Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Rape, Looting in Sudan
Sudan is suffering from a horrific nightmare. People are dying in their hundreds of thousands. Once again, the weak (those considered to want to live peacefully) are being pulled to pieces by the strong, like hyenas attacking a wildebeest. Here are some of the statistics of the conflict in the area.
- Between 200,000 and 400,000 civilians are dead. Times that figure by ten, at least, for those who are potentially hurt, maimed, wounded or psychologically scarred.
- Five separate waves of violence by tens of militias are being perpetrated all across the Darfur region.
- 2,000,000 people have been displaced from their homes.
- 200,000 people have fled the country to neighboring countries Chad; large numbers of Sudanese refugees have also fled to Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
- Sudan is the largest country in the African continent, with Darfur itself being the size of France
- 7,000 African Union troops have been struggling to keep the peace in the region, suffering casualties themselves, being under-equipped and under-funded. These will be removed from the region, unless things change, by the end of the month.
- 17,000 U.N. Peacekeepers are proposed to keep the peace there, under U.N. Resolution 1706
The conflict stems from land rights and property issues between the Arab farmers and Africans, the Arabs in the north and to the east are systematically killing and looting their way across hundreds of villages, in a system that can only be described as a 'cleansing' of the area.
From Jan Pronks weblog (Special United Nations Representative for Sudan):
"Militia groups continue to operate with impunity throughout Darfur, attacking villages, killing villagers, raping women, stealing livestock and harassing IDPs (Internally Displaced People)in and around the camps. Some militias have settled in cleared villages in West Darfur and are cultivating the land. In some places they are keeping the people in virtual slavery, preventing them from leaving and regularly assaulting women. Elsewhere they beat up displaced persons who try to return to their own village in order to cultivate their land and tell them to stay away and never to come back, if they donÂt want to be killed."
Originally, conflict broke out in 2003 as rebels in the south attacked the Arab-led government, over what they called 'unfair distribution of the oil wealth.' Since then a peace treaty was signed, but only by one of the many militia groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) which has now been reported to be fighting on the side of the government.
The Sudanese Government, led by President Omar al-Bashir has rejected U.N. Resolution 1706, which would ask for about 17,000 peacekeepers to be deployed in the region, calling it; "part of a comprehensive conspiracy for confiscating the country's sovereignty" in comments reported by the Sudanese news agency Suna on Sunday. By rejecting the U.N. push for peacekeepers, many of the Sudanese people won't have a hope left after the last barrier against unrestrained genocide, the AU troops, leave on September 30th. Although Resolution 1706 does not require the permission of the Sudanese government to conduct a humanitarian mission, this is obviously not an option that the U.N. wishes to pursue . With al-Bashir quoting the beginning of a 'Holy War' if U.N. troops do move in, you can start to see that this crisis is not one that can be solved quickly.
Al-Bashir's government has said that they will place 10,000 troops in the region to halt violence, but the U.N. have balked at the idea. Why? My theory is that the Sudanese government has a lot to do with the killings.
According to a Reuters report, journalists have witnessed the loading up of planes with bombs to attack villages, injuring and killing hundreds of children in the process, in an area where 25% of children don't survive anyway due to awful conditions. The pretext for these attacks on innocents is due to often very flimsy intelligence of rebel presence in those areas. To me, that kind of treatment, along with the Sudanese governments rejection of any kind of peace-keeping force, leads to only one conclusion, that the pro-Arab government is supporting this 'ethnic cleansing' in order to clear the whole area of Africans, making way for Arab settlement. In effect, Libestraum, 'living ground'. This technique was one that the Nazi's had planned for the expansion of the germanic people.
Of course, Khartoum is denying these allegations, saying that they are merely conducting "administrative operations".
From the BBC:
"Fresh Sudanese soldiers have been arriving in the region, and rights groups, AU officials and Darfur's rebel groups report that on 28 August a new offensive began, with reports of attacks on rebel-held villages in Darfur.
...
Darfur refugees, rebels and the United States have long accused the Sudanese army of backing up the Arab Janjaweed militias in a "genocide" against the region's black African population."
In the middle of this complicated and multi-faceted conflict, are the people, the innocents. Around 14,000 aid workers are helping feed and supply approximately 3 million people in an area the size of France, and there have been about a dozen aid-worker deaths already.
Conditions are steadily getting worse.
"Indeed, in many ways we are in a freefall in Darfur at the moment,"From the BBC:
-U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland
Rebecca Dale from the International Rescue Committee said that some of those who have returned to their homes in south Sudan have since returned to the capital, Khartoum, because they found so little infrastructure.
She said that 25% of children in the south die before they reach the age of five, there are very few schools and there is only one doctor for every 100,000 people.
In my opinion this is just the beginning. With the outbreak of war between the Sudanese government and various militias, it will prove more and more difficult for the aid to reach the people who need it most. What is needed is international pressure on the region, on the U.S., on the U.N., and on the Sudanese Government to stop this genocide before it goes any further. If the U.S. means what it says about wanting to spread freedom and democracy around the world, then maybe it should back up it's words with actions, and not just move to those countries with economic incentives for the United States.
They say what we don't know doesn't hurt us. Very true, as we sit tucked away in our safe little houses in our safe towns and cities, tucked up in our Slumberland comforters and chewing on a PowerBar. Many people will flick past the news, maybe dwell on a subject for a moment, then utter the familiar 'oh, that's terrible', before clicking onwards, onwards, to numbness.
Well, shit happens in this world, and we can choose to ignore it, or we can choose to do something about it. What can I do, you say. Learn, learn everything you can, be aware, don't pull the wool over your eyes, and be ready, for whatever is required of you. It's your world, awful things happen in it.
Do something about it.
More to come.
posted by Shem
21 Comments:
History has shown over and over again, that complacency is the best path to destruction. How many times does death, destruction, and hatred need to happen, for people to see the point in preventative measures. We must be proactive; don’t we change the oil in our car before it breaks down because of it? Shouldn’t we do the same for humans? We need to see a problem before, or as it happens and move to prevent it.
How can we be debating in this country on the ethical implications of torturing a “terrorist” prisoner in order to “prevent future attacks”? When all we do is take action after problems have reared a head so ugly, that it is shameful to be living in what could be called a “free and democratic” government? A government that (as you said shem) professes to want to spread democracy, freedom, and “sovereigninity” to the poor and the needy?
I wasn’t aware of Rwanda until I saw the movie. I had never even heard of it. How disgusting of our news media and our schools, to keep these things from us, and how much more disgusting it is that Rwanda could have been stopped, just as WW2 could have been stopped sooner than it was, and now we have it again.
There is no point in having kids learn history, we don’t learn from it, it repeats and repeats, and these ignorant fools in the government let it happen, we don’t seem to get the people in power we need to prevent these sorts of things. No, instead we get people who we need to debate with for weeks, months, and years about things that are so obviously wrong, that grade school children could identify with, and see a need for positive change.
Very well written Shem. I think you missed your calling as a journalist, although, you would have been good when that word meant something, and journalism was an honorable profession.
Logan
I agree, Logan. Very well written. And Shem is an independent journalist. This is a great example of it.
Ok, No-one can say that it isn't terrible that there is genocide in Sudan, or that there was in Rwanda.
You cannot however say any of this is the US's fault, you say that they should just barge into another country and interfere in their polotics? Calling for some kind of global policeman state to solve all of the worlds problems (which is totally against the democracy you hold so high)while at the same time lamenting the fact that they ever do attack (because of provokation, but this isn't a debate about Iraq).
You see, i do History, but seeing as I am South African, I learnt about Rwanda long before the movie (and if you want to find out about these things before the Blockbuster, all you have to do is do more than watch CNN). It isn't the government or media's job to spoonfeed you information that the majority of people couldn't care less about (not that it is right that they don't care, but the media is for the populace and does not cater for your specific wants or needs).
These are countries with a history of hatred (not only between races, but between tribes and religion too) and they were killing and slaving long before the US was ever made responsible for everything (yet unable to do anything for fear of causing international outrage). This was made worse by colonial powers (long debate, nothing to do with the US).
The US going into Sudan would just cause a PR disaster (for collateral damage) and ultimatly achieve nothing, unless you want to propose some kind of fascist, militaristic contorl by outside forces over a sovereign state.
Basically international polotics sucks, but put the blame where it lies, with the Sudanese who are systematically killing the Sudanese, not the UN, US or bad media.
Firstly, I'm not saying that it’s the fault of the U.S. in the case that it started in the first place. Rwanda’s problems do stem from imperialistic powers getting involved in the running of the country, in the case of the segregation of the Tutsis and the Hutus by the Belgium, and Britain slicing and dicing Gaza from Israel led to similar conflict. But no, I don’t think the U.S. is directly responsible for this. This is unusual, because they usually are. They do allow weapons brokers free running in the area, and they do support general arms deals all over Africa, Britain too is responsible for that. More guns mean more instability, but that’s not related to this point.
You’re right, it does seem duplicitous that I decry the invasion of Iraq and yet think the U.S. should get involved in Sudan to stop the killing. And it is right to think that U.S. intervention, no matter how innocent it seems, has never done anything of serious benefit. But we stood by and watched East Timor happen, watched Rwanda happen, watched the carnage in the Congo (and I didn’t just see Hotel Rwanda, neither are my news reports just from CNN, or Fox, or any single source). And I’m not saying that the U.S. should just pile in with tanks and planes and start to assert peace. But I think there is a real difference, if you look at the details, to invading a country to topple a dictator, then exploiting the local work force to build up the country’s oil infrastructure, and moving into a country to prevent the continuation of genocide. I’m not saying Saddam Hussein was anything but brutal, but he did not attempt to wipe a single nationality off the planet. It seems that the Sudanese government and supporting militias are trying to do that. I do think the U.N. is suited for this job, with hopefully more troops than 20,000 to at least simply protect the aid workers doing their job (Darfur is the size of France, so their scope is limited). I do think that the U.S. could pledge troops to the U.N. force too. I think refugee camps could be created to protect the fleeing people from the guns of the militias too, but I’m not an expert, there might be better ways of doing this.
The U.N. was created after WW2 to bring the world together, and prevent the atrocities that happened in the Holocaust from happening again, by providing repercussions against those who perpetrate those kinds of actions. It could look like an international policeman, and there is the chance it could be abused, but that’s why everyone votes, everyone must agree, and why it seems to take so long to do anything. That’s bureaucracy for you, but if you look at the alternative, you realize it’s the only way to go, no matter how flawed.
Bad media however, this is a problem. The media should be talking about this repeatedly, all hours, until people get sick of hearing about it. Why? Well Hussein killed a number of Kurds, and we go crazy. 3,000 people die in the WTC’s and the country turns on its head. Possible up to 400,000 people are dead in Sudan, many times over either of those two crises, and no-one pays attention. Why? Are the lives in Sudan any less important than the lives here? I cannot say that it is everyone’s duty to protect everyone else on the planet, it’s just not feasible, but the there is an opportunity to do something good here. Maybe flawed, maybe it won’t work, but we can try.
That’s my opinion towards what should happen. What are your opinions on what you think we should do?
During the Anfal operation, some 1,200 villages were destroyed. More than 180,000 persons are missing and presumed dead. While the Iraqi government was motivated partly by the fact that some Kurdish groups cooperated with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, documentation recovered in the Kurdish safe haven in 1991 reveals that this operation was part of a larger campaign undertaken by Saddam throughout his time in power. Many now regard this operation as proof of genocide against Iraqi Kurds. In all phases of the ethnic cleansing program, which began when the Baath Party first seized power in 1963 and culminated in the Anfal operation, it is estimated that more than 4,000 villages in rural Kurdistan were destroyed and perhaps 300,000 people perished.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5.html
The Anfal attacks led to destruction of 2,000 villages and death of 300,000 Kurds [39].
wikipedia
This report is a narrative account of a campaign of extermination against the Kurds of northern Iraq. It is the product of over a year and a half of research, during which a team of Middle East Watch researchers has analyzed several tons of captured Iraqi government documents and carried out field interviews with more than 350 witnesses, most of them survivors of the 1988 campaign known as Anfal. It concludes that in that year the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.
The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross violations of human rights:
· mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;
· the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;
· the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been "burned," "destroyed," "demolished" and "purified," as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas);
· the wholesale destruction of civilian objects by Army engineers, including all schools, mosques, wells and other non-residential structures in the targeted villages, and a number of electricity substations;
· looting of civilian property and farm animals on a vast scale by army troops and pro-government militia;
· arbitrary arrest of all villagers captured in designated "prohibited areas" (manateq al-mahdoureh), despite the fact that these were their own homes and lands;
· arbitrary jailing and warehousing for months, in conditions of extreme deprivation, of tens of thousands of women, children and elderly people, without judicial order or any cause other than their presumed sympathies for the Kurdish opposition. Many hundreds of them were allowed to die of malnutrition and disease;
· forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers upon the demolition of their homes, their release from jail or return from exile; these civilians were trucked into areas of Kurdistan far from their homes and dumped there by the army with only minimal governmental compensation or none at all for their destroyed property, or any provision for relief, housing, clothing or food, and forbidden to return to their villages of origin on pain of death. In these conditions, many died within a year of their forced displacement;
· destruction of the rural Kurdish economy and infrastructure.
http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm
Slightly more than just 'a number' (not that i am going to say this is why the US invaded, but that is exactly the kind of dictater you just said the US should take down).
The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support U.N. peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.2 Direct contributions are U.S. programs and actions that directly support specific U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) about $3.2 billion the Department of State expended for U.N. current and past due peacekeeping assessments and (2) nearly $250 million that State and DOD voluntarily spent to support U.S. civilian police, military units, and military observers to serve as an official part of a U.N. peacekeeping operation. As of September 30, 2001, the United States was providing 733 civilian police, soldiers, and military observers to U.N. peacekeeping operations.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02294.pdf#search=%22UN%20forces%20US%20contribution%22
Now i am also no expert, but those billions must help the UN quite a bit.
I agree that it would be nice if people cared about Sudan and that it is unfair of the media to not portray all news in the same light. This is however because Most US citizens don't care, a problem with society, which you cannot really blame on anyone.
The problem with Africa as a whole is that the world tries to fix superficial problems, which mainly do more harm than good. Food Aid (which absolutly destroys the farmers in a country, who are unable to compete with a market flooded with free food, creating a total dependancy on other countries for food.) Peacekeeping forces (which can never eliminate the problem because almost all wars in Africa have something to do with genocide and the only way to stop it would be to destroy all but 1 nationality in the country). The best way to help Africa is to get the 1st world to drop tarrif barriers (so that we can trade and create some kind of functioning economy). Other than that it really is up to Africa to stop destroyig itself with genocide and dictaters.
Then again, i am not an expert either and international politics still sucks.
My last comments about CNN were directed at Logan, who didn't know about Rwanda until he saw the movie.
The U.S. does give funding to the U.N., but on the other hand it vetos important decisions, dismisses thier decisions as Bush did before Gulf War 2, and did his own thing, it does not support humanitarian missions if it does not hand over a certain percentage of contracts in rebuilding etc.
Hmm... so you're saying that we should let Africa figure out it's own problems, basically let them do thier own thing. I should say the same on Iraq, and the wholw middle-eastern region, and that includes not supplying arms to Isreal with cluster bombs.
I don't agree with that.
Another thing, I am really tired of hearing the statements of how bad Hussein was (and he was) when we gave him a lot of weapons that he used, supported him (and Iran, at times) during the Iran-Iraq war, and the U.K. and the U.S. both vetoed any kind of sanctions against him that U.N. were trying to impose in response to his attacks on the Kurds. Also how the U.S. have repeatedly rejected any idea of an independent Kurdish state, which is the main reason for Kurdish rebellion.
I can not believe that United States possiblly went into to Iraq to topple Hussein because of his HR abuses, otherwise they would have finished the job the first time around.
I was 12 when Rwanda happened. Yet I find it interesting that everyday after coming home from school around this time in my life, I watched on TV the Iraqi war. I watched a war on TV…yet saw nothing on the news (since when I was 12 CNN was a little more reputable, at least to the eyes of a child) about Rwanda, nor did I hear anything in school about it, yet I heard a lot about the war in Iraq.
What we’re doing in Iraq right now is wrong, and the reason why its wrong is because more than 50 percent of Americans still think he had something to do with 911. Its wrong because we went over there, in disregard of both the UN and Tony Blair’s recommendation, we were on an agenda, and it had nothing to do with 911, or humanitarian efforts for the people.
This doesn’t mean that Saddam was a good person, but if were going to overthrow bad dictators in the world, well, then why aren’t we doing anything in Korea for instance?
I’m not saying that we should help in Sudan more so than in any other country that needs it, what I’m saying is that we shouldn’t lie about doing it, and because of which, we worsen the foreign policy, strip more rights away from both America and Iraq, start a civil war, and still manage to supply other countries (Israel) with weapons just like we did for Iraq, and Bin Laden (ok, he isn’t a country but still) all both for profit and to fit our agenda. How many times does supplying small countries and resistance groups does it have to bite us in the ass before we stop looking at the profits and start looking at the future implications.
The contradiction is the issue here, it’s a contrast; the fact that we do one thing for one “cause,” and completely ignore other causes. We fight “terror,” and yet we do business with China, we want to help people, but only when they have oil, we want to fight the bad guys of the world but disregard the UN when they say no. What is the point of giving money and support to an organization that we completely ignore when it is most crucial for us to not?
Also, how is it we can over throw a country and find its leader in a hole in the ground in a desert, and yet not seem to be able to locate the person who is responsible for the terrorist attacks we started a war for? We let Bin Laden go, we caught the wrong guy under false pretenses. And we lied about all of it.
You cant for one minute tell me that its wrong for me to want America to stop genocide as its happening, after all that’s happened in the last few years with Iraq. I’m not saying that we go in with guns blaring, and actually with the latest developments with the UN and with what Bush has said, I’m proud of the help were giving.
But for you to say it is a contradiction, is glossing over the facts of what its taken for the US to do what its done in Iraq, and the simple fact that we have lied about it. We’ve lied about it to the world, and to our own people. We don’t do things based on lies, and if were going to support the UN, we should listen to them at least when it comes to invading a country under false pretenses.
The culture cares about (a lot of which) what it is told to care about. If people see it on the news they think it must be important, and since it must be important, they should care. Its not the other way around, the people don’t reflect the news, they don’t vote for who’s giving them the news, they don’t vote for the multi-billion dollar agencies that have control over what’s put in the news. People watch TV because its what they have to watch, there aren’t many alternatives to TV watching then what they give us. A lot of people don’t have time to go searching on the internet and selectively choose from article to article, from foreign news stations, what their going to listen to. A lot of people don’t find that practical. Can we blame them; it’s a lot of work.
To say that we don’t care, as a culture is a blanket statement, people care about what they think they’re told is important. No one is telling them that Darfur is important, just as no one told them that Rwanda was. The fact that I found out because of the movie does not reflect a lackadaisical nature in me when I was 12, it shows that the people who made the movie, wanted more people to know about it, and they reached out in a different medium. It’s not bad that people know because of the movie, its bad that they have to know because of it. The movie about Rwanda shows how horrible CNN and Fox news are for not telling people. We can blame them, its not hurting ratings to run a 3 minute story a few times a week about Darfur, America did a week long coverage on the re-election of the Pope…week long coverage, your telling me that the news media cant spare a few minutes of air time to show what’s going on in Darfur because of ratings? People will turn the channel otherwise? I don’t think so, I’ve met way to many people who care about it, once their told, and want to know why they aren’t being informed. This is a problem not so much with Americans, as it is with the people in power who we have no control over.
If we ignore genocide in any country, were doing the world an injustice, if we decide to fight genocide, we should do it under the pretense of fighting genocide. Letting a problem such as that go, is like saying it was ok that we waited so long to get involved with WW2, its like saying that its ok to not believe its happening, because if we “let Africa take care” of its own, as you said, we would be supporting it by not stopping it. Because the only way for many of us to not want to do anything about a problem is to be unaware of it, which is what Fox news is doing a good job of. In a word, you’re supporting those news stations for not telling the American people, because you want Africa to solve its own problems, when its evident that they are too ignorant to do it themselves. Then you turn around and blame Americans for not caring because the news reflects what the American people want to see.
So what is it? Should we care or not, should we do something or not?
When I say that they’re too ignorant, I’m not being racist. Its ignorant to believe that one race is better than another, and to kill for it, its ignorant to rage holy war on other people because of different beliefs, its ignorant no matter where or who you are in the world, no matter the culture or time. It’s ignorant for it to go on for so long, and not change it.
Logan
So you basically agree that Africa is Africa's problem and the US should not intervene in Sudan because it has nothing to do with the US (not that it is not an awefull thing that is happening)
It is America's right to veto decisions as a part of the permanent security council. Using a right you have been given isn't necesarilly a bad thing.
The US is not the only government to dismiss the UN for 1, France invaded the Ivory Coase without UN permission and i don't see any1 who cares about that. Whether it is right or wrong for these countries to do it, the only country that gets in trouble for it is the US, surely you should care about any infringement not just those by 1 country.
I think that the US should leave Iraq to the Iraqi's, after a war which I do agree they lied about (not that I think they went for oil, but it definatly wasn't for humanitarian reasons). Why should US soldiers die to protect the people of a country on another continent from killing each other. Racial hatred is not their responsibilty.
If Israel did not have the weapons to protect themselves they would be destroyed, this isn't about the internal politics of israel, but the fact that almost every other country in the Middle-East wants them destroyed.Israel is also a strategic partner of the US. The US is not the only country which sells israle weapons (although most of them are american)
I agree the US did not invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. I was just reacting to you saying that he killed a number kurds, which is a really big understatement and i wanted to inform you that it was hundreds of thousands which is rather a big number.
I do think that the invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with 911 and nothing to do with oil. I think the Humanitarian reason was a lie though and beleive that the Bush adminixstration really XXXXed up the whole thing.
I think that international politics sucks and has nothing to do with morals, i do not however think that the US should fight in fights that do not affect them. So they trade with china, who doesn't. How many countries can you see that are prepared to fight other countries fights?
I cannot comment on why it is so hard to find Bin Laden, but i don't think he is all that important anyway, there are plent of crazy islamic funadamentalists to take his place (not that all muslims are crazy fundamentalists)
I don't think it is wrong for the US to stop genocide, but there isn't much the US can do to stop it. The racial hatred is coming from the people within the country, having an external power there for a few months will just stop it for a few months, then they will get right back into genocide. It is an unsolvable problem, why should americans die to stop sudanese from killing each other when it won't stop anything?
The culture is full of sheep if they are prepared to only believe what they are told. IF you only thik something is important just because it is on the news, then i am sorry to say, but you have a brain that has almost no reasoning capacity and swallow everything you atre given and will probably never rise very far in life.
There are alternatives to TV, such as newspapers, books and the internet. It is actually easier to find news on the internet than on TV, because you can fit it into your busy schedule at any time, it is on 24 hours a day. For people who have a 'hectic' schedule, it is the perfect place to get news because they can find news they want immediatly and come back to it later, however TV news is on at a specific time and if you miss it, you can't go back. So to say it is so hard to get information from the internet is basically lazyness.
So the media sucks, if americans really thought CNN and FOX was such a waste of time then their ratings would drop, basically if they did care, they would take the time they used to watching bad news to surf the internet and get the news they do care about.
You cannot stop a holy war untill one side gets destroyed. They are not nice, but genocide is not rational and it cannot be stopped by external hatred. Once an entire people hates another so deeply, how can a few months of an international power stop them? Africa needs to solve it's problems, no-one else can.
No, I don’t basically agree that Africa is Africa’s problem, if you had read what I posted, and understood it, you would see where I stand. I’m not writing it again.
We live in America, not France; I don’t know how much the people of France criticized their country on the invasion of the Ivory Coast. This isn’t the issue here.
We care that America doesn’t always follow through with the convictions it says it believes in. When they veto something that could help through the UN, which goes against American policy of moral standard here in the US, then yes, we have a right to criticize contradictory actions.
If you don’t think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with oil, then I think you should dig a little deeper.
How can you say that international politics has nothing to do with morals? If a foreign policy violates the rights of the people it’s affecting, than the foreign policy is unethical. How can it not be otherwise?
So you don’t think its important that we find the person truly responsible for the attacks of 911? And that because there are other crazy fundamentalist groups out there, that makes not catching Bin Laden ok? Use that same logic on yourself, what if your home was invaded and burned to the ground, and then the cops told you not to worry, because they’re going to catch a criminal, maybe not the criminal that did it, but some criminal. Wouldn’t you want the one that did crime to be caught? Because by your logic, it doesn’t matter which group we go after, they’re all crazy.
Look at the major news companies, and then look at the fact that a lot people who go online get their news from MSN.com, Yahoo.com or AOL. Don’t insult my intelligence and make generalizations about me, your not reading what I’m writing, either that or your not understanding what I’m writing. People search loosely through headlines, they get it off of New York Times, or the Chicago Tribune, people don’t jump online and search, reading and cross checking reports, to see if they’re trust worthy. And, if it’s the news, then its important to somebody, if your reading it, and it’s a report on something that’s happening outside in the world….it’s the news….you see, I can play your semantic game, your not looking at the words, your misunderstanding the meaning and are making wide generalizations.
Its not hard to get information on the web, its hard to trust and decipher what’s out there.
A holy war is a war fought over lies, over superstitions and faith. Faith, which is based on emotions and a lack of thought; a holy war is the most irrational and dangerous there can be. It should be stopped and it doesn’t matter by whom. The human race should not stand for certain things: racism, hate crimes, genocide, and holy wars. These things are intolerable, the people who commit these crimes, by committing them, are in themselves/in their actions, saying that they are incapable of rational thought and intervention would not be an invasion, but an intervention for the best interest of those who can not defend against such crimes.
Should Africa “take care of its own” as you say? No way in hell. Not for as long as the various countries of Africa continues to be led by people who don’t see the problem and necessity of the sanctity of life. Africa isn’t solving their problems, and to let it go on is saying that genocide is ok. And like I said in my last post but you didn’t seem to understand, that letting genocide go on, will incite it further, and before anyone realizes it its grown and is putting everyone at risk. That’s just one of the many reasons why Genocide needs to be stopped. Africa can’t take care of itself at this point, just look at the aids problem. We cant let ignorance continue.
I really didn’t even want to post this, and im not posting another response if you show the same lack of attention to what I actually said. I don’t need the last word.
Logan
The first few paragraphs were for Shem, not you. I was answering every post since my last one. I know you don't agree that Africa should handle it's own problems.
International politics is not based on morals, straight and simple. It is about protecting a countries interests, not protecting peoples rights.
I do think it would be a good idea to catch Bin Laden, what i was saying (although i don't htink i was very clear) is that catching Bin Laden won't be winning any 'war on terror'. Al Qaeda is responsible, not just 1 man, so it is more important to destroy the organisation than 1 man. If Bin Laden dies or is caught he will just be replaced.
Apologies to insulting your intelligence, i was obviously just not in the right state of mind. I still cannot agree that it is hard to get information off the internet, after you find sites which are trustworthy, you can get reliable news faster and more easily than off TV radio or newspaper.
How exactly do you propse you can stop the irrational hatred of another race? I am not saying genocide is ok, but if the people of a country are that deeply segregated, there is very little that an international peace keeping force can do except take control and keep control. I don't see how the UN can help Africa, especially seeing as the UN has been around since WW2 and Africa doesn't seem to be any better.
The best way to help Africa would be to drop tarrif barriers, and seeing as you say that Americans obviously care so much about Africa, they won' mind. Let Africa sell it's agriculture around the world, let Africa build up it's economy. No amount of peace keeping or aid can ghive africa what is taken away because of the first worlds refusal to let the few over-payed workers go, even though these people will still be getting social welfare, for the starving in Africa who could make an economy without a dependancy on aid if uyou just let free trade be free trade.
Whatever you say, i don't think there are many people anywhere outside of Africa who would actually sacrifice something for Africa (not specifically talking about you, but the Americans who you seem to think want to know about it so they can give a few cents to some charity organisation rather than trying to actually solve problems). Not that i expect them to, but if they do care, we should soon see Africa being able to trade freely with it's agricultural goods.
Ok, I see what your saying now.
I know international politics isn’t founded on morals; they don’t look to see if it’s moral or immoral. It is about the countries interests, but I’m saying that this is what can make a foreign policy unethical, because the morals of the principles it upholds are not taken into question. It can disregard, in general, certain people’s rights under certain conditions, which all and all, make it immoral. But I know what your saying. It isn’t based on it, which is a problem.
I agree, we catch Bin Laden, and then another leader rises up, and it’s a mentality were fighting, which as you said, is almost impossible to win against. It won’t win a war on terror, because we can’t fight terror, its such a loose concept. All and all though, what can we do? I don’t think we should rage a war on terror, but just learn form our mistakes and catch the guy responsible for the crime.
I accept your apology. I wasn’t really speaking about myself, but trying to take a general state of mind approach concerning the news and what people look for. I was trying to get in the mindset of people that I’ve talked to about how they get their news, and the viewpoints they see it to be as. I should have been more specific about that point. I don’t mean people like you and I, we look for things, and we don’t trust everything we read off the bat. But a lot of people think that scanning the Internet for news, and wondering what they should trust is too much work.
The issue were talking about here is very hard, and very complex, I see what your saying and partially agree with dropping the tariff barriers. But it needs to be a combination of things. If we do that, what will they use the money on? More killing? Then they can be rich and kill one another, instead of poor. We need to do more than just lift a barrier, although that will help. We also need to bring in education, we need to make sure the money isn’t being spent on weapons; someone is supplying these people who hate one another with weapons which needs to stop, and education needs to be brought it. The best way they’ve dealt with the aids conflict so far is to educate the people, and eventually their superstitions will be lessened. Same principle with Genocide, they need to know that were all the same underneath our skin. It won’t solve the problem of hatred, but it will lessen the irrationality which when coupled with hatred, adds gasoline to the fire.
I know what you mean about the general lack of care for other peoples and countries. And the solution again is education. It’s the technique of delivery we have the problem with here in America. It seems to be that many people care when there taught to. People aren’t being taught compassion and most especially they aren’t being taught to act. America dumbs down concepts and education plans because it cuts the funding so they can go to war, and whatever other ways they’re pocketing the cash. The more they cut the funding the dumber children get, and a lot of parents don’t have time to care because of the cost of living, and how much they have to work.
On the other hand, a lot of times the people who really want to help aren’t able to. Africa isn’t letting itself be helped, and it’s hard to help a cause that doesn’t want it. A lot of the people want it, but the governments are too proud to admit they need help when they do, at least with this Darfur conflict. It’s a multifaceted problem, and there are many solutions that could help. There are just a lot of barriers to overcome.
Logan
OK, i generally agree.
The problem with Africa is that it isn't held accountable for it's mistakes, people keep on sending aid to a dictatership that is ruining it's countries economy, education and health services.
If tarriff barriers are dropped though, it will allow poeple to gain some power, and businesses generally don't buy weapons when the money would be better spent on upsizing etc. If the government has to keep businesses happy it is less likely to allow genocide (which destabalises the country and economy). When a country has a stable, flourishing economy, it is generally more important to keep the economy strong than to fight wars (However, with stupid ideas like racial hatred you never know).
I do not know to much about the US education systym, i do not think that teachers should be able to politicise students though, but with a good education, the desire to know what is going on with the world should develop naturally, along wiht whatever 'skills' you are supposed to be taught in school to analyse and understand the news you do get.
Basically i wasn't talking about what is good and right, i was saying what the reality is and that a simple solution like asking the US to go in probably would not help and that you cannot expect the US to act any differently with it's international politics than any other country (although it's international policy has never been very good anyway).
I just don't like how every time a country anywhere has any problem whatsoever people either blame the US for doing something or for not doing something, and they are just so busy slagging off the US that they do not take the time to find a reasonable solution that will actually help solve the problem, not just make said person feel warm and fuzzy inside for screaming about morality (not directed at you, just the world in general and all the touchy, feely solutions that seem to end up making the situation worse)
I think it has to be said that this level of debate and interest in another country's problems is laudable. However, it changes nothing.
Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence is both aware and able to understand the problems inherent in Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq, North Korea, Northern Ireland etc. etc. And, it doesn't take CNN, FOX, the BBC or any other single news service to provide us with our views and opinions. The simple truth is, those with a modicum of intellect base their opinions on a variety of sources, garnered from every corner of the globe. From blogs to news services to papers, there are a variety of sources of information on world news and we base our views on the information given by them all and we also take into account the bias of the news provider while we're at it.
If CNN (or Fox or the Beeb or a damn Hollywood movie) is your only source of information, then you have NO opinion, you are merely spouting the same rhetoric as another.
Simply, the problems in Rwanda will NOT be solved by the average citizen of the UK, the US or any other Western country knowing or understanding the facts about the confilct. Nor will the military might of the self-proclaimed "policemen of the world" help in the slightest. There is, after all, nothing to be gained from an invasion of Sudan, therefore, one will not take place.
Pity those poor bastards in the Sudan by all means, feel guilty for living in a world where one human can treat another human like shit, hate the murderers and terrorists and despise your own government for selling them the arms to achieve their goals. But don't, for fuck's sake, patronise us by pretending like your knowledge, your concern, your words will ever, EVER, change a thing.
Those 400,000 civilians will remain dead. The UK and the US will remain rich and corpulent. And the happy-go-lucky citizens who're sat in their comfy-chairs behind their expensive computers in their pretty little houses with their pretty little gardens will continue to write blogs and comments about how much they care, about how sensitive they are... And nothing will change.
I ask any commenters on this site who insist on remaining anonymous to leave a name of some kind so when people respond they can direct the comment to the right person. Leave a false name, symbol, whatever, just something other people can identify you with when responding.
Any responses to the post that criticised the patronising nature of the previous posts should be directed at me. Or, to help you out of a pronoun predicament, you can call me 'Tater Salad...
Hope that helps.
In response to the last comment before mine.
QUOTE: 'If CNN (or Fox or the Beeb or a damn Hollywood movie) is your only source of information, then you have NO opinion, you are merely spouting the same rhetoric as another.'
I take my sources from many places, not just the BBC or CNN. That much must be evident. I take information from U.N. reports, Human Rights Watch reports, independent news organisations, agencies, among other sources and I research extensively before I write an article. If I've made a mistake, or my information is incorrect, let me know.
I am inspired by the messages in some film and documentaries. I don't think movies can be described as a historical record, and even if it did claim to be so I would check alongside other sources. However, its message as a dramatization of events that took place can be powerful enough to move people into researching further, then perhaps taking action. I think therefore it is a useful medium. Not the only one, but useful enough.
QUOTE: 'Pity those poor bastards in the Sudan by all means, feel guilty for living in a world where one human can treat another human like shit, hate the murderers and terrorists and despise your own government for selling them the arms to achieve their goals. But don't, for fuck's sake, patronise us by pretending like your knowledge, your concern, your words will ever, EVER, change a thing.'
My concern in of itself will achieve nothing, that's right, but my knowledge, other people's knowledge will change everything if applied in the right direction. I can only assume that by you saying that knowledge will never change anything, that you are advocating ignorance? What else changes things but knowledge and the application of that? I do give a damn, enough to do something about it, to donate money, whatever I can. Easing my little conscience maybe, but hopefully doing something.
QUOTE: ‘Simply, the problems in Rwanda will NOT be solved by the average citizen of the UK, the US or any other Western country knowing or understanding the facts about the confilct. Nor will the military might of the self-proclaimed "policemen of the world" help in the slightest. There is, after all, nothing to be gained from an invasion of Sudan, therefore, one will not take place.’
I never said that the U.S. or the U.N. or anyone should 'invade'. Due to misguided U.S. foreign policy, the U.N. has no political clout in suggesting it move into another nation even if only to protect aid workers. Intervention is not invasion, but that's hard to accept in the current political climate. The U.N.'s job is infinitely harder because of it.
I also think you study more about the subject, if you care enough to do so. There was no direct benefits to sending peace-keepers into Congo, or Macedonia or many other places, but there were still sent. Any benefits? No.
Now I'm confused, is it 'my words' that won't matter? Or anyone at all? I say that only because your tone was accusatory towards me for writing that article in the first place. I'm not that egotistical to think that I can alone change the world through writing my little blog in the midst of millions of others, but if it causes conversation with just a few people then it's been worthwhile. Rome wasn't built in a day, and all that. With your negativity towards any actions, I'd be surprised if you could hold any kind of meaningful conversation, let alone build Rome. What's the point, you cry, as you let everyone else do the work, support you, and make a difference. That apathy is worse than anything. I'm not a die hard activist, but at least I'm trying to make a frikkin difference, mate. Lie down, and when the bastards come to your door, just tell them you're not in. Someone else will do something about it.
Okay, I can see how my comments might have been misinterpreted as being aimed only at you. That wasn't the intention. Therefore:
QUOTE: "'If CNN (or Fox or the Beeb or a damn Hollywood movie) is your only source of information, then you have NO opinion, you are merely spouting the same rhetoric as another.'
I take my sources from many places, not just the BBC or CNN. That much must be evident."
My point was in reference to the person who 'realised' how awful things were in Rwanda after watching the movie 'Hotel Rwanda'. It was not specifically aimed at you. I was using the 2nd person plural ('you') to indicate anyone and everyone.
QUOTE: 'My concern in of itself will achieve nothing, that's right, but my knowledge, other people's knowledge will change everything if applied in the right direction.'
And which direction might this be? The direction in which our governments allow us to stagger blindy, bleating like the aimless, neutered sheep that we are? Knowledge may very well be power, but in the hands of the few it is mere rhetoric, useful only to those who wish to seem superior and intellectual. Let's boil it down... How has your knowledge of their suffering helped anybody in Sudan? How has your vitriolic essay fed the starving, clothed the poor, re-housed the homeless, soothed a child that has lost its parents, funded rebuilding, or reincarnated the corpses that lie rotting in the midday sun?
Answer: It hasn't changed a damned thing.
QUOTE: 'I can only assume that by you saying that knowledge will never change anything, that you are advocating ignorance?'
No. I have never advocated ignorance. I'm just willing to accept the fact that most people are idiots. An egocentric view of the world, you may think, but true enough if you just take a quick glance around you. Ignorance is part and parcel of the world. Sure, learn all that you can, be all that you can be, live the dream, fight the power, don't let the man get you down etc. etc. When all is said and done, however, my fifty pounds to Amnesty International will achieve nothing other than buying them a few more stamps so they can leaflet-bomb my neighbourhood one more time. My knowledge, your knowledge, the PM's knowledge, the President's knowledge, none of our collective knowing changes a single thing. People still die, atrocities are still committed, rape still occurs, famine runs rife, death stalks our already blood-stained streets and not a God-damned thing changes, despite us being able to see this suffering in all its Technicolour glory, despite us being able to listen to the screams of the dying in glorious Dolby 7.1 surround sound. Our knowledge of their pain is nothing more than a voyeuristic pleasure on our part. A desire to see the blood on the tarmac.
No, I don't advocate ignorance. But I also take a dim view of this flowers-by-the-roadside, candle-lit-vigil, social-outcry, guilt-mongering attitude that seems so damn prevalent in our society. Would I protect a Sudanese child from a grown man with a gun? Yes, and little fucking good that would do me or the child. Can I help the Sudanese child that died this week with a bayonet rammed through his eyeball? No. He's dead and neither my interminable rambling nor your happy-shiny-people routine nor the various other comments from people who 'really care, really understand, not like the rest of us bastards' will ever change that.
QUOTE: 'I also think you study more about the subject, if you care enough to do so. There was no direct benefits to sending peace-keepers into Congo, or Macedonia or many other places, but there were still sent. Any benefits? No.'
No direct benefits? Isn't that an interesting phrase. No 'direct' benefits. Maybe someone should look into those 'interventions' a little more closely and see what the 'indirect' results of them were for various authorities. I could offer some insights, but why waste my time, they would merely be dismissed as the rambling of 'someone who needs to study more'. Again, patronise away, but do take a moment to realise that maybe there are people out there who know as much, if not more in some wild, strange cases, about the world and all its weird and wonderful inhabitants than you.
QUOTE: 'With your negativity towards any actions, I'd be surprised if you could hold any kind of meaningful conversation, let alone build Rome.'
Is this not a meaningful conversation? No, I guess not, I am, after all, just a young padouin. Still, let me persevere...
I'm not negative towards 'any' actions. I'm negative towards the pat-yourself-on-the-back, won't-somebody-think-of-the-children, I-gave-fifty-pence-to-[insert faceless, beurocratic charity here] kind of 'actions'. Your blog hit the tone spot on: "Well, shit happens in this world, and we can choose to ignore it, or we can choose to do something about it. What can I do, you say. Learn, learn everything you can, be aware, don't pull the wool over your eyes, and be ready, for whatever is required of you. It's your world, awful things happen in it. Do something about it."
Let me paraphrase that last quote.
"I discovered something awful about [insert random country/cause here] and now I realise how wrong and terrible it is. I'm shocked and appalled that nobody else realises it, you should all feel horrible and guilty because you're allowing it to happen. You should do something, just like I am."
Yeah, because if everyone posted just one blog a month the poor, needy and abused of this world would have something to read while they die cruel and horrible deaths.
QUOTE: 'What's the point, you cry, as you let everyone else do the work, support you, and make a difference. That apathy is worse than anything. I'm not a die hard activist, but at least I'm trying to make a frikkin difference, mate. Lie down, and when the bastards come to your door, just tell them you're not in. Someone else will do something about it.'
No one supports me. I make a difference to those people I care about because that is all anybody can do, no matter what the scare-mongers and guilt-harvesters say. Those close to you are the ONLY people that can feel your love, your sympathy, your pity, your charity, your desire to help. Sure, send money to charities if you like, volunteer for some charity work if you feel like it, but don't patronise others by pretending as though your soul has been washed clean through your good deeds.
I repeat my question, what difference have you made? You seem so sure that trying is all that matters, so sure that anyone who disagrees with your views is nothing more than an apathetic wastrel and probably a lazy son-of-a-bitch to boot. In answer to my own rhetorical question, you have done nothing other than spout puritanical nonsense that you garnered from various 'free-thinkers' in an effort to sound intelligent and understanding. The only outcome is more whiny nonsense from folk who should probably know better.
No doubt this post will be torn apart piece by piece and I'm willing to accept that. But, while you (2nd person plural, again) dissect my little rant, ask yourself one thing...
What good has all your whining and moaning actually done?
Me? I don't have to provide iron-clad proof of my good deeds, I'm not claiming to have done any.
Like I said... Nothing changes.
'Tater Salad
is that you James?
I just guessed it might be you, because you have such a stylish way of describing corpses, a talent that only comes from writing horror for so long.
I have done 'stuff', the peace rally we organised as you can see in a later article, but it's nothing that can't be picked apart by yourself as 'pointless' or 'self-righteous'. You're right, it did little. And writing does little too. So why bother huh? I think it raises awareness, and if it's written well, it affects people, maybe to do something. Maybe not. Maybe it'll just stop them from ending the conversation at the dinner table because it's uncomfortable. Who knows. I write about it because I'm passionate about it. I think other people would be too if they wanted to be. And enough passionate people get things done. Like you said, knowledge is only powerful in the hands of the many, not the few, but I can't help if my readership is a tad low. That's just how it is at the moment, but I think this site is growing. I think have something important to say. Other people seem to think the same way. Not you, but that's fine.
You made some good points. But please don't paint me as some righteous holier-than-thou preacher who admonishes all who don't follow whatever crusade is popular that week. And don't paint me as someone who doesn't see the hell in the world, because I do. I'm not naive. Just trying to do something about it, however pointless and pathetic. The apathy bothers me, and I don't want to give in to it.
QUOTE: 'In answer to my own rhetorical question, you have done nothing other than spout puritanical nonsense that you garnered from various 'free-thinkers' in an effort to sound intelligent and understanding.'
- and that is downright insulting.
So if what were saying is puritanical nonsense, than what do you call the propaganda your wasting your time to write?
Because that’s what this is about isn’t it? You cant find a purpose in your own life, you feel like nothing will be accomplished? Wouldn’t it be great if everyone felt like you did? Lazy and without the will to fight for something when they see it, yes we have to pick our battles, but you seem to be the type to sit around on the internet for hours and hours, learning big words, and reading up on the current affairs. You read about it, think how bad it is and how of an injustice it all is, and then you switch off the computer and sit at the TV to watch a movie and not do a damn thing beside give your two bit opinions at blogs, where you can hide behind a screen and some words.
You’re a coward. It doesn’t matter where you get your news from, your not doing anything with the information your gathering besides finding the uselessness in action. So your saying that we should be overwhelmed with the problems of the world as much as you are?
Oh, yes it’s ok to think all you want, I guess that will be good enough. I can’t imagine if everyone just did what your doing, sit around and think. You might not be advocating ignorance, but you sure are advocating laziness. If you think its wrong to get information from art, to be inspired by it, than so much for the last 4,000 years of human history. So what, I realized there was a problem after I watched a movie, it was a situation that happened when I was 12, how politically aware were you when you were 12? I don’t even care to know, the point being, art is meant to inspire, and inspiration infers an action of some sort, but since you don’t seem to be about action, I can see why you don’t like the idea of being inspired.
Ok, so people died, people die all the time, and yes, your not telling us anything different about the fact that there is not a thing we can do about the people already dead. Nor is there much we can do about the state of various governments. No surprise, I don’t see how on one hand you criticize people for being motivated and spreading awareness, but at the same time, turn around and berate us for not thinking that its all useless. If a candle light vigil makes someone who before it, didn’t know the name of Darfur, realize what’s going on in the world, then I think the vigil was worth it. Whatever it takes to get people the news, because god forbid TV run something educational without a gimmick.
Im not helping Darfur for any other reason than for myself, its selfish, I don’t care. I know there are horrible crimes committed in the world, and if I was witness to one going on, and had the means to stop it, then yes I would. Are you racist? I ask because according to your line of thinking, it really doesn’t matter if you are or aren’t right? It won’t change anything? What point does it make to not be racist, there are too many racist people in the world, we can’t stop it, we can’t change it, lets just give up.
I’m not racist, and I’m not, not for the sake of opposing races, but for myself, I’m not ignorant, and I think that my thoughts and actions make a difference to the people around me. So is the same for this instance with Darfur. I stay current (as best I can) for myself, I tell people about Darfur for me, so that I can have people around me who know things, and aren’t ignorant to what’s going on in the world. The more people know of things the better, and if I have to explain to you the reasons why, then you don’t disserve the brain you were born with.
Self righteous, I love how people who justify to themselves that its ok to be lazy such as you are, call others who take action “self righteous,” and how many self righteous acts are being committed for horrible, disgusting causes? Our government is a good example.
God forbid more people commit to good causes because they’re self-righteous. Call me self righteous, I could care less, its people like you I apply your own philosophy to, call me what you want, but I get out of my house and I do things, I learn things and I act with the knowledge I have gained. Martin Luther King Jr. was one man who decided not to sit around, I cant imagine what it would have been like if you were around him then. How about Einstein, he was one man, Newton, Michelangelo, etc. take any amount of singular men, who have changed our world with their ideas and actions, take any example, and with what you’ve written, they would have done nothing, and we would be a lesser species because of it. One person can do a hell of a lot when they want to, and I cant believe that I continue to meet people who blend into the masses and believe that they alone aren’t capable of doing anything.
No one here is patronizing people for not knowing what is going on, that’s the point in this, it’s to let people know. Nor has anyone said that they should feel bad for not sending money, or going to a vigil. You’re making blind attacks, that aren’t warranted, now if this is because you know someone here, then take your childish antics elsewhere.
The very fact that your wasting your time writing this negates the point of what you’re writing. If nothing will be solved, then stop writing it. You don’t care right? So what’s posting your meaningless opinion, (in the end its meaningless isnt it?) going to do for us? You think were going to be given to some revelation by you’re pessimistic insight? No, its people like you who sit around while the problems go on, thinking that there isn’t anything to be doing, while the people who are busy spreading knowledge are making more people aware so that things can get done. Your static, your existence means nothing if you don’t take action in your life.
If you don’t have to provide iron-clad proof of your good deeds, than neither do any of us, I certainly am not going to explain myself to someone who doesn’t care about the world. Reading up on things, doesn’t mean you care, it means you can read.
Logan
Sorry for the delay... Life marches on outside of our little, virtual sparring match.
QUOTE: 'Is that you James?'
Apologies, but I think we have a case of mistaken identity. My name isn't James, I'm not a horror writer and my 'stylish' way of describing corpses is just the remnants of too long reading pulp novels as a child.
Without going through your post (or Logan's) point for point and arguing against each thing that bothers me, I've decided, now that I'm a little calmer and have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, to just write a brief (as brief as I'm able, at least) explanation of what I meant by what I said and why I said what I said. I'll try to not ramble on because this has taken way too much of all our time already.
Please, bear in mind as you read this that they are my views. Nothing more than my perspective on your words, your actions. Disagree (as you must if you wish to remain safe and comfortable with your thoughts and beliefs) but please do not dismiss them as an attack on you or your character. My mistake with the last two posts was to allow the anger and insulting nature of them to override the message. Therefore, I cannot blame anyone of you for missing the point. The error was in my tone, not in my message. If you are willing to accept that, then we can move on and I will try and explain my meaning. If not, then please stop reading here, because what I am about to say is liable to offend, perhaps not as badly as my previous comments, but badly enough if you approach my words with a closed mind.
1) Yes, my comments were meant to offend. That was not their only reason for being, but offense was intended. The reason for that level of anger in my text is very simply because that was (is) the level of anger that I felt (feel) towards the original post. I called the original post patronising and I still honestly believe that. The assertion that something has been acheived and that anyone who doesn't agree with the post's tone or content is scum made me see red, and still does.
2) To call me a coward, to accuse me of accomplishing nothing, to accuse me of being lazy and uncaring and uninspired, to accuse me of racism, to suggest that I don't deserve the brain I was born with, is fine. You're wrong, but I've got no problem with that. You don't know me, you don't have any understanding (or interest) in my beliefs, my actions, my history, my desires. If I wanted to maintain my anger and fiercely debate those points, I would have to allow myself to be offended by someone who, at the end of the day, I disagree with on an utterly fundamental level. The tone and nature of your posts and comments highlight the fact that you believe that what you do and say will change anothers' way of thinking and viewing the world, highlights that you believe your way is the only way. I think I was justified in calling that puritanical and patronising. You are stating, as fact, that your views, your actions, your beliefs are better than anothers. I found that offensive and allowed myself to rail against that. You may say that you are FOR free thought and free speech. In actual fact, you are only for it in the sense that it allows you to say what you say and damn anyone who disagrees.
3) To suggest that a candlelight vigil is anything more than an easing of your own conscience is wrong (in my opinion). Yes, it may, as a by-product, inform someone of the horrors being perpetrated in Sudan, but that is not its driving goal. People who are interested enough in the rest of the world will already know what is going on out there (just as I am aware) because we 'care' enough to find out about the rest of our planet. People who aren't interested will remain uninterested even when you tell them what is happening. Because it doesn't affect them, because their lives are so full of infromation and terrible things happen every day, to them, to their loved ones, to family, to friends, to neighbours, to people just up the road. To berate them for not knowing, to barrack them for not caring, is both wrong and patronising. You should not force your own beliefs onto others. Just because you believe something to be terrible and wrong shouldn't mean that you look down at others who either don't understand enough to 'get it' or who are too tied up panicking about their wife's cancer or their mother's dickie heart or their child's drug abuse. Life is hard. You say it's harder for others out there in the wider world and no one can argue with that statement. But, you go onto say that if you don't do anything about it then you don't care and you are an idiot. That's vitriolic and patronising, again, in my opinion. It's downright wrong.
4) To compare what you are doing to Martin Luthat King, to Einstein, to Newton, to Michelangelo, is... how can I put this?... big-headed, to say the least. You suggest that in a world populated by men and women like me, none of these great people would have acheived their great deeds. I think your logic is spurious at best. All of those people listed went out and actually did something, actually achieved something because they not only believed that that something mattered enough to do, but they had the passion and strength to do it. They had a fire burning inside that wouldn't be extinguished by anything or anyone. Their ideas did not change the world. Their achievements did. Sure, those achievements stemmed from those ideas, but the ideas themselves were useless without the blood, sweat and tears. Arrogance in your certainty holds you back from achieving anything (again, my opinion). Those people agonised over their actions, their decisions, their beliefs in an effort to improve themselves, in an effort to make the world a better, more interesting place. You say that a candlelight vigil, that a brief blog entry is of the same ilk. I say that you are trying to foist your newly-formed opinions and beliefs on another. Which, if I remember correctly, Martin Luthar King fought so hard against. The segregation of the blacks stemmed from a continued, systematic, viral belief that they were less than the whites. Certainty in that belief was the cause of that terrible chapter in our history. Einstein fled Germany during the Nazi regime because of their certainty. Your certainty in your beliefs IS of the same ilk (though on a much smaller scale) as those others, be it a benign belief or not. And to compare your deeds to those greats does them a disservice.
5) Simply put, you are correct in saying that I am wasting my time writing this. I can do nothing to change your belief because you are so certain that you are right. I let my anger get the better of me and I responded to something which offended me in an offensive manner. Right or wrong, that's all it was. My point still stands, however. Who gave you the right to patronise (disagree with that word if you like, but please go back and check the tone and nature of the original post and the comments that followed before you do so) others and to act as though something 'great' and 'good' has been achieved by your 'actions' when you cannot show that anything, anything at all, has come from it? I believe you said at one point that if it created conversation over the dinner table then you have done your job. No. That shouldn't be the end goal of anything like this. Either you honestly believe that what you are doing will change something for the people who you say you are doing it for, or you should edit your posts with a less biased eye. Because, yet again, in my opinion, being smug at knowing more than another, caring more than another, doing more than another isn't charity, isn't sympathy, isn't any damn thing other than self-satisfaction.
As I stated above, I am under no illusion that some of you will find what I have said offensive. I'd apologise for that, but you probably wouldn't accept it and I'm not entirely sure how honest the apology would be. Anger can sometimes be the only way to make your point. Maybe not in this case, but I felt that it was.
So, please, please, please, before you write a point for point response that is intended to negate everything I have said, please try and search out the message of my words and try not to focus on the words themself. I'm still not sure if that will solve anything, I'm pretty certain, in fact, that we will never see eye-to-eye on this subject, but, if for one second you can see what I'm saying, then maybe, just maybe all of this ranting and raving won't have been in vain.
I have re-read all of the posts previous to this and, while I still stand by my message and my words, I DO understand why you all said what you said. I do. I disagree, but I understand. Here's hoping that this is a two way street. Because I'm not chasing converts here, I'm making a point. Just as you were all making a point.
I will be back to see what kind of response this message gets, purely out of interest. I will not, however, take part in any more debate. Not because I am closed-minded, but because I don't believe anything will be achieved by our words. Call it lazy, call it uncaring, call it the coward's way out, but realise one thing... No one can convince another of anything, they can only convince themselves. So, say what you will, get angry and blow off some steam, feel as though a victory has been won, if you must, but don't be offended when no response comes.
Later from the 'Tater
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home