Comments from a Veteran on the 4th of July
Comments from a Veteran on the 4th of July
By Jim Ramelis
The 4th of July is here and it is time for patriotism, flag waving, parades and fireworks. The 4th is about picnics, fun, sunburns, baseball games and a celebration of America. It has always been one of my favorite holidays, probably because I have spent most of my life in Michigan, and the 4th is a holiday that usually is a warm sunny day. It is a day of bands and color and pageantry and community.
The 4th of July is also a celebration of our military prowess with lots of flags, veterans marching, and guns. I am a veteran and a patriot .I love what my country has tried to be over the centuries and what it has the potential to be. I don’t always love what it has done over history. I am not a pacifist but would like to be; I am just not there yet and probably won’t ever be, but I keep trying. Gandhi said be the change you want so I try to be peaceful in thought and action. I haven’t achieved Christ or Buddha like consciousness though, and obviously neither has the world. I think we need a military. I would not be like the Tibetan monks who sat by and watched as the Chinese butchered their fellow monks and citizens when the Chinese invaded Tibet and took it over. I would fight back if someone invaded my country. I am not ready to lay down all arms, join hands, and sing, Kumbaya . Another people or peoples would come and butcher us and take our land and control our people, much as the Chinese did to the Tibetans and the prize of America would be much more appetizing to a predator nation than Tibet. Over the years, we have made a lot of enemies who have a score to settle. I think there is a time to fight and defend one’s country. That time should be rare and only after all options are exhausted . That is the idea that our Founding Fathers had in mind, and we are not following that ideal.
I am writing this article because the extent of our militarization is no longer about defending our country. Our military is about preserving, defending, and expanding an empire. Like Rome, our Republic is in danger because it has decided to take the route of empire. The extent of our empire is unknown to most Americans, as is its implications for our Republic’s citizens. The mission of our military is also clouded in myth for most Americans. Most Americans believe that we are about defending ourselves and standing for truth, freedom, and democracy, all over the world. We stubbornly cling to this belief, like the 12 year old that just can’t come to terms with the idea that there is no Santa Claus, even though all the other kids his age know there isn’t a real Santa. We Americans like to believe we are like a heavily armed wonderful Santa Claus, out in the world “giving’ other nations things and preserving truth, freedom, and democracy. We Americans need to take a good long hard look at ourselves in the mirror and do an empirical assessment of what it is we are really about in the world and what our military is really doing.
The truth is that the American empire circles the globe in a way that Rome, Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the Byzantine, the Ottoman, and the British never did. The difference in our empire and those past is that they controlled huge land masses and had direct control of the conquered countries governments. The U.S. plants a military base in or near a country and exerts economic control and pressures. There is always a big gun aimed in the direction of the countries we control economically but as long as the country cooperates, we threaten no violence. We really don’t care if the country is a democracy or totalitarian and repressive one like Communist China. Our empire is all about money. The intent of our empire is similar to those of past empires; we want natural resources and cheap labor. The booty goes to American based multi-national corporations. The sad truth is that the American military is not about defending truth, freedom, justice and democracy in the world, it is the police force and enforcer for corporate power.
What is the truth about our military? We now outspend all the rest of the world combined on military expenditures. Our military empire is so vast, it almost can’t be counted. The Department of Defense says its physical assets are more than 600,000 individual buildings and structures at more than 6,000 locations, on more than 30 million acres. Of these 6,000 locations, it is estimated that 1,000 of them are on soils other than that of the U.S.A. There are 192 countries in the world and we have a military presence in 135 of them.
We are out of control on this 4th of July. We have blown the proverbial gasket. Americans have got to get informed and let their elected Representative know they want the whole paradigm shifted. We want healthcare, good roads, quality education, and not endless perpetual warfare. This veteran is not advocating they we lay down all our arms at this minute in history, we need to be able to defend ourselves. The bellicose aggressive path that we have taken, full of hubris and arrogance is doomed to failure. No one likes having a gun pointed to their head and being told what to do. The world is groaning under our empire. Sophisticated methods of communication has made the world a smaller place today than in the days of Rome and the British Empire and other countries are all talking to each other. They understand now what the American empire is all about. They want their freedom, just as we want ours.
The problem is most Americans don’t understand what the American empire is all about. Americans still naively think our troops out there in far away places defending democracy for the world and “fighting for freedom”. We need to let people know that they are fighting for things like Communist China, one of the most totalitarian and repressive nations on earth, to take jobs away from American labor while they pollute their own country and foul the air and water of the world so the corporations can make more money. They are fighting in Iraq because the flow of oil must be controlled to maximize profit for the oil companies. If rogue producers put out too much oil on the market, it spoils the profit system. The idea is to destroy the free market on oil. As this is being written, Iraqi oil is being put up for bids to the multi-nationals as American troops retreat from the cities. A plan has come together. How many American arms and legs were blown off for that plan to come together?
Two good places to start to do something about it are: The Progressive Democrats of America have a “Healthcare not Warfare” campaign http://pdamerica.org/ that is worth looking into. The Peace Alliance is working for a cabinet level Department of Peace, that would have equal footing with other executive cabinets and would work for peaceful solutions to problems of violence ranging from school yard bullying to worldwide global violence http://www.thepeacealliance.org/; and they have a new site for activists at http://dopeace.ning.com/. For fellow veterans, who can’t relate to the right wing belligerent tone of most of the service organizations, Veterans for Peace has plenty of interesting ideas http://www.veteransforpeace.org/.
Peace and compassion to the entire world from an American Veteran on the 4th of July.
Jim Ramelis served in Vietnam from December 1970 to January 1972
.
(1 vote)
- Jim Ramelis's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
From Wendell Barry
This following is a quote from Wendell Barry I saw on Facebook today and relevant to our discussion. "Modern-Ancient" your words are a little harsh but I m not going to be harsh with you. I have often been harsh in the past with people on this site and other sites so maybe I got some karma due.
I am going to admit that you may very well be right. I just can't be a total pacifist, personally I am just not hard wired that way, and most of America isn't either. We are not going to convince America to lay down it's arms anytime soon. What we realistically have a shot at though is checking the overseas endless imperialism and quest for empire that characterizes our country today.With our domestic infrastructure crumbling and what is going on at home, this may be the time to forward that message.
Here is Wendell Berry's quote:
“Despite its protests to the contrary, modern Christianity has become willy-nilly the religion of the state and the economic status quo. Because it has been so exclusively dedicated to incanting anemic souls into heaven, it has, by a kind of ignorance, been made the tool of much earthly villainy. It has, for the most part, stood silently by, while a predatory economy has ravaged the world, destroyed its natural beauty and health, divided and plundered its human communities and households. It has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of empire. It has assumed with the economists that “economic forces” automatically work for good, and has assumed with the industrialists and militarists that technology determines history. It has assumed with almost everybody that “progress” is good, that it is good to be modern and up with the times. It has admired Caesar and comforted him in his depredations and defaults. But in its de facto alliance with Caesar, Christianity connives directly in the murder of Creation. For, in these days, Caesar is no longer a mere destroyer of armies, cities, and nations. He is a contradictor of the fundamental miracle of life. A part of the normal practice of his power is his willingness to destroy the world. He prays, he says, and churches everywhere compliantly pray with him. But he is praying to a God whose works he is prepared at any moment to destroy. What could be more wicked than that, or more mad?
The religion of the Bible, on the contrary, is a religion of the state and the status quo only in brief moments. In practice, it is a religion for the correction equally of people and of kings. And Christ’s life, from the manger to the cross, was an affront to the established powers of his time, as it is to the established powers of our time. Much is made in churches of the “good news” of the gospels. Less is said of the gospel’s bad news, which is that Jesus would have been horrified by just about every “Christian” government the world has ever seen. He would be horrified by our government and its works, and it would be horrified by him. Surely no sane and thoughtful person can imagine any government of our time sitting comfortably at the feet of Jesus, who is telling them to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you…” (Matt. 5:44).
— Wendell Berry
Yes
Jim,
I am not going to say I did not intend to be harsh, but I will say that my intention was not to seem condescending. After reading some of what I wrote, I think I could have come off that way. I apologize for that.
The Wendell Berry quote is spot on!
I can agree with both you and Angelo that it is good to call out the government on the wrongs that it does as well as to congratulate it on the rights. I think the reason I get so fired up about this issue is because of my own personal history and situations. I have attended churches that exclusively sang "hymns" about America the entire service on the Sundays closest to: Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Veteran's Day, Flag Day, and any other nationalistic celebration. It sickens me (and I mean that literally... I get sick to my stomach... not because I am angry at my fellow congregants, but because I am passionate about this issue) that there is a United States flag in our sanctuary.
However, I do need to position myself to be able to have influence rather than just being a "clanging gong."
Peace Brother
Peace brother. some churches do get a little crazy and God gets all mixed up with nationalism.
I went to a Sunday evening service of local Mennonites (not my usual church) and heard a Mennonite use that tired old verse about " give to Caesar what is is Caesar's and to God, what is God's" to justice militarism. The Mennonites are a peace church, mind you, so I thought this rather strange. I talked to him after service and told him this is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the Bible. It has been used every since Christianity was made the official state religion of Rome to justify blind obedience to government. Jesus had no use for the coin or Caesar, so he told the Pharisees to give it to Caesar.Jesus was all about the kingdom of God, not Caesar.
Practical Pacifism
Angelo,
You ask a lot of good questions. I do argue for a separation. Not necessarily a withdrawal from participation, but a separation nonetheless. I cannot see how a Christian can reconcile participation in the military and the non-violent commands of Jesus. It is impossible to love your enemies if you are pointing a gun at them. The only exception would be to assist in the healing of injured soldiers. However, even that gets sticky when a commanding officer orders you to treat American wounded before enemy combatants. Maybe I've seen too many episodes of M.A.S.H. where Frank Burns is always arguing that point. Also, even though one might only be there to help heal, they are still being protected through the use of force. My life is no more important than the life of anyone else... and certainly should not be protected through the use of deadly force.
Christians are to be a light unto the world. That means that we are supposed to remain engaged with our society and try to influence it in positive ways. But we should also refuse to participate in societal methods which contradict Christian teachings.
It is funny that you bring up Hitler. That is the argument everyone likes to use. However, as evil as the Shoah (Holocaust) was, the U.S. ally, Stalin, slaughtered over three times as many people as Hitler did. Yes, it is good the holocaust was stopped, but don't think for a second that that was the motivation for U.S. involvement. It was a political endeavor, not humanitarian.
As for pacifist "tactics" to combat people like Hitler, Stalin, etc.,... it is difficult to say. Perhaps the pacifists should have spoken up during the times that created these men. The Russian Church could have spoken out against the opulence of the Czars and the cruel nature of the society before the Bolsheviks could gain ground. But they were too involved with the powers of the time to maintain a prophetic voice. Christians throughout Europe should have rejected the Treaty of Vienna's punishments against Germany after WWI. It was those sanctions and restrictions that opened the door for a man like Hitler to rise to power. Unfortunately, the Europeans were out for revenge against Germany rather that trying to emulate Christ to their enemies.
The greatest tactic would be for every professing Christian to follow the pacifistic example of Jesus. Imagine if 2 billion Christians locked arms and hands together and marched peacefully, yet forcefully, on every despot in the world. Sure, many would be mowed down, but there is no way the rest of the world could stand against such a powerful movement. The problem is, most Christians argue that this is a naive and utopian idea that would never happen. Well, it won't happen with that attitude.
Jim quotes Ghandi's "be the change you want" and that is the attitude I would hope all of us would take. Even if we know it will never happen in our lifetime, we should still refuse to take part in the evil of violence and war in hopes that by "being the change we want" eventually the world will be won over to the ideals put forth by Christ.
I just think it is defeatist to say that you want to be a pacifist but don't see how it is practical. No one thought Jesus' death was practical at the time, but it worked out pretty well for humanity.
re:Practical Pacifism
It's tough to comment back to your comment, because there is so much that I agree with, and the parts that I disagree with you on are parts that I wish I could agree with. I'm not sure if I'm saying that it's impractical to be pacifist. I'm just wondering if pacifist and nonviolent tactics work better in some situations and not in others. In posing this question, I'm not sure of the answer. I think in order for pacifism to work, a worked out series of tactics is necessary.
In the civil rights protests in the 1950s and 1960s, the sit-ins and the freedom rides were a deliberate provacation to highlight injustices in the segregated South. The provacations that the civil rights activists caused were relayed to the rest of the nation through the newspapers and media, where the nation were able to see the horrors of the institutional racism through the hostility that these activists faced. Gandhi's various campaigns in India in the 1920s and 1930s similarly provoked responses that were relayed to the British people through the newspapers and radio of the day.
This is just a theory of mine, but in order for nonviolent tactics to work, it seems like a free and independent media is necessary to relay the injustices that nonviolent tactics expose. There is a really good book right now called he Race Beat : the press, the civil rights struggle, and the awakening of a nation by Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff that talks about the role of the press in helping inform the nation of the work of the civil rights workers.
I think in order for pacifist tactics to work against Hitler, a free and independent German press was needed to expose the lies that Hitler and the Nazi Party were perpertuating. Hitler and Goebbels basicly had control of the press and used it for propaganda purposes to brainwash the German people. Any nonviolent protests would be stifled by the Nazi Party and would not reach the German people. That is why I'm a bit wary of the effectiveness of nonviolent tactics in Nazi Germany. I could be wrong though. I just need to see how pacifists would get around that particular roadblock.
Angelo
It just occurred to me how pacifism might've stopped Hitler
It just occurred to me while I was at work at a possible way in which pacifism may have, if not stop the war, at least challenged Hitler and the Holocaust. The one figure in Europe with the stature to challenge Hitler would've been the Pope. I wrote a blog a while ago about Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII (http://www.crossleft.org/node/6650), the two popes during the Nazi era, and I was contrasting the way the two Popes dealt with Hitler.
Pope Pius XI initially signed concordants with Hitler in the early 1930s in the hopes of maintaining some autonomy over the Catholic Church in Germany and maintaining cordial relations with the government. Pius XI became alarmed as the decade wore on as Hitler broke many of the agreements of the concordants, and he viewed with increasing dismay the anti-Jewish policies that the Nazis were unfolding. In 1937, Pius XI had his secretary of state Eugene Pacelli secretly sent to the German churches the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge or “With Burning Dismay” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_...), that denounced the Nazi intimidation of Catholic schools and the hostility of the Nazis towards free religious activity. In one passage, the encyclical states:
“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds. “
Pius XI increasingly criticized Hitler's racial policies. In a 1938 address to Belgian pilgrims, the pope said that “we are the spiritual offspring of Abraham… We are spiritually Semites.” Pius Xi had commissioned an American priest named John LeFarge to write an encyclical titled Humani Generis Unitas to more explicitly denounce the Nazi policy against the Jews, but he died before the encyclical was finished and the succeeding Pope, Pope Pius XII shelved the encyclical.
Though Pope Pius XII hated the Nazis and the Nazi anti-Jewish policies as much as Pope Pius XI, Pius XII was afraid of challenging the Nazis for fear of reprisals against the Catholic Church and increasing the harassment against the remaining Jewish population. As I made clear in the blog I wrote, I think Pope Pius XI's more confrontational style against Hitler was more appropriate than Pope Pius XIIs, and that might've been the one way in which nonviolent tactics might've worked against Hitler. To circumvent the Nazi control of the press, the Pope could've used the pulpits of the churches to send a message against Nazi policies, as Pius XII did to deliver his encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.
I don't think the Pope would've been able to stop the war. But I do think he could've challenged the Holocaust.
Just a thought.
Angelo
re:Crossleft or AmericaLeft
A very thoughtful reply to Jim's post. Modern-Ancient, you give a very good argument for Christian pacifism. I am actually closer to Jim on this issue, but most of Jim's post is actually not that far off from a pacifist position. It argues against American imperialistic designs and the vast expenditure on the military, which causes many of the wars that pacifists are against.
Like Jim, I'm not a pacifist, but I wish I was. I'm open to being persuaded to the pacifist position. Many of my heroes are pacifists. Dorothy Day took a lot of heat when she took a pacifist position against World War II due to her Christian beliefs, and subscriptions to her newspaper, The Catholic Worker, dropped precitously. I agree that the U.S. gets into too many unnecessary wars, which seems to be what Jim is arguing as well.
I'm not a pacifist because I wonder how effective pacifism would be against a Hitler or a Stalin. Both Gandhi and Day held pacifist positions during World War II, and I respect them. But I don't see how that sort of pacifism could've stopped the Nazis or the Holocaust. Maybe you could give an argument to persuade me, but how would pacifist positions have worked in World War II?
Gandhi's nonviolent protests in India and the nonviolent Civil Rights movement in the U.S. in the 1960s both depended on a free media to show the injustices that nonviolent tactics expose, to appeal to the consciences of the British in the 1920s and the Americans in the 1960s. Nazi Germany had restricted press and a propaganda machine that effectively shut news from the German people, if not the rest of the world. Would pacifist tactics have been able to have stopped the Holocaust? Both Pope Pius XII and Dietrich Boenhoffer, prominent Christians within Nazi Europe, contemplated or participated in plots to kill Hitler, to stop the carnage.
I don't have any good answers to the questions I'm posing. Perhaps nonviolent tactics would've been able to stop someone like Hitler. I need to see a good argument for it. I think nonviolence is always the correct individual choice, and here in the U.S., I think nonviolent tactics are best to enact social change. I just think the world throws situations that complicates how we apply our moral principles.
I'm glad the U.S. won World War II. But the U.S. was not at that time the perfect paragon of democracy. The U.S. had segregation and Jim Crow in the South and put loyal and innocent Japanese Americans in internment camps. I just think imperfect instruments are used to do imperfect actions for a greater long term good. The U.S. was imperfect, but it's a good country that in the long run did the most good in winning a war. I have more to write, but I've run out of time.
Angelo
Is this CrossLeft or AmericaLeft?
"I am not a pacifist but would like to be; I am just not there yet and probably won’t ever be, but I keep trying. Gandhi said be the change you want so I try to be peaceful in thought and action."
Consequently, if we want war to cease, we must refuse to ever participate in it.
"I haven’t achieved Christ or Buddha like consciousness though, and obviously neither has the world. I think we need a military."
None of us have (or probably will in this life). However, Jesus and his followers DO NOT need a military. In fact, they are to refuse to utilize the world's methods. America might need a military, but Christians don't. A military is not consistent with the Cross. Maybe a name change to 'AmericaLeft' is necessary.
"I would not be like the Tibetan monks who sat by and watched as the Chinese butchered their fellow monks and citizens when the Chinese invaded Tibet and took it over. I would fight back if someone invaded my country."
Or not like Jesus who laid down his life rather than taking the lives of those who sought to do evil acts to him and his followers. We must remember what we have been called to as Christians:
1 Peter 3:9-12>
Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing. For
‘Those who desire life
and desire to see good days,
let them keep their tongues from evil
and their lips from speaking deceit;
let them turn away from evil and do good;
let them seek peace and pursue it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’
"I am not ready to lay down all arms, join hands, and sing, Kumbaya."
So you are not ready to join in the prayer for our Lord to 'come by here'?
"Another people or peoples would come and butcher us and take our land and control our people, much as the Chinese did to the Tibetans and the prize of America would be much more appetizing to a predator nation than Tibet."
And why are they any worse than the people we are under now? Why do you value one set of people over another? Jesus didn't seem to do that... and we aren't supposed to do that either. No matter who 'ruled' the land I lived in, I would always be free to worship God. I just might have to deal with a different set of consequences, but I am ALWAYS free to follow my conscience.
"Over the years, we have made a lot of enemies who have a score to settle. I think there is a time to fight and defend one’s country."
America has done much good and much harm in this world. Shouldn't we be prepared to reap what we sow? If we have done enough good, then we shouldn't fear reprisal. If we have done too much bad, we deserve whatever we get, and fighting against reprisal is and attempt to legitimate the bad. I agree that there is a time to fight and defend one's country. The problem is that, as Christians, we are citizens of a different country and have no business fighting to defend an earthly one. The only army we are to ever fight in is one that is directly led by God. I have never seen that army.
"That time should be rare and only after all options are exhausted . That is the idea that our Founding Fathers had in mind, and we are not following that ideal."
Are we seeking to follow the Founding Fathers' ideals or those of Christ?
I know my response is harsh, but I don't see one thing in this post (other than the desire to be a pacifist) that reflects Christ, and for it to be posted on a sight that calls itself "CrossLeft" seems inconsistent.
re:Crossleft or AmericaLeft Part 2
I reread your post and had a few questions just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting what you have written. You wrote near the end of your comments this:
"I agree that there is a time to fight and defend one's country. The problem is that, as Christians, we are citizens of a different country and have no business fighting to defend an earthly one. The only army we are to ever fight in is one that is directly led by God. I have never seen that army."
When I first read your comments, I initially assumed you were arguing a Christian pacifist position. But in rereading it, it seems like you might actually be writing about Christians seperating themselves from the American military and only be involved in the issues of the Christian community. I may be reading more into this than you intended. Are you arguing for pacifism or are you arguing for separation?
Would you advocate Christians trying to influence the U.S. to take on a more Christian pacifist position? Is it o.k. for a Christian to serve in the military, but in a nonviolent role? I recently watched a documentary about a Christian who would not kill but decided to serve in the military during World War II to tend the wounded in battle, and he became the only conscientious objector to be decorated by the U.S. I know that Quakers in World War I and some members of the Catholic Worker in World War II served in noncombat roles in the military either tending to the wounded or driving ambulances.
I respect what you are writing and if I understand what you are writing, I think you are right that there is never a moral justification for war. War can only be justified as the lesser of two evils. Sometimes I think there are situations where a country has no good choices. And I think sometimes war has some good effect, in spite of the carnage it causes. The United States did not enter World War II to end the Holocaust. But the U.S. defeat of Nazi Germany had that result. With American men shipped overseas to fight, economic opportunities opened up for women and African Americans in factories and industry that planted the seed for the future women's rights and civil rights movements. It inspired the ideals of FDRs Four Freedoms.
In writing this, I do not mean to look over the bad things that the war caused. War is brutal and it brings out the worst in people. For the soldiers in combat, many came back with deep psychological scars. In the U.S. it brought on a nationalistic fervor that led to harassment of pacifists and antiwar people, and it led to the internment of loyal Americans just because of their Japanese descent.
I'm picking World War II as an example because I can't see how the nonviolent tactics of Gandhi and Jesus would've worked against Hitler. But I'm willing to be persuaded. I think Jim and others would be open to reading pacifist arguments too. We may not know enough about the tactics of nonviolence to know how it would have affected Nazi Germany. Gandhi felt that nonviolence would've worked if given a chance.
I think you're also raising the issue of what a Christian's responsibility to the nation he or she lives. Jim was writing as a Christian and an American citizen, so I think it is valid for him to cite the Founding Fathers as well and Jesus. From your point of view, what is an American Christian's responsibility to the United States? Does a Christian have any responsibility to be good citizens to the nation he or she lives, or is a Christian more responsible to the wider human community and should be opposed to nationalism?
My questions are not meant as hostile questions, only to better understand your thought process. Your comments have forced me to think about things that I tend to take for granted, which I thank you for. My two replies may have some weaknesses in logic, so feel free to point them out. I don't agree with some of the things you've written, but respect the thought and care you have to align to Christian principles. Keep writing.
Angelo