I wasn't talking so much about the use of arms to defend against foreign powers Andy. But rather that when a military figure has taken over power, and a Junta is a Junta whether left or right, do they then become a 'democrat' when maintaining power. If you can feel no qualms about shooting your opponents upon the battlefield then it is difficult to change this policy when later dealing with your political opponents. The battlefield is not a breeding ground for democrats.
Your first question raises important further questions - namely can anyone be considered a hero if they have been responsible for deaths ? For thousands of years people have been making heroes out of historical characters who helped to kill people. We have pinned medals on them, we have put them on banknotes - what were the Duke of Wellington or Nelson other than killers ? The French Resistance were also sometimes killers. Under what circumstances can we apply the epithet hero to someone ? Or is it a meaningless term anyway. Also, who is responsible for those deaths - the man who pulled the trigger, the man who gave the orders, or the man who paid for it all ? These are the major weapons exporters of our World: USA 31% Russia 27% China 5% Germany 5% France 5% UK. 4% Spain 3% Italy 3% Ukraine 3% Israel 2% Without these countries the dictators of this World - the Saddams, the Assads etc. would be defending their power like bullies in the playground - with sticks and stones. So who exactly is responsible ?
I have said elsewhere that I do not want to get involved in threads other than football or the Nest. However just a simple point which I have not seen on here. What exactly is a hero to people? You all know I am a pacifist so for me someone who kills innocent people for cause or country does not qualify. For me a hero is a good person - not just someone who does what he has to for a cause he believes in. I actually have no heroes amongst any political persons. A hero is a special person who is responsible for good and making other peoples lives better without causing harm along the way. Few share my view.
Most heroism goes unnoticed Leo. I knew one guy whose wife died young, who then gave up his entire career to bring up his 2 daughters. When they had grown up he tried to pick up the pieces by odd jobbing, ie. taking instructions from people who were far less qualified than him - yet never complained and appeared happy. Maybe there was something heroic there. One of my heroes (or rather heroins) is Malala, the Pakistani girl whose head was half blown away by the Taliban for working too actively for the schooling of girls there. That wasn't the end of her activities - she carried on, without developing hatred for the people who had done this.
I respect your view entirely. I take the view of the 'greater good'. I agree that few heroes are to be found amongst politicians - I have a handful, no more. I understand the pacifist stance, but how does that square with someone like Hitler? Civil disobedience wouldn't have stopped the Panzas. Sorry that's a bit glib, but you catch my drift?
Very true. I agree but if he had gone down the 'democracy' route, or at least the Western view of it, the CIA would've taken the country over with a stooge in charge. That wouldn't have been in the interests of the Cuban people, it would be for the US to restake their financial claim on Cuba, and for strategic purposes. Castro didn't have a lot of choice if he didn't want to see it revert to the island it was.
I think we must consider the politics of South America and the interests of the USA. Worth noting that after he came to power Castro went to the USA and was snubbed by the president who refused to see him. American policy in the continent was filled with self-interest, supporting despots who milked their own people. Castro and Co were revolutionary leaders who sought to free the common people from oppression. Little wonder he ended up making friends with the USSR.
Agreed. The politics of the time can only be understood against the politics of the cold war. A socialist state at that time had little other alternative but to become aligned to the USSR. It is difficult to know how a completely independent Cuban socialism would have developed, particularly if it had felt safe from American aggression.
Maybe we should stop and think why Fidel Castro was villified in the USA. but held up as a hero in most of the third World. Is it because he raised this third World country into one which had higher literacy rates, a better education system, better health system than most western countries - that he helped to raise thousands out of poverty, that he turned this American playground of crime into a real nation. Maybe also that he sent doctors to most other third World countries, helped to pave the way for the end of Apartheid in South Africa. He even offered Doctors to the USA. during the New Orleans disaster. His mistake was in dealing with dissidents - he should not have used imprisonment - just said to them 'If you are against free schooling for all, free health for all, against equality between Cubans - then you can go, get the hell out' - but leave your money here. The USA. will take the high ground on human rights - with illegal embargoes etc. can a nation with such huge differences in wealth, with so many blacks waiting on death row, so many living in cardboard boxes etc. lecture anyone on human rights ?
The hero archetype is infused in human cultures...... In our modern networking society we see heroes everywhere ... sport music politics etc.... IMO (as a psychologist) a hero carries greater meaning for the masses who seek to find vicarious fulfilment through the achievements of their chosen champion. So for many millions Castro was a hero for the poor and oppressed who saw freedom and fulifllment through his actions.
Or maybe say to them "Fine, if you're against all that, then you can pay for it. But the same services will be freely available for the rest of the population."? Put the onus to decide how they want to be treated back onto the dissidents themselves.
'' Unhappy is the land that has no heroes'' says a character in Bertold Brecht's Galileo. ''No'' replies another. ''Unhappy the land that needs heroes''. Maybe it follows then that happy is the land that has no heroes. All the South American countries have their 'liberators' (Simon Bolivars etc.) the Americans have their wild west pioneers or their rags to riches myths, the Germans have difficulty with this and raise their national football team almost to the same status as a form of compensation. So where are the happy lands that don't need them ? According to objective studies the Danes are meant to be the happiest in Europe - and their national heroes ? Apparently Holger Danske - ''He is said to dwell in the castle of Kronborg, his beard grown down to the floor, to sleep there until Denmark needs him, at which time he will rise again''. Apart from that Peter Schmeichel or Canute ? The rest of the Scandinavian countries have such a shortage of notaries that they have run out of famous heads for their banknotes and have to use birds and animals instead. Maybe they just don't need them - such fortunate people.
And then there is Australia. Many there still view Ned Kelly as a national hero, in spite of his being a murdering armed robber. I suspect equally as many view him as the idiot who wore a **** bucket on his head and forgot he had legs though - which goes to show that heroes are viewed through the eyes of individuals rather than through a nation's eyes.
Both the state and religion need heroes so that they can get people to sacrifice for their cause. Yes there are individual heroes like the dad Cologne refers to but the church and state swing their mighty forces behind the creation of saints and martyrs to further their own cause. What would be the easiest way to stop young men being killed and injured in battle -stop having armed forces and fighting. No no no says every government. Apart from the vast fortunes our companies make in selling arms to people, we also need to exert influence over others and the best way to do that is be a mighty military power. So - help for heroes- poppy day - armed forces day and so on. Glorify death and injury in the name of your country and you will continue to ensnare especially the less well off and less well educated to enlist and risk life and limb for the "glory" of their country. We all have a deep need to honour people who have made sacrifice and the governments exploit it. We are their bait and fools. We love our dead and martyrs -not just in the UK but across the world - it just happens to be one of the "sports" the UK is better at. Heroes? Really? On that perhaps the greatest hero of all is Satan -or God. Rant over
When you mentioned the church and state you forgot that the state is made up of many conflicting interests and may also have social class specific heroes which cut across international barriers eg. The Tolpuddle Martyrs. But, on the whole, you are right about war. How many states have called people to war with the promise of making heroes of them, and how many mothers have said to their sons, before going, 'Billy, don't try to be a hero'. Real heroism for me is either when someone serves as an inspiration for others, or when someone allows themselves to be a 'human' being in a situation where brutality is the norm and where 'acting like a human' could be dangerous. I recently had to translate 3 novels from German into English - all 3 written by an 87 year old who wanted to get everything off his chest before dying. He had been a member of the Hitler Youth as a boy and was thrown into the battle of the bulge at 16 - by that time the Nazis were throwing even 15 year olds into the front line in the Ardennes. There are some truly horrific descriptions in there (very difficult, because a translator should be detached from his material) but also there are moments in there where the human being takes over and the machinery of war fades into the background. Moments of real heroism where humanity was shown although it could have been dangerous for the doer. Where desertion was braver than 'going on'. But Leo, you have not answered Andy's question - could Hitler have been stopped any other way ?
I do not know. In this world somebody would have assassinated him most likely. If not perhaps he would have been just like Stalin. If people were not prone to violence in the first place he would never have risen to power. Maybe instead of spending billions on warfare we should spend it on raising children who are not psychopaths. I am getting more involved though than I wish so will duck out of this now.
Are people violent by nature Leo ? An army is put together by discipline, crowd psychology (which overrides the individual doubts which make it up), blind obediance to perceived authority, an element of racism (this has to be there because you cannot motivate an army by telling them that the enemy are just the same as you are - you have to convince them that the enemy is of lesser worth, dangerous, but beatable), a huge amount of brainwashing, hierarchical structures (the people themselves would never decide to go to war if they controlled things)............and lastly, drugs. If you doubt the last one then look at the amount of amphetamines used in World War 2 on both sides - and still used in large quantities by American pilots. The Wehrmacht in World War 2 were issued large quantities of Panzerschokolade - like an early equivalent of Crystal Meth, which made them less prone to tiredness, and more aggressive. A violent streak alone could not lead to anything more than sporadic individual fights.
