It might sound odd, but I'm not a big believer in the whole "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" cliche.
Learn from your experiences, yes. Learn, adapt, succeed. I believe in all of that.
But one of the best things I learned in college - maybe the most important thing, other than the location of the campus pool hall - was that people are far too quick to wrongly equate situation 'A' with something that happened in the past.
In truth there are no two sets of circumstances that are exactly the same, and if you don't account for those differences you're going to wind up screwing up more than ever.
Most of the time its harmless: Grandpa Joe comparing an upcoming blizzard with 'The Big One of '53' and preparing throughout the night - right before the half-inch of snow arrives.
Sometimes it's far more dangerous. Politicians are obsessed with recalling the appeasement of Hitler at Munich and reacting with arms - sincerely, mind you - against any and all aggression. Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf - whether you view the wars as righteous or not the failures of Chamberlain echoed in the decision to go to war.
And sometimes it works the opposite way, with bad experiences forcing people to freeze to the spot. As Mark Twain once said:
“The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won't sit upon a cold stove lid, either.”
Where am I going with this? Nowhere really.
But the other night I saw a copy of The Battle of Algiers, the 1966 Italian film based on events of the 1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence against French rule. It's a classic - I remember reading about it in grade school - and I was pleased to finally see it.
As a film goes it's very good. Shot in black and white in a documentary style, it never fails to keep the viewers interest, even while lacking a central protagonist or anyone with whom to emotionally relate.
Back to my rant. In the Netflix commentary several members have chosen to compare the events of the film to our war in Iraq. Like 1984, which is consistently used as an allegory for everything and anything, the film, made in 1966 and showing events of a decade earlier, now stands as a shining example of our 'failure' in Iraq.
This isn't about politics or how you view Iraq, this is about a ludicrous psuedo-intellectual stance by folks looking to sound smart and score a point or two.
On a MOVIE site of all places.
I don't know anything about the Algerian War of Independence, other than it was bloody and long and another failure for the French.
But let's ignore 'actual' history and examine the film for what it is, effective propaganda that promotes the Algerian point of view, no doubt surfing the revolutionary tide of the 1960's. The French are oppressive and use torture to secure information. The civilians appear only at play, as if they haven't a care in the world, and their deaths are seldom addressed on screen. Meanwhile any Arab fatality is met with long, lingering shots of civilian dead.
You walk away thinking the rebels are the good guys, until you stop and think about it.
* The 'rebels' are often criminals, mere murderers recruited from prisons and indoctrinated to the cause
* The rebel movement is small in number but violent, intimidating the majority into submission.
* The rebels decide Muslim law is the only law and wage war against their own people first, banning alcohol and drugs, killing pimps and prostitutes, and encouraging gangs of children to beat homeless men nearly to death.
* The Battle for Algiers begins with the cold-blooded murder of countless policemen.
* The battle continues with the suicide bombings of cafes, clubs, and airports, all full of civilians.
* The rebels use the French respect for Muslim law - i.e. not touching a 'covered' woman - against them as a means of smuggling weapons.
* If memory serves, a mosque serves as a command center for some attacks.
* The rebels violate a surrender agreement and open fire
* The 'main' rebel is seen intentionally allowing a young boy to be killed when given the option of letting him escape
* Ironically the only three-dimensional character of moral substance is the French commander
So fine and dandy. If you want to serve that up and say "This is Iraq' be my guest, because I don't find any of the above something that condemns our men and women in uniform - to my eyes it condemns the insurgents.
Now whether the historical French were in the wrong is another matter, one not addressed in the movie. In fact, I'm still not sure what the problem was that NECCESSITATED the Algerian war (in the movie).
But what I do know is that, as usual, situation A is not the same as situation B. We arent' a colonial power, there isn't 130 years of resentment against us there, we don't have hundreds of thousands of civillians living in Iraq full time, etc. etc.
Protest the war to your heart's content. It's your right.
But compare apples to apples, and don't argue it on Netflix.
