After viewing this movie in class, I did rent it and have watched the rest of it. I do have a better understanding of different events that were transpiring in the world around me as I was just a toddler. Alot of the actions that my parents did, such as with the building of a bomb shelter, now make perfect sense to me. I remember one of the biggest issues in history class during grade school was the fear that the U.S. was going to be attacked by nuclear power from the Soviet Union. And there was alot of fear being instilled upon us about nuclear attack and this documentary made me aware how close to this we actually were, and how frightening it was to see that we almost were wiped out. And I don't mean to take anything away from how wrong the U.S. was with the bombings done to Japan, or with our involvement in Vietnam.
I was amazed though that McNamara admitted that they would of been found guilty of war crimes, had we not of won the war, and I was taken back by that comment, or I missed something someplace, but is he implying that they are not guilty of war crimes only because they won the war? Is that the underlying message that the winners are not to be considered guilty of war crimes? Does that also imply that the losers than should be charged with war crimes? He didnt make any reference to the losers of the war and their involvement with war crimes that was just something that kind of popped into my head.
I did also notice how emotional he became when he talked about Kennedy's assassination. I was in kindergarten when that occured and I recall school being cancelled for a few days, and watching a "parade" on TV with a ton of horses, and his casket with the flag on a cart being led by horses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Candi,
ReplyDeleteI think McNamara was trying to highlight the absurdity of our double-standards on war crimes. He wasn't condoning the practice of absolving the winners while punishing the losers; he was simply stating that that's what happens. Hannah mentioned this, too, and it's an enormous issue.
I think most will agree with me when I say most people only really do something difficult when they are forced to. Writing a fifteen-page research paper on a topic of my choice is usually pretty enlightening, and I generally find it rewarding, but I've never done it until a professor told me I had to get it done by a certain date. Punishing people who won you a war is in the same vein. Ask any individual if these actions (killing high percentages of civilian population of major cities with fire) were wrong and they'd probably say, "Yes, of course." But when it comes to actually doing it and people are faced with no imminent threat (i.e. the general isn't going to bomb Morris) and they won't do it.
It's hypocritical. It's unethical. It's unacceptable. But people do it and people accept it. Until we begin to care as much about others (the Japanese or Vietnamese...or how about Arabs in Guantanamo?) as we do about ourselves, I don't see how this will ever change.