I find Remembrance Day to be a difficult holiday.
It doesn't seem to be about remembering the truth of what lies at the base of most conflict, but seems to be about reinforcing the myth that our present peace and security is due to our military's ability to intercept and defeat various foes who are clamoring to invade us. I'm afraid I don't believe this, beyond the obvious nod to Hitler (but even here one should remember that the US remained out of the war until they were sure they could end it on their terms, an incredible contrast to the British point of view, and one befitting a nation who, like Germany, Japan and the USSR, saw it's own chance to carve out an empire). When I pause to think of war and those who have lost their lives to nationalism it's difficult to see beyond the systematic aggression that underlies our our peace and prosperity. Canada is small potatoes compared to some other countries, but our troops are caught in the larger problems of western economic domination.
Canada's last major war, Korea, was actually fought to prevent Koreans from repatriating their country. At the end of world war 2, the Russians liberated what is now North Korea. They removed the Japanese, put the Koreans in charge and went home. The south part of Korea was occupied by the United States who refused to return the 'liberated' country to Korean control. When the local Koreans protested, demanding their country back (the Japanese had conquered and enslaved Korea around 1915) the US, who had kept on the brutal Japanese police force to keep control, began a campaign of terror which resulted in the death/murder of 100,000 dissidents (the US used the same strategy in South America adding Nazi outposts to the payroll rather than disbanding them). The free North Koreans were outraged and invaded. The South Koreans helped throw off the oppressors, and the invading force swept over the country in a matter of months until all that the US held was a little army base. At this point the US said they were being attacked by communists and Russians, though the Russians had not helped invade. Western troops came in and violently retook the country from its own people - and might have taken the whole thing if China had not stepped in to help the Northerners hold the line where the border remains today. We tell the story as if the west was defending democracy, which is in complete contradiction of the facts.
A different story, more in line with the facts, is that our peace and wealth derive from the intentional destabilization of various foreign countries, who are often not our foes until their governments decide to look out for their own citizens instead of western interests. Possibly without exception, the countries which are rife with violence and suicide bombings are countries which have been deeply managed by western powers in order to exploit the locals. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua all suffer or suffered a lack of peace because western intervention intentionally placed tyrannical despots in power. Such despots were the ones willing to exploit their people for bribe laden foreign interests. If these people are our foes it's because our troops and agents have exploited and murdered their family members in order to benefit our economy.
Again, it seems that most of the countries infected by generational violence are artificial countries whose borders were imposed on them mere generations ago by the west so that theoretically they could be independent while in practice they could be administered by corrupt officials who would ensure that the new nations prioritized western economic interested over long term national development. The mixed tribal nature of these nations does not work within these sorts of boundaries and racism, racial violence and even ethnic cleansing have become par for the course in these managed territories, and recently in the case of Rwanda, were partly incited by Belgian and French interests. But this destabilization, however much its lamented in the press (and I believe people are
really starting to care more), is precisely what the west has wanted and benefited from. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the western militaries' most recent projects have already been shown to have instated corrupt officials and Iraq, in particular, was notable for how brazen the US was in controlling and 'selling' off reconstruction contracts.
And while we might yearn to praise the west for giving foreign aid to these hurting countries, even here we may find strings attached. In many cases the west 'gives' money to a country, but then dictates that it be spent buying resources from the gifting country. ie. The US gives $10 million dollars to a country where parts of its population is starving, but stipulates that the money must be spent buying American grown grain. So the $10M dollars actually goes to American farmers and at the same time collapses the local market prices in the foreign country, worsening the local economy and compounding the actual problem. Worse, the aid money is not a 'gift' but a loan, and the country will now have to pay the gifting country back the $10 million plus interest.
Remembrance Day would have more value if we remembered that many of the young and brave soldiers who have been sacrificed in foreign violence have lost their lives not because we were in danger; but because our society wanted to maintain and increase our economic superiority and felt that the lives of other people's children were a reasonable sacrifice for obtaining it.
A structurally interesting film that looks at the fast food industry from several angles. While the story's plot mainly focuses on the plight of imigrants whose limited options force them to work in the stomach turning conditions of a large meat processing plant, it also presents a naive marketing executive who discovers profitability is more important than excellence, and a teenage fast food worker who comes to morally object to 'version of reality' presented by her workplace. We like and feel for each of these people.
