More Red Dawn
CL, in a "stealth" comment below, sings the praises of Red Dawn and objects to my comparison of the events of the film to the Iraq war. With any such comparison, of course, there're levels or layers of literalness one can apply. I never said that the Iraqi insurgency and the "Wolverines" were one and the same. My point was a little more subtle than that, and, for those who don't like subtlety, here it is:
Any rightwinger who ever loved this movie has to engage in Orwellian doublethink to continue to love the idea of wholesome U.S. teenagers fighting a guerrilla war against Soviet invaders and, at the same time, to think that the Iraqi insurgents are "terrorists" or, even worst, cowardly terrorists, when they use the same tactics against American invaders.
posted by Number Three @ 6:50 AM
6 Comments:
Except for this fact (which has been debated a bit on this site before and at length between me and Bug in person): I'm on the side of the Americans.
As occupiers, liberators or insurgents, if they're Americans, I pull for them.
(Except for that diabolical John Walker Lindh who was from Marin County, which I don't consider America.)
Does that mean that "Americans" are per se on the right side of things, regardless of what they do, and that the "anti-American" forces are per se on the wrong side, no matter what they do or why they fight?
No, but a hazy no. So, almost yes.
But that doesn't even matter. Look at it this way. I realize that my siblings are not always angels. I bet they've been in the wrong in some sort of argument in the past. But, with a few exceptions, I'm always on their side regardless of the circumstances. I'll take up for them even if they're wrong.
Does that mean that, hypothetically, your sibling came over to your apartment and told you that s/he had a dead body in the back if the SUV and that s/he needed help disposing of said body, that you'd "take up for them"? What if it turned out that there was still life in that body? Would you finish them off? Take out witnesses? Where are the exceptions?
It seems to me that sibling loyalty and patriotism can only get one so far. And analytically, saying "I'm with you fellas" is not really an argument.
I think the "dead body in the SUV" scenario fits comfortably within the phrase "with a few exceptions." If American soldiers started lining up civilians and gunning them down for no reason, well, I think I'd object.
But I bet that happens as often as my sister killing someone and stuffing him in the back of an SUV.
I, in fact, think loyalty gets one a very long way. It may be more visceral than analytical but that works more often than not.
When you're flapping your gums to some 300 pound behemoth in bar some day about what a good movie American Beauty is, I bet you'd rather have me behind you than, say, Iverson when it hits that fan. Not because I agree one stitch what you're saying but because you're with me, regardless of what you're saying.
I'm glad I now know that I, on the other hand, never want you at my back. I'd rather pick, at random, any of the guys I play pool with on Tuesday nights. They couldn't tell Jeremy Bentham from a pile of wet spaghetti, but they wouldn't let me smacked on the head without a little retaliation.
CL, you've told yourself a very pleasant lie about both yourself and America. Emery's point was simple. In Red Dawn, a popular movie amongst Red-State folk, the categories are easy to see:
Invaders, Occupiers (Soviets) = antognists
Freedom fighters (American youth) = protagonists
Emery then wonders about the putative movie "Red, White and Blue Dawn":
Invaders, Occupiers (Americans) = ?
Freedom Fighters (Iraqi insurgent youth) = ?
and in a further post makes his point more clear: only by "Orwellian doublespeak" could you not see who the protagonists and antogonists are in "Red, White and Blue Dawn".
You, then, engage in Orwellian doublespeak, by rewriting the plot and conveniently casting yourself in the star role. The first critical rewrite begins when you avoid the clear message of Red Dawn and you change it to Godfather. A very interesting and telling rewrite. For instance, some bug might poiint out that those of us who are criticizing the Iraq war are also Americans and from time to time we screw up too; so, you could show your loyalty to us, but of course, you get around this by apparently comparing us to the "diabolical John Walker Lindh who was from Marin County, which I don't consider America" and in the process of this stream of consciousness you reveal that you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan (remember, Lindh was in Afghanistan), that is to say, those who oppose Iraq are like JWL (Hmmmm, I wonder why in your mind Afghanistan and Iraq are conflated? For a possible answer, I suggest you see http://mediamatters.org/items/200603220017). Now here is where the Lacanian rewrite really gets good. You suddenly drop Godfather, and you change the image of the Iraq War to that of a public pool hall. Someone else will have to tell me what movie this is -- I can't think of one. Anyway, in this film you arrive with your 5' 8" 140 pound friend Emery and another guy Iversen, who is Emery's friend, to the public pool hall and there the 140 pound Emery spouts off about American Beauty amidst a bunch of rough red necks, and a 300 pound behemoth attacks your 140 pound friend, but you save the day because you're "loyal" and you'll take on the 300 pound bully, whereas the other guy, Iversen, is whimp and he cuts and runs only to let his 140 pound friend get his ass whipped by the 300 pound bully, were it not, of course, for the other friend, Curat Lex, who saves the day or gets his ass whooped too.
In this version of the story we have... well, here's where it gets difficult, because the plot is so implausibly convoluted, but I guess we have:
Invaders, Occupiers = 300 pound bully at pool hall = Insurgents
Freedom Fighters = Curat Lex (and Emery, but really Curat Lex) = Americans
Coward Traitor = Iversen = J.W. Lindh
So, Iraq becomes a "public pool hall" where everyone should be welcome and have equal rights, Americans, Iraqis... The Americans are Curat Lex and the 140 diminutive Emery, the Iraqi insurgents are the 300 pound bully behemoth and Iversen comes over from Afganistan as the John Walker Lindh aiding and abetting them. Of course all of this is nonsense, but it's a really good lie.
Here's what you really have:
-A private pool hall run by a small bully in a different city, but sitting on a lucrative business.
-A big bully travels to new city, dethrones little bully, takes over business, and threatens club members with his stick and even kills thousands of them.
-The other surviving club members, some loyal to previous bully, but mostly those who don't like some non-club member coming into their city and taking over their club, fight back against new bully.
-Curat Lex is a toady in the new bully's gang and he kisses his big ass, but he doesn't actually fight anyone himself -- actually he's in another pool hall the big bully's home city thousands of miles away cheering the 300 pound bully on.
-Iversen and Lee are also thousands of miles a way, live in the big bully's real city, but they criticize him from afar and for that they get called whimps, cowards and disloyal.
Post a Comment
<< Home