beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "We are all evil at heart and without the rules, guidelines, shelter, and daily reminders of a governing society we are utterly lost without restraint."<p> Sadly it never ceases to amaze how folks will aggrandize an incident, for what reason I have no idea other then it serves an agenda. It's been dealt with so deal with it and move on but to dwell in it is to show one's colors.<p> Some images which might put the images of Abu Ghraib into perspective.<p> <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sudan-imagery.htm">Destroyed villages in the Darfur region of western Sudan.</a><p> Shall we discuss<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/"> Rwanda</a>?<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 the atrocities in Darfur and Rwanda were not committed by the US military. an important detail. the interest and the topic here is what was photographed as transpiring under the supervision (or lack) of the US military which is a subscriber of the Generva Convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Claudia, I think most of us understand that distinction. The person in this thread who doesn't once tried to claim that we couldn't properly evaluate photos of lynchings from the early 20th century without taking into account intra-racial violence that occured in the late 20th century--his understanding of "context" is highly idiosyncratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "the atrocities in Darfur and Rwanda were not committed by the US military. an important detail." And yet the caring West stood by and did nothing in regard to Rwanda and these same said caring Westerners are doing nothing today other than to talk about Darfur as there are those who find import in discussing images of little to no consequence when compared to "real" issues of human suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattvardy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 <a href="http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/paper660/news/2005/02/23/Viewpoint/Break.Your.Heart.Of.Darkness-873174.shtml">The Observer</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 i believe this thread is about the US military and the photographs at Abu Ghraib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "The person in this thread who doesn't once tried to claim that we couldn't properly evaluate photos of lynchings from the early 20th century without taking into account intra-racial violence that occured in the late 20th century--his understanding of "context" is highly idiosyncratic. Putting my comment back into it's original context. I commented on the lack of outrage in regard to contemporary black on black killing as to dwell on the past while ignoring the present is disengenuous at best and to not see the connection between the past and the present is to deny reality. Where's the outrage in regard to black youth, killing black youth? The dead of the past are buried, the death that will come visit our children tonight is what should be discussed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Thomas, maybe as a black youth you should start a thread on black youth killing black youth. but this thread is about a specific incidence involving the US military and possible violations of the Geneva Conventions and the role of photography in bringing this to the attention of the taxpayers who are funding the war in Iraq and who have an oversight responsibility in seeing how the money they contribute to the government is being used and how it might be undermining the respect that the US has in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currents_serene Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Matt said, <i> We are all evil at heart and without the rules, guidelines, shelter, and daily reminders of a governing society we are utterly lost without restraint.</i><p> Ohhh! Dear Matt, no. I hope that you can see that even though you see evil among us, that does not mean that there is evil within us all. Certainly there are a few that will do evil even in the face of restraint, and still more who would do evil if given the absence of restraint. But most mature adults, if they were faced with a breakdown of social order, would do nothing else but fight to restore the social order. <p> I can understand how the continuous bombardment of terrible stories in the daily news can make young people wonder if there are any honest, moral people left. But you must remember that these stories are newsworthy because they are the fringe of a large population of law-abiding citizens. And the bad acts of a few US soldiers are newsworthy because they belong to a military that is both the most ethical and the most scrutinized ever. <p> That's not to say that there isn't a lot of room for improvement in our military, but as Thomas points out, we should keep things in perspective. When measured against the high standards to which we hold the only super-power force in the world, what happened at Abu Ghraib is very bad. When measure against the atrocities other militaries and paramilitaries inflict elsewhere the world, it is so benign in comparison that it is laughable. <p> So, Dear Matt, in closing, I want you to look into your own heart to know that what I say is true. I can tell from what you write that you are a mature thinking young man. When you look into your own heart, you see that you are human with a human's <i>capacity</i> to do evil -- that's normal and natural. But what you also see within your own heart is the <i>resolve</i> to do the right thing -- that's maturity. You, like most of us, if faced with a breakdown of law and order, would do your part to restore it, not abuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c4-contemporary-art Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Matt - yes, perhaps laughable in relation to SOME grand scheme.... but to say that you also have to say that the israeli's actions on palestine is laughable - or that Adolf Hitler's actions against european jews also is laughable. But what happened at Abu Ghraib is just about as bad as it gets in the context of interpersonal treatment. I understand that this makes you feel uneasy. But in your heart of hearts I think and hope you know this to be true. Please - don't jump down my throat for these words. Just - think about them for a bit maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currents_serene Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I think you addressed your comments to me, not Matt. Jonathan, I don't know what to say. Your first sentence is so bizarre that I'm speechless at the moment. Perhaps I will come back tomorrow with an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcofrancardi Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Can anyone tell me if the photographer got any money out of that entire story? If so, how much (roughly)? In that case, everything changes to a very miserable event: a ruthless paparazzi shooting pics (deceiving her friends) instead of helping the victim. If she didn't mean to shoot to sell, than I'm ready to buy any explanation. I bet what "psycologically" happens in an enviroment like that is out of my perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "...this thread is about a specific incidence involving the US military and possible violations of the Geneva Conventions and the role of photography in bringing this to the attention of the taxpayers who are funding the war in Iraq and who have an oversight responsibility in seeing how the money they contribute to the government is being used and how it might be undermining the respect that the US has in the world." It's a rehashing of an incident that has been dealt with, over and over and over and over again. It's in the past, it's a dead horse. Darfur is alive and well. Black on Black murder is alive and well. The US military is training Iraqi's double time as wacko's are blowing up conscripts standing in line, voluntarily joining their military and police to help corral these nut jobs. Where's the outcry for their rights to life and freedom of choice? Where are the images of their deaths? Context. "The role of photography is...." These images have nothing to do with photography per se other then they were snaps taken by some soldiers, they were't images taken by a PJ. Context. If you're all about beating up the US Military, fine. At least come out and say that's what you're about. In the perspective of the millions of men and women in US military uniform, this was but a small number of loose canons who have been tried and punished for their behavior. Context. If you're about PJ, snaps and photography, then one needs to maintain perspective and talk about snaps of US soldiers building schools, show images of the US military protecting pole workers, images of women voting, hospitals in operation, infrastructure being built. Context. Or you can dwell, no context, on a single bad incident that has been dwelt with, as if nothing has been done, cause it serves a political purpose. Images or photographs can be used for good and for bad. It's also a choice for what purpose (propaganda) how one will encourage images be used; no context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 If you want to know how and why the world stands by and watches in places like Rawanda, Haiti and Darfur, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141012900/"><i>We Did Nothing</i></a> by Dutch journalist Linda Polman is an eye opener. It'll be the last time you "blame the United Nations" or accept that as an excuse from your own goverment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "...and who have an oversight responsibility in seeing how the money they contribute to the government is being used..." I might comment that I contribute (voluntary) nothing as the money (taxes/redistribution), at the point of a gun, is stolen from me. There's nothing voluntary about the theft of my earned monies. Others have decided that my efforts are there's; tax slave. But that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d. light Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Thomas Gardner: "If you're all about beating up the US Military, fine." How was that with the pitchforks and nightcandles you mentioned before? You make rhetorical statements, thats all. It is simply your interpretation and it shows how much you mistake this thread. Do you think that this kind of mistreatment should be accepted? And on top of that in war that is based on false means, weapons of mass destruction etc.. A country that claims for itself to show the whole world how it has to behave??? Should we all say: Hey go on, use Iraq as a test field of your latest weapons and give the freaked out soldiers their 'fun' that they derserve to have? sheeeez. Apart from that, Thomas, personally I think that war always brings the worst side of us to the fore and I do believe that the accused soldiers may be good people in a peaceful environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 "Do you think that this kind of mistreatment should be accepted?" I think that people like to beat dead horses out of political convenience because they have an agenda and as an excuse to not talk about Philosophy of Photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d. light Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Thanks for your insightful answer, you speak for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Well, now that we've worked through our need to make people feel guilty about something they have no control over, here's something of photograpic import.<p> <a href="http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050523094909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001">Watch Where You Point That Camera</a><p> It's an AOL article so I don't know if the link will work for you folks.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d. light Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 TG:"Well, now that we've worked through our need to make people feel guilty about something they have no control over..." .... lean back and continue as if nothing has happened. Concentrate on our home hysterie and all the evil from abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d. light Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 ps: no need to respond Thomas, I am finishing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 ".... lean back and continue as if nothing has happened."<p> And you're acting as if nobody was punished. It's old news, get over it.<p> Here's something of photographic interest.<p> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1486443,00.html">Photographing Frida Kahlo</a><p> The power of photography to influence.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c4-contemporary-art Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sorry - yes - I saw the bolded MATT - and just went for it. In what way do you mean 'bizarre"? Would you care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currents_serene Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I am sorry, Jonathan, but I will not respond with a rebuttal. I think that most of the readers on this thread will recognize the first line of your post (May 23, 2005; 03:05 AM) as political trolling, and I don't want to legitimize and encourage that sort of thing. I hope this doesn't upset you, and I'm sorry if it does, because I don't mean to disrespect you in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c4-contemporary-art Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I repeat my question to you - I am only interested. And I have no wish to play games with you. I would still like to know in what way you find my comments bizarre. Please take responsibility for your comments or else apologize. You may e-mail me directly if you are feeling shy about it. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now