Winter Soldier and the Question of Freedom
I am not particularly a Marvel fan, but have always been a Captain America fan; because I’m an American, and it is the right thing to do. I went to the movie with the simple plan to see ol’ Cap punch people really hard and throw his shield around. If you are interested in my idea of the movie, the eleven-year-old who lives inside of me, and who is also very excited for Godzilla and the TMNT (but is disappointed Megan Fox isn’t a redhead), loved the movie. The adult and veteran in me was impressed by the method in which the question of freedom was asked and addressed.
No spoilers here, unless you have yet to see the trailer, in that case–your bad.
The biggest threat in the movie which Captain America needs to address is a program which SHIELD is putting into place, where perceived threats to American security are taken out before they ever act.
Captain’s immediate response was, “I thought the punishment usually came after the crime,” and “This isn’t freedom.”
This is to show the difference between these two ideologies: the Captain’s, who believes in the freedom to live our lives as we choose, and Shield’s, who wants everyone to live in safety and security. Both are founded in merit, but SHIELD is missing an essential point, or they understand it better than many are uncomfortable to admit. Freedom comes with responsibility, more freedom means more responsibility. Every time we ask someone to take care of something for us, we relinquish our decision making power regarding that something, in favor of reduced responsibility: less freedom, less responsibility. However, many people don’t want freedom, they want safety. There is a Benjamin Franklin quote about that.
It isn’t hard for any one of us to see the little points where we have allowed this to happen in our own lives. The big government example being the Patriot act. We have given up privacy in favor of security. The corporate example is similar. We give Facebook and Google that same privacy in favor of the ability to utilize their platforms.
Many people simply don’t mind, or are ignorant. Either way, they have consciously, and many times happily, foregone their freedoms in favor of personal security. This has allowed many to go about their lives, with one, or many less things to worry about.
But, as the Captain said, “This isn’t freedom.” Freedom comes with inherent responsibility, and with that responsibility there exists an assumption of risk. Whether it be the freedom of speech or the second amendment, these freedoms come with an unspoken responsibility. These are responsibilities that, for many, are too great a burden to bear. This is also a part of freedom: the ability to choose to exercise the individual freedoms available. You can speak, but will you? You can choose to defend yourself and others, but will you? Each has an inherent cost and a benefit.
In the end, the battles we fight every day aren’t nearly as exciting as the one Captain America and his friends had to deal with. But this is Hollywood, and who else is going to entertain our inner eleven-year-olds. Our battles are small, but no less important. We also have to understand that Scarlett Johansson, who is probably a really nice person, isn’t going to come save us.
Category: Politics
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
RangerX…couldn’t have said it better brother. Thank you.
There is a meme floating around Facebook about that, comparing Franklin and Obama.
Those who would give up essential liberty, if Scarlett Johansson would come rescue us, is me.
That is all.
Yes and yes.
Add another “Yes!” to that.
rgr1480
Yes please! 😉
Over
Not all my Liberty – but I’d let her tie me up for a while.
If Megan Fox was a redhead (and had two brain cells to rub together) she could be Mary Jane. As is, I would INVENT situations to be rescued from by ScarJo (as a redhead.) It ain’t a question of freedom in that case!
Megan Fox knows better than to get involved in the Spiderman franchise.
From the few interviews I have been unlucky enough to witness, she doesn’t even know how to SPELL Spiderman. She and Shia LeBeef are a match made in dumb-as-a-post heaven.
David…Thank you. I like seeing some of the movie folks…until they open their pie holes and show how completely stupid they are, on about any subject except their next photo op. I think, wow what a beautiful woman, then “it” speaks. Man do I get disappointed at the lack of sentence structure, pronunciation of common words and general lack of knowledge or caring to know, about anything, besides their next opportunity at some serious “mirror time”. Wow do they love themselves or what!!!???
My mother told me as a teenager, “son, find and marry your intellectual equal, looks will not last and when you’re old you don’t want to be chained to a stupid woman”. I kept that in mind all my life and every woman I have ever had interest in was number 1, as smart or smarter than me (most smarter…far more entertaining I found). I was never disappointed with momma’s advice. That is why I like all the TAH ladies. They ALL have brains and use them very well. They are “my kind of women”.
Adam Fenner…Growing up in the “Silver Age” of comics I was a DC Comics fan all the way. Captain America was the only Marvel I read because I loved the military and he exemplified the best of our nation to me. I mean when it comes down to it though…who can beat Superman, eh?
By the way I still have all those old comics in individual plastic bags in a big box. Maybe someday they’ll be worth something.
On the subject of Megans…Megyn Kelly, blonde, redhead, brunette or bald as a billiard is my idea if a GOOD time! Too hot to touch that! I’m all hot now! “Ya cain’t touch dis”.
I think it’s important to point out that the context in which Franklin first delivered that observation was in a discussion about the ability of a decentralized body of people to protect themselves from the ‘bad element’ of his day. It’s easily accepted that Franklin’s point was that the colonist’s local government should provide for their own vigorous defense rather than depend on the ‘safety’ provided by the Crown. “In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defense, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighboring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insidious Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him;… Read more »
I think you’ve misread Poor Richard there, Jacobite. This is the sentence immediately preceding the famous quote in question (emphasis added):
Franklin goes on to say the following (again, emphasis added) shortly thereafter:
It seems to me that Franklin is saying – quite clearly – that in a free society, personal defense is a personal responsibility; and that it is as a practical matter impossible for government to ensure same without destroying that which makes society free. As you note, he does castigate the Governor for not accepting resources offered to strengthen public safety at the local level. However, the context is in terms of strengthening military forces, presumably in terms of forces available to react to attack. Remember, this statement by Franklin was made during the French and Indian War; here, Franklin’s not talking about street crime, but instead is referring to raiding parties against English frontier settlements by Native American bands backed by the French. And in any case, that secondary point hardly negates his central message that personal security and liberty in a free society is an individual responsibility that cannot effectively be guaranteed by the government.
I should retract what I said about Franklin not championing personal freedom, that was bit too strong, but what I see you, and other well-meaning people doing, is taking pieces of the letter and fitting them into a preconceived mold in order to support a specific idea while ignoring the integrated message.
It’s been my experience that people generally use the famous quote portion of the letter as an excuse for what is essentially an anarchist view of personal freedom. When the letter above is taken as a whole however, it does nothing of the sort, it obviously supports the idea of greater involvement by the governor in helping secure the frontier.
“But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.”
Please don’t mis-interpret my stance on any of it though, my ‘perfect world’ is Michael Z. Williamson’s Freehold, I just don’t think the histrionic fervor that is frequently attached to some of our Founding Father’s utterances is always justified.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Here, from my perspective you’re ignoring the context – both historical and in the document you quote – that clearly shows Franklin’s intent was to say that a free society requires individuals to defend themselves vice depending on government to do so. You’re also IMO ignoring the context provided by the entire rest of Franklin’s life and personal/political philosophy. If anything, he was one of (if not the) most strident proponents of individual liberty and freedom among our Founding Fathers. Only Adams IMO really comes close.
And Adams wasn’t all that big on flouting convention when it came right down to it. After all: which of the two of them wrote “Fart Proudly”? (smile)
Just to be clear, are you basically saying that Franklin’s comment “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
is basically support for anarchy?
I’m phrasing it that way because the point I’ve been trying to make is that Franklin’s comment is not support for anarchy even though many people see it that way, and your saying that you disagree with me.
Again, not trying to be an ass, but from my perspective we’re talking right past each other.
Ooops, forgot to turn off my tag, lol.
Right after 9/11, the Washington Post published a number of cartoons, including a small ink drawing of Captain America on the ground, with two big holes in his shield. He looked big, strong, ragged and stunned, still collecting his wits, and very, very angry.
To me, that sketch captured America at that moment.
Personal freedom is itself a concept worth reams of reams of comment. There is virtually no freedom in schools, below the college level, anyway. Children in a household enjoy few freedoms. So, for the first 17 or 18 years of our lives, freedom is rather unattainable. Thereafter, within a few years, there is military service or the civilian workplace, neither of which allow much personal freedom. And the freedom to contract, to vote, and to enjoy many of the individual rights accorded by the Constitution kick in. How much freedom do we actually have, in reality, versus the freedom ideal we were raised to appreciate? I don’t know–but I appreciate the notion presented in the thread. It’s good food for thought.
2/17 Cav, while I agree in part, I’ll have to dissagree also. As my dad once told me and I now tell my kids when ever one of them say lets vote on it or this is a free country: while we may live in a democratic republic, this house hold is a benevalent dictatorship.
I would also counter that children in some house holds enjoy too much ‘freedom’.
Glad I’m not the only geek here! The only 2 places I’ve seen the term “Winter Soldier” is here and this movie. I’ve looked it up but didn’t get the definition, what does it mean?
I love Captain Hottie, but I’m a Hulk girl at heart.
A quick check of the internet confirmed what I was thinking.
A “winter soldier” is, in essence, a soldier who never stops fighting, no matter how bad it gets. It’s the opposite of what Thomas Paine said with the “Summer Soldier” in “Common Sense”.
And Cap>Hulk, in my humble opinion. Can’t get much better than a ’40’s Super Soldier who just wants to make sure that the American ideals stand. Well done, Marvel, for avoiding liberalism with every turn.
Maybe it’s the whole “redheads have bad tempers” thing that makes me like the hulk a little bit more.
Thanks for the Winter Soldier definition, I hadn’t seen that one. It explains it better than the ones I had come across.
Valkyrie my dear, I just gave a big compliment to you and all the TAH ladies a few comments above. Wanted you to know what I think of all you great ladies here! You’re one of “my gals”, I am PROUD to say.
Sparks – I just read that and wanted to say thank you! Your Momma was a smart lady and raised a bright and polite man. You and a bunch of the other gentlemen here do a service for your gender. Unlike the fools we come here to point and laugh at.
To Valkyrie and all the TAH women…thank you m’ladies! Reading any of your posts always reminds me of my momma’s advice and you ladies never, ever disappoint me when remembering her words.
(sigh) Ah, the youngsters who’ve forgotten their American history – no doubt with the “help” of our “wonderfully apolitical” media.
There’s another definition for “Winter Soldier” – which relates to Vietnam, Kerry, and blue falcon false claims of US “war crimes” as policy.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_%28film%29
The same BS was tried by IVAV a few years ago, in “Winter Solder II”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier:_Iraq_%26_Afghanistan
Both were virtually all BS. And both should NEVER be forgotten – or forgiven.
I learned about that here, actually. I just didn’t think that was relevant as to what Valkyrie was asking.
And you say that while reading TAH – one of whose main purposes is to ensure that vets aren’t abused by those who would portray all vets as a bunch of poor unfortunates so “messed up” by the military and war that we’re completely dysfunctional and untrustworthy.
That’s exactly what the media did after Vietnam, and it’s damn close to happening today with the media harping on the “crazy vet with PTSD” theme at every opportunity. Winter Soldier and crap like it was a big reason why that happened after Vietnam.
You appear rather intelligent. I’d think you should easily see the both connection and its relevance – without someone having to spell it out for you.
Okay, now I’m confused. The title of the movie was referring to the idea of a “Winter Soldier”, a stalwart patriot, wasn’t it? And that’s what Cap was.
Although… The more I think about it, the more this second definition makes sense. The movie showed that the main villains distrusted the military and was certainly looking to discredit the heroes of the film and anyone who disagreed with them… If not kill them.
I can see your point. I’m sorry if I caused offense, in my mind I saw it as I said in the first place: Captain America was a Winter Soldier, as was the rest of his team, and that was that. I never thought that it had anything to do with the left’s distrust with the military until now.
Assuming I didn’t make a false jump with my logic. Either way, sorry for causing offense.
No real offense taken – more surprise than anything. And maybe I was somewhat harsh. But I am old enough to have seen as a youngster how the press demonized those who served in Vietnam – and treated them for years afterwards. It’s not something I ever want to see happen again. So at times I get a bit . . . sharp regarding the subject.
Yes, the title of the recent Captain America film referred to and used the metaphor of a “Winter Soldier” in it’s original context – a heroic figure battling through adversity in a long and difficult struggle.
However, IMO it’s entirely possible that the title was deliberately chosen and that a dual meaning was intended.
The original film using the “Winter Soldier” metaphor was a 1972 so-called “documentary” – which allegedly “documented” the various lies, half-truths, and out-of-context examples and spin provided by Kerry et al in their Vietnam “Winter Soldier” project, presenting those bogus tales as fact. There, the principals were portrayed as “heroic former insiders” defying the “evil authorities” and speaking out to expose/fight wrongdoing by those in power. Does any of that sound familiar? (Disclaimer: I’ve not seen the recent CA film, so maybe I’m off base on the essential plotline. But that’s my understanding of its basic plot in a sentence, with CA effectively playing the part of the “heroic former insider”.)
I do not know if this was an intentional, reasonably subtle ploy on the part of Hollywood or not. But given most of Hollywood’s pronounced leftist bias, I would not put it outside the realm of possibility that the title was intentionally chosen to have a dual meaning – and was also an subtle allusion to the original “Winter Soldier” film, for the express purpose of equating the two.
In the context of what the two of you are discussing, the truth is a combination of what both of you have presented.
The reference to a ‘winter soldier’ as a soldier who fights regardless of the season is accurate, AND, it was a backhanded reference to Paine’s “The American Crisis” made by John Kerry.
As for the movie? The title has nothing to do with that at all, and I’ve read that some on the left who were involved in the 1971 hearings are actually upset at the title because they think it detracts from what Kerry and the other backstabbers attempted at the hearings.
SPOILER ALERT, DON’T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED BY THE MOVIE.
Marvel’s Winter Soldier has been around since long before this movie was even thought of. The character was created in 2005, and is supposed to have been the sidekick of CA, who is found dead by the Russians during WWII and re-animated using comic book tech into a cyborg of sorts.
The Russians keep him in suspended animation for years at a time and only pull him out for the odd ‘impossible’ evil mission, after which they put him back ‘on ice’.
While the character’s creator, Ed Brubaker, admits to having heard of the phrase Winter Soldier in relation to the 1971 hearings, he says his actual inspiration for the characters name was mostly Paine’s “The American Crisis” and how a “….winter soldier is a true soldier for the cause”, and how that would also tie into Russia’s cold winters, and the Cold War. Brubaker thought it was the perfect name for a Captain America villian.
I would posit that all herein qualify as “Winter Soldiers” according to the Thomas Paine definition.
I am proud to be described as such.
Thanks for the spoiler alert! I didn’t read the rest of your comment!
Hondo – Thanks to you and Wanderer for the definitions. I knew there was a “history” with the term due to Jonn writing about an event by the same name. I wanted to know all definitions of the term and it’s history.
I don’t think you guys understand the importance of this blog to someone who has been uninformed or stupid about the history or the day to day operations of this country. I thank you all so much for my “awakening” and continued education!
Well, perhaps I was wrong.
Pity is, what I said above is eminently plausible. And that’s a shame.
If Hollywood wasn’t so “out there” regarding being apologists for all things anti-American, what I suggested above would be so farfetched as to be dismissed out of hand. And it isn’t.
So wait! (I just started reading the links you provided) John Kerry was proven to be a liar many years ago, but still made it into and is currently holding a job in the government? How?! I know he’s a dope but… Maybe this isn’t the place for this, but as I stated below I’ve just in the past year started to get educated on these things. Looks like I’ve got years of research and reading to catch up on.
A quick synopsis: sKerry dropped out of public view for a few years after WS-1 and 1971 Congressional testimony. He then ran for Congress and won. Those *professional lies* he testified to in front of Congress were entered into the offical record but never surfaced because there wasn’t a working internet as we know it. *end
As for the title of this post, I was wary until reading it. Instinct had me thinking it was about the 1971 Winter Crybabies #1 bullshit fiasco, too.
Not to detract from the discussion but in the story Arc, the title of ‘Winter Soldier’ does not refer to Cap. Though the name is because of the first definition given. Would say more but it may/would spoil the movie.
Used to be a pretty big comic geek and the story arc happened as recently in the Vol 5 issues of Cap ( 2005-2009).
Above comment was for Val and others who haven’t watch the movie yet.
Thank you.
A good quote from Samuel Adams on the subject “if you desire wealth greater then liberty, the tranquility of servitude over the animated contest for freedom, then depart from us at once. Bow down and lick the hand that feeds you. We seek neither your arms nor your council, and may prosperity forget we once called you our brethren”
Lol, now THAT one is as direct and unambiguous as a statement can get! Love it.
Other sources give a slightly different version of the Adams quote:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
— John Adams, speech at the State House, Philadelphia, PA, 1 August 1776.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KF0sAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA415#v=onepage&q&f=false
Franklin’s famous quote conveys the same sentiment, but in a more even tempered and diplomatic manner. Adams was known as a bit of a hothead.
That’s probably why Franklin was sent to France to promote the US cause there. (smile)
Smitty…good post. Thank you.
YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!
I presented that quote to my U.S. History students. Maybe someday they’ll understand.
Can we talk more about beautiful women? 😀 I’m feeling a little randy this morning. Preferably smart ones please. I know that just cut the choices down by an order of magnitude but they ARE out there. Megyn Kelly comes to mind.
“In the Spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns…well pretty fancy!”
The difficult part isn’t finding pretty girls. The difficult part is making them go out with you.
*sigh*
This would be a good time/place for HSSophomore to update us about the Starbucks Barista. Make us proud HS!
If you gotta make a girl go out with you, then it isn’t worth it. Just an observation…. 😎