As we celebrate Christmas 2010, 100,000 US troops languish in Afghanistan, and Bradley Manning sits in “maximum custody” in Quantico for the alleged crime of disclosing classified “secrets” about US foreign policy – “secrets” like the video of US troops killing two Reuters employees in Iraq, a video that the US military refused to release to Reuters.
It is a particular stain on our country to be at war during the Season of Peace, just as it is a particular stain on our country to be at war during the Olympics. “Peace on Earth” should stick in our throats a bit this holiday season, when our own government is bombing other people’s countries, a practice which we have, so far, been unable to stop.
The idea that there is something especially offensive about prosecuting war during Christmas is longstanding. On December 7, 1914, Pope Benedict XV called for an official Christmas truce in the war in Europe, “that the guns may fall silent at least upon the night the angels sang.”
The pope’s call was rejected by the warring governments, and two words he used suggest a reason: “at least.” The pope’s remarks strongly suggested that he objected to the slaughter on the other 364 days as well. And so, the generals may have argued, it was a slippery slope. Allow the troops to have a Christmas holiday from killing each other and they might begin to get even funnier ideas. Next they’ll be demanding Easter, then Yom Kippur and Eid al-Fitr. Soon you won’t be able to have a war on any day of the year. So, there was no official truce.
Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates.
However, in what was arguably one of the most morally compelling acts of spontaneous mass civil disobedience in recorded human history, German and British troops took matters into their own hands, negotiating their own Christmas cease-fires in their opposing trenches on the Western Front, exchanging Christmas carols and gifts and even playing soccer. The story is told in the 2005 movie, “Joyeux Noel” (“Merry Christmas”), which was nominated for an Academy Award for best foreign-language film in 2006. It would be a significant advance in human civilization if this movie would take its rightful place alongside “Miracle on 34th Street” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” as standard Christmas fare.
It’s particularly appropriate to reflect on this history now, as TV talking heads repeatedly pontificate without a shred of evidence that the WikiLeaks disclosures “threaten our national security,” because in its time, as Stanley Weintraub reported in his 2001 book “Silent Night: The Remarkable Christmas Truce of 1914,” not only was the Christmas truce considered a threat to “national security” in the warring countries; even the knowledge that it had taken place was initially suppressed. The New York Times finally broke the press blockade on December 31, 1914, after which the British press followed suit.
Doesn’t it seem ridiculous today that news media initially tried to suppress reports about the Christmas truce of 1914, apparently in the belief that such information was a “threat to national security”?
Won’t it seem ridiculous someday that people who knew better once claimed that WikiLeaks was a “threat to our national security,” and were taken seriously?
How long do you suppose that will take to occur?
A belated Merry Christmas. Let there be peace on earth.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 5 days to add 340 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.