of the war from the foot soldier's perspective. He showed the war as the propagandist could not. He depicted mangled bodies, burned corpses, maimed survivors limping to safety. He told of cruel military punishments such as men branded for desertion or hanings for sabatouge. These ugly immages were things that Bierce must have seen himself as a soldier.
Bierce was probibly the first anti war author. He was followed by many others. There was the German writer Remarqe whose "All Quiet on the Western Front" remains a classic today.
Yet every new war brings forth a new cause. To further a cause, the need for support is imminent. Recruiting posters are put up asking for people to be patriotic. The flags come out and are hung outside houses. The attrocity photos are shown. They show how subhuman the enemy really are.
In WW 1 Germans were depicted as sub human. They were shown as beasts devouring corpses. In one propaganda poster a young girl was shown being lifted by an drooling ape like creature wearing a German helmet. The girl was dressed in a sheer nightgown. She was a lovely female figure. This picture invoked an almost sexual fear of the enemy.
Throughtout history, sex played a role in fear of the enemy. The Germans had depicted members of the Red Army as rapists. This was not really a mistruth since rape was quite common in war and the Soviets did not punish such behavior in their armed services in WW 2. Similarly, colonial troops such as Indians or North Africans were similarly feared. African Americans were depicted as savage brutes by Italian Fascist propaganda. The Japanese were depicted as rapists and butchers, a reputation earned in Nanking China where troops went on an orgy of rape and murder. In the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalists depicted the Republican militias as rapists of nuns. The Republicans showed the Moroccan troops of Franco (not unjustifiably) as having an appitite for spanish women. Even the Nationalist army leaders often joked about the animal like sexuality of the moros. General Quepo de Llano often boasted of this during his radio broadcasts.
A fascinating surealist film from 1991, Arcangel, was filmed very much in the style fo turn of the century silent movies. It showed clips from typical WW 1 war propagand. This movie showed one of the least known chapters in the war, the allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. The story was of a Canadian Military Officer who was a victim of a gas attack and looses his memory. He lives with a Russian family who dotes on him. In a style similar to the Western Classic "Shane," the officer wins the admiration of a young boy, the love of the boys mother and the suspicion of the father.
The plot of the film is constantly interrupted by scenes of (similated) war propaganda. In one very bizarre, yet compelling scene it shows the German Kaiser Wilhelm wearing a hat with a skull and crossbones. It then shows German soldiers devouring a woman, eating her corpse. Finally it shows the Bolshiviks as being bearded, longhaired and animal like.
In the progression of the film we see the father of the family attacked by Germans (or Huns as they were called then). He is disemboweled but lives long enough to strangle them with his own severed intestines.
Later the boys son kills a German with his own riflie but is shot by Germans. The officer then kills the Germans. The boy asks the Canadian,"did I do well" and the officer nodds in approval.
This movie, an odd tribute to WW 1 propaganda has an intentionally distorted sense of values. The allies, British, American, French, Belgiun, White Russian and Black Africans are noble people fighting a savage enemy. By contrast, the enemy, German and Russian Bolsheviks are without morals, scruples and represent an ultimate evil.
Today the question is asked.... shall we show the war in Iraq, with all its hideousness, to the public? Does the public have the right to see the real war? Or do we need to get the Hollywood version of it all. As ugly and as evil as it may be I would vote for the former.
I have seen and heard a considerable amount of information as of late about how certain wartime photos and film footage is unsuitable to be seen by the public. The argument goes that it is offenseive to the family members to allow the bodies of these individuals.
Now I do have respect for the feelings of others. I do respect the emotions of people who loose loved ones. I do know that to see bodies of the dead is extremely disturbing. I know this too well.
But I also see this in another way.
Historically, there was a constant attempt by nations to sell war as something positive. To die in battle was considered a death with honor. In the middle ages kings and their commanders would view the reminants of a battle field and say that the dead died an honorable death. Delocroix, the famed french painter depicted the famed battles of Napolian. He showed the Emporer poised gallently upon his horse as the dead of a battle littered the field. Hardly did death look more grandeosque.
War propaganda in the 19th and 20th century showed battle as a test of courage. Recruiting posters from all nations showed young men in uniform marching with courage and confidence. It evoked immages of knights in armor. It showed heros from the past. It showed ribbons, badges and banners.
War has always been shown as something gloryous. When troops were marched to battle they were accompinied by military bands. Troops wore dress uniforms which were spotless. Boots were polished. Officers rode horses and carried sabers. People cheered and threw flowers. It was the same during the era of the Roman Empire as it was in WW 2.
War propaganda existed to hide the true face of war. In the Civil War, people actually watched on hills as armies fought. This happened in the first battle of Bull Run, when residents of Washington DC lunched only to be driven off by the victorious Virginia militia.
In later years writers such as Ambrose Bierce wrote of the war from the foot soldier's perspective. He showed the war as the propagandist could not. He depicted mangled bodies, burned corpses, maimed survivors limping to safety. He told of cruel military punishments such as men branded for desertion or hanings for sabatouge. These ugly immages were things that Bierce must have seen himself as a soldier.
Bierce was probibly the first anti war author. He was followed by many others. There was the German writer Remarqe whose "All Quiet on the Western Front" remains a classic today.
Yet every new war brings forth a new cause. To further a cause, the need for support is imminent. Recruiting posters are put up asking for people to be patriotic. The flags come out and are hung outside houses. The attrocity photos are shown. They show how subhuman the enemy really are.
In WW 1 Germans were depicted as sub human. They were shown as beasts devouring corpses. In one propaganda poster a young girl was shown being lifted by an drooling ape like creature wearing a German helmet. The girl was dressed in a sheer nightgown. She was a lovely female figure. This picture invoked an almost sexual fear of the enemy.
Throughtout history, sex played a role in fear of the enemy. The Germans had depicted members of the Red Army as rapists. This was not really a mistruth since rape was quite common in war and the Soviets did not punish such behavior in their armed services in WW 2. Similarly, colonial troops such as Indians or North Africans were similarly feared. African Americans were depicted as savage brutes by Italian Fascist propaganda. The Japanese were depicted as rapists and butchers, a reputation earned in Nanking China where troops went on an orgy of rape and murder. In the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalists depicted the Republican militias as rapists of nuns. The Republicans showed the Moroccan troops of Franco (not unjustifiably) as having an appitite for spanish women. Even the Nationalist army leaders often joked about the animal like sexuality of the moros. General Quepo de Llano often boasted of this during his radio broadcasts.
A fascinating surealist film from 1991, Arcangel, was filmed very much in the style fo turn of the century silent movies. It showed clips from typical WW 1 war propagand. This movie showed one of the least known chapters in the war, the allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. The story was of a Canadian Military Officer who was a victim of a gas attack and looses his memory. He lives with a Russian family who dotes on him. In a style similar to the Western Classic "Shane," the officer wins the admiration of a young boy, the love of the boys mother and the suspicion of the father.
The plot of the film is constantly interrupted by scenes of (similated) war propaganda. In one very bizarre, yet compelling scene it shows the German Kaiser Wilhelm wearing a hat with a skull and crossbones. It then shows German soldiers devouring a woman, eating her corpse. Finally it shows the Bolshiviks as being bearded, longhaired and animal like.
In the progression of the film we see the father of the family attacked by Germans (or Huns as they were called then). He is disemboweled but lives long enough to strangle them with his own severed intestines.
Later the boys son kills a German with his own riflie but is shot by Germans. The officer then kills the Germans. The boy asks the Canadian,"did I do well" and the officer nodds in approval.
This movie, an odd tribute to WW 1 propaganda has an intentionally distorted sense of values. The allies, British, American, French, Belgiun, White Russian and Black Africans are noble people fighting a savage enemy. By contrast, the enemy, German and Russian Bolsheviks are without morals, scruples and represent an ultimate evil.
Today the question is asked.... shall we show the war in Iraq, with all its hideousness, to the public? Does the public have the right to see the real war? Or do we need to get the Hollywood version of it all. As ugly and as evil as it may be I would vote for the former.