We have just seen more proof, if any were needed, that nothing will get you in trouble faster in this country than speaking the truth. It is probably true that nothing will get you in trouble faster than speaking the truth in any empire, but it is undeniably true in the American empire. The latest public figure to have to walk back from a profoundly truthful and important statement is Chris Hayes. Hayes is the host of the Sunday morning talk show “Up” on msnbc, the cable news channel. In his show of May 27, 2012, Hayes spoke the truth. He said that he was “uncomfortable” calling every American who has died in combat a hero. Here’s the text of the statement that got Hayes in trouble:
I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable -- uncomfortable -- about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that.[1]
I have written elsewhere in this blog about exactly the point that Hayes made, except that I wasn’t referring only to those killed in action but to the way we have taken to calling everyone who wears an American military uniform a hero. See the post “A Veteran’s Day Meditation on American Heroes,” posted on November 11, 2011. Hayes spoke what to me is undeniable truth when he said that he is uncomfortable with applying the word hero to all Americans who have died in combat “because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.” I read that and shout “Amen brother!” Hayes spoke the truth, a very profound truth that points to the galloping militarization of American culture and American politics. The indiscriminate way in which we call people in the military, including but not limited those who have died in combat, heroes does indeed make it harder to criticize the policies and decisions that got us into the way to begin with, harder to condemn the continuation of the war, harder to demand an end to the war, and harder to oppose new wars. After all, our wars are being fought by heroes so they must be just, righteous even. Heroes don’t fight in unjust, illegal wars of aggression, so our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, to name only the most relevant current examples, must not (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding) be unjust, illegal wars of aggression. The mime of calling all American military personnel heroes quite apart from anything actually heroic that they may have done has become a major tool of the empire to silence dissent and procure unquestioning allegiance to the empire’s militaristic policies.
Speaking that truth got Hayes into so much trouble that the next day he had to back down. He apologized for speaking the truth. Prophetic voices who speak the truth and who wish to continue to have a public platform from which to speak it very often have to apologize for speaking the truth. But beyond apologizing for speaking the truth, Hayes’ apology raises another profound and troubling issue. Here’s the text of that apology:
On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.[2]
This is a very dangerous apology. Hayes’ apology at least implies that only those who have fought in war are entitled to criticize war, that only those who have served in the military are entitled to judge the legality, morality, and appropriateness of any particular war. If that is true, if the voices of prophets are silenced simply because they have not fought in a war, all is lost. As Hayes points out in his apology, most Americans have not fought in war. I have not fought in war. Does that mean I have no right to criticize war? Does that mean I have no right to expose the ways in which the empire manipulates the public to assure support for its militaristic policies? This current incident with Hayes’ apology for speaking the truth suggests that we are headed for that catastrophic circumstance. It certainly is a circumstance that the powers among us would dearly love to create.
It is, however, a circumstance that we simply cannot allow them to create if there is to be any hope of America becoming a more just and peaceful nation. Being informed on issues of public importance is the duty of every citizen in a free country. It is one at which most Americans badly fail, but it is their duty. Criticizing the government’s policies and actions is the right of every citizen in a free country, but among us today doing so will get you in trouble. It will bring down on you criticism that you are un-American, un-patriotic, at least if the policy or actions that you criticize relate to the use of the military. Hayes is simply the latest public commentator to be caught in that trap, a trap that so obviously serves the purposes of empire.
Hayes spoke the truth, and he should not have apologized. If he was going to apologize he shouldn’t have done it the way he did. I understand that he wants to keep his job at msnbc. I understand the NBC, of which msnbc is a part, is partly owned by General Electric, a giant corporation that benefits from American imperialism and majority owned by Comcast, a media conglomerate that depends on advertising dollars from corporations like GE. I can understand if Hayes’ bosses told him he had to apologize for speaking the truth, something I don’t know that they did but which I would be surprised if they didn’t. Hayes’ initial statement was the truth. His second statement was a dangerous apology. His initial statement, the reaction to it, and his apology all point to truths about the American empire. We would do well to learn those truths and do everything we can to undo them.
No comments:
Post a Comment