The Russians Are Coming, Again!

 

By now, most of the world knows that US president, Donald Trump, wants to annex Greenland for the United States. Furthermore, he has said that he's ready to use military force if needed. Naturally, Europe, especially Denmark, the country who actually governs Greenland, is worried that this might happen. After all, Denmark is a NATO ally and this would be considered a direct attack on Europe. 

Trump's reason for wanting to annex Greenland is to keep America safe from the Russians and Chinese. To me, that doesn't make sense because either attacked Greenland, then they would have the full force of NATO to deal with. The affair has me thinking back to the 1980s and Ronald Reagan's contra war on Nicaragua. Reagan's assertion was that if the Nicaraguan government wasn't overthrown, then the Russians were going to use it as a jump off point for the invasion of the US. So, is this a case of history repeating itself with the same old argument? 

Since the 1980s, the Sandinistas are no longer the government in Nicaragua and the Russians haven't tried to invade the US. Of course, if they wanted to do, they only need to cross 53 miles of water and they're in the continental United States and before you ask, "What would they want with Alaska?" they would get one-fifth of the US domestic oil supply and have a springboard for invading the mainland. That makes more sense than transporting troops across the ocean near to the US to stage a land invasion from the southern border. 

The same holds true for Greenland. They would have to sail past our NATO ally, Norway, who would alert the rest of NATO of what was coming and NATO could react accordingly. Any such move by Russia would result in heavy losses, even if they managed to take Greenland. It would be even more senseless for China to attempt such a move. This leads me to believe the more popular thought behind Trump's motives. While Reagan simply did not want a left wing state at America's back door, Trump wants Greenland for its resources. He is threatening to use military might for economic gain and I can't go along with that and neither does Europe. 

The 1980s, Hollywood and the Rambo-ization of American Youth: First Blood

It could be said that this was the first actual film to Rambo-ize American youth. After all, the main character played by Sylvester Stallone is named John Rambo. "First Blood" would begin a quadrilogy of films featuring war hero John Rambo. Three of these films would be in the 1980s while the fourth would come out twenty years later. For now though, let us content ourselves with the first one.

"First Blood" is about decorated Vietnam war hero John Rambo, now a down on his luck drifter, who has had a tough time in the civilian world. After trying to visit an old army buddy who he learns has died from cancer due to Agent Orange, Rambo drifts to the next town. There he runs foul of the town's sheriff who doesn't want drifters like Rambo in his town.

Rambo is arrested and 'cleaned up' by a couple of the sheriff's deputies who rough him up while in custody. The maltreatment results in Rambo having flashbacks to when he was a prisoner of war. He snaps, beating up the deputies and making his escape. The local police chase him but he gets them using a series of guerrilla tactics. When the police fail to catch him, the national guard is called in. In the mean time, Rambo's former CO is brought in to try to convince Rambo to surrender. However, things erupt into a minor war and the CO is only able to convince Rambo to give himself up at the end after he inflicts a lot of damage on people and the town, some great explosions by the way.

I could sympathize with John Rambo straight away, as I was serving in the military at the time the film came out. His speech at the end of how he went to war, did everything to win but wasn't allowed to win and then came home to indifference and even scorn was heart wrenching for me. This was the first film I saw that actually tried to show some sympathy to those who served in Vietnam. My reaction was that it was about time the country did and I feel that if America apologized every day until the last Vietnam Veteran passed away, it might just be enough to address the damage done to them.

Now here's the but. The Reagan administration was in full favour of films which honoured those who served in Vietnam. Nothing wrong with that except the then president had an alternative motive for doing so. He so badly wanted to go to war in Central America despite cries of it leading to another Vietnam style war. Therefore, if he honoured the veterans and forwarded the belief that America could have won the war, then the country would have been more receptive to his militaristic ideals. The film's success in building sympathy towards the Vietnam Veterans went a way towards this aim.

The 1980s: Hollywood and the Rambo-ization of American Youth

In 1986, when President Reagan was visiting a high school in a town not far from my own, some like minded friends and myself went there to show our disapproval for his policy on Central America. Naturally, the pro- Reagan crowd were highly resentful of our presence there and made their feelings known. Even to the point where one lady told us where we could stick our first amendment rights. There was the one boy, about fifteen or sixteen who called us 'Commies' (original I know) to which I responded with, "It will be you they'll be sending to fight down there." The smart ass replied with, "I wanna go." I mentioned this to one of my fellow protesters who sarcastically, but seriously stated, "Of course he's not going to die, he's Rambo!"

The film "Rambo, First Blood Part II" had been released a year earlier and many Americans, especially males, had taken the character played by Sylvester Stallone to heart. He was America's new hero and everybody wanted to be like him. I have been pondering this over the past thirty years or so and I have come to the conclusion that it wasn't just one film that turned young American boys into wannabe war heroes. In fact, it has been a steady stream of films since the election of Ronald Reagan as president that lead to this.

After nearly three decades of letting this swim around in my brain, I am going to put my theory into words here. I will be looking at the films made in the 1980s and demonstrate that Hollywood played a part in Rambo-izing American youth. I admit that due to many other commitments in my life, I won't be able to post regularly, but will do so whenever I get the chance. Of course, if these posts lead to a lot of response and debate, then I will definitely post more regularly.

Next post: Stripes

Regan's Best Unknown Triumph

Actually, I never thought I would be posting on this particular blog again and though it has been more than four years, here I am. The main reason why I haven't posted here was that the subjects I was covering had little to do with my book, "Rock and Roll Children," which I was trying to plug at the time. However, recently I read an article that pricked my attention and the more I have thought about it, the more I wanted to say something and after giving it some thought, I figured that the Real 80s would be the best place to post it.

In my previous posts, I have talked about the transparent successes of the Regan years. How all his economic "miracle" was that he brought back the same jobs that went away in the opening years of his presidency except only they now paid minimum wage. And because it was my big political hang up back in the 1980s, I wrote a post about his Contra war in Nicaragua. This time, I am going to talk about Regan's one big success that very few people know about, his vilification of the 1960s.

It was a journalist/writer named David, (I can't remember his last name) who first talked about how Ronald Regan vilified the 1960s. That was four years ago and this thought has lingered in the back of my mind ever since. About a month ago, I read an article that explained that the Regan believed the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was down to its lack of commitment to it. He hinted that liberal attitudes and the anti-war protesters contributed to this lack of commitment. The article reminded me of an occurrence back in college in the 1980s when a friend of mine, who was in a political group which embraced far left ideology. Like all college clubs, the group had its own little cubicle where things about the club were hanging all around its walls. One day, my friend was sitting inside the cubicle when a touring group of high school students happened by. Some of them took a look at the cubicle and seeing all of the ant-Regan cartoons and articles prompted one student to remark, "It's because of people like you we lost Vietnam." When my friend questioned "People like who?" the student retorted, "You liberals."

Looking back to the 1980s, I realize that those years were indeed spent vilifying the 1960s or at the very least, making the things which occurred in that decade some sort of fashion trend. As an anti- Contra aid protester, I and my like minded colleagues were often told that the 1960s were over. In the 1980s, it was believed that anyone carrying a sign was in a time warp and living two decades earlier. In my case, it was even more so because I dressed like I was in the 1960s with my long hair and Native American moccasin boots. What made it worse is that the words coming out of the White House back than made many Americans, especially impressionable younger ones, think that the 1960s were bad times. That free love, drugs and protest were all evil things that made America lose its way and that conservative Regan political leadership was going to be the only thing that would save the country. That is why the Regan administration was so keen to vilify the 1960s.

Did Regan's attempt to vilify the sixties actually work? For most of what I can remember back in the eighties, the answer was yes. Many people back then thought that protest, liberal attitudes and hippies lost the Vietnam War for America and set the stage for the moral rot many people associate with the 1970s. Furthermore, there was the added belief, aided by fading memories of the time, that if the US hadn't been swamped with the liberal attitudes of the sixties, it would have won the Vietnam War because the US had won every major battle in the war. This was further exacerbated by films in the late 1980s such as "Platoon," "Full Metal Jacket" and "Hamburger Hill." These films all gave the impression that America could have won Vietnam if it hadn't been for the opposition at home. Therefore, I take my hat off to President Regan's greatest achievement while he was in office, the vilification of the 1960s.

The USA, Great Britain and History

When I first began writing "Rock And Roll Children," I did so with the intention of writing about heavy metal music back in the 80s. While the book is fiction, there are many historical facts both relating to music and not and I went through great pains to insure the historical accuracy of the events mentioned in the book. However, as an American who has lived in the UK for nearly half of his life, I have discovered that the British and Americans view historical work such as books and films in a totally different light from one another.
First, let me address the belief by many British people that all Americans believe that films such as "Saving Private Ryan" is 100% historical fact. They don't. I know the BBC likes to find one redneck who lives in Backwater USA and who believes that the film is actual history to draw the erroneous conclusion that all 280 million Americans think the same, but the truth is, the great majority of Americans don't. Many Americans already know that Hollywood does tend to over romanticise things in films and adhere to the formula that the film or book is 10% fact and 90% fiction. Therefore, when most Americans go to view a "historical" film or read a fictional historical book, they do so with this in mind.
The British, on the other hand, are a totally different kettle of fish. It appears that many British people want the film or book to be in accordance with historical fact and get very upset when Hollywood doesn't do this in films. Their beef with "Saving Private Ryan" was that it was full of historical inaccuarcies such as ignoring the mistakes that lead to the slaughter of so many American soldiers on Omaha Beach and it gave the impression that Britain wasn't involved in the D-Day landings at all. Of course, in the minds of many Britons, the worse atrocity was the film "U571" which shows Americans conducting a raid that was actually carried out by the British. Which is why I won't ever watch that film. In view of the above, most Americans think, "It's only a film, so what's all the fuss?"  and will apply the 10-90 formula.  Many can not see why so many British people got so het up about it and don't realise Britain's love for historical fact.
This brings me to "Rock And Roll Children." Americans will immediately use the 10-90 formula when reading it and early feedback seems to indicate this. The blog who gave me the bad review last month balked when I referred to the book as "an accrate account of heavy metal in the 1980s." He stated that it wasn't a book about heavy metal but a fictional story with heavy metal in it. In many ways, he's right, but what he fails to appreciate is that I went through great pains to ensure accuracy in items such as: when albums were released, concerts- when and how they happened and other events such as the PMRC Congressional Hearings in 1985 and the US bombing of Libya in 1986. Feedback from British readers seems to be more appreciative of my efforts. I remember the reaction of when British reader when I confirmed that my account of a lead singer accepting a canabis joint from someone in the crowd and taking a sly puff on it before handing it back actually happened, his face lit up and he thought that was really cool.
The point of my blog here is that the USA and Great Britain view history and fiction in totally different lights.  Americans accept that a peice of fiction based in a period of history is going to be more fiction than fact and will view or read with such mindset. British people on the other hand, want the producer or writer to "get their facts right" and will not like it if they don't. When I wrote Rock And Roll Children, I was leaning more to the British side and maybe went too far that way in the eyes of many Americans.