OFF TOPIC: Why Does Liberalism Need Apology or Justification?

Do not... regard the critics as questionable patriots.  What were Washington and Jefferson and Adams but profound critics of the colonial status quo?  ~Adlai Stevenson

Nationalism is an infantile disease.  It is the measles of mankind.  

~Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, 1934

Tony Bennett, 85, known more for his velvety voice and gentlemanly demeanor has been called an American icon.

Recently the crooner spoke about his military duty and how being on the front lines seeing scared young boys none of whom wanted to shoot anyone or be shot - on both sides - made him a lifetime pacifists.

Quoted in some media reports as an "admitted" pacifist, as if he were admitting to having committed a crime or some vile offense...Bennett said: “I’m anti-war. It’s the lowest form of human behavior.”

Drafted by the U.S. Army in November 1944, Bennett served as an infantryman in Europe, moving across France, and later into Germany.

“The first time I saw a dead German, that’s when I became a pacifist,” he said.
He told Stern that he was left forever shaken by the sight of death.

“It was a nightmare that’s permanent,” he said. “I just said, ‘This is not life. This is not life.’”

“To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally,” he said.

Howard Stern who was interviewing the crooner about his new album  then asked Bennett about how America should deal with terrorists, specifically those responsible for the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” Bennett said.

Stern asked if he was "one of those conspiracy theorists who claim the US flew the planes." Bennett said no, and in  a soft-spoken voice, said, "No. They flew the plane in, but we caused it,” Bennett responded. “Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.”

Following seconds of silence, Stern said that his guest was “making some good points.”

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't.  You cannot shirk this and be a man.  To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.  

~Mark Twain

Benett was blasted for his comments and felt the necessity to issue a formal apology stating:

"There is simply no excuse for terrorism and the murder of the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of the 9/11 attacks on our country," Bennett said in the statement. "My life experiences -- ranging from the Battle of the Bulge to marching with Martin Luther King -- made me a lifelong humanist and pacifist, and reinforced my belief that violence begets violence and that war is the lowest form of human behavior.

"I am sorry if my statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country, my hope for humanity and my desire for peace throughout the world."

WHY?

Why do progressives always have to apologize for our views. Why was he called and "admitted" pacifist? If he were a Quaker or a Christian or a Jew would he be an admitted one? Is Bill Cosby an "admiited" Black man? Is Rush Limbaugh an "admitted" conservative? Only progressives are labeled this way, and Gays, who are often identified as "openly" gay which amounts to the same thing as if all heterosexuals are closeted about ther sexuality. I mean, I don't see Charlie Sheen being called an "admitted" whore master! 

Why is it that any anti-war sentiment riles up some patriots who want to accuse us of being somehow anti-American if we are opposed to the warring policies of the nation yet conservatives are not anti-American for being against welfare or other entitlement programs?

I was an outspoken opponent of the war in VietNam which we were not even supposed to call a war at the time.  It had some other softer term like boms and missles and missions do. We were dirty hippies; we were anti-American...even Commies...for expressing our opinion in a land in whch wars are fought to protect our right to free speech, for God's sake!

I continue to be a pacifist and anti-war. I continue to be berated for my opinion. I am accused of not supporting our troops when I sport buttons and bumper stickers that clearly say: "Defend our troops - bring them home."  

Who are the real Anti-Americans? Those who dare to speak out, or those who try to shut us up?

Calling anti-war protesters anti-American is truly the pot calling the kettle black. It brings back memories of the racist names I and others were called when we marched for civil rights.

There is nothing, in my opinion, more American than exercising our right to free speech and demonstration. I applaud the estimated 3000 sitting in right now in Zuccotti Park in Wall Street, New York for 12 days and counting! BRAVO to them! THIS is patriotism in action!  If I were younger, I'd be right there with them!

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.  .... You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.   

~ George Bernard Shaw

He is a poor patriot whose patriotism does not enable him to understand how all men everywhere feel about their altars and their hearthstones, their flag and their fatherland.  

~Harry Emerson Fosdick

 Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.  

~James Bryce

We need a type of patriotism that recognizes the virtues of those who are opposed to us..... The old "manifest destiny" idea ought to be modified so that each nation has the manifest destiny to do the best it can - and that without cant, without the assumption of self-righteousness and with a desire to learn to the uttermost from other nations.  

~Francis John McConnell

Patriotism, the virtue of the vicious.  

~Oscar Wilde
  

Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.  ~Guy de Maupassant 

Origins SPSA, Inc. Rejects Australia's Apology

Claiming to represent all Australian mothers who relinquished, Origins NSW rejects the government's apology.

When I announced the upcoming apology on Facebook, Some commented praising Dian Welfare in this regard. I never knew Dian, but judging from the many "followers" she accumulated, I have no doubt that she was a devoted well-meaning a person and zealous activist who gave her all for what she believed in.  However, it is my understanding that Dian and Origins, Inc. have always opposed to the apology as they still do.  It this seems somewhat incongruous to applaud her for Australia reaching this milestone that she opposed.

Further, it is my understanding from many within Australia, that Origins, Inc. no more represents all mothers there than CUB or Origins-USA or any other US group represents all US mothers, or BN represents all US adoptees' opinion regarding access legislation.  These issues are complicated and people have different feelings, views and opinions as to how far is far enough, how much is enough, what can we logically expect and accept as a victory.

Evelyn Robinson, a reunited mother and author who has lived and worked for adoption reform in Australia for decades, for one, welcomes the apology and will be present when it is made and part of the ceremony. Many consider it a huge victory, others apparently are less than pleased. There is a divide. Neither opinion is totally universal.

This is how it is in a democracy.  And this is how it is in movements that are non-homogeneous. We have our adoption experience/loss in common but come to it from varying religious, educational and social backgrounds and different degrees and lengths of "denial" before dealing with our adoption issues, and finally, different reunion outcomes. Some of us are more aware of and lived through or researched more of the history of adoption reform efforts, wile other get their entire views from the one group they joined when 'waking up" and coming out of their cocoons - groups which others accused of being cut-like and serving up kool-aid dogmas. (A micro recreation of disagreements about religious and political beliefs in the bigger world).

All of which shapes and colors the lens through which  we view the issues. We thus come to different conclusions, which often create discord.

I share here the view of Origins, Inc. for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions of who is for, supported and responsible for and deserves credit for the apology and who is against it.

See also my previous posts on the adpology here, here, and here.

UPDATE  9/21: PLEASE SEE REPLY BY EVELYN ROBINSON HERE for a view from on the ground in Australia on the issue.

And here is a statement by Lily Arthur, Origins NSW:

Lily Arthur

In response to the forthcoming apology to mothers who have lost children to adoption in Western Australia, Origins would like to make the following observations:

Having admitted that past adoption practices in WA were unlawful, the West Australian government has usurped the notion that those responsible for serious crimes committed under Common Law can be rectified by a few chosen words, instead of facing the justice system, thus absolving the perpetrators of premeditated breaches of various statutory Crimes Acts

This (adoption crimes) would be the only instance where the law would absolve perpetrators of serious crimes to face accountability by the legal system. How a dismissal of crimes such as kidnapping, willful intent, Fraud, false imprisonment, assault, and a litany of other such breaches of law can be casually ignored by apologists who have the audacity to think that this attempt of contrition at will placate the victims of such crimes that have remained denied for decades, not only undermines basic human rights but also erodes the criminal justice system

An “apology” without exposure, redress or accountably for criminal behavior is not only an insult to an established legal system but also opens the opportunity for other types of criminal actively to occur on a grand scale, such as past adoption practices. Crimes can be perpetrated on victims with the knowledge that if you can hide your crimes long enough then you can get away with it.

Such mentality would not appease any other family who has had a child forcibly taken away and hidden from them, and yet mothers affected by the theft of their child for the adoption market are seen as an exception to those protected by Common Law, they are not deemed to have the same avenue to the legal system as any other victim of crime

The forthcoming apology may assist those mothers who felt they may have played some part in the surrender of their child, but will not placate those who know they have been treated unlawfully, and Origins Inc will continue to pursue accountability for those mothers who have been affected by these past unlawful practices either through the criminal justice system or though the Civil Law. (Lily Arthur, Origins, NSW)