Printable View
So, I'm a pacifist. I was reading an article about our retalitation in Afghanistan, and I was trying to think of a better solution.
I wish we could share the magic of filmmaking with our enemies. Crazy? As crazy as that may sound, it sounds more reasonable to me than retalition, which only seems to give our enemies more reason to believe that we are they're enemy.
Peace,
Madrone
------------------
I think it comes down to the kids.
In our society, our kids get blasted pretty heavily by marketing, commercials, brand names, practically from birth and through the rest of their lives.
Some Adults in this country react to this reality by putting off having kids until they have enough money so they can afford to spend more time with their kids to counteract the constant bombardment of advertising and marketing heaped upon their own children.
Others in our country just pop out kids and don't worry about it, what we have here is better than other parts of the world, why limit how many offspring one has?
But halfway around the world, they teach their kids to "hate America".
Why? If you don't teach the kids to "Hate America", most of the kids over there eventually will choose American Culture over their own culture.
Most cultures tend to want to fight for their own survival. Most cultures do not find it acceptable to lose their own culture to a different culture. I believe the Islamic faith does not see a middle ground of tolerance toward America as being possible.
If they don't teach their kids to hate America, they eventually will lose their kids to the trappings and comforts of the American Society and Values.
The analogy might be the following, would you want to raise your family with a strip club around the corner from your home where your kids play. For the most part, The Islamic faith views America as a strip club.
I don't think the whole world needs to be like America, but in the Middle East, 65% of the population is under 18 years of age, and the adults are in fear they will lose their own children in their own culture to the American way of life.
No matter how much Americans love America, we do use 25% of the worlds resources, yet we only have 5% of the world's population. So our form of capitalism CANNOT work all over the world, there are not enough resources.
So there is the trap. It's all about the kids, and who controls the kids. And if you don't believe that, how would you feel if your own child walked up to you and said at age 5, 8, 11, or 15, "Mom, Dad, your way sucks, I'm choosing another way".
Odds are most parents would feel devastated.
I'm just explaining what the underlying tension probably is.
I don't really have a solution, other than the more efficient we are in the United States with the resources we consume, the less we may be viewed in other parts of the world as a wasteful society filled with debauchery.
And if you respond, "I don't care what they think, they need to leave us alone", just remember, we do use and are addicted to natural resources that make our own economy hum from the very countries who hate us.
------------------
Alex
I think most rational people would choose to uphold western civilization over medieval culture. A free society is better than slavery, reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men and productivity is better economic stagnation.
?
Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition and productive achievement.
This is in dramatic contrast to non western cultures that uphold the enforced subordination of the individual to "god" or "the state", censorship, the supernatural instead of science, faith instead reason, the supremacy of the group, obedience, the subjugation of women and ultimately "sacrifice" and "death" as the standard of value.
You Americans are lucky to live in the free est country in the world and those that sit around singing "Kum Ba Ya" waving peace banners opposing the "war" should realise that if they want the right to sit around and sing, they have to defend it.
Make more movies with screenplays celebrating the virtues of western values,(Freedom, justice, individual rights etc.) then we could indirectly educate those that are living in countries where such rights are currently denied.
[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 10, 2001).]
8th Man, "t.v.'s , v.c.r.'s satalite dishes, video games, computers and anything else that would give them an idea of what they're missing around the world"... Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking of. Like, what is it the terrorist mindset has to offer- matyrhood? in the name of religion? What could we offer that would be more attractive than that?
I do believe in self-defense though. I guess I'm not a pacifist in that regard.
Alex, yeah life as an American. Drugs, sex, rock & roll. That about sums it up for me. Though I suppose I have some intellectual and spiritual pursuits as well...
Its been my observation that a large percentage of the movies made in our country tend to follow a simple bad guy vs. good guy type approach. I think that kind of story tends to spread that type of mentality. I've seen Muslim people on the streets here in NYC cursed at & looked at funny, since Sept. 11th. I just find it sad. People should think before they act. Especially when they're actions may have a negative effect on others. The cycle of violence needs to end somewhere. Why not with us?
I hope that there are more movies made where people are portraid less "one sided/flat". I have bad guys in some of the screenplays I'm writing. But I always strive to give them human qualities that "good" people can relate to- to try and illustrate that the conflict is not always so simple.
Also, I've been wondering if our country would be so quick to attack if it weren't for the economic interests we have in that local. No? Aren't we very dependent on Arab oil? Sorry, I'm not trying to overlook the great injustice of Sept. 11th, and I understand people want justice for that. Am I way off base for thinking our country wants more control over there? I suppose living in NYC for the past few years has given me a bit of a neggative look regarding economics and resources... Really, I haven't lived anywhere that has made me feel so much like, "everyones just out to make a buck".
Peace,
Madrone
------------------
dominic3, why don't you just shut up, or at least remove your head from your ass? how old are you? 16?
let's see how long this thread will live before mike shuts it down. ;-)
/matt
Mattias, you are purposely flaming so Mike will shut the topic down...why?
------------------
Alex
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
dominic3, why don't you just shut up, or at least remove your head from your ass? how old are you? 16?
let's see how long this thread will live before mike shuts it down. ;-)
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have no idea what sent you off, Mattias. I saw nothing that Dominic wrote that was offensive or out of line. I think Alex is right. You are purposely trying to cause a flame out on this thread. More to the point, you aren't racking up any intelligence points by telling someone that talks about freedom to shut up. Or is irony lost on you?
Roger
Hey Madrone,
I think along with the food and medical supplies were dropping on Afghan refugees we should drop t.v.'s , v.c.r.'s satalite dishes, video games, computers and anything else that would give them an idea of what they're missing around the world. Yeah that's right, pro-democracy propaganda.
As for your pacifism, well I can't support you on that.
If a guy broke into your house and threatened your family, offer to show him a movie from your collection in the few minutes after you kick the crap out of him before the police arrive. I don't think terrorists appreciate pacifism enough to stop what they're doing.Hitler didn't stop invading a country just 'cause they said "we give up."
Yeah I know, I brought up Hitler. That's usually done when a guy has run out of ideas to back up an argument, but what're ya gonna do?
------------------
PRM
hmm. well, taking my life into my own hands, as usual, here goes.
(please bear in mind that i can't seem to copy previous messages into this posting, so i shall have to just quote/paraphrase by hand).
1. alex said:
"round the world, people teach their kids to hate america, because if not they will lose them to american culture."
not true. most of those kids are 'lost' already. as an egyptian friend of mine wrote me a few weeks ago: "most arabs love america. what they can't understand is why america doesn't seem to love them back".
2. alex talked about natural resources. natural resources are crucial. central asia is the largest reserve of as yet untapped natural resources left in the world. that is why the US government spent most of the last decade colluding with the taliban, in the hope that they would give the oil pipeline contract to Unocal.
3. dominic said: (i paraphrase) - western society upholds individualism, non-western society depends on the enforced subjugation of the individual.
not true. in most societies, enforced subjugation is a result of force, not culture. at the village level, most non-Western societies that haven't been completely destroyed remain cooperative and community oriented by rational choice, because that is the best way to organise the work that enables them to survive, not because people get beaten if they dont' fit in with the neighbours. the people who are doing the beating tend to be policemen, and other agents of the state, who object to people's picturesque villages and small-scale paddy fields because the government wants to build a motorway or a hotel for Western tourists or an airfield on top of them. and remember, most of those airfields and hotels wouldn't get built without the help of the World Bank and our tax dollars.
in the west, we have a very odd cult of freedom, which makes it very difficult to understand how much we depend upon other things for our survival too: thinks like long-term commitment, loyalty, compromise, and a willingness to put others first. we also tend to forget that these other values actually give us more pleasure than simply pursuing our own private ambitions ever can. the fact that other societies place more emphasis on these other values may not mean they are less free than us: it may just mean that they have a more accurate idea of the conditions in which our limited human freedom can realistically thrive and blossom.
4. Madfor3D said: we should give people more TV sets. what does terrorism have to offer except martyrdom?
see 1 above. these people - save perhaps in afghanistan - have more than enough TV sets already. i don't think anyone is going to give up their culture for baywatch and NFL, if they have the choice.
people don't become terrorists because they suffer from some form of death wish complex. they become terrorists because they live in villages where people are routinely tortured, have their houses burned down, their land confiscated, their way of life destroyed, by governments which are seen to be accepted, if not directly funded, by the US and Europe. Israel's treatment of Palestine and Lebanon is only the most obvious example. you can even be a zionist, and still recognise the gross injustice of much of what has happened there over the last 30 years.
These people also see the Allied armies killing 200,000 mainly innocent people in Iraq in 6 weeks, then blocking the import of essential supplies for almost 10 years, so that more than a million more die of disease, most of them young children. and yet saddam hussein, who most arabs despise for what he did to the iraki people, is still in power.
the same almost anywhere you care to mention. throughout most of the world, america is not a byword for freedom; it is an emblem of raw, irresponsible power.
people envy us our sheer might. but they don't believe we have any lessons to teach them in any other domains than finance and military technology. who knows - they might be right.
---
but what i think is really obscene is the way in which the grief and loss of those whose nearest and dearest were killed on S11 has been instrumentalised by the Bush and Blair regimes as a pretext for this crazy 'war' on terrorism.
on the one hand, we should take a good hard look at our own history, and wonder whether other people who hate us may not have some reason.
on the other hand, we should start trying to get our heads round the fact that whoever was behind this atrocity was extremely intelligent, and extremely well-prepared, and that therefore it is highly likely that they did this, not to 'teach us a lesson', as we are now trying to teach them, but because they wanted to provoke us into just the kind of unfocused, ill-prepared attack which we have just launched out on.
think about it: if you were a terrorist leader, and you wanted to get your hands on pakistan's nuclear bomb, what more could you want than the events of the last week?
the whole point of destroying the twin towers was to goad america into a reaction which would destabilise the whole arab-islamic region. that is what bin laden wants. and our governments are giving it to him. in my book, that means that he just won.
---
i think if we really value freedom and democracy, then instead of blindly supporting our governments as they lead us back into Vietnam or the trenches of Verdun, we should make them stop and tell us, in plain English, exactly what they've been doing to the rest of the world in our name over the last 10, 20, even 50 years. what deals they've been cutting, and what the consequences were for ordinary people, who were just trying to get on with their lives. but of course they won't do that: because they know that most of us would be so ashamed if we knew, that that would be the end of their merry little game.
good luck to you all - we may all need it:
peter
------------------
> I have no idea what sent you off
because i got upset. didn't you notice his dropping of phrases like "virtues of western values." try saying "virtues of ze vaterland" out loud and see how similar it sounds.
> I saw nothing that Dominic wrote that was offensive or out of line.
that tells us more about you than about me, right?
> More to the point, you aren't racking up any intelligence points by telling someone that talks about freedom to shut up.
that would be true had he been talking about freedom. i guess telling a fascist to shut up is even more ironic and stupid though, so i take it back.
whatever, most of you live in a country where it for some reason seems logical to kill a man just to show him and others that it's wrong to kill, so what am i trying to accomplish?
/the anarchist cumbaya singer
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mattias:
"that would be true had he been talking about freedom. i guess telling a fascist to shut up is even more ironic and stupid though, so i take it back".
Mattias - you are so rude and I fear, very ignorant. You have no understanding or appreciation of the VIRTUES of a free society like America. Why don't you go back to socialist Sweden or alternatively go and live in a society that denies individual rights like Cuba or Iraq etc., where you live by permission of the state and your sole purpose of existence is to serve the state - perhaps then you would appreciate your freedom.
For the record, I believe in the absence of physical coercion, where no one , especially the government, has the right to initiate the use of physical force against an individual citizen. I believe in individualism, freedom of expression, the voluntary exchange of value for value for mutual profit (capitalism) and guaranteed individual property rights - since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
I believe that the sole purpose of a government is to protect those rights.
Contrast my values with those of National Socialism, Mattias.
I resent your stupid, offensive accusation aimed at me (and Roger) especially at times like these.
[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 11, 2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
Roger wrote: I saw nothing that Dominic wrote that was offensive or out of line.
Mattias replied: That tells us more about you than about me, right?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, please. Look, Mattias, I know you think putting "New York, NY and Stockholm, Sweden" next to your name is supposed to add a certainly 'worldliness' to your views, but it really doesn't. You are just a simple guy with a simple guy's opinion, no matter where you are sitting at a keyboard. As such, your opinions aren't so much more enlightend or sophisticated that you can afford to tell anyone else to shut up. It's just that simple.
Beyond that, your attempts to justify your actions based on something that you can't even begin to prove about Dominic are the very foundation of the fascist belief that you condemn. You proceed with persecution with no evidence other than a divine instinct that you are correct and that your opponents are wrong and should be restrained and controlled in their actions because you don't agree with them. If that isn't facism, then I don't know what is. Personally, I think you owe Dominic an apology, even if you don't agree with him.
Roger
Everyone seems to have strong opinions. That's what I'd expect from filmmakers. But lets discuss them in a civilized manner, no?
I think the discussions on the forum tend to be mostly technical. There are a lot of things to think about regarding filmmaking that aren't technical per se.
Another sad thing about this tragedy, holy war, is that someday Hollywood will probably make a movie about it staring Matt Dameon or something... I hope not.
Peace,
Madrone
------------------
I viewed this topic post as a "script premise".
My original response was to give a possible bigger picture explanation as it related to your original topic premise.
I believe Islamic teachings don't really like Movies because they can't control what the eyes are seeing.
I can respect that. Parents in this country worry about the exact same thing.
And this country, in the name of "freedom", has allowed marketing to kids, with an occasional boundary added, but only after intense protestations.
Perhaps documentaries on how people in the Afghanistan can survive by living on a mountain top are would be the best purpose of a film or video exchange.
I'm pretty blown away that people can survive by living in mountainous regions and lead a fulfilling life.
And I respect them a hell of lot for that, uh not the terroists, but the vast majority of people who live in that region.
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 11, 2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Perhaps documentaries on how people in the Afghanistan can survive by living on a mountain top are would be the best purpose of a film or video exchange.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now that would be interesting...and, to dare to bring this back to S8 topics...I wonder if there are any S8 filmmakers in that region...
------------------
Uh, guys, maybe we should stick to talks of Super-8 filmmaking on this board and leave the political ramifications of what happened on 9/11 to some other board...
------------------
I must say that i am very surprised with many of the things said here, the most moderate i found was alex's. Film-making for peace is an erroneous venture for many reasons, one of which is subjectivity. American views of other cultures are very u.s.a orientated. This can be seen in the clusters of rubbish being produced in hollywood, most of which i am positive the CIA helped write. Australians, and many other cultures, view such films as nauseating, not only for the terrible scripts, but also the obscene waste of money. Imagine how a person would feel watching this crud, when their life and happiness is controlled largely by the people who finance such films? There are super 8 and other medium film-makers in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and most countries in Africa. One reason we see little of their work is because westerners consider anything produced by "religous fanatics" to be propagandist drivle controlled by anti-democratic movements. For the same reason people in the middle east have little tolerance for anything produced by "american democracy fanatics" full of anti-non christian propagandist drivle. The best thing film-makers in both countries can do is accept that every film is subjective to what the writer, director, and producer feels.
I would have loved to have argued with almost everyone in this post, but the length would have been too much and off the subject. Support diversity in global Film-making by asking web pages to enable foreign film and language downloads. language surely does'nt restrict film?
------------------
I believe India makes somewhere around a 1,000 feature films a year. For a while, in the 70's, I think they made more feature films per year than the USA.
Our Media tends to be proud of what we export,
proudly exhorting how popular our shows are worldwide.
Somehow, the same Media finds very little room to import shows and movies from other lands.
But then again, where we would find the room to put such movies, we'd have to bump such classic American fare as Survivor, The Mole, SPY TV, Big Bother, Temptation Island, Elimidate-DELUXE!, The Great Amazing Race, and about ten other reality shows I don't feel like looking up in the TV Guide.
Perhaps our shit doesn't stink because we're too busy flinging it far and wide.
I wonder if anyone left Canon 1014's in Afghanistan after being brought their by our military and for documentary news shows in the 80's?
------------------
Alex
i think there are two wonderful ideas there:
1. taking super 8 cameras to film what is going on in the rest of the world. i recently learned from an interview in a french magazine, that k40 was the film stock of choice during the decolonisation period for european film makers filming wars of independence from the side of the african nations, because the governments assumed it as an 'amateur' medium (even in 16mm), and you didn't have to put your name on the mailer, just an address. so the chances of having your films confiscated by the lab was much lower.
(apparently in the late 50s, france and england had a mutual agreement: england would confiscate any algerian neg footage sent for developing in london; france would confiscate any neg footage concerning cyprus sent to paris).
2. i never thought about the afghan super 8 scene. if we want to do something for peace and mutual understanding, maybe there is some way to get super 8 movies made in central asia by local people out, and organise showings in the west?
if anyone has any information or leads that could help put something together along these lines, i'd be very interested to try and set something up. if so, please post here, or e-mail me off list.
------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr Blackstock: There are super 8 and other medium film-makers in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and most countries in Africa.One reason we see little of their work is because westerners consider anything produced by "religous fanatics" to be propagandist drivle controlled by anti-democratic movements".
Mr Blackstock, another reason is that governments of the countries you mention censor and punish criticism and political insubordination - there is NO freedom of expression in the countries you list. Imagine a woman living in Afgahinistan or Iraq or Cuba who decides that she wants to make a personal super 8 movie and not adopt the government line, what chance does she have or anyone else for that matter within that country to express themselves creatively using the medium of film? She'd be lucky if she just ends up in prison.
Surely Mr Blackstock you do not support goverment oppression denying individuals the right of freedom of speech & expression?
I think most people on this list would eagerly support seeing genuinely independent super 8 films produced from the countries you mention, however ,I am sure they would draw the line at wanting to watch state "sponsored" propaganda (in the same way that watching a current western government TV commercial is of no value).
------------------
yes, but the censorship has nothing to do with god and irrationality (see your previous post), and everything to do with an apparatus of government inherited from the colonial period, and techniques of civilian repression fomented and supported by the KGB and the CIA as they fought their proxy wars.
name me a state anywhere which gives free air time to people who say: the state should be overthrown.
most states exist on a constant war footing towards their own people, who are generally not very happy to be governed. the exception to this is the west, where we are so used to not taking decisions for ourselves, we presume to call ourselves a democracy.
if you think censorship doesn't exist in the UK, then you should read the latest prevention of terrorism act.
just some more ideas for that film alex is going to make...:-)
peter
------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
[B]yes, but the censorship has nothing to do with god and irrationality"
You think so Peter - this is a quote from the Koran:
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell". The Koran
Redrice said,"name me a state anywhere which gives free air time to people who say: the state should be overthrown".
I don't know what you mean by "free air time", however in America and Britain you are free to say and publish what ever you like. Our Universities are full of professors of philosophy who advocate such repressive systems as Marxism and yet they are not imprisoned, they are entitled to their view. We have numerous political organizations, even racist groups,however wicked, that are entitled to their own free speach.
Redrice said,"if you think censorship doesn't exist in the UK, then you should read the latest prevention of terrorism act".
The act was established to prevent those who believe it is morally acceptable to INITIATE the use of force against innocent people - what ever the motive. In a free society it is the purpose of government to protect the right to life of a country's citizens by placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.
I agree, Britain is not quite as "free" as I would like. Britain's current Government under Blair has recently agreed,(amongst other things), to a European Union wide telephone tapping/email monitoring policy in line with the new direction Britain is heading with the EU. I would much prefer to live in the USA again.
[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 12, 2001).]
dominic: thank you for the quote from the koran, describing so many familiar scenes from hiroshima, vietnam, the gulf war, etc.
there are also some pretty unpleasant passages in the films of arnold schwarzenegger: i wonder what arabs think of us when they see them? and remember, in the 'free world', going to the cinema isn't a religious duty for which you can be publicly whipped if you fail to turn up: it's what we do for 'entertainment'...
of course, the koran can be used to justify almost anything, rather like the bible, das kapital or the declaration of independence. marx would have been horrified by stalin, as christ would have been by george bush sr and jr. even people with the most beautifully-phrased values are capable of mass murder. but my point was that, in the present case, the limits on freedom of expression in most so-called 'muslim' countries are there because their ruling elites are corrupt westernised profiteers who want to keep the people down, not because they are religious bigots.
if everything was really as black and white as you say, how do you explain that the only country in the middle east which has made any progress towards democracy and pluralism over the last 10 years is iran? while all the arab/islamic countries which receive substantial US military and development aid remain police states where the president is elected with 98% of the vote?
it is probably not a coincidence that iran is also the only country in the region to have produced an entire new generation of film makers since the 1980s who are making serious movies, not just ideological/commercial trash. they are also making films which as well as being independent in thought and aesthetics, are precisely the kind of thing a US or European director would find it nigh on impossible to finance.
the egyptian cinema, meanwhile, has been completely corrupted by oil money since it was taken over by gulf financiers at around the same time. and as for syria...
but i digress:
in the middle ages, we used christianity as a pretext to make war on others. now we do it in the name of human rights. the rhetoric has changed, but the procedure remains the same.
we've already killed over a million people, the vast majority of them innocent, defending the little tin-pot caudillos of kuwait. meanwhile, saddam hussein is still in power, and the marsh arabs - one of te oldest civilisations in the world, who you may remember we were meant to be protecting from the air - have been exterminated and their homelands completely drained. there are a lot of people who hold all of that against us. i think that's quite comprehensible. but we still seem to think that as long as we talk about 'freedom' while we drop the bombs, everyone will love us and want to be like us. and it's that conviction - that our civilisation is so inevitably, irreversibly, morally superior to all others, that we can (literally) get away with murder - that is going to be our downfall.
'religion' is not the only religion.
peter
------------------
The Apple
is an Iranian film, made by a 17 year old girl on Video, 16mm and probably super8 too.
Its brilliant too. Came out about a year ago.
Has nothing to do with war, but IS about a uneducated, innocent, confused and deeply religious man who quotes the Koran to explain every aspect of his life.
He trusts it implicitly and yet has a terrible life and he mistreats his daughters by locking them up. He rarely leaves his home, and lives in almost squallor. He doesnt understand that what he does is wrong, and it IS wrong to lock up 2 young girls. (its a documentary by the way.)
------------------
also, the films of abbas kiarostami, especially his early work, when he was working as a film maker in the tehran education institute, making films with young children.
but there are also the films of mohsen makhmalbouf, his daughter samira, jafar panahi, and the documentaries of ebrahim moktari. and these people have many students who are just beginning to make features now.
it's an amazing renaissance. there's nothing like it at all anywhere in the arab world. in fact, there's nothing like it in europe either.
peter
------------------
MATTIAS I AGREE WITH 100%
Dominic3 - last I checked America was founded on slavery, has not paid its 40acre and a mule, alost succesfuly vanished hundreds of different aborigines in the name of 'Manifest Destiny,' blacklisted countless intellectuals and thinkers for expressing their political views, drags a black man's body and can be found innocent of any crimes, supports countless dictators, sells drugs to support foreign wars, did not pay its UN fees (half a billion dollars) until the September attack in order to gather international support for its new war, assasinates its own presidents, fought in a war in order to protect against the spread of 'communism' or should i say to guarantee that Godfather II is available in Southeast Asia, trained the many of the Talibans and other Muslim radicals, gives R rating for getting your head blown off but XXX for a blow job, blah, blah, blah...
BUT I ALSO know
America is first in using its force to protect small countries, opens its borders to immigrants, has a flourishing art culture, elects woman to office, has vertical mobility in the socio-economic ladder, invented the internet, invented 'movies,' balh, blah, blah
Nothing is BLACK and WHITE!! NOthing.
I enjoy my freedom and values but not in the name of turning a blind eye to the past, present and future.
BTW -
------------------
I was gone all day, did I miss anything?
------------------
Alex
Peter,
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
"if everything was really as black and white as you say, how do you explain that the only country in the middle east which has made any progress towards democracy and pluralism over the last 10 years is iran?"
In May of this year, in Teheran,Iran, an amalgam of the world's foremost terrorist groups met (under the supervision of the government of Iran) and resolved to unite against America, declaring a ?holy war? against America, Israel and western values. The same type of irrefutable evidence exists against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan and the PLO.
I would not describe this as "progress".
I do accept however, that there are people in Iran who do not support such action and who would love the freedom to make independent films.
------------------
dominic:
i think it's very nice of these terrorist groups to tell us that they are declaring a holy war against the US, then do so little for so long.
we - i.e. the US and its poodle, my country, the UK - led the people of irak to believe that we were going to set them free of saddam - the kurds rose up, and were slaughtered, on that understanding, while we stood by and watched. then we proceeded to massacre the civilian population of the country on the pretext that this was the only way of preventing saddam from rearming: having bombed their civil infrastructure to pieces, we proceeded to forbid them to import such 'dangerous' military supplies as water purification equipment.
i guess it all depends on how you like your mass murderers: with hypocrisy, or without.
apparently, tho, someone did make a movie about this. by john gianvito:
http://www.geraldpeary.com/festivals/taos_2001.html
peter
------------------
Well, first of all America was not "founded" on slavery.
Just because something happened, does not mean it is the absolute "founding" of the country. This comes from the false ideas that:
1. All white people 150 years ago were rich enough to have slaves.
2. That everything that private citizens of a country do, is somehow considered to be "official government policy", simply because the government went a certain amount of time without stopping it.
(Remember, the US governemnt DID stop it. Ever heard of the Civil War?)
And that 40 acres and a mule was NEVER some official US government policy, and even if it were, how much would that be worth now, after having been split up amongst the countless offspring of those people alive then?
(They would have like 3 square inches, and a hoof).
It's ridiculous to take anything that private citizens have ever done, and then define the country by that.
Having said that, there are many things the US has done in the past, as official policy, that are horrible... just like every other country on earth.
The world is a cruel place, and we have to spread love around, but also not let someone brutally kill and maim our loved ones!
By the way, I don't think the Afgan's are going to have much use for films, given the fact that many of them don't even have food, or electricity, for that matter.
So I admire your positive outlook, but it's just not going to do anything in this circumstance.
Mainly, because the US already exports more films around the world than anyone. Did that stop any of this insanity?
Don't think so...
And I'm sorry Alex, but I just don't see how the fact that most Americans are perhaps a little too materialistic, makes it somehow OK for someone to mass-murder our innocent citizens.
That's just total B.S., especially since THEY aren't even saying that's the reason. I think that THEY probably know why they're doing it.
You lefties are just using this as a convenient excuse (as usual) to blame the US for anything that is wrong anywhere, even though it's totally out of context with the real reasons for any of this.
Whatever our faults, we feed more people and give more money, and provide more jobs to people than any nation in history.
And yes we use our "evil" military to do "terrible, imperialistic" things, like free Europe from Nazi takover, etc.
Matt Pacini
------------------
It is incredible that from so many people so many opinions come forth, and all have very good points. Obviously there is no one method of helping to project peace and understanding, however there are beginnings. Surely, with all the people on the host board, there must be a wealth of information on middle eastern film makers. As suggested earlier, could everyone post what they know, and contacts. You never know, there may be enough eventual interest to warrant easier access to such film material. I would be very keen on seeing many web addresses, names, whatever, posted here.
Its an idea!?
------------------
i second mr blackstock's call.
i think that more important even than expressing our opinions, at this point in time, is helping other people get their voices heard. film is one way of trying to build dialogue between people, which can open the way to peaceful coexistence, rather than just the kind of vendetta which the leaders on both sides, self-appointed or democratically elected, naturally prefer, since it reinforces our dependency upon them.
a small-guage arab-islamic film festival may turn out to be a tall order: but till we try, we don't know, right?
anyone with any information, please step forward.
best,
peter
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
And I'm sorry Alex, but I just don't see how the fact that most Americans are perhaps a little too materialistic, makes it somehow OK for someone to mass-murder our innocent citizens.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that's a bit of a stretch in connecting the dots. And you start from the wrong point. It isn't the American Citizen who is too materialistic, it's our corporations who don't understand when enough is enough.
A big difference.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
You lefties are just using this as a convenient excuse (as usual) to blame the US for anything that is wrong anywhere, even though it's totally out of context with the real reasons for any of this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You lefties????
You fail to acknowledge that in this country, if the economy is going good, just shut-up and make your money tends to be the thought of the day...If times are bad, then don't rock the boat, just show your loyalty and patriotism.
What is the point of freedom of speech if no one listens, or cares?
We commit paper violence in this country on par with physical violence commited by "less sophisticated" countries.
Somehow, paper violence is deemed more "civilized". Charles Keating embezzels 100 million dollars from his retired banking customers with fraudulent money-market offers, then gets out of prison after two or three years on stupid legalese technicalities.
Meanwhile, once these retired investors realized they would never get back their life savings, some committed suicide instead of enjoying their retirement years devoid of their life savings.
But a street "thug" can get 5 years for a one on one crime.
This is "civilized"???
No, it's rule of stupid law. Which in our country, we have perfected.
Then we go around acting like we are more civilized than third world countries because our acts of paper violence are surreptitious in nature and less overt than bopping someone over the head.
Both are evil, plain and simple.
Funny how the people who complained about things that were wrong in this country BEFORE Sept.11 get clumped into the terrorist sympathizer group.
It makes you wonder if the big whigs who run this country are feeling guilty that if they had listened to complaints from their own citizens a little more closely, BEFORE SEPT. 11th, perhaps our standing in the world would be more revered.
Naw, that would mean us "lefties" really had a point with our pre-Sept. 11 complaining.
We could never concede that point, now could we.
------------------
Alex
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B]MATTIAS I AGREE WITH 100%
"Nothing is BLACK and WHITE!! NOthing".
Crimsonson, when it comes to the issue of ethics, freedom IS BLACK OR WHITE:
Either you believe in voluntary relationships between men, or you believe in the initiation of physical coercion.
Either you believe that a man's life belongs to him and it is his right to pursue his own happiness, or you don't.
Either you believe in free speech or you believe it is morally acceptable to supress free speech.
Either you believe in individualism, or you belive that the individual should be subordinated to "god" or "the state" or "one's Race".
Either you believe in private property rights or you believe it is morally acceptable to deny such rights and live off the efforts of others by force (socialism).
It is as simple as that -
Voluntary relationships between men (freedom) or the initiation of physical force.
One side embraces individual rights and the other does not. One side is right and the other is wrong but the middle is always evil.
[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 13, 2001).]
dominic writes:
"Either you believe in private property rights or you believe it is morally acceptable to deny such rights and live off the efforts of others by force (socialism)."
well, no, i'm afraid it's a lot more complex than that. (the same goes for your other points.)
private property is not a simple, straightforward concept; and in many societies which have never heard of communism, it is either meaningless, or means something quite different from what it means to us.
in many societies there is no private property in land, for instance. you can own a tea pot, or a sheep. but you and your family 'belong' to the land, not vice versa, and the land cannot be sold or bought. (that's why families are usually named after houses or places, and not vice versa).
this was true over most of europe, as throughout most of the third world, for most of history. individuals and families might own personal property, animals, corn, but not the land they grew on or grazed them on.
and in nomadic societies, the whole idea of ownership is diametrically opposed to ours, because the further you travelled each year, the more of a liability possessions would become.
in all these societies, the security which we seek through money was provided by complex traditions of mutual responsibility and hospitality.
what we call 'development' is simply the attempt by the most technologically powerful modern societies, which have long since destroyed their own social fabric, to destroy these complex social traditions elsewhere, so as to make other people as dependent upon money to satisfy their needs as we are ourselves.
and money is just a symbolic shorthand for the fact that in our society, we all accept (though we do not all agree) that only certain people should have the power to obtain enough of something, whenever there is not enough of the thing in question to go round.
you seem incapable of imagining that rational people can ever put the common good before their own. or that one could ever reasonably expect them to give up their own silly little private ambitions, just for a moment, and think about what their egotism is doing to the world - and what their kind of life is doing to others.
we hear a lot in the west about freedom. but we don't hear much about justice, until it's time to go and bloody someone else's nose. perhaps that's why islam is so much more attractive to much of the world than our over-sold and over-priced post-christian-atheism.
peter
------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
"well, no, i'm afraid it's a lot more complex than that. (the same goes for your other points".
Ok Peter, then answer me this, if a man does not have the right to keep what he earns by his own efforts, what then is the purpose of his life? service to "others" as the sole justification to his existence? Slavery?
There is no rational defence for choosing a society based on the initiation of force over a free society which upholds the absence of physical coercion.
No one has the RIGHT to initiate the use of force against some one else for what ever reason....unless your are a dictator Peter.
Look around the world , this concept of a morality based upon physical force is precisely why the world is a twisted mess.
Redrice said "you seem incapable of imagining that rational people can ever put the common good before their own".
I beleive in a benevolent world where people act benevolently by personal choice, not by government force.
I reject the socialist concept which enslaves the population and sacrifices one person for the financial benefit of another.
Redrice said,"one could ever reasonably expect them to give up their own silly little private ambitions, just for a moment, and think about what their egotism is doing to the world"
Why should anyone do what YOU want by surrendering that which they value ( their "silly little ambitions) in favour of that which they do not value?
This morality of sacrifice that you advocate, the advantage to one at the expense of another, is at the heart of human malevolent behaviour.
I will say one last time - the political defintion of a "free society" is the absence of physical coercion - freedom means the absence of the initiation of physical force - the freedom to pursue ones own happiness, neither at the expense of yourself nor at the expense of others.
[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 13, 2001).]
Freedom.
Many of us are using this word, Freely.
I question the idea that we are truly free in the U.S. The Bottom line is we are free to create many products and services in the U.S., but these are products and services that MUST be consumed by others.
In other parts of the world, you are free to "eeke" out a living for yourself and your family on a plot of land.
Goods and Services are traded on a much more localized level. Goods and Services where the creator is not one of the locals isn't normal. They have lived "mano a mano", the people know each other, and they know personally know the makers of the goods and services they purchase or barter for.
Our whole capitalistic structure is designed to sell our products to people we will never meet.
This two systems will inevitably clash as we in America push for a global economy.
What we call freedom, others call invasive, because our products and services do invade their land and culture.
Meanwhile, we SEVERELY limit what comes into this country in the form of stories from other countries. What kind of freedom is that?
------------------
Alex
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
In other parts of the world, you are free to "eeke" out a living for yourself and your family on a plot of land.
.......
Meanwhile, we SEVERELY limit what comes into this country in the form of stories from other countries. What kind of freedom is that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to pay for your editing equipment on credit cards at an inflated percentage rate. The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE which editing equipment you buy, never mind that none is made in the U.S. The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to be an editor instead of a dirt farmer. The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to 'eeke' out a living in your choosen profession. And, most importantly, the same freedom that lets you CHOOSE which words are best to express yourself in this forum without fear of government reprisal for being critical of your homeland. The very fact that you can publicly ask the question,"What kind of freedom is that?" only demonstrates the irony of your position.
Roger
redrice -
First of all, I don't think many Americans see the UK as "their poodle." If people in the UK see it that way, it's their problem.
Second, America would love to have freed the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but the other Arab nations would not allow us to do this. The Kurds had nothing to lose by taking our side, because Saddam attempted genocide against them even before we invaded Iraq in 1991. We are still protecting the Kurds that live in UN controlled parts of Iraq.
There is another thing I would like to say (not directed at redrice--just something I want to say). I've heard a lot of Americans and others say that partial blame for the Sept. 11 attacks lies with America due to its support of Israel and lack of support for the Palestinians. Please take a look at the timeline below:
1880 - sparsely populated area (ruled by Turks) that is now Israel and Jordan populated by Zionist settlers. These settlements attracted more people, both Jews and Arabs.
1917 - UN takes over management of "Palestine" area, to be overseen by Britain
1922 - Britain divides "Palestine" into two districts--"Western Palestine" and "Transjordan." Jews are not allowed to take up residence in Transjordan, although Arabs are allowed in Western Palestine, which consists of 22% of the original area of Palestine.
1946 - Transjordan is given independence and declared a "Palestine-Arab" state.
1947 - Arabs object to independence of Western Palestine, so UN divides it further into Jewish and Arab sections. 75% of land given to Jews is arid desert.
1948 - Western Palestine declares independence as "Israel". Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq immediately invade. Jordan captures the "West Bank" of the Jordan River and eastern Jerusalem, Egypt takes the Gaza Strip and southern Jerusalem, but Israel survives. Arab leaders tell Arabs in Israel that if they leave, Israel can be destroyed and the land returned to Arabs. Despite pleas from Israeli prime minister, 720,000 Arabs leave for Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq (most go to Jordan). Instead of integrating these people into their societies, Arab leaders confine them to refugee camps, where many remain today. Arab peoples remaining in Israel retained Israeli citizenship and full legal rights.
1949 - Jordan annexes Judea and Samaria
1956 - Egypt seizes the Suez Canal, built by the international community and declares ownership. They also blockade the main Israeli port city. Israel attacks and captures the Sinai Peninsula.
1957 - Israel withdraws completely from the Sinai Peninsula, to be replaced by UN peacekeepers. Egypt allows all international ships to pass through Suez Canal except Israeli ships.
1966 - Egypt invades the Sinai, expelling UN peacekeepers. Syria begins shelling of Israeli villages from the Golan Heights. Egypt again blockades Israel.
1967 - Israel attacks and takes Judea and Samaria from Jordan. Also pushes Syrians from the Golan Heights and retakes the Sinai.
1973 - Egypt and Syria attack on Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. Egypt invades the Sinai, and Syria the Golan Heights.
1982 - Israel returns Sinai to Egypt
Note also that "zionism", or the expression of the desire to create a Jewish state, was outlawed and punished by death in some Arab countries (such as Iraq) *before* the creation of Israel in 1948.
Now, this timeline is obviously written from the standpoint of someone who is sympathetic to Israel. My point is this though: there are two sides to every story, and if you look at history from this standpoint, you can see exactly why Israel does what it does and why America supports them.
The people that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks did not do it because of religion. After all, look at where they spent their time in the two days leading up to the attacks: many were spotting in bars drinking alcohol (even a single sip is forbidden for Muslims) and some in a strip bar. I think they did it because they come from nations with corrupt leaders who take all the money that comes into their countries. They have leaders (political and religious) that incite their people to hatred and violence.
It seems to me that many Arabs are bigots who hate Jews because of their race, and they hate anyone who supports them. A prime example of this is what happened immediately following Sept. 11. Every known Arab news agency began to circulate fabricated stories about how Ariel Sharon was supposed to be in New York but mysteriously cancelled before Sept. 11, and how 4000 Jews failed to show up for work that day in the Twin Towers. They claimed that not a single Jew died in the attacks. They also claimed that the Israeli intelligence agency carried out the attacks to drum up anti-Arab sentiment in the US. Many Arab-Americans even latched onto these ideas, and they were widely accepted as fact in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Of course, this is total BS. In fact, hundreds of Jews died in the twin towers, and many of the fire-fighters that died rescuing other people were Jews as well. The quick acceptance of these wild stories demonstrates the racial bias so many Arabs have against Jews.
Many Arabs seem to blame America for all the problems they have in their countries. Despite claims to the contrary, America is not "propping up" any regime in the Middle-East. There is currently no government in any Middle-Eastern country that was installed by the United States. We have supported some dictatorial governments there (such as the Shah's in Iran), but we generally tend to support the lesser of the evils. After all, look at what the Iranians put in place after the Shah left. The government they have now is more oppressive and brutal than the Shah's.
America has certainly made mistakes in its foreign policy, but so has every nation. We in no way deserved the attacks on innocent civilians that took place on Sept. 11. And anyone that tries to make any connections between the Sept. 11 criminal act and America's foreign policy should keep their mouth shut and save their arguments for a more appropriate time, i.e., after victims' families have time to grieve, etc.
Sorry about the lengthy post (this has to be the longest I've ever written) but I had to say my piece!
- digvid
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by digvid:
redrice -
America has certainly made mistakes in its foreign policy, but so has every nation. We in no way deserved the attacks on innocent civilians that took place on Sept. 11. And anyone that tries to make any connections between the Sept. 11 criminal act and America's foreign policy should keep their mouth shut and save their arguments for a more appropriate time, i.e., after victims' families have time to grieve, etc.
- digvid
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the catch-22. When times are good, people wonder why should anyone complain, and they pay very little attention and even less time to a "cause", when times are bad, just shut-up and tow the line.
------------------
Alex