State of the Union

Yesterday one of my American friends emailed to remind a few of us that The State of the Union address was coming up - "I can't help but watch the things, no matter how much it hurts me to hear the president even speak". Seems like I'm in good company.

I'm watching it now. It's quite an event, the lead-up makes it seem more like a sporting event. Apparently every channel shows it but I only get two channels clearly so for me it was a choice between Fox or Jim Lehrer on PBS; tough decision! As all the dignitaries walk in the TV commentators talk about them all. What surprised me is that Jim joked about what some would be thinking to themselves! Nothing much, but it makes me wish we had something similarly formal in Australia just so Roy and HG could do a simulcast!

The content was rather scary. I expected Bush to claim that things are going as planned in Iraq (though he really should stop mentioning WMD!) but what is really worrying is his threats to Iran. At first he just listed a few countries that aren't democratic: Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran. (Why mention Burma and Zimbabwe? He's never going to invade them!) But he dwelt on Iran's desire for nuclear weapons for quite a while. He ended by telling Iranis that he wants to be a friend of a democratic Iran, saying things that sound like they should rise up. I give it another 6 months before he invades. (I wonder if Centrebet has odds on this...)

He did say some good things about the environment, particularly ending dependence on oil. Working on new technology for electric, hydrogen and ethanol vehicles. I just wonder how it will be implemented.

I think the low point was when he cited "our creator" as the reason for banning human cloning etc. I agree with him that genes shouldn't be patented but he's argument is one of the worst I've ever heard. He also made oblique references to "redefining marriage".

Oh, and apparently Cindy Sheehan was detained when she tried to unfurl a banner in the gallery. Reminicent of Bush's address to the Australian parliament...

Australia Day

Well, this is my first Australia Day on foreign soil. Normally it wouldn't mean much to me but, as I've mentioned before, living abroad heightens emotions like pride and shame.

Last year I spent Australia Day running the Greens stall at Glenbrook (before going to Steffan's for a kangaroo BBQ!). I insisted that if we were to participate it should be with respect to indigenous Australians and so I made a "Sorry" banner. We got quite a few positive comments and no negative feedback at all. But of course much more is required. Some people have already taken to calling 26th January "Invasion Day", which is not too misleading but I would prefer to give it an upbeat tone. What would be best would be for the government to sign a treaty with Aboriginal groups on 26th January so that it becomes a double-anniversary -- Treaty Day.

A little while ago I was talking to an Indian friend and we were surprised to find that our countries have national days on the same date -- India has Republic Day on 26th January. That name is self-explanatory but he had to ask what it was we were celebrating on Australia Day. When I told him that it was the date the First Fleet landed he was surprised and asked, without thinking who I was, "Why would you want to celebrate something as terrible as colonialism?!" I had to explain that, although I don't like the way it things happened, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for British colonialism. Still, it's a great irony that our two countries celebrate opposites on the same date. Hopefully soon we will celebrate an Australian Republic Day; it could replace the Queen's birthday.

Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

I have a friend here in Bloomington who is Japanese. I managed not to mention the war when I saw her on Rememberance Day last year, partly because my mind was more on Rememberance Day 1975 (but it did take some effort to refrain!). After I got through that one without even a hint I thought I was doing pretty well but then last night she brought it up...

German: "Will you stop mentioning the war?"
Basil: "You started it."
German: "We did not start it."
Basil: "Yes you did, you invaded Poland!"

...Last night my friend was telling me about a war movie she'd seen, set on a WWII Japanese battleship. Of course I had heard that Japanese people don't like to talk about past nastiness and, consequently, that young people are largely ignorant of how WWII was played out before Hiroshima. But she was telling me how she cares about remembering wars etc so I was a little surprised by the remark, "Australia's never been involved in a war, has it?"! I really wasn't going to say anything until then and I think I was quite diplomatic in my explanation. I said that Australia has never been invaded (not since the British invasion and conquest of the Aboriginal nations) but had to mention that Darwin had been bombed and that midget-subs sunk the Kuttabul in Sydney Harbour, striking fear into the hearts of all Australians. There was much covering-of-mouth-with-hand, especially when I observed that our grandfathers were trying to kill each other in Borneo.

But for all that I think I was quite restrained. I didn't even hint at the conditions of PoW camps; I don't imagine that that conversation could be pleasant to have with anyone you want to keep as a friend. Hopefully she understood that my "grandfathers trying to kill each other" remark was meant as a contrast to our friendship, to show how much better it is for nations to be at peace.

Educating Ethics

I'm starting a new class this semester in ethics. While reading some of the material it occurred to me how much more practical it is than any of the philosophy of science (or anything else) I study. Compared to the meta-ethics I did last semester, this course in first-order ethics seems relevant to the man in the street.

Then I remembered a while ago in Australia there was some talk of offering a course in Secular Ethics to school children who did not attend scripture classes. (The idea was reported in the Herald on 30th July, 2005.) The talk started with an idea from the St James Ethics Centre, ostensibly as an alternative to colouring in or whatever else the dissenting students do while the rest are in scripture. (I have heard that some Catholic schools do teach something about social justice as part of their religious studies program but I've also heard pretty terrible things about the slant with which it's taught.)

At the time it seemed a fantastic idea. And now that I think about it a little more I'm even more enthusiastic. Can you imagine how much better a society would be if everyone had just a little knowledge of ethical theories? It wouldn't be much but it wouldn't take much. It's surprising what some people retain from their high school science classes many years later if the appropriate moment arises. Ethics would have a bigger impact because situations in which people might use that knowledge arise more often for most people than situations where they need to know about acids and bases. Just the ability to examine a situation in terms of duties and virtues could do wonders for the way people treat each other (if they just stop and think dispassionately) and maybe even influence the way people assess political positions.

The most important thing that could come from this would be an end to the (unfortunately real) conception that people can't be moral without a fear of god. Yes, some people do believe this even today. My friend Matt's father-in-law, a Baptist minister, is one. John Anderson is another, I think (although I'm not sure whether he believes his own bullshit). Not everyone would have to take the class to understand, just knowing that such a discipline existed would make the idea of gods as the only sources of morals seem ridiculous to everyone.

There are two problems to overcome: there's no-one to teach it; and having it at the same time as scripture would be unfair on the religious kiddies who should learn ethics too! I don't have an answer to the second problem. And it is a real problem because the law states that nothing else can be taught while the religious kiddies are off at scripture. I think this can be avoided so long as what is taught is not part of the syllabus. I do think that it would attract a lot of the students who attend scripture just because their parents think it would be good for them to learn about those things, and not because they believe (I've heard quite a few stories like this). There's also a possibility that it would benefit some children from religious families -- the ones whose denomination is not offered. If their parents are open-minded and be convinced that the ethics class is not an attack on religion they might let their children go to that. (Although this seems unlikely. I remember at my primary school most of the kids not going to scripture were weirdos like Jehovah's Witnesses and Closed Brethren.)

Eventually this will be recognised as an extra-curricular skill worth having and all the unis will offer ethics as a BEd elective). Until then I have a solution which would make a good source for the teachers. Because there are not enough clergy to go around (pace Mr Dempsey) most scripture teachers are little old ladies who volunteer their time out of the goodness of their hearts (my grandmother used to be one). Where to find that many ethically trained volunteers? Use philosophy students! Any philosophy student who has completed one semester of ethics would be elegible to enroll for credit in a course that is them volunteering to teach ethics to primary school kids. I think a large number of students would do it. It would require less face-to-face time than most classes and less reading but the preparation and having to explain concepts simply would mean that they would get a lot out of it themselves. (It wouldn't take too much of the lecturer's time either, once the inital arrangements were made and the syllabus written.)

Unfortunately it's not going to happen any time soon. Refshauge ruled that it conflicted with department policy. The St James Centre is disputing this but they won't get anywhere. This needs to be implemented at a grassroots level. What's needed is a university ethicist to develop the class and then approach someone in the dept, a district superintendent or maybe even a single principal, asking to get his students into schools to practise their teaching skills, the same way education students do practical work. "But we understand that there's very little time to teach the syllabus as it is so we thought it might be appropriate to schedule it for the same time as scripture." On a small enough scale this would be no more controversial than offering scripture for some strange denomination. A notice would go out in the newsletter that next year there would be "Ethics and Moral Philosophy" (this is a tautology but "Secular Ethics" could sound confrontational) offered alongside the usual C. of E., Roman Catholic and Muslim scripture classes. After it had run successfully for a year or two, the idea would be spread to other unis and other schools.

If I ever find myself teaching in a School of Philosophy I'll have to think about actually doing something like this.

Death of a True War Hero

Hugh Thompson, hero of the My Lai Massacre has died. I'll be interested to see how much news time this gets in the current climate.

Not enough people understand that not all the Americans at My Lai were war criminals. During the Tet Offensive, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson saw Lieutenant William Calley's men gunning down hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. Thompson landed his helicopter between them and threatened to fire on the Americans (including superior officers). They then air-lifted the wounded Vietnamese out to hospital.

The New York Times said this:

Hugh Thompson, 62, Who Saved Civilians at My Lai, Dies
By RICHARD GOLDSTEIN

Hugh Thompson, an Army helicopter pilot who rescued Vietnamese civilians during the My Lai massacre, reported the killings to his superior officers in a rage over what he had seen, testified at the inquiries and received a commendation from the Army three decades later, died yesterday in Alexandria, La. He was 62.

The cause was cancer, Jay DeWorth, a spokesman for the Veterans Affairs Medical Center where Mr. Thompson died, told The Associated Press.

On March 16, 1968, Chief Warrant Officer Thompson and his two crewmen were flying on a reconnaissance mission over the South Vietnamese village of My Lai when they spotted the bodies of men, women and children strewn over the landscape.

Mr. Thompson landed twice in an effort to determine what was happening, finally coming to the realization that a massacre was taking place. The second time, he touched down near a bunker in which a group of about 10 civilians were being menaced by American troops. Using hand signals, Mr. Thompson persuaded the Vietnamese to come out while ordering his gunner and his crew chief to shoot any American soldiers who opened fire on the civilians. None did.

Mr. Thompson radioed for a helicopter gunship to evacuate the group, and then his crew chief, Glenn Andreotta, pulled a boy from a nearby irrigation ditch, and their helicopter flew him to safety.

Mr. Thompson told of what he had seen when he returned to his base.

"They said I was screaming quite loud," he told U.S. News & World Report in 2004. "I threatened never to fly again. I didn't want to be a part of that. It wasn't war."

Mr. Thompson remained in combat, then returned to the United States to train helicopter pilots. When the revelations about My Lai surfaced, he testified before Congress, a military inquiry and the court-martial of Lt. William L. Calley Jr., the platoon leader at My Lai, who was the only soldier to be convicted in the massacre.

When Mr. Thompson returned home, it seemed to him that he was viewed as the guilty party.

"I'd received death threats over the phone," he told the CBS News program "60 Minutes" in 2004. "Dead animals on your porch, mutilated animals on your porch some mornings when you get up. So I was not a good guy."

On March 6, 1998, the Army presented the Soldier's Medal, for heroism not involving conflict with an enemy, to Mr. Thompson; to his gunner, Lawrence Colburn; and, posthumously, to Mr. Andreotta, who was killed in a helicopter crash three weeks after the My Lai massacre.

The citation, bestowed in a ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, said the three crewmen landed "in the line of fire between American ground troops and fleeing Vietnamese civilians to prevent their murder."

On March 16, 1998, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Colburn attended a service at My Lai marking the 30th anniversary of the massacre.

"Something terrible happened here 30 years ago today," Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying by CNN. "I cannot explain why it happened. I just wish our crew that day could have helped more people than we did."

Mr. Thompson worked as a veterans' counselor in Louisiana after leaving military service. A list of his survivors was not immediately available.

Through the years, he continued to speak out, having been invited to West Point and other military installations to tell of the moral and legal obligations of soldiers in wartime.

He was presumably mindful of the ostracism he had faced and the long wait for that medal ceremony in Washington. As he told The Associated Press in 2004: "Don't do the right thing looking for a reward, because it might not come."

I like to think of him in the same way that Australians regard Simpson and his donkey. Of course, it's not fair to compare but I can't help noticing that Simpson displayed a lot of bravery over a long period, continually going back to help more people. Thompson's bravery is recognised for only one incident but the reason he needs to be remembered is that he also displayed moral courage. For that they eventually (exactly 30 years later) awarded him the Soldier's Medal. That was the highest they could give him as he was not engaged with the official enemy but had his guns pointed on his own side... Now that it's the Forces of Freedom vs the Terrorists I guess they'll be able to define the enemy as whoever is killing the civilians so that if this were to happen again he'd get a higher honour. But somehow I doubt it.

As an interesting aside, it was another Soldier's Medal recipient, Colin Powell, who was responsible for investigating general accusations of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians. He managed to keep it all whitewashed until journalist Seymour Hersh broke the My Lai story.

Addendum
This came up in my ethics class the other day. The professor must be a big leftie! Not just because she mentioned it but more because she heard it on Democracy Now! radio. I was the only one who knew who Hugh Thompson was, I just hope the Americans know something about the My Lai massacre.