Follow

canpol 

I'm fairly sure that supporting Veterans isn't, or shouldn't be controversial...

cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/whol

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 1

canpol 

@emacsen It is, tho. "Veterans" are, consciously or not, a symbol of veneration and glorification of war, warriors, and murder and self-sacrifice in the name of nationalism, race, religion, patriarchy, and other us vs. them divisions, legitimising "our" murderers vs. "their" murderers.

IDK why exactly the Whole Foods did this, but IMHO anything to do with military and war, including veterans and "martyrs", is inherently bad and should have negative associations.

canpol 

@emacsen Simply put, any veteran commemoration / veneration is a whitewashing of one side of some war, thus inherently a dehumanization of those who those veterans have killed.

Even a "justified", defensive war effort is basically murder, and I feel like it should be treated as such. In that regard honoring the veterans is a controversial act, or at least should be one, if we want to move past war veneration.

There's a reason the right _adores_ veterans and war heroes.

canpol 

@cadadr

> Even a "justified", defensive war effort is basically murder,

That is purely a rhetorical argument. A killing in war is not murder as the definition of murder is "The killing of another person without justification or excuse".

A soldier killing another solider is not.

And in the case of WW2, as the grandchild of a Holocaust survivor, there are cases of justifiable intervention outside of "defense", such as in the case of atrocities such as this.

canpol 

@emacsen That depends on what you accept as justification. A soldier is a person, and killing a soldier is murdering a person.

My opinion is that if we were categorical enough about this, there wouldn't be any Holocausts or Medz Yegherns to survive.

That's not to say when evil ensues like in WWII Germany, nobody should intervene. My opinion is if we look back and see saviors and not murderers, we'll just have more of it (and, we've actually had and are having more of it).

canpol 

@cadadr If someone is at war with you, they are aiming to kill you. That is a justification for killing.

Your view that if all killing was seen as bad, there would be no killing is sadly not born our by history.

Totalitarians always justify actions by dehumanizing peoples- Jews, Muslims, Kurds, Mexicans, and on and on.

canpol 

@emacsen At what point in history killing was seen to be bad? It's always been thou shalt not kill, except someone, for everyone.

When it becomes too abstract stuff goes off the rails. In practice what this means to me is a distinction between valorous saviours and murder for survival, and between justified and neccessitated. I believe that for both the latter is a better window into our past, when educating upcoming generations, and that it's way more than a simple semantic difference.

canpol 

@emacsen I wanna make this a tad bit more clear:

If it was up to me to pull the trigger on an offensive against Nazi Germany back in WWII, I wouldn't hesitate. Total war on Nazis it is.

What I'm talking about is the narrative after the fact: even tho it was to stop an evil force, it's war and murder nevertheless. Not something to be proud of.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!