Ryan Endicott in Liberation News, Newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation:
In recent weeks, a controversy has taken the public eye surrounding the Clint Eastwood movie “American Sniper.” On the one hand, some have been quick to point out the eerie similarities between “American Sniper” and Nazi war propaganda. On the other, violent threats have been made in the name of “support the troops.”
In total, the film has grossed over $200 million and is expected to make far more while being nominated for numerous academy awards. However, “American Sniper” is far more than eerily similar to Nazi propaganda, and it is far from “supporting the troops.” In fact, “American Sniper” is far worse.
“American Sniper” is a film that reinforces racism to promote imperialism, effectively re-writing the historical narrative of the Iraq war. Furthermore, it exploits millions of veterans and service members to bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of Hollywood executives, CEOs and investors. All this while millions of Iraqi women, men and children lay dead or displaced or left to live in a country destroyed, and while millions of veterans are homeless and killing themselves at rates unseen in American history.
‘American Sniper’ a tool of racism
One of the most devastating impacts “American Sniper” has on people around the planet is its racist tone. From start to finish, Arab people are depicted as inherently terrorist from birth to death, both men and women. In the opening scene, children are seen as terrorists, women are seen as terrorists, and “outside” Al Qaeda members are torturing local communities to be terrorists.
Not coincidentally, this is the same line I was told by my command when I deployed to Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005 as a Marine infantryman. I was told by command that I was deployed to Iraq to liberate people from terrorists, to being democracy, and most importantly that “today’s women breed tomorrow’s children who grow up to be next week’s terrorists, so there is no such thing as innocent.”
However, when I patrolled neighborhoods devastated by 50 caliber bullets, as I marched past schools and hospitals bombed to the ground, and as I raided home after home dragging families from their beds and ripping them apart with sandbags and zip ties, I began to see that the real terrorists were not the people of Iraq but the occupation forces. It was not the people of Iraq that were bringing terrorism, destruction and death upon innocent people but the bankers, weapons contractors, oil tycoons, and the U.S. government.
Consequently, the racist nature of “American Sniper” has brought out some of the most open and hostile racist sentiments among Americans since 9-11-2001. Every media outlet, from memes on Instagram to threats on Twitter and Facebook, have been flooded with extreme racism. One tweet proclaimed: “Nice to see a movie where the Arabs are portrayed for who they really are—vermin scum intent on destroying us.” Another tweet stated, “As a male if you watched American Sniper and you weren’t inspired to kill sand n****rs then you might as well have a vagina.”
Yet, just one year after the Iraq war began, in 2004, over 50 percent of Americans had turned against the war. Subsequently, as the largest anti-war movement in contemporary history mounted and launched its militant resistance to the war, by 2009 between 60-70 percent of Americans were openly opposed, specifically because they felt the war was based on lies. In one of the largest landslides in U.S. history, the American people elected a president who claimed to be the “anti-war candidate.” The American public was clear: The U.S. occupation of Iraq was a war of economic plunder and imperialism and had nothing to do with combating terrorism.
Racism a tool of imperialism
Movies like “American Sniper” flip the true historical narrative of the Iraq war on its head. Despite the largest anti-war movement in contemporary history, which began mobilizing from the very beginning of the occupation, the makers of “American Sniper” wish to re-write the historical narrative. While millions of people around the planet took to the streets between 2003 and 2011 to demand an end to the U.S. occupation, capitalist media, news outlets, universities and politicians continue to defend the Iraq war as a one of “liberation.”
“American Sniper” perpetuates the false history that the war in Iraq was a war for democracy and to protect American lives from savage Arabs, who are inherently terrorist. Despite the fact that in 2003 it became public fact that large-scale torture, sexual violence, and even child rape had occurred at Abu Ghraib prison, despite the exposure of the U.S. torture facility at Guantanamo, and despite millions of Iraqi women, men and children murdered, tortured and displaced in a war for economic empire, the capitalist class is attempting to maintain the historical narrative that occupying the people of the Middle East was just.
‘American Sniper’ supports Hollywood CEOs and investors, not the troops
While the racist defenders of “American Sniper” flood social media with racism and support for the war, their platform rests on the “support our troops” motto. However, it should be made clear that in absolutely no way whatsoever does supporting “American Sniper” and its racist imperialist agenda even begin to “support the troops.” In total, the movie will make hundreds of millions of dollars, which will go directly into the pockets of executives, investors and other millionaires. While to date the movie has grossed over $200 million, there are hundreds of thousands of veterans lying under bridges, pushed into halfway houses, and struggling just to eat. Recent studies show that well over 25 veterans per day commit suicide, and the unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has remained over double the national average, reaching as high as 30 percent during the wars. In fact, the very first person to be executed by the government in 2015 was Andrew Brannan.
‘American Sniper’ not a people’s movie but a movie for the rich
What is clear is that “American Sniper” is not only eerily similar to Nazi war propaganda but it is U.S. war propaganda. It is a racist imperialist movie that rewrites the history of the Iraq war, inspires racism, defends imperialism and exploits millions of veterans struggling to eat to bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of the rich. It does this because the system itself is based on racism, imperialism and the exploitation of poor and working people around the planet. Poor youth are plucked from working-class streets in America and sent to fight and die killing poor working people in Iraq so the billionaires on Wall Street and their millionaire counterparts in the halls of Congress can turn super-profits. The media, the news and all the apparatus of communication is owned privately by these very same billionaires. Movies like “American Sniper” are just another one of their propaganda pieces that poisons the minds of the American people with racism in order to continue their agenda to invade, occupy and plunder Arab people.
It is up to us to fight back against movies like “American Sniper.” We should demand this movie and all similar propaganda pieces be immediately and permanently removed from the mass media, and profits immediately expropriated and used to provide reparations to the Iraqi people as they struggle to survive in a country devastated by occupation. All other profits should be used to provide housing, quality health care and education to the millions of veterans suffering from severe post-traumatic stress.
The PSL piece may be mischaracterizing the film then. I haven’t seen it. I guess it’s open to interpretation though, since a lot of other people have been picking up a similar message from it, intended or not.
Langa, not sure I’d want to invoke Spencer ever, but you make a good point. Still, one could say that many vets were sold a fraudulent bill of goods. Kyle (as portrayed in the film) was motivated by a kind of false patriotism that has been sold by the government for many decades.
I cannot buy into the idea that veterans are “victims” of war, unless they are compelled to fight via conscription, or they are engaged in purely defensive combat (i.e. fighting on their own soil). Otherwise, they are morally equivalent to mercenaries, and in that case, I agree with Herbert Spencer, who said: “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.”
pf: How does it treat Iraqis? Are they fully dimensional human beings, or more or less just human stage props?
me: Nuanced. One family doesn’t care for The Butcher (an Iraqi bad guy) and they attempt to help Kyle and the Americans. Unfortunately, the Butcher finds out and tortures a boy in that family. Another Iraqi family feeds Kyle and crew, but he discovers a cache of hidden weapons, implying that they are either AQN or otherwise enemies.
At least twice you see Kyle with his scope on an Iraqi child, hoping they don’t pick up a weapon to use on American troops.
A dogmatist might miss those scenes.
JP, you might consider reading the Bhaghavad Gita, an important Hindu text. In it, Arjuna does not want to engage in war, but Krishna suggests he do so, as it is what is expected of him in his job.
Well, maybe it will be in the sequel then.
I doubt it. I know they certainly wouldn’t have repeated the bar-fight claim from the book that got Jesse a rather large defamation award (against a public figure, no less). Which almost never happens even if God himself booms from the heavens that the defendant is a liar, so it must have been pretty blatantly libelous.
Is the Jesse Ventura incident in the movie? If so, how do they treat it?
Personally, I don’t think “I was just doing my job”, or “I was just following orders” will be an acceptable excuse when one meets one’s maker. At least, that’s how I choose to live my life.
My view is that God gave us a brain so we could use them.
How does it treat Iraqis? Are they fully dimensional human beings, or more or less just human stage props?
Perceptions can differ, fer sher.
I saw it, and didn’t see it as especially pro- or anti-war. It was a cautionary tale about the military for me, since Kyle and many of his comrades seemed brainwashed, so brainwashed that he kept going back for more tours, despite his family’s wishes.
And, of course, even though he was “The Legend,” he died at the hands of a comrade. War and the military distorts people’s decision-making abilities.
Apparently that message was lost on a huge number of people who saw the movie and took it to be jingoistic propaganda, whether they are into that or not.
Most Iraqis are Arabs. Are you just trolling or did you not know this?
” In Chris Kyle’s case no good deed went unpunished.”
And to be clear, the “good deed” he’s talking about isn’t what he did in Iraq. It was his him getting killed while trying (ultimately unwisely, but not as stupidly as some have mocked him for) trying to help a fellow vet with PTSD.
Clint Eastwood Says ‘American Sniper’ Makes An Anti-War Statement (Huffington Post)
According to director Clint Eastwood, “American Sniper” makes an anti-war statement.
Eastwood made the remark Saturday while attending the Producers Guild Award Nominees Breakfast, hosted by The Hollywood Reporter at the Saban Theater in Beverly Hills. He discussed his highly publicized war drama starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, the “most lethal” sniper in U.S. history.
“The biggest anti-war statement any film” can make is to show “the fact of what [war] does to the family and the people who have to go back into civilian life like Chris Kyle did,” Eastwood said, per The Hollywood Reporter.
“One of my favorite war movies that I’ve been involved with is ‘Letters from Iwo Jima,'” he continued. “And that was about family, about being taken away from life, being sent someplace. In World War II, everybody just sort of went home and got over it. Now there is some effort to help people through it. In Chris Kyle’s case no good deed went unpunished.”
Full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/clint-eastwood-american-sniper-anti-war_n_6547068.html
“The only thing racist is this PSL socialist press release, which thinks Iraqis are Arabs. ”
??? With the exception of the Kurds in the north, and a few scattered small minority groups, Iraqis are Arabs. You won’t find a list of “Arab countries” anywhere that excludes Iraq.
Clint Eastwood himself is and always has been strongly anti-war. Every war movie he’s ever made has either been anti-war or apolitical. Even some of his ones that weren’t obviously directly about war- like Gran Turino- included a strong anti-war and anti-racism theme.
I’m not interested in seeing the movie because of it’s questionable treatment of the facts of Kyle’s life, that I think steps beyond the bounds of artistic license when dealing with a real-world person based on a (largely fraudulent) autobiography. But Eastwood’s intent was to portray him as a tragic figure, the usual (and usually uncontroversial) “veterans are among the victims of war.” theme. The real-life Kyle just wasn’t a very good vehicle to tell that message. But this idea that Eastwood (who is also a self-described libertarian) would make “racist, imperialist propaganda” is seriously missing the mark.
The only thing racist is this PSL socialist press release, which thinks Iraqis are Arabs. Typical extreme left: accuses you of what they’re doing.
BTW, the movie is a hit in Iraq and Syria.
I haven’t seen the movie (nor am I likely to do so), but from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t sound so much like racism as it does demonization, which is a common tactic employed by virtually every country in every war, regardless of the racial composition of their opponent’s population. So, while the film sounds like a disgusting pile of war propaganda, it doesn’t sound “racist” per se.
Cool, tell him hi.
I might tomorrow. We just got a call from Starchild, who’s driving through the area. It looks like we’ll be having him as a visitor tonight. It will be nice to see him!
Since he ran with the CP before it’s fair game to post it here as an article also.
I think this article was excellent. I agree with most of what the writer said.
I also thought the article by Chuck Baldwin that I just posted a link to was also excellent.
http://libertycrier.com/chuck-baldwin-thoughts-movie-american-sniper/
hmm, maybe I watched a different movie. A few times, Kyle was very hesitant to shoot, which said to me he was not being portrayed as a hater.
Of course, movies in actual Marxist countries have their own warmongering propaganda, and I’m sure the US would be no different in the unlikely event that one of these Marxist mini-sects somehow seized power here.
I don’t think he is saying that this particular movie should be censored based on its particular content, or that it should have its profits confiscated due to its content. He supports a Marxist system which would do that to all movies, and he has specific criticisms of this movie’s content, but he’s not saying that this movie in particular should be treated differently in terms of censorship or profit confiscation than any other movie as far as I can see.
I don’t think most people are taking it as antiwar, or very nuanced in its portrayal of Iraqis.
It should be noted that director Clint Eastwood is a libertarian, and has said the film was intended to have an anti-war message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgAImPrKHU
“We should demand this movie and all similar propaganda pieces be immediately and permanently removed from the mass media, and profits immediately expropriated and used to provide reparations to the Iraqi people as they struggle to survive in a country devastated by occupation.”
I am unsure if the author would support removing the movie completely from theaters, but it sure sounds like it. At the very least I’m sure he would favor preventing any advertisement or discussion of the movie on tv or the internet( excepting perhaps critical pieces such as this) This combined with the seizing of the film’s profits strikes me as censorship, since I don’t believe anyone involved in the film’s production would have signed off on it if it could not make a profit. I assume the author would even oppose the actors, director, and all staff involved in the movie being compensated for their work, given he views it as racist propaganda. Perhaps they should even be charged with hate speech.
I think the author’s argument that the film is in poor taste and is justification for racism and imperialism is a solid argument. Again I’ve not seen the film, but much of what I’ve heard backs that up. What I was commenting on was the author’s in my view misguided solutions to this, which seems to consist of censorship at worst, punishing the movie with heavy taxes and fines for its material at best.
I missed the call for censorship. Where did he say that?
Granted, as a commie, the author wants to nationalize the film industry (and every other industry), movie theaters etc., and I certainly don’t agree with him.
Otherwise, I think he does have a lot of good points here.
Though I’m no fan of movies such as these( Celebrating violence in any context really strikes me as tasteless, plus I just don’t “get” war films) The author’s anger that the movie is super popular is amusing. It’s interesting they demand the movie be removed from mass media. What does this mean? Should movie theaters be forced to stop showing the film, despite the fact that it’s surely making them a great deal of money? Not that this seems to matter, as the author apparently believes all of the profits from the film should be taken away from their rightful owners and distributed to his pet causes, however honorable they may be.
Would this occur with every film then? Would Birdman’s profits be redistributed to provide for former A list actors who have since fallen on hard times mental health? Or is it only problematic movies that will be prevented from making profit? If so, I can only imagine there would soon be few “problematic” movies being made. Which may be seen as a good thing by the author and his supporters, but which I personally believe would diminish the artform.
I’ve not seen the movie and have no interest in doing so. But it unquestionably is popular with the audience. The author’s disregard for that and desire for censorship strikes me as troubling.
Citing two examples of racist tweets in a short article doesn’t mean that there aren’t many more out there, nor does it invalidate anything else in the article. If you disagree with anything the author wrote here, why?
I found two racist Tweets. The obvious logic is that the internet was flooded with them.
Logic at it’s finest.