samir Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 As you can see they were surrounded by police officers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Alex, It appears your bridges thread is now <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004SwZ>here</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrikon Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Ironically, among the scattered few pro-war demonstrators were many who went on the following week to march in a pro-life, anti-abortion demonstration. Do they see the contradiction? I stayed away from that pro-life demonstration; however, in retrospect, I feel like it would have been a good opportunity to capture raw, highly deluded, exhibitionist passions on film. For those unaware of history during the past few years, there were indeed major anti-war demonstrations in our nation's capitol against the bombing of Serbia. I still have my buttons, my t-shirt, and several rolls of negatives from them. But this would be a surprising fact to those who believe that corporate news tells them what they need to know, perhaps everything they need to know. Although I wouldn't count my snaps among them, I feel sure that at some point some photographer will become recognized for having captured a 'sense of the times' during our era, through photographs of these and other demonstrations. The anti-World Bank and anti-trade conventions demonstrations come to mind as representative, very representative, of the emerging fault lines between government and the public. One has every right to question whether, in fact, we still live in a system that can call itself in any meaningful sense a democracy, as opposed to a corporatist state which relies on prisons and bread and circuses to keep the population in line. In my opinion democracy in the US is almost, but not quite, dead from a thousand cuts -- regardless whether this is a correct, realistic view there can be no doubt that the politics of our age are an historic watershed which can and should be captured on film. G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samir Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 Can anybody tell me what the red flag on the second picture (contre manifestants01) represents??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 United States Marine Corps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Eliot, Would that mean that you would not believe the numbers from a pro-war rally either (or any other rally that supported your views)? Strangly the right and left were missing from the Clinton "wars". And what if the new Iraq war were to accidently bomb a clinic? Would we here that Sadam was hiding "weapons of mass destruction" there? Unfortunately I have little faith in either party to tell us the truth. May all of our loved ones come home safely from all wars of egos... Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Eliot, And why would it be that these people are anti-Bush? Did not the people give the Republicans a mandate? Did not Bush win the election (well under a system that needs to be changed). Could it be that Bush went to the UN looking for a blessing. Not getting one, he wants to act on his own? Strange that Gen. Norman S.(sp) has come out against any actions under the current circumstances? Has he suddenly made a left turn? I personally don't think that people are turning a blind eye on the past. What is past is past. Where were the protesters when we went into Granada? Or when we went into Panama? Was Reagan getting a free ride becuase he was republican? Both sides twist things to fit their aggenda. There is too much need at home to be the big imperialist country any longer. If action is to be taken it must be as a unified world community. In particular when borders are not being attacked directly. Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Guys, if you want to make a political statement with your photographs, you really don't have to attend a rally of any sort to do so. IMO it would be much harder to convey a poignant political message when EVERYONE is trying to say the same thing! PEACE! And as Chip would say, Happy Shooting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 First of all, thank you for the clarification, Tony, about the dropping of the "Bridges" thread. I am glad it was not you. The question that follows has to be: Which moderator did delete the "Bridges" thread and several others? I got an anonymous e-mail saying that my thread was moved to hll-.//www.photo.net/bboard/a-and-fetch-msq.id=004swz. Clicking on that I found a message under my initial question saying that this was a question about photographing bridges and other national monuments and that posters should refrain from making political statements--which I find weird as this is a poltical question to begin with. May I presume, Tony, this was not your statement but that of this unknown moderator. So who is this Big Brother moderator and what gives him or her the right to mess with our Leica forum in this way? Now let me point something out here. This particular thread has been forced to move from a discussion of Leica photography's relation to demonstrations and to the photographers' own political views in relation to their work to a purely political debate because of the misinformed and irrational comments by "Eliot" (and when I see a given name and no family name I assume it is a pseudonym until told otherwise). One of the presumptions of Eliot is that those of us who are anti-war are simply out to get George Bush. Where were we when Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia? he demands. I for one was writing protests against that war--which is all I could do where I was in Japan. Eliot tells us of his long association with this form. I sincerely hope his insights into Leica cameras and photography are better than his political thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 "misinformed and irrational comments by "Eliot"" Alex. FYI, my last name is Rosen. And FYI it is you and Chip who made this a political debate, long before my first post. I think it tells alot that you resort to attack and name calling rather than debate. My comments were aimed at the organizers of the rally and the many protesters carrying anti-Bush signs, some of which compared him to Hitler. I'll take your word that you were also against the bombing of Serbia. I was not referring to everyone against the war, but the many who were simply trying to embarass Bush. And I'll put my knowledge of Leica against yours any day, if you must get personal. It is very telling that there were NO signs protesting against Saddam. After all the administration said that he would be allowed to resign and leave Iraq in order to avoid war. Where were all of the protesters asking Saddam to step down? Nowehere to be found. Tou CANNOT first make political comments and then decide it is innappropriate for someone else to respond to your comments. I'd call that "irrational". I stand by what I said. If you think they are "misinformed", show me where they are wrong. Have the courage to support your contentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 "If any photographs can convince the average sleepwalking American that the war Bush is pushing for against Iraq is stupid and immoral they are photographs like the ones we have seen here." Alex, I found this post of yours about 9 or 10 posts before my first post. IF THAT IS NOT TURNING THIS INTO A POLITICAL THREAD, I DON'T KNOW what is. How dare you blame me for something YOU ALREADY DID. You are a class A hypocrite. Talk about irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samir Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 Eliot, You are right that no one is demonstrating Saddam or any other dictator to step down. Of course thousands of people work anonymosly with different organization, like amnesty international, to ensure the respect of human rights, freedom and democracy. But again, the Iraki regime is not more cruel today than it was yesterday than it was the day before yesterday. What makes it now such a dangerous country and why do the USA need to wage a war to remove him, and to replace him by a military US adminstration (according to some news report). Don t you see that what turned Bin Laden against its previous protectors was, to his eye, the continuing "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. Don t you realize the danger and the possible blowback an occupation of Irak may trigger? Also the choice is not WAR or NO WAR ... there is a continuum of action and policies to deal with the issue...war being the last recourse. Apartheid was abolished in South Africa not trough war but with a long lasting international isolation. Again, why do you think such a war is a necessity for the world? What are the dangers? What are the evidences? (on the last one you have to wait the revelation next Wednesday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I see that the "Bridges" thread was moved to the unarchved forum, so it will expire soon, so anyone who wants a copy of it should go there and grab it (do a File->Save As). The other moderators are Josh Root, my assistant moderator, and Brian Mottershead, the Editor in Chief of photo.net. Brian has ultimate control, and Josh has been a great help due to the fact that this place is the busiest -- and most interesting -- discussion forum around. Generally, and certainly historically, political themes have not been allowed in our forum because they typically erupt into flame wars, and we should not be any sort of "platform" for anyone who wants to rant about their political viewpoints. To me, the worst is when we get a question posted like, "Bush sucks; it's sad the U.S. will attack Iraq... blah blah... I hope he changes his mind for all humanity's sake!!!" which has nothing to do with photography. What's much harder to confront is a thread such as this one that begins innocently enough -- even though the "photo" subject seems to be the very thing that is off limits to our forum -- but which get's all sticky in the end (if you'll pardon that expression!). Lately, I have not been so quick to act, though, because we are in such a politically charged world now. Photography, and in my view, the best photography, seems always so "connected" to politics. To completely eliminate threads that contain political stuff would be like not being able to chat with your physician about birth control. Our forum would be like the very limited selection of books and magazines they gave to inmates at Alcatraz! This thread was really under control for the longest time, though, each response (or many responses) remained connected to the act of photographing. If participants can keep the subject centered around the act of photographing, I think that many will be surprised at how far-reaching the discussions can go and still survive the moderator's delete button. Also, it is important to remain polite and keep a somewhat thick skin while participating. It's not always that easy. I know that I very often put my foot in my mouth, and I deservedly get called on it. The best thing about being a group of Leica enthusiasts is that we have had 100 years to cultivate a "high class atmosphere." We should be the most polite of all groups; our good manners should match the quality of our equipment. (Just watch, I'm going to catch some flak from that statement, but I don't care.) Other than accidental duplicates or completely tasteless questions, if I delete a thread, I will try my best to remember to tell you that it was me. I hope the other moderators will do the same. Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 You are right Tony. I will tone it down. I just don't like to see these threads being used to bash Bush, America, etc., as happens too often. I feel that when this happens, someone shoould present the opposing point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Eliot, I felt this had turned in a political debate before I entered. I admit that is why I posted some of my pics from the rally. Much like Lewis Hine's photographs brought about social change in the child labor laws, photography even today can be a powerful tool. (Maybe with digital retouching too powerful) With some of my pictures I wanted to show that there were more than the "unwashed" concerned about this pending war. I learned a few years back when taking a history of photography class how our prejudcices affect how we interpt what we see. There was an exhibit of various women photographers at the Women's Museum. One image was of a Barbie doll on a "beach" of french frys. One classmate could not see the art or message in the image. He was not aware of Bulimia or Anarexia(sp.). That tainted his view, for once he knew about the intended message did he at least accept what the photographer was trying to say. In regards to no anti-Sadam posters at the rally. Yes the rally was aimed at Bush and his administration. For they were Americans for the most part, trying to effect a change in government policy. Just as days later others met at the Supreme Court to affect changes on another matter. I don't think that anyone at the rally really thought Sadam was a good man. But I am sure that many from various ministries there would say that two wrongs do not make a right. So long as we refrain from name calling, and school yard trash talk; any dialoge from these images are healthy. I sincerely hope that you and otehrs that disagree with my view points have noted that I have remained very civil. You all are not "loony" "jerks" that are "unwashed" "commies" as some have tried to protray those of us that want to avoid the war on Iraq as teh Bush adminstration would want. So long as we are members of the UN, we need to abide by that charter. That is what the protesters were asking for. For myself I did not spend too much time following the whole issue, other than the sound bites on TV; or the first coouple of paragraphs in the papers. I came away from teh rally and my images with a thirst to know more. The more I read, the more I saw the reason behind their arguments. Do I hope that I change your mind? Yes. But do I think that I will change your mind? No. But maybe someone like myself that was disconnected as I was will see our discussions and make up their own minds. Happy snaps Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Thank you Tony. I hope that I have remained civil in this discourse. I have enjoyed many of the commenst coming from both sides here. And I hope that this will not end up being deleted. Again thanks Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Samir, my posts were intended to expose the hypocrisy of many [NOT ALL] of the "anti-war" protesters who were, in fact, anti-Bush protesters. They were not intended to show enthusiastic support for the war. I, myself, do have some misgivings about going to war. Nevertheless, I think it will be a short war, and when it was over, there will be more than adequate proof found that Saddam is/was amassing WMD and was collaborating with Al Qaeda. Then those who opposed the war will [if they are intellectually honest] have to admit the administration was correct. As far as post-war Iraq, I believe the administration when it says it does not wish to occupy Iraq, only to provide a platform so that post-Saddam self government is possible. I don't believe Americans are occupiers. If we were occupiers and just wanted the oil, we would have marched into Baghdad during the last war and taken it. The U.S. President then was also named George Bush (the father), and he keot his promise not to take over Iraq for the benefit of Americ's oil needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Eliot, Hope that this is not crossing aline with Tony or yourself. But your last comment about bashing Bush or America. Maybe I missed something, but I did not see that in this thread. One of the joys and liberties we have in the US is the freedom of speech and assembly. Our founding had some very good foresight in allowing the citizens to have a voice in their government. Without it women would not have had the right to vote, the African American would not have the right to vote, both Nixon and Clinton would not have been held accountable for their actions. Every party has "bashed" the sitting party, and indirectly America. But that is the price of freedom. The government needs to held accountable for their actions. Remember it's "We the people.." not "We the privilaged few...". Healthy discourse whether through pictures or words is part of our heritage. The Patriot Act has taken some of that away. Lets not further erode what we have left. A side note - I have enjoyed some of your counter points, particularly those of reason rather than passion. Lets agree to disagree; and hope that all world powers come to the table before body bags are brought home on all lands. Chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garvey_p Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Appeasement worked so well with 1930's Germany. Let's try that some more. If anyone cares, Thomas Sowell had a good piece on just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 What makes some of us angry with the anti-war folks is that we think that ALL people deserve freedom and Democracy! Not just us here in the USA. When we look at a country like Iraq, with no free press, no right to vote and being run by a dictator we just can't figure how not standing up to such a person can or will ever make the lives of the Iraq people better! Our freedom was hard fought for. And believe it or not, we are not all miss or uninformed. Maybe we just find our information from different sources. I watch the news feed from the middle east on my sat-dish on a very regular basis. (A program called Mosaic) What you see is clearly propaganda. They love to show all the peace folks and use them to bolster their own arguments. I am also very cynical of world events covered by our own news media. Anyway, I should have known better then to get involved in this discussion, I have found these online arguments never lead anywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Robert, My heart bleeds for you. How you must have suffered when the Chinese marched into Tibet and began their slaughter of a million Tibetans and took away their dignity, freedoms and culture and the US did, and still does nothing. Or how about the massacres in Rawanda, another million dead and savage repression and the US insisting that the UN refrain from descibing it as genocide. Or all these years, in one of NATO's staunchest allies, Turkey, where their army has been macine gunning Kurds in their villages for years, or even now, while the the blacks in South Sudan are being eradicated by the northern Muslims. Truth is you must have suffered so badly for so long since there are dozens of examples, all over the world where similar or even worse oppression than in Iraq is occuring but the compassionate and fellow feeling US government either stands and watches or even finances the oppressors. Poor you, perhaps you could complain to your government if your fellow feeling is running so high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samir Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 Garvey, Comparing Irak with Germany in the 30s is stupid. First Germany was a super power, not a developing country that can be smashed in 2 weeks. Second any suggestion that Saddam is like Hitler is non sense, because whatever Saddam's crimes, there no where close to Hitler's...doing so is banalizing Hitler crimes... You should read the following editorial in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16722-2003Feb2.html in which the auther says rightly: "The final box is more or less speculation on my part: that Bush has been sold a scenario in which he gets to play hero thwarting a threat to civilization as we know it. It's like having had the prescience and the gumption to eliminate Hitler before the devastation of World War II. What's missing is that you cannot demonstrate before the fact that either Hitler or Hussein is such a menace to civilization. And to kill before that evidence is in may prompt history to remember you more as an international bully than as a hero. " 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