Asturian-American Migration Forum

Barbara,

Along with Bob, I hope your son and all others remain safe.

I have always distinguished between our troops and government policies.
Though I am opposed to our presence in Iraq, I would support any effort to making our troops safer....same during Vietnam. I opposed the war as a waste of American lives and resources, but never criticized the troops as individuals. In my opinion, our troops are the ultimate victims of bad decisions at the top levels of our government.

My experience has been that many military families support such wars until they become the victims....I'm afraid it's the "It will never happen to me" syndrome. In my opinion the most revealing scene in "Fahrenheit 911" is when Michael Moore approaches members of Congress and asks them to sign a pledge to send their children to fight in Iraq....all turned their faces and walked away in silence.

I'm in full agreement with Bob....one of the great beauties of our country
is the ability to have open, honest disagreement with friends. I would ask you, and other supporters of President Bush, to not question the patriotism
of people like me....to me the ultimate patriotism is trying to protect our sons and daughters from being killed for less than noble causes.

Read in our local newspaper this AM that Michael Moore is NOT endorsing John Kerry, and if Kerry wins, Moore promises to be just as tough on his administration.

Again Barbara, I respect your opinion and hope your son doesn't have to go to Iraq.

Best Wishes,
Tony

----------------------------------------
Transl. Terechu

Barbara,
Igual que Bob, espero que tu hijo y todos los demás puedan seguir a salvo.
Siempre he hecho distinciones entre nuestras tropas y la política del Gobierno. Aunque me opongo a nuestra presencia en Irak, apoyaría cualquier acción que aumentara la seguridad de nuestras tropas...igual que en Vietnam. Yo me opuse a la guerra como derroche de vidas y recursos americanos, pero nunca critiqué a los soldados como individuos. En mi opinión, nuestros soldados son las víctimas finales de las malas decisiones en las altas esferas de nuestro Gobierno.

Sé por experiencia que muchas familias de militares apoyan estas guerras hasta que ellos mismos se convierten en víctimas... me temo que es el síndrome de “esas cosas a mí no me pasan”. Creo que la escena más reveladora en la película “Fahrenheit 911” es cuando Michael Moore se acerca a los miembros del Congreso y les pide que firmen un compromiso para mandar a sus hijos a luchar en Irak... todos se dieron la vuelta y se fueron en silencio.

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Bob...una de las cosas más hermosas de este país es la posibilidad de estar abierta y honestamente en desacuerdo con tus amigos. Os pediría a tí y a otros que apoyan al presidente Bush que no cuestionéis el patriotismo de la gente como yo...para mi el patriotismo máximo es intentar proteger a tus hijos e hijas para que no los maten por causas menos que nobles.

Esta mañana leí en nuestro periódico local que Michael Moore no apoya a John Kerry y que sin Kerry gana, Moore promete ser igual de duro con su administración.

Repito, Bárbara, respeto tu opinión y espero que tu hijo no tenga que ir a Irak.

Barbara, I deeply respect you and your position, and I understand you well, although I thoroughly disagree with you. I worked at Fort Benning for a few years and know the military well. Therefore I also know that there are very refined tactics to get servicemen to give their lives for lofty ideals, like flags, fatherlands, ideologies or their presidents. If that weren't so, no country in the world would be able to raise an army, because - let's face it - why would anyone in their right mind risk their lives for other people's private interests, when those other people are safe and snug at home and wouldn't dream of sending their own children to war. Soldiers have to believe that what they're doing is right and serves a higher purpose, otherwise they would pack up and go.

All I want to say regarding Bush is that when the High and Mighty like him come down from their ivory towers to talk to us mortals, watch out! The High and Mighty only talk to us when they need us as cannon fodder. When you see them come, get out of the way and don't let them see you!

Barbara, I know most servicemen and women are extraordinary, giving human beings and they do not deserve to be sent to stupid private wars by multi-millionair oil tycoons, who couldn't care less if they live or die.
How many funerals has Bush attended so far?

-----------------------------------------------

Barbara, tú y tu postura me merecen todo el respeto y te comprendo bien, aunque discrepo totalmente. Yo trabajé en Fort Benning unos años y conozco bien el ejército. Por tanto también sé que existen tácticas muy refinadas para convencer a los militares a dar su vida por unos ideales etéreos como banderas, patrias, ideologías o presidentes. Si no fuera así ningún país del mundo sería capaz de reunir un ejército, porque - reconozcámoslo - para qué iba una persona en su sano juicio arriesgar su vida por los intereses particulares de otros, cuando esos otros están en su casa, a salvo y tan a gusto, y ni soñarían con enviar a sus hijos a la guerra. Los militares necesitan creer que lo que hacen está bien y sirve a propósitos nobles, de lo contrario cogerían el montante y se irían.
Lo único que quiero decir sobre Bush es que cuando los todopoderosos bajan de sus torres de marfil para hablar con nosotros los mortales, cuidadín! Los todopoderosos sólo hablan con nosotros cuando nos necesitan como carne de cañón. Cuando los veas venir, apártate y que no te vean!

Bárbara, yo sé que la mayoría de los militares son gente extraordinaria y generosa y no se merecen ser enviados a las guerras privadas de los multimillonarios magnates del petróleo, a quienes les importa un bledo que se mueran. A cuántos funerales ha ido Bush hasta la fecha?

Cheers
Terechu

I knew that when I posted my comments, I would receive all kinds of points of view. I respect each and every one...and Thank You...

I am so glad that we have this Forum for the exchange of views, etc. By the way, Michael Moore is not supporting Senator Kerry?...he was sitting in the Presidential Booth on Monday night with President Carter...just a comment.

Again my fellow Asturian's...lets keep the dialogue coming, its a very healthy exchange of ideas...no matter what side you are on...I might add that my Dad was a Democrat, and so is my my entire family, except for one lone cousin...We are the renegades. My Dad used to laugh that he can't believe he raised his daughter to be a Republican, but I must add he respected my views and I his.

By the way...

El Tampeno I would NEVER question your patriotism or anyone who doesn't agree with what I believe in...the same way I don't expect you to question mine...Best Regards....

Barbara,

I'm sure that if the Republicans invited Michael Moore to sit with George H Bush at their convention, he would accept. In fact, if I were a republican, I would suggest that to the party leaders. I take Michael Moore at his word.......his goal in producing his documentary is to support his point of view using well-established facts, and I belive that when Kerry becomes our next president, he will be subjected to the same scrutiny as our current president.

I relate somewhat to your position as a "renegade" in your family, with somewhat of a twist. My family was staunchly Democratic for generations, however over the last 20 yrs many have become Republican. My cousin, Bob Martinez (no relation to our moderator) was a Republican governor of Florida from 1987-1990, and served as "Drug Czar" under King George I.

Humor aside, I just belive that the basic issues in politics never change, and that ultimately, the government will help those in need more than the private sector ever will.

It's ironic that so many Southerners have become Republicans when, after all, it was the South that benefited the most from Democratic policies in the past.......remember the TVA under President Franklin Roosevelt. If we had waited for companies like Haliburton or Enron to assist that most impoverished part of the USA, they would still have no electricity or indoor plumbing.

I guess I'm dismayed at how short Americans' memories are. I read an interesting statistic about 6 weeks ago (no, it was not in a partisan publication, but I honestly do not remember the source). A poll determined that 49% of Americans considered themselves to be in the wealthiest 18% of the population....most Americans over-estimate their own wealth.....we Democrats call these people the "K-Mart Republicans".

I'm proud to say that I have convinced 2 of my friends who are small business owners to vote for Kerry, even though they voted for Bush last time. I simply pointed out that even though they may have saved $1,500
in taxes under Bush, it is now costing them an additional $5,000 per year to get health insurance for their families and employees.....taxes are not the only expenses we have, and universal health care is not socialism.

I have no illusions of changing your position, and you certainly won't change mine.....I'm merely presenting the facts.

If ever you are in Tampa, I would like to show you our Centro Asturiano
and continue our discussion over a vino or a cafe con leche......I do admire your dedication to your principles.....we should NEVER be apathetic.

Barbara,

Thanks for your addendum re the "patriotism" thing. I apologize if my choice of words implied that I had thought you had questioned my patriotism....clearly you did no such thing.


I enjoy our debate because your are most gracious and non-personal in your arguments.

Saludos.

Terechu, no lo hubiera expresado mejor...

Mi padre, que conocio la guerra civil, aunque demasiado joven para ir, decia que solo tuvo un solo hijo (yo ) porque el no era una fábrica de crear carne de cañon. Yo no hice la mili, si no la prestación sustitutoria en un parque de bomberos (casí fuí de los últimos), a pesar de las criticas en mi pueblo (muy conservador). Mi padre hizo casi cuatro años de mili (vamos que para mi, para todos los nietos y bisnietos que podría tener) donde lo único que hizo fue pasar hambre. Cuanto estaba "protegiendo" la frontera española de las incursiones de maquis desde Francia en 1942, los que hacian "incursiones" eran ellos, en Francia haber si les daban algo de comer. Usaban el mauser y las granadas para pescar truchas, cuando montaban guardias, gastaban el combustible de la linterna para poder echarse a dormir, y si por un casual había ataques de los maquís, a correr y esconderse y que la patria viniera a defenderla Franco !!!.
En la guerra siempre mueren los mismos y se enriquecen los mismos.

Salud y Libertad

Un saludo

I've finally gotten around to reading all of Berodia's posts. Up until the part about reasons for going to war, I'd agree. I particularly like the image "breed crows and they'll peck your eyes out." So true.


Berodia's idea that Bush needed a new foothold in the Middle East is interesting. I don't think we read about this idea in the media here, so that's very intriguing. The Bush administration did seem to have plans to keep a sizeable military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future, so that fits, too. Maybe it's true, but we may never know for sure, since the invasion isn't going according to plan.

Berodia's idea also supports the idea that the second gulf war was about oil, an idea that has never made sense to me. Don't we just buy what we need? Don't the countries that have oil want the income badly enough to sell it? Well, maybe I'm naive about how these things work.

Although it's possible that Bush thought he was going to war because of Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), even Bush now admits that there probably weren't any. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, bizarrely resists accepting this now obvious reality.


My guess is that Bush's people really thought they could change the Middle East by bringing a quick infusion of "democracy" to Iraq. This idea deserves a much closer look.

As Berodia suggests, the idea that we could bring democracy to Iraq was ridiculous, although I disagree with Berodia on why it was ridiculous. The Bush administration told us that Iraq would be like Japan and Germany after WWII. These countries became strong democracies and partners.

Berodia is right that most of the US's interventions since WWII have not resulted in democracy. Unfortunately, this was probably intentional. After all, many of these interventions were intended to suppress popular uprisings or communist tendencies. If we had asked the people of those countries to vote on what help they needed and wanted (which would have been the democratic thing to do) we might have acted very differently. Would the citizens of various Latin American countries have voted to have the US prop up their dictators? I don't think so. This support of dictators in the name of democracy has been a theme of 20th century American foreign policy. We've had enough of that, haven't we?

It is clear that the Bush administration didn't understand the desires of ordinary Iraqis. Worse, they didn't care. Before the war I was amazed to read articles describing how the Bush administration would only dealt with the big players; they didn't think the little guys mattered.

This isn't just in regard to Iraq. Disregard for the commoners is one of this administration's defining characteristics. Even here at home, Bush didn't win the vote of the people, Gore actually won the popular vote. Sadly, the contest came down to Florida, where Bush had strong support among the state's controlling politicians, including the governor, who is his brother. Also Bush's people were more skillful or shrewd in denying the vote to minorities and in strong-arming their way through the electoral challenges in Florida. Republican bullies rioting on the streets actually succeeded in stopping a local recount of votes! So much for democracy.

It's hard to bring democracy to other countries when you're not really in favor of it at home.

But perhaps what they really mean by "democracy" is "friendly to the US", which doesn't have anything to do with democracy. They simply talk about "democracy" so the average citizen will support their plans. This is similar to what Terechu said about flags and other symbols being used to get soldiers geared up to risk their lives. A people has to be persuaded go to war, too. So our leaders have to sell us on a vision that will let us hold onto our belief in our inherent "goodness" even though we're going to attack another people.

Disregard for the average person on the street is undemocratic and--as we see now in Iraq--an invitation to "insurgency" (which is defined as a revolt against a government that is not to the level of an organized revolution). Treat people like they don't matter and they'll resist your authority. Of course, there are certainly Iraqi opportunists pulling strings, in the hope of gaining power or dominance as a result of the insurgence.

In the final analysis, even had the administration cared about the common people, the administration's lack of planning would have made this invasion a disaster. Prideful strutting gets tripped up. But it isn't the Bushes who are suffering; it's our soldiers and the people of Iraq who are paying the price.

Talking among ourselves is the only way that we're going to start to fix this situation. So our discussion here is important. The main thing that matters is whether we do the right thing for our soldiers, for the Iraqi people, and for entire world community. If we have to criticize our government to get the right thing done, then that's our civic responsibility.

Thanks to all for participating!

----------------

Finalmente he tenido tiempo para leer todos los postes de Berodia. Hasta la parte sobre motivos para ir a la guerra, estaría de acuerdo. En particular me gusta la imagen (metáfora) esta: "cria cuervos y te comeran los ojos." Tan verdadero.


La idea de Berodia que Bush necesitó un nuevo punto de apoyo en el Oriente Medio es interesante. No pienso que leemos de esta idea en los medios de comunicación aquí, entonces es muy intrigante. La administración de Bush realmente pareció tener proyectos para mantener una presencia militar fuerte en Irak para el futuro previsible, de modo que concorda con la idea de Berodia, también. Tal vez sea verdadero, pero nunca podemos saber seguramente, ya que la invasión no va según el plan.

La idea de Berodia también apoya la idea que la segunda guerra de Golfo era sobre el petróleo, una idea que para mí nunca ha tenido sentido. ¿No es verdad que compramos lo que necesitamos? ¿Y no es verdad que los países que tienen el petróleo quieren los ingresos tanto que van a vender su petróleo? Pues, tal vez soy ingenuo en estas cosas.

Aunque sea posible que Bush pensara que iba a la guerra debido a las supuestas Armas de Destrucción de Masas de Irak (Weapons of Mass Destruction: WMD), ahora Bush admite que probablemente no eran ningunos WMD. Dick Cheney, de otra parte, extrañamente se resiste a la aceptación lo que ahora es la realidad obvia.


Mi conjetura es que el régimen de Bush realmente pensó que ellos podrían cambiar el Oriente Medio por trayendo a una inyección rápida "de democracia" a Irak. Esta idea merece una examinación mucho más de cerca.

Como Berodia sugiere, la idea que podríamos traer la democracia a Irak era ridículo, aunque discrepe con Berodia sobre por qué parte de la idea era ridículo. La administración de Bush nos dijo que Irak parecería a Japón y Alemania después WWII. Estos países se hicieron democracias fuertes y compañeros.

Berodia tiene razón que la mayor parte de las intervenciones de los EU desde WWII no han resultado en la democracia. Lamentablemente, probablemente era intencional. Después de todo, muchas de estas intervenciones fueron lanzadas con la intención de reprimir levantamientos populares o tendencias comunistas. Si hubiéramos pedido a la gente de aquellos países votar sobre cuál ayuda necesitaron y quieren (una acción que habría sido democrática) podríamos haber actuado de manera muy diferente. ¿Hubieran votada los ciudadanos de varios países latinoamericanos para que EU apoyen a sus dictadores? Lo dudo. Este apoyo de dictadores en nombre de la democracia ha sido un tema de la política exterior de EU en el siglo XX. Ya basta, ¿no?

Es claro que la administración de Bush no entendió los deseos de iraquíes ordinarios. Peor, no les importa. Antes de la guerra estuve asombrado de leer en artículos unas descripciones de la administración de Bush. Dicen que ellos sólo trataron con los personajes grandísimos; ellos no pensaron que los pequeños tipos importaron.

No es solamente con respecto a Irak. La indiferencia para los plebeyos es una de las características definitivas de esta administración. Incluso aquí en EU, Bush no ganó el voto de la gente, Gore en realidad ganó el voto popular. Tristemente, la competición llegó hasta Florida, donde Bush tenía el apoyo fuerte entre los politicos mayoritarias (dominantes) del estado, incluyendo al gobernador, que es su hermano. También el equipo de Bush era más experta o lista (como zorro) en negar el voto a minorías y en usar tacticas de mano dura en los desafíos electorales en Florida. ¡Matones republicanos causaron disturbios en las calles y así tuvieron exito en parar el escrutinio segundo de votos! ¿Democracia? Ni lo sueñes.

Es difícil de traer la democracia a otros países cuando no está realmente a favor de ello en casa.

Pero quizás lo qué realmente quieran decir cuando dicen "democracia" es "amistosa a EU" lo que no tiene nada a ver con la democracia. Simplemente hablan "de la democracia" para que el ciudadano medio apoyará sus proyectos. Esto es similar a lo que Terechu dijo sobre banderas y otros símbolos que son usado para que los soldados se preparan para arriesgar sus vidas. Una pueblo tiene que ser convencida para irse a la guerra, también. Entonces nuestros líderes tienen que convencernos de una visión que nos dejará sostener en nuestra creencia en nuestra "bondad" inherente aun que vayamos a atacar a otro pueblo.

La indiferencia hacia la persona ordinario es indemocrática y - como vemos ahora en Irak - una invitación a la "insurrección" (que es definido como una rebelión contra un gobierno que no es al nivel de una revolución organizada). Si tratamos a un pueblo como si no nos importan, ellos se opondrán resistencia a nuestra autoridad. Desde luego, seguramente hay oportunistas iraquíes que moven palancas en la esperanza de ganar el poder o el predominio como consecuencia de la sublevación.

En el análisis final, aún que la administración se preocupe por la gente común, la carencia de planificación por la administración habría hecho esta invasión un desastre. Pavonearse orgullosamente da un tropezón. Pero no es Bush que sufre; es nuestros soldados y la gente de Irak que paga el precio.

La conversación entre nosotros es el único modo en que podemos comenzar a arreglar esta situación. Entonces nuestra discusión aquí es importante. Lo que más importa es si hacemos por el bien, el justo para nuestros soldados, para los iraquíes, y para la comunidad mundial entera. Si tenemos que criticar nuestro gobierno para conseguir el bien, entonces criticar es nuestra responsabilidad cívica.

¡Gracias a todos para la participación!

El Tampeno...
I was in Tampa last year at a Wedding...if I have an opportunity to go back...it would be fun to have a Vino or a Cappuccino with you. The conversation would be most stimulating to say the least.

Terechu...

I read your comments and thought that they were very harsh!

Barbara, which part of Terechu's post did you think was harsh? She's got a lot of points in it.

-----------

¿Barbara, cuál parte del mensaje de Terechu encontraste duro? Tiene muchos puntos.

Hi Art,

When I read her post I thought it was very harsh, as I said...

Her reference to the "Military lofty deals like flags, fatherlands, ideologies or their President." We have a 100% Volunteer Military, no one is forced into joining...they join for whatever reason. My Son joined the Air National Guard 24 years ago and has reupped many times, probably 8/10...no one offered him anything. He joined in the first place for love of our Country...it was during the Iran Kidnapping in 1979/1980.

Calling President Bush "High and Mighty coming down from his Ivory Tower to talk to us Mortals." I don't feel that President Bush regards himself as High and Mighty or that he lives in an Ivory Tower.

I really don't want to get into this because, as you know, we all have different ideas about the War in Iraq, the Military, President Bush, Senator Kerry, Michael Moore and everything that goes along with this time in our lives. I will not change your minds, nor you mine...I respect Terechu's right to say what she wants about what she wants...I hope that you all respect me for not agreeing with it and finding it harsh.

I knew that when I posted my remarks that they would bring a lot of disagreement, etc. I waited for quite sometime before I did so...but I felt it necessary to get my thoughts out there.

Barbara Alonso Novellino wrote:Terechu...

I read your comments and thought that they were very harsh!

Barbara, I'm not sure I understand. If you took my post as something personal, I can assure you it wasn't meant that way. (In fact, I even thought my comments were very general).
I know your son being a National Guardsman the war issue is a touchy subject for you, but I have many good friends in the Army and I wouldn't dream of critizising them for one minute! On the contrary! They deserve nothing but praise.
But the Armed Forces themselves as an organization have a lot of dirt under the rug, most of which we will never know.

Please don't be upset.

Terechu

Hi Terechu,

I really am not upset, everyone has their own opinions whatever they may be. I respect you and your right to voice whatever you want in this Forum...its a wonderful place to get our ideas out there.

Sometimes Politics, etc. can be very passionate subjects, and we as Asturians have a lot of passion in what we believe.

I never feel that whatever is said is directed at me personally...

Hello,

Esta claro que en estos aspectos, somos muy diferentes a ambos lado del Atlantico.

En España, no nos imaginamos, cantar el himno antes de cada evento deportivo, ni tener en nuestro jardin un mastil con una bandera española, o usar unicamente los colores de la bandera para logos politicos u otros.

En EEUU sois muy patrioticos, quizas de una manera un tanto inocente desde la perspectiva española o europea. Aqui no damos la razon todos a alguien por el mero hecho de ser el jefe del estado o del gobierno, mas bien todo lo contrario. Y los miembros de las fuerzas militares, no tienen un especial cariño por parte de los ciudadanos.

Desde aqui, a mi me da la sensación que en EEUU estay invadidos por un patriotismo barato, lo cual ayuda, que en nombre del pais, se cometan las mayores barbaridades, con importante apoyo de la población.

Efectivamente, se alistan voluntarios, y yo no soy quien para saber las razones de cada cual en esa decisión, pero visto de aquí, parece que son soldados, mayormente personas hispanas o afro-americanas, gente de escaso poder adquisitivo, que con esta profesión esperan mejorar sus condiciones de vida. Supongo que los que se alistan, no les explicaran, que quizas tengan que ir a un pais lejano a matar personas, para defender intereses ajenos a ellos, y tambien, que quizas los maten a ellos. O lo veran como una posibilidad lejana. Esa voluntariedad, no les hace inmune a la critica, si no mas bien al contrario, debemos ser responsables de nuestros actos, y saber que lo que hagamos no va a gustar a todo el mundo. En todo caso, me parece este un tema algo "taboo" en vuestro pais. En Europa, hemos conocido una cuantas guerras en el siglo pasado (¡y una civil en España!), y seguro que este aspecto hace que tengamos opiniones bien distintas al respecto del patriotismo o los ejercitos. Como he leido en uno de los foros, muchos hombres de Asturias emigraron a EEUU en otros tiempos precisamente para librarse de la mili.

Un saludo.

--------------
Translated by Art

It is clear that in these aspects, we are very different on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.

In Spain, we wouldn't think to sing the [national] anthem before every sporting event, nor to have in our garden a flagpole with a Spanish flag, nor to use only the colors of the flag for political logos or other uses.

In the USA you are very patriotic, perhaps in a rather innocent way from a Spanish or European perspective. Here we don't all assume that someone is right for the mere fact of being the head of the state or from the government, more likely exactly the opposite. And the citizens do not have a special fondness for the members of the military forces.

From here, I get the sense that the USA has been overwhelmed by a cheap patriotism, which supports [helps] great barbarities be committed in name of the country and with significant [or important] support of the population.

Indeed, volunteers enlist [are enlisted?]--and I am not one who knows the reasons of each one in this decision--but I seen from here, it looks like the soldiers are mainly Hispanic or Afro-American persons, people of limited buying power, who with this profession expect to improve their living conditions. I suppose that those who are enlisting them didn't explain to them, [or maybe: that those who enlisted didn't understand] that perhaps they'll have to go to a distant country to kill people, to defend interests foreign to themselves, and also, that perhaps they will get killed. Or they will [might] see it as a distant possibility. That voluntary nature does not make them immune to critique; on the contrary, we must be responsible for our acts, and to know that what we do is not going to be liked by everyone. In any case, it looks like to me as though this topic is somewhat "taboo" in your country. In Europe, we have known quite a few wars in last century (and the Civil War in Spain!), and I'm sure that this aspect makes it so that we have very different opinions with regard to patriotism or the military. As I've read in one of the forums, many men of Asturias emigrated to the USA in other times precisely to avoid the military service.

Best wishes

Note: Much of what I'm going to say is my impression of reality. I can't know if this is accurate, so I'm hoping my fellow Americans will jump in to add their thoughts.


Maybe Berodia is right that the US attitudes toward the military and government are very different from Spanish attitudes because of our different experiences.

It strikes me that most Americans would be likely to have positive associations with the military.

Our first military basically conquered the land and pushed the Indians west. I don't think we think about this conquest very much, although we did learn about the French and Indian war--which I think was mostly framed in terms of a French and British conflict with the Indians as pawns on both sides. I'm not sure we give much thought to the conquest from the perspective of the original inhabitants. Instead, I think we tend to think about this as an empty land just waiting for our arrival.

At any rate, then we had the Revolutionary War. These were citizen soldiers who fought for our freedom from Great Britain. They are heros in our minds. Of course, we view this history knowing how it turned out, so the British were "wrong" to try to control us and we were "good" for standing up for ourselves.

Our Civil War soldiers--from both sides--also hold heroic status. They are highly respected (at least in the North). Perhaps this is because we see both sides as having fought for strongly-held beliefs. And I think it's also true that we realize that one result of our Civil War was a maturation of our self-understanding of who we are as a nation. I'm not sure but I suspect that Southern understandings of our Civil War are different even today: The North was the aggressor and the South was denied its rightful freedom.

The two World Wars are seen as the US saving the world from hell on earth. So our military plays a glorious role in those wars, too. Once the country decided to go to war a high percentage of the population were supportive of it to a degree that boggles the mind today.

So, overall, we view our military history as positive, and that's certainly the way it was taught in school (at least mine).

Of course, there were other wars, probably less noble. We probably don't think about them much and I don't remember learning much about them in school. I don't know what schools are teaching today, but in the 1960s, high school curriculums had courses intended to make us "good patriotic citizens." Don't schools in Spain do that, too?

Anyway, my point is that we don't learn much about times the military was used against the citizenry, so we tend to think positively about the military. Of course, there are such cases:

• the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794,
• the Blair Mountain battle against southern West Virginia miners in 1921, and
• the use of the National Guard in subduing Vietnam War protests and race riots in the 1960s.

I assume that the military was ordered to act against the people other times, too.

But we didn't have royalty (except for the English and they lived far away) using an army to maintain order against us.

And we haven't had kings or dictators ruling over us. Although you can hear a lot of complaints about the government, I think we tend to think of the government as being us. We tend to think that the government serves us. (I realize that could quite easily be debated!)


Another factor is that we remember that many Americans who were against the Vietnam War viewed those who went into the military as wrong because their presence supported an unjust war. I think we've come to see military people as individuals doing a job, serving their country--regardless of whether our political leaders have erred. Obviously, how to treat military people who are serving in an unpopular war is complicated issue.

While Berodia is right that we are responsible for our actions, there is also a strong sense in the US, at least, that when one is part of a bureaucracy, one doesn't have a lot of say about what one is going to do. This is why the Bush adminstration isn't having much success (I don't think) selling the idea that the prisoner abuses in Iraq and Afganistan were the work of a few wayward individuals. We know better. We know that the administration changed the rules on how prisoners should be treated, and that our soldiers were simply following the administrations bad orders. I'm guessing that most people, even though we're shocked by what happened, assume that because the soldiers were following orders, there's a sense in which they weren't really responsible for the atrocities. If they had refused to participate, what would have happened to them? (Well, yes, it also looks like there was a huge moral failure.)


While a few enlistees may not fully realize what being in the military is like, and some enlistees certainly hope they won't have to go to war, isn't it obvious what being in the military is all about? It's about going to foreign places, killing, and risking being killed. Military people aren't naive or stupid. In many cases it's a family tradition to serve. And it is often a way to get an education and job training and experience. Although minorities are in the service in higher percentages than the general population, but it's not all minorities.

In the Iraq war, there are a lot of middle class men and women--and often they're not young people--serving because their reserve units were called up. These are average Americans: mothers, fathers, policemen, insurance agents, and grocers. I'm sure many of them didn't expect to do this kind of duty. They've been forced to leave their jobs or small businesses, to serve for lower wages, and to be away from home for much longer periods than they thought possible.


The real problem here, I suspect, is that Berodia can't imagine anyone enlisting if they knew the truth about what would happen. Well, think back to the Asturians of the first century who had just been conquered by Rome. Plenty of Asturian warriors signed up to fight for Rome in other places. Berodia, I'm sure that you and I would have stayed home in Asturias and be glad we did!

Best wishes

----------------

Note: La mayor parte de lo que voy a decir es mi impresión de realidad. No puedo saber si es correcto, entonces espero que mis campañeros americanos me ayudan en añadir sus pensamientos.


Tal vez Berodia tenga razón que las actitudes de los EU hacia los militares y el gobierno son muy diferentes de actitudes españolas debido a nuestras experiencias diferentes.

Me parece que la mayor parte de Americanos probablemente tendrían asociaciones positivas con los militares.

Nuestros primeros militares básicamente conquistaron la tierra y empujaron al oeste a los Indios. No pienso que pensamos en esta conquista muchísimo, aunque aprendimos sobre la guerra francesa e india - que pienso fue enmarcado en términos de un conflicto francés y británico con los Indios como peones para ambos lados. No estoy seguro que imaginamos de la conquista de la perspectiva de los habitantes originales. En cambio, pienso que tendemos a pensar en esto como una tierra vacía que estaba esperando nuestra llegada.

En todo caso, entonces nosotros teníamos la Guerra Revolucionaria. Estos eran los soldados ciudadanos que lucharon por nuestra libertad de Gran Bretaña. Ellos son héroes en nuestras mentes. Desde luego, nosotros vemos esta historia sabiendo como resultó, entonces pensamos que los Británicos se equivocaron para tratar de controlarnos y nosotros estábamos "bien" para defendernos.

Nuestros soldados de Guerra Civil - de ambos lados - también tienen un status heroico. Son respetados sumamente (al menos en el Norte). Quizás sea porque vemos ambos lados como habiendo luchado por convicciones firmes. Y pienso es también verdadero que comprendemos que un resultado de nuestra Guerra civil era una maduración de nuestro autoentendimiento de quien somos como una nación. No estoy seguro pero sospecho que los interpretaciones del Sur de nuestra Guerra civil son diferentes aún hoy: El Norte era el agresor y Sur fue negado su libertad legítima.

Las dos guerras mundiales son vistas como los EU salvaran el mundo de una infierno sobre la tierra. Entonces nuestros militares juegan un papel glorioso con aquellas guerras, también. Una vez que el país decidió ir a la guerra un alto porcentaje de la población era de apoyo de ello a un grado que se sobresalta la mente hoy.

Así que, en general, vemos nuestra historia militar de una perspectiva positiva, y esto es seguramente como nos enseñaron en la escuela (al menos la mía).

Desde luego, había otras guerras, probablemente menos nobles. Y probablemente no pensamos mucho en estos y no me recuerdo de aprender mucho sobre ellos en la escuela. No sé que enseñan hoy, pero en los años 1960, los planes de estudios de instituto (high school) tenían los cursos con la intención de hacernos "ciudadanos buenos y patrióticos." ¿Lo hacen lo mismo en España también?

De todos modos, mi punto es que - como no aprendemos mucho sobre los veces que los militares actuaron contra la ciudadanía - entonces tendemos a pensar positivamente en los militares. Desde luego, hay tales casos:

• la Rebelión de Whisky de 1794,
• la Batalla de Blair Mountain contra mineros de Virginia Occidental del sur en 1921,
• el empleo de la Guardia Nacional en el sometimiento de protestas contra la Guerra de Vietnam y disturbios raciales en los años 1960.

Asumo que ordenaron a los militares actuar contra la gente otras veces, también.

Pero no teníamos reyes (excepto el inglés y vivieron muy lejos) usando un ejército para mantener la orden contra nosotros.

Y no hemos tenido reyes (excepto el inglés y ellos vivieron muy lejos) utilización de un ejército para mantener orden(pedido).

Y no hemos tenido reyes o dictadores que nos dominan. Aunque se puede oír muchas quejas sobre el gobierno, pienso que tendemos a pensar en el gobierno como ser nosotros. Tendemos a pensar que el gobierno nos sirve. (¡Comprendo que sea bastante fácil discutirlo!)

Otro factor es que recordamos que muchos Americanos que estaban contra la Guerra de Vietnam vieron los que entraron en los militares como mal porque su presencia apoyó una guerra injusta. Pienso que hemos venido para ver a la gente militar como individuos que hacen un empleo, sirviendo su país - independientemente de si nuestros líderes políticos han errado. Obviamente, como tratar militares quienes sirven en una guerra impopular es un cuestión complicado.

Mientras Berodia tiene razón que somos responsables para nuestras acciones, hay también un sentido fuerte en EU, al menos, que cuando uno es parte de una burocracia, no puede decir mucho sobre lo que va a hacer. Por eso la adminstration Bush no tiene mucho éxito (o así pienso) en promociona la idea de la cual el abuso de presos en Irak y Afganistan era el trabajo de unos individuos díscolos. Sabemos mejor. Sabemos que la administración cambió las reglas sobre como ser tratados los prisioneros, y que nuestros soldados simplemente seguían las ordenes malas de la administración. Adivino que la mayoría de la gente, aun cuando seamos impresionados por lo que pasó, asume que porque los soldados seguían órdenes, hay un sentido en el cual ellos no eran realmente responsables de las atrocidades. ¿Si hubieran rechazado participar, qué les habría pasado? (Bueno, sí, también parece que había una fracaso inmenso de moralidad.)

Mientras es posible que algunos soldados rasos no comprenden completamente como va la vida de una militar, y algunos soldados rasos seguramente esperan que no tendrán que ir a la guerra, es obvio qué es ser militar, ¿no? Significa: ir a sitios extranjeros, matar, y arriesgar la muerte. La gente militar no son ingenua o estúpida. En muchos casos servir en el ejercito es una tradición de una familia. Y alistarse es a menudo un modo de conseguir una educación y entrenamiento de trabajo y experiencia. Aunque las minorías estén en el ejercito en porcentajes más altos que la población general, no esta composto totalmente de minorías.

Con la guerra de Irak, hay muchos hombres y mujeres de clase media, y frecuentemente no son jovenes, porque llamaron sus unidades (grupos) de la reserva. Son Americanos medios: madres, padres, policías, agentes de seguros, y almaceneros. Estoy seguro que muchos de ellos no contaron con esta clase de servicio. Se han sido forzado a dejar sus empleos o pequeños negocios, para servir. Ganan salarios inferiores, y estan lejos de la casa durante períodos mucho más largos que ellos pensaron posible.


El verdadero problema aquí, sospecho, es que Berodia no puede imaginarse nadie alistando de si supieran la verdad sobre lo que pasaría. Bueno, recuerde a los asturianos del primer siglo que se acabaron de haber sido conquistado por Roma. Muchos guerreros asturianos se alistaron para luchar por Roma en otros sitios. ¡Berodia, estoy seguro que tú y yo nos habríamos quedado en casa en Asturias y nos alegraríamos hacerlo!

Saludos