America's wars in the post-9/11 era have been characterized by relatively low U.S. casualties, but that does not mean that they are any less violent than previous wars, Nicolas J.S. Davies observes.
Last Sunday's Oscar Awards were interrupted by an incongruous propaganda exercise featuring a Native American actor and Vietnam vet, featuring a montage of clips from Hollywood war movies.
The actor, Wes Studi, said that he "fought for freedom" in Vietnam. But anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that war, including for instance the millions of viewers who watched Ken Burns' Vietnam War documentary, knows that it was the Vietnamese who were fighting for freedom - while Studi and his comrades were fighting, killing and dying, often bravely and for misguided reasons,
to deny the people of Vietnam that freedom.Studi introduced the Hollywood movies he was showcasing, including "American Sniper," "The Hurt Locker" and "Zero Dark Thirty," with the words, "Let's take a moment to pay tribute to these powerful films that shine a great spotlight on those who have fought for freedom around the world."
To pretend to a worldwide TV audience in 2018 that the U.S. war machine is "fighting for freedom" in the countries it attacks or invades was an absurdity that could only add insult to injury for millions of survivors of U.S. coups, invasions, bombing campaigns and hostile military occupations all over the world.
Wes Studi's role in this Orwellian presentation made it even more incongruous, as his own Cherokee people are themselves survivors of American ethnic cleansing and forced displacement on the Trail of Tears from North Carolina, where they had lived for hundreds or maybe thousands of years, to Oklahoma where Studi was born.
Unlike the delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention who broke out in chants of
"no more war" at displays of militarism, the great and the good of Hollywood seemed nonplussed by this strange interlude. Few of them applauded it, but none protested either.
Comment: This is beyond ridiculous. Russia had no reason to poison Skripal and there is no evidence that it was involved. But even in the unlikely case it had something to do with it, what has that got to do with RT?
More absurdities:
- Theresa May demands Russia prove it is not guilty of poisoning double agent Sergei Skripal - Russians warn this could sever diplomatic relations
- Wildest MP claims from Skripal session in UK parliament: 'Russia as close to a rogue state as any' (VIDEOS)
Here's more from Ofcom's statement, and RT's response: It's totally mad. Here's the Twitter buzz:Labour MP Chris Bryant called for RT's license to be revoked, despite having appeared on the network himself. If the Brits are this stupid and malevolent, they'll pay for it: Barmy British Government threatens to ban RT UK! Zakharova responds: 'If London shuts down RT, no British media outlet will work in Russia'.