Yee-haw. Welcome back to the final instalment of A Tip From Nick. Today finally brought with it great weather and lots of sunshine, something that was in dire need for many students. I spent as much time as possible outside to soak up some Vitamin D! Today in class we began watching ‘American Sniper’, a war film by Clint Eastwood that follows the life of US Sniper Chris Kyle. The movie is interesting in its portrayal of Post 9/11 war, specifically I find in the way the enemy is portrayed. However, thats not what I want to talk about in this blog. Instead, I want to bring attention to one of my favourite quotes from the film.

While in a bar, Kyle approaches a woman, who makes the mistake of claiming a ‘Texan’ and a ‘Redneck’ were the same thing. Kyle wittily replies with “Texan’s ride horses, Redneck’s ride their cousins.”. An incest joke, yes, but wait. What makes Kyle so insistent that a Texan is separate from a group of people associated entirely with the Southern United States?

I immediately thought of the phrase ‘everything’s bigger in Texas’, a line that many Texans hold dear to. It seems Texas, in its size and grandeur, has created occupants that find themselves mighty important. The mentality that Texas is different, and not only different but superior was seen as early as the Civil War, and as of the late 90’s has revived itself within the Texan population. In fact, in 2016 we saw the Texas government just barely avoid a resolution for a secession from the United States.

It seems that Confederate blood still runs strong within its borders. After all, it was the outcome of the Civil War which first created the desire to secede. Texas, a strong believer in confederate Ideals, remained rebellious even after the war, going as far as to refuge wanted confederate war criminals. Since then, it has shaped itself into a self proclaimed ‘Cowboy State’, creating images such as the ‘Texas Ranger’, often pictured in solitude. While the Civil War is long gone, as with it the majority of the support for secession, there is still a surprisingly large group of people who believe Texas should be its own independent entity. This is prevalent in a slogan first coined in the late 1990’s in tourist advertisements: “Texas. It’s basically its own country”. Much like Quebec, those for secession in Texas are angered by old wounds. Confederate thinking is still rampant in some parts of Texas, and if it isn’t explicitly present, it makes itself known in the way which Texan’s view themselves as ‘separate’ from the rest of America.

American Sniper portray’s Chris Kyle as this type of Texan; one that, while patriotic, holds Texas above everything else. In a scene in which Kyle’s living quarters in Iraq is shown, a large Texas flag is hung over his bed. While he fights for America, and aligns himself with its ideals entirely, it is clear that his Texan roots make him consider himself unique from the other Americans around him.

Hey everyone, and welcome back to another Tip from Nick.

As Professor Luger said at the beginning of this week, we have hit the ‘home stretch’. Lots of essay’s, midterms, and studying… you name it, its been piled up at our doorstep. The sun will soon be shining and it will be beautiful outside; allow yourself some breaks from writing to explore the beautiful Vancouver springtime, it will help tremendously with your mental state.

This week we have been covering a paper written by Alie Bedhad, titled “Critical Historicism”. In his writing, Alie mentions a term he calls ‘historical amnesia’, something that is prevalent in the United States but that also happens in many Western countries. Bedhad finds that historical amnesia is “a cultural form of repudiation that works through projection and denial.” (Bedhad 290). Alie is writing predominantly in the context of immigration and middle eastern treatment within the United States, however, I was inspired to find other cases in the history which mimic the idea of historical amnesia.

The first thing that came to mind was genocide. Specifically, the Cambodian genocide. I write about the Cambodian Genocide not because it is not known now, or similarly because it is isn’t seen as genocide by people today. What made me think primarily about the Cambodian genocide was how western academics and political officials responded to the stories and events surrounding the atrocities. But first, a little background into the genocide itself.

The Cambodian genocide occured during the mid 1970’s, when a communist faction that called themselves the ‘Khmer Rouge’ took power and ordered the immediate evacuation of all major cities. A strict and viciously violent government had taken control, and immediately began to kill anyone who was either:

a) already educated. this included anyone in the health and social realm (doctors, lawyers) as well as students, and, most shockingly, anyone who wore glasses.

b) against the Khmer Rouge in any way. There was virtual no room for any kind of protest against the orders of this government. It was follow the rules or be killed.

c) Someone from within a city. Although these people were not explicitly killed, many were moved to settlements which were essentially prison camps with gruelling amounts of hard labour which eventually lead to death.

The Khmer Rouge kept extremely strict control over media; both incoming and outgoing, and as a result only refugees escaping Cambodia and the official(but obviously biased) Khmer Rouge news source were the only indication of the ongoings of the country. The refugees, to no shock, did all they could to spread information and stories of the horrors they saw. It is the response of Western academia which shocked me the most.

Despite many first hand accounts by refugees as well as journalists who had seen the first days of Khmer Rouge rule before their expulsion, Most Western scholars disregarded, did not believe ,or were highly skeptical of a genocide occurring within Cambodia. In fact, many instead found that the Khmer Rouge would bring good to the country; that the Khmer Rouge was the answer to the poverty and instability tarnishing Cambodia after the Vietnam War. Those that were against American involvement in the containment of Communism worried it would negate their arguments, and as such vehemently denied that a genocide was taking place.

Even after a book released by John Barron and Anthony Paul, which gathered first hand reports from refugees, estimated that a whopping 1.5-3 million people had been killed by the hands of the Khmer Rouge, there was still much pushback to the idea of a genocide. In fact, this even went to a hearing at the United States National congress, in which a scholar who specialized in Cambodia was quoted to have said, “I cannot accept the premise … that 1 million people have been murdered systematically or that the Government of Cambodia is systematically slaughtering its people.”.

Today, photographic evidence, as well as recovered burial grounds and testimonies by both witnesses and Khmer Rouge members, have aided in the truth behind the Cambodian genocide to finally come out. However, there is still a disparity as to the true death toll; more-so, a belief that the original counts of at least 1.5 million killed were highly exaggerated.

This denial of the Cambodian genocide by scholars in both the United States and Europe is a prime example to the repudiation element of Behdads’ definition of historical amnesia. Be it through sheer disbelief of the tragic events, or from strategic denial to fit in with an agenda, the fact that the Cambodian genocide came incredibly close to being written out of history is frankly terrifying. Do we aim to write history as we want to remember it? Do we chose what and what didn’t happen, based on what works with our current ideologies? The answer should be no, but with the power of the nation to systematically erase an event from history, be it intentionally or not, I fear for the history books of the future.