About the last thing I am likely to do in this space is to write about a movie. But, as it happened, I chanced upon a movie on TV in which I had no interest. Yet it had an impact on me anyway. The movie is “The Tillman Story” which would mean nothing to non-U.S. people and maybe very little to many in the U.S. as well. Pat Tillman was a U.S. football star who suddenly left the National Football League and his millions of dollars of salary to enlist to fight in Iraq after 2001.
The politicians in Washington loved this story since it justified the “all American hero fighting for his country” story that Bush and his cronies were trying to sell at the time. They played the story up in all the media. Tillman was killed in Afghanistan after some years and Bush and his buddies were busy touting the “our hero died for his country” line they love so much. The problem was that after some investigation on the part of Tillman’s family, it seems he wasn’t killed while fighting the enemy. Instead he was killed by U.S. troops who just seemed to be having fun shooting anything that moved one day.
The movie details how the family fought back and uncovered the cover up that the Army had created to obscure what really happened. The movie is unkind to the Army, but, as someone who has worked with the Army for a long time, I was skeptical that the Army would be that involved in telling such an elaborate lie. Eventually the movie points the finger at Donald Rumsfeld who appears to have been calling the shots and makes it clear that George W. Bush would have had to have been involved as well.
My first reaction was that it says something that they were allowed to make this movie at all. A repressive government doesn't let you make anti-government movies. The U.S. government may have many faults, but freedom of speech still exists here.
But then, my thoughts turned to the real subjects that always interest me which are stories, and the general stupidity of the American public.
The lengths to which Bush and friends went to tell the Tillman story that they wanted to tell and to cover up the real story are well documented in this film. Why? Why lie, cover up, misinform, hush people up, manipulate the media, and otherwise be hysterical about the fact that a soldier was killed by his own troops? This happens all the time. It is called the fog of war.
The answer is that stories matter. Politicians love to tell stories and the stories they tell often have little relation to the truth. They get away with this because stories are simple and easy to understand. The truth is often much more complex.
This points to one reason why politicians all seem to agree on testing and generally making our education system about memorization of facts (otherwise known as “official stories.”) What we want students to learn is what the true stories are. We want them to know the facts about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Pat Tillman. We really don't care if those facts are true. In all nations, the job of education is the telling of official government-approved stories about everything from history to economics to how to be a success and why to fight for your country. No one cares about the truth all that much. They just care about having good stories to tell.
We are all susceptible to a good story. (That is why we like to watch movies in the first place.) It is not just poorly educated who like simple stories. We all do. It is part of being human. But how do we learn to determine if a story is true?
We wouldn’t have known the truth about Pat Tillman if it hadn’t been for his family being smarter than your average family and really wanting to know what happened. They were capable of separating truth from fiction. But this is a skill which we are more or less explicitly taught not to do in our schools.
What can be done? Ask students to think instead of memorize? I have been saying that for years, but, no surprise, no government official is ever on my side on that one. They like being able to tell simple stories that remain unexamined by their listeners.
......My first reaction was that it says something that they were allowed to make this movie at all. A repressive government doesn't let you make anti-government movies. The U.S. government may have many faults, but freedom of speech still exists here.......
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading about the events and the film for a very first time - I'm an Eastern European - I shared your reaction. My overwhelming impression is that this film was allowed to be made and widely released. But I’m not so satisfied with the line “freedom of speech still exists here.”
Just before I came to my computer to visit your blog, I was reading pages 51-53 of “Hoodwinked” by John Perkins. They're devoted to cases of drastic silencing of US citizens who have publicly criticised US corporations.
I appreciate the point that the story of Tillman's death mattered a lot to the US top politicians. Interestingly, the story of bin Laden's death didn't. Instead they concocted something miserably unconvincing.
It seems to me that the corporations treat their frontmen, the politicians, as easily expendable.
Is public indoctrination at an early age so bad?
ReplyDeleteThere absolutely comes a time where people need to think for themselves, but what time is that? If we start that process at twelve years of age, are we too late? Ten? Seven?
Several religions have some sort of "reaffirmation" ritual once a child has reached an "age of reason"; is it a terrible thing to have nice fluffy stories of clear-cut heroes and villains in the first few years of life?
These aren't rhetorical questions; I'm honestly curious.
Also, I would suggest that instead of some malicious desire to keep the American populace dumb, the politicians are merely trying to improve the education system to score political points. They don't really understand how education should work, so they grab onto the pretty numbers that they can easily use to prop up their careers.
No need to blame malice when blaming incompetence will suffice.