Granted the fact that Americans as a general rule, including myself, do not know nearly enough about the world’s largest continent. Saying “Africa” seems to bring to mind stereotypes, prejudices and the original sin of the Constitution, slavery. My generation only mentioned Africa when they wanted to “Feed The World” through music (at Christmas time, of course) and when we crooned “USA for Africa.” Only later did I learn that, no, all Africans did not know it was Christmas- nor did they particularly care- and Ethiopians still experience hunger.

Africa has experienced so much turmoil. The nations of Africa need and deserve strong leadership. But now another African tyrant has emerged. As if Idi Amin wasn’t enough, now the world has Robert Mugabe. Another African problem. I suppose we can easily say that the problems of Africa should be solved by Africa. This makes a lot of sense. The African Union (AU) should take steps to bring peace to this troubled region. And they are, through mediator and South African President Thabo Mbeki. But Mbeki has been sharply criticized for his constant coddling of Mugabe, and the AU fell short of condemning the actions of this mad man. Botswana seems to be the only country saying what everyone around the world is thinking: Mugabe has to go.

Would the United States be hypocritical in making such a bold statement as this? Perhaps. Political critics could point to US associations with Saudi Arabia, China, and numerous third-world countries as relationships that ignore undemocratic political structures as a way to show such hypocrisy. It isn’t as if Mugabe has just recently become an autocrat. His history of political violence goes back to at least 1976. But US foreign policy is complicated, shifting and problematic. We have not lived in a perfect world for a long time. And as long as Congress and Presidents change, policy will change as well. But we should never stand idly by while people are under attack by their own leaders.

Some say violence is not enough. Well, if we need another reason, how about potential US investment being circumvented... does that give the US the reason it needs to take a stand? What about the fact that Mugabe is destabilizing the entire region? We should act. There is something rotten in Zimbabwe.

An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. A very nice sentiment, almost elementary in its meaning. We need to act sooner rather than later. Zimbabweans are asking for US help, and we should give it. Mugabe is killing and raping his opposition. I suppose one could even say he is Saddam Hussein-ing his country. This is unacceptable.

I do not believe that we should enter into another military conflict- two or three at a time, please. But I believe we should take a stand. I am encouraged by the US introduction of UN sanctions. I hope the world takes notice. And I hope we maintain our resolve.

While numerous pop stars joining together in a remarkable attempt in the 1980s by recording songs to help those in need in Africa was encouraging, such actions today would be ridiculous. While it may have helped for a nano-second, music did not not stop hunger in Ethiopia. Music can only go so far. Perhaps that is why there have been no songs for Darfur, Congo and other troubled spots in Africa… or the world, for that matter. Singing is not enough. Let’s at least take a strong stand and tell the world that we believe Zimbabweans deserve a life free of Mugabe. And then ACT responsibly.

Historical figures are positioned as the heroes of individual states and peoples, with their decisions laid out in front of them through historical text and image as being super-human, knowing what to do in the correct way at the correct time. This is definitely true of World War II. Hitler acted, we reacted. Japan attacked us, we defended ourselves. We really did not have a choice. Well, we did have a choice; fight to save freedom and democracy or die in a tumult of fascist folderol. It really was that simple, we are told.

Of course, that ignores the other lesson history tells us; rarely is anything what it seems. In his book, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, Nicholson Baker brings the pacifist movement of WWII to life, chronicling the steps of leaders, observers, victims, reporters, war hawks and doves on the road leading to United States entrance of the war. It complicates the collusion of the Allied force’s real desire to enter a larger conflict and personalizes individual hatreds toward others who disagree or are different from power. The book reveals a reality of those who sought peace while bullets and bombs were exploding around them.

These stories are not found in a high school textbook.

The fact that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had a deep animosity toward Jews is disconcerting to me. Like most Americans, I feel leaders should be above such pettiness and ridiculousness. As a result, I expect my leaders to be more-than-human. This is an unfair expectation, since it is the very humanness of individuals that makes them good leaders. But the dislike of an individual because of their ethnicity is, in a very real sense, immoral. These immoral beliefs are, at least for me, ameliorated by the fact that the United States, along with its allies, stopped the genocide of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and countless others being eliminated by the German war machine. One question remains, however. If Hitler had not threatened our interests, would we have acted?

The bombing of Pearl Harbor is disconcerting. It seems that the only way Roosevelt could have taunted Japan more would have been to stick his tongue out and thumb his nose at them. The tenuous relationship between China and the United States at the time was apparently used to taunt Japan to attack. Constant communications, arms sales and military exercises occurred directly in front of Japan. Journalist Edgar Mowrer learned, in his capacity as a spy, that Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor were well known. This information was handed to the military. Yet still our fleet stayed in Hawaii. Was Japan a threat? Definitely. But to sacrifice people simply so we can “defend” ourselves seems monstrous. But don’t worry… we Americans will not respond with anger. After all, we won the war. All else is theater.

Winston Churchill is a man I have known little about. After reading this book, Churchill is not an individual I want to spend much time learning about. This gnomish, little man may in fact have been gifted at oratory and stirring the masses. His intelligence may have indeed helped to defeat a horrific enemy. But Churchill constantly preached the civilized mentality of the Allies and the barbarism of the Axis. His exploration of using biological and chemical warfare despite the atrocities experienced in the first World War is itself barbaric. Targeting German civilians in order to punish attacks upon the British may have been an effective military strategy, but then again, at what cost? And don’t try to tell me that his actions were based upon humanity, at least other than the humanity of Allies’ civilians. Jews were being deported for years, seeking refuge from strangers. Strangers are all Jews found as they traveled around the world seeking a safe haven, only to be constantly turned away. Blockades that stopped food… and only food… from reaching those who were being savaged and persecuted by the Nazis were maintained with a death-grip by Churchill, despite requests from former president Hoover and countless others to allow the hungry to eat. When Churchill addressed Congress after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, is lessened by hypocrisy. On one hand he tells the American public that

“Twice in a single generation the catastrophe of world war has fallen upon us; twice in our lifetime has the long arm of fate reached across the ocean to bring the United States into the forefront of the battle. If we had kept together after the last War, if we had taken common measures for our safety, this renewal of the curse need never have fallen upon us.”

But when it came to acting in a civilized manner toward innocent civilians, Churchill made this statement after Germany attacked Russia:

“England would, [Churchill] said, bomb Germany by day as well as by night, ‘making the German people taste and gulp each month a sharper dose of the miseries they have showered upon mankind.’” (Baker, 345).

He said “people,” not Nazis. Now, if Hitler really was a tyrant, which he was, how were the people of Germany to fight such power? Many Germans were victims as well, making selfish decisions in order to save themselves as well those they loved. They were manipulated and many made poor, even evil, decisions. But did those same citizens attack Russia? England? Poland? Some say they did so tacitly, by not stopping Hitler and his minions. But do we punish a mother whose son has committed murder? No. If anything, we pity her.

Perhaps Churchill tired of civilization in the name of victory. Perhaps this was the only way to win the war. Indeed Hitler was a tyrant of the highest degree. But today we see that war has not ended, peace has not been achieved, and tolerance has not been embraced. The victory was momentary. Was Churchill more of an opportunist that a statesman? Time, as always, is telling the tale.

I understand that it is easy to judge actions after the fact. I further understand that this book has its own agenda. But the edict of learning from history or being doomed to repeat the same mistakes can only be true if we learn all of history, not just a glossy, well-edited version by the conquerors.

Perhaps Thomas Paine put it best when he said, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” Words to ruminate upon.