I’ve been doing some thinking lately, specifically regarding Tucker Carleson’s recent claims and beliefs regarding the ‘sinful’ nature of our country’s conduct around WW2 and since. I don’t want to make this about Tucker. I don’t share his opinion regarding the “rightness” of some of the US’s actions during war, nor do I think that doing specific harm on a large scale is “evil” unless the context is evil (as in, dropping the A-bomb, firebombing on a large scale) unless the aims are evil (rounding up and exterminating populations of people). That said, I think he’s put a finger on something that IS a problem with the psyche of America post-WW2: How do we recon our ability/necessity with waging destruction on a large scale with the inherent morality of collateral damage on a large scale baked in?
While thinking about this, it occurred to me that the fictional hero that resonated with the American public changed after WW2. Gone fairly quickly was the “white hat” cowboy or lawman personified in John Wayne, in came “the man with no name” and Dirty Harry. Characters who were definitely not “good” people, but people who were willing to do bad things for the sake of good. Yes, the Duke would play similar characters later in his career, but him and his contemporaries were basically playing pure good-pure evil prior to WW2 with no nuance. The explosion of the anti-hero after WW2 makes me wonder: was this a reaction to our own feelings of guilt over winning the right war the wrong way? Have we now and since looked at ourselves as a nation as a bad actor with good motives? Ever since this occurred to me I haven’t shaken this idea that we are all still struggling with the dichotomy of trying to be good, but sometimes having to do bad things for the sake of good.
If you look at the modern conception of this, look at the MCU. There is one supposedly “pure American” embodied in Captain America, but he’s perceived as being naïve to Stark’s practical, pragmatic good guy. Many drama’s have to have a hero with major skeletons in their closet. Anything with a pure hero protagonist is viewed as childish or corny.
Now, life is more complex than “good guy/bad guy”, but it does seem that the hero myths a society adopts is reflective of its deeper culture.
Probably should have dropped this in 486’s I hate thinking thread.
While thinking about this, it occurred to me that the fictional hero that resonated with the American public changed after WW2. Gone fairly quickly was the “white hat” cowboy or lawman personified in John Wayne, in came “the man with no name” and Dirty Harry. Characters who were definitely not “good” people, but people who were willing to do bad things for the sake of good. Yes, the Duke would play similar characters later in his career, but him and his contemporaries were basically playing pure good-pure evil prior to WW2 with no nuance. The explosion of the anti-hero after WW2 makes me wonder: was this a reaction to our own feelings of guilt over winning the right war the wrong way? Have we now and since looked at ourselves as a nation as a bad actor with good motives? Ever since this occurred to me I haven’t shaken this idea that we are all still struggling with the dichotomy of trying to be good, but sometimes having to do bad things for the sake of good.
If you look at the modern conception of this, look at the MCU. There is one supposedly “pure American” embodied in Captain America, but he’s perceived as being naïve to Stark’s practical, pragmatic good guy. Many drama’s have to have a hero with major skeletons in their closet. Anything with a pure hero protagonist is viewed as childish or corny.
Now, life is more complex than “good guy/bad guy”, but it does seem that the hero myths a society adopts is reflective of its deeper culture.
Probably should have dropped this in 486’s I hate thinking thread.
![[486]](https://data.irate4x4.com/avatars/m/0/94.jpg?1700178133){kind=avatar}
