Tom Hanks & American Racism
March 15, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
As a part of the marketing push for the release of a new HBO Miniseries titled The Pacific, Tom Hanks, an executive producer of the show, has been making the interview rounds.
The new series, Mr. Hanks tell us, will be different from traditional war films in that it will include American racism and terrorism. Quoted in an interview with CNSNews when asked about his racism comments (here):
…I have talked to all sorts of people who have, in the vernacular, used incredibly racist terms about the people on the other side of the fence, and we can see all the time that comes over in the regular news media from their side, from the other side, terms that can only be viewed as racist…
Now I don’t disagree with Mr. Hanks at all in that war vets from today and yesterday tend to still hold disdain for their once mortal enemies and that they do in fact use “racist” terms and in the course of war, some have committed acts which when viewed on the sidelines can appear inhuman.
However, Mr. Hanks continues:
But let’s just take the word “racism” out of it and put “ignorance” instead, because it’s, racism, is a mere virulent form of what that ignorance is….
& here’s where Mr. Hanks & I part ways, because what he describes isn’t “ignorance” any more than any other normal emotion is ignorance.
Don’t misunderstand me – racism is one of the lowest forms of thought in existence, but using dehumanizing and racist terms during war shouldn’t necessarily be on the same continuum because it’s foundation is not one of hatred, but one of survival.
When society, asks of its people, to go to war, face death, whether for the just cause of self-defense or the noble cause of stopping the ongoing Holocaust, they ask a great deal. While historically this might not seem true, we know that humans are not born with a desire to kill other humans. Taking a human life, even in self defense for most people is difficult and fraught with psychological consequences.
One of the ways societies, military units, and even individuals prepare themselves to take human life in war is to devalue it through language. The use of racist terms is one of the consequences of this behavior and serves as a coping mechanism for those asked to kill.
Additionally, the term itself is meaningless, so long as it be negative and collective. If I think about individual combatants, they become more human than if the group is just a bunch of ________.
Even during the beginning of the Revolutionary War, our freedom fighters would pick fights with armed British soldiers, get fired upon, then make claims of oppression & murder. The most famous example being the “Boston Massacre“.
A mob fully angered provoked armed sentries who fired in self-defense.
One of our founding fathers, John Adams, successfully defended the 6 soldiers against trumped up murder charges. The press and many average citizens saw the enemy that was the British solider as a terrorist and themselves as saviors of freedom. Stated simply, for most people, we were the good guys and they were bad guys.
& the same happened during WWII. Even with noble and just causes, we tried to dehumanize the enemy in an attempt to reconcile the need for war.
Mr. Hanks continue:
“I’d like to think that as our time has gone by and as Americans have found themselves in 2010, ignorance is being replaced by a certain amount of enlightenment and racism is going to be replaced eventually by an acceptance. It’s just taking an awfully long time.”
Here again, I agree with Mr. Hanks. Racism is a childish ideology, but so long as people on this planet want to do others harm, we will need to be willing to do seemingly unbearable things to stop them. As has been stated many times over, freedom is not free.
Let’s just hope that the certain amount of enlightenment Mr. Hanks discusses includes a basic understanding of human nature, combined with enough humility to not judge others as “ignorant” when in reality all they are trying to do is reconcile their desire to see others live compared to the actions required of them when called.
Categories: Celebrities/Celebrity Culture, Critical Thinking, Military
| 
Tags: Boston Massacre, Celebrity Culture, Critical Thinking, Founding Fathers, HBO, John Adams, Revolutionary War, Tom Hanks, WWII
|
Leave a reply
Posts such as this makes me very sad, I’m sure it is always cleache to say if we could all merely get along, but how much more of this are people going to put up with?
It’s all part of being a human – we are so smart, we, in many, many cases, out think ourselves. Make things more complex than they have to be. It’s really all about the noble idea of being fair and always searching for the truth, but with critical thinking standards and basic human understanding being at the incredibly low levels it is, this noble pursuit turned too complex leads to the intolerance they seek to reduce.
I found this blog while searching google. Pretty impressive too, since google tends to display relatively old results but this one is very recent! Anyway, pretty informative, especially since this is not an issue many people tend to write something good about. Take care…
Thank you! I appreciate you reading.
Do you know if there is a good book to study cases? I enjoy reading your posts, William
Possibly – it depends upon what cases you’re asking about – do you mean specifically do books exist that discuss behavior changes necessary for war?
Just read an article at the frumforum that The Pacific, Tom Hank’s newest undertaking, will be a delight to novice historians. Though, history based dramas have their place, I feel they can be deceptive, even if unintentionally. For instance, after watching the Ten Commandments, Moses, in my mind, now resembles Heston and even has some of his mannerisms. Is not that something of a distortion of historical fact? We must always understand that the purpose of these films is entertainment and not education.
I think anytime anyone attempts to produce anything on history that goes to far outside of “just the facts” then what you describe is probably there regardless…. IE – deceptive by definition, even if unintentionally.
& even in the case of books with just the facts; two serious historical scholars can and do disagree a lot. We are still arguing the reason for the Great Depression (though don’t tell anyone, because they seem to know exactly what happened this time around
).
Either way – every author, including those who honestly attempt objectivity, writes & produces from their filter.
The only true way to know what happened is go to the source material. Find & read first hand accounts by those that are there, though even that is fraught with some issues as first hand accounts are biased as well. The idea of course being if I can get most of the people there to agree on certain specifics, then it likely happened. Additionally, saved correspondence, journals, newspapers at the time, etc, etc, etc.
Even with all that, some questions aren’t answerable like, “why he did that”, but the closer to the source you can get, the more accurate the information is likely to be.
Sorry for the novel, but one last thought. Novice historians might indeed have fun pointing out certain factual errors based on the time period or what have you, but I expect for most of the “facts” to be correct. Just the implications of where those facts lead is more my concern.
Love Mr. Hanks though, so I certainly want to watch and decide then, but I think his statement is still worthy of discussion even if the series turns out to be more benign than his rhetoric.
Thanks for reading!
Oh,! Love Mr. Hanks and the work he is doing and agree with what you are saying. What I think we should avoid is the “elephant in the dark” syndrome. Now, of course, two people, even with a holistic perception of the elephant, may yet differ in their opinions — one may be afraid of elephants and the other love the elephant — hopefully, neither the love nor the dislike will be based on irrationality and neither will they mistake an elephant for, lets say, a hippo.
Keep up the good work!
I agree completely – you can two cars collide, 4 innocent and non-involved bystanders interviewed and get 4 different stories.
The facts aren’t malleable… IE – someone hit someone else, but the reason? Well, that depends upon the filter the individual is using while looking at the situation. If people understood this better, they’d probably leave more conjecture out since they end up talking about things they don’t know, but arrogance is rampant. People have a firm belief that if they are great at managing people or being a stock broker or being an actor – doing one thing well, gives them some belief that their opinions on things which they know very little still holds weight with too many people.
It’s an interesting experiment you can do with your friends – find a really off the wall philosophical question – ask others…. after they firmly answer, ask if they’ve ever contemplated the question before. If the question is difficult enough…. not difficult…. hmmm…. If the answer could have a large impact, yet they answered quickly and have never contemplated it before…. that’s arrogance.
For instance – when I was young, there were books of questions. Like you’re hiking with your best friend and your father, something happens you can only save one, which one?
That question is too stupid of course, but you can ask whether people should have to pay for other peoples’ actions when they result in negative consequences.
Then of course you can ask why health care differs, or whatever, but for me, I’ve found that most people I know personally agree with my principles in general, yet their votes belie that agreement. IE – people seem to know where their values should be, but they simply don’t act in a way that is consistent with their stated values.
Email me if you’d like – should be on my reply
~Michael