The power of photography and political correctness

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>I am not sure if we in US have a comparable icon which we would defend to the death.</i><p>

 

I believe that would be the Constitution of the US. At least is what I hear the presidents swear when they are inaugurated.

[leonard_evens]

Domenico,

 

I was 12 years old when the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. We learned later that there was considerable controversy among some of the scientists who had developed the bomb about whether or not it should have been used. People will continue to debate that long into the future.

 

But I doubt strongly that the state of the US economy was an issue at the time. Before WWII, the US was in a depression from which it had not really recovered. Many people were still unemployed or worked at very low paying jobs. WWII changed all that, and we had full employment and something of a boom economy. Of course the war placed strains on the economy, but the US could easily have supported the additional time necessary to defeat Japan as it had the defeat of Germany.

[tim_curry]

My father's job at the end of WWII was to unlock and sort out the concentration camps in Germany. I saw what it did to that good man. He still carries the emotional scars from the war.

 

Japan attacked the U.S. for economic reasons (oil and natural resources). The U.S. occupied and helped rebuild its economy and infrastructure.

 

The U.S. usually pays for the "plunder" it takes from other countries, it is called trade. If the U.S. economy were removed from the world, the depression and chaos it would cause would be felt for generations. Canada cuts timber to pay for its social programs and run its economy.

The U.S. pays for oil. Iraq will be paid for its oil. Time will tell if any middle eastern country is able to have a vibrant and free society. So far there is little of human value in evidence.

 

The U.S. is hated because it is an upstart nation with unprecedented success both economically and politically (or pick an area of competition in which there is a need to be filled and see who fills it). Sorry, but we are socially backwards in that people who wish to work are able to and those who do work are wont to pay for a bunch of lazy, shiftless human debris. I dislike giving my tax dollars to people overseas who hate us or people here who cry about a lack of opportunity.

 

Hatred is only possible when someone decides that someone else is better off than they are.

[john_latta]

The large format forum is the only internet forum I have found where the large majority of people who contribute are willing to use their names rather than an alias. I greatly appreciate the forum and believe the people who contribute are some of the most thoughtful around.

 

This tread has drifted in a surprising direction. Perhaps the range of contributions have given us a look at ourselves? ANWR, a place of beauty and wonder, like a photo, can generate a wide range of emotions, some of them disturbing. Do we need to consider the consequences of our choices more carefully?

[ralph_barker]

John, while I objected to the political statement regarding the "current administration" in your initial post - largely because I personally feel photography forums should be kept on-topic, I agree that places like the ANWR need to be preserved for all of the obvious environmental reasons. As such, I also agree that we need to consider the consequences of our political, environmental, and economic choices. The role of photography in shaping those choices has been, is, and should continue to be very strong. Only in recent years have we become environmentally sophisticated enough to grasp some of the consequences of past choices.

 

Unfortunately, many presentations of "the facts" in the media tend to take a polarized position, and present that perspective, rather than a balanced presentation of all sides of an issue. That, I think, is a function of both the sound-bite mentality of the current age, and the need to sell the media output through sensationalism. The result is a strongly polarized populace that has difficulty in carrying on civil discussions.

 

I have no idea what motivations Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Chair of the House Appropriations, may have had for whatever action he took with regard to the Smithsonian display. Being as he is from Alaska, however, I suspect there may have been reasons that weren't well-represented in the media presentation of the situation. I would also assume that the Smithsonian, in following its stated policy of politically-neutral presentations, had good reason for doing so. Of all places, the Smithsonian should not allow itself to be used as a political platform for the presentation of one perspective over another, nor should it allow apparent endorsement of a perspective by third-party association. Similarly, I don't believe the federal government, regardless of which party is in the White House, should support, financially or otherwise, the presentation of one perspective over another. Thus, the Smithsonian's action seems appropriate in that context.

 

Within the context of this forum, however, I think we are better served by focusing the discussions on photographic choices, rather than political ones. Anyone is free to fund a photo-and-politics.net site, of course. This is, after all, a free country. ;-)

[markci]

How did a Senator become chair of the House approprations committee?

<p>

What day in May of 1945 has the U.S. "put in a box" (whatever that means?), given that Hiroshima was in August of 1945?

<p>

<i>

Similarly, I don't believe the federal government, regardless of which party is in the White House, should support, financially or otherwise, the presentation of one perspective over another.

</i>

<p>

Well that's <i>truly</i> an extraordinary statement, given that the government is in the business every day of advocating its own positions before congress, in the courts and to the American people.

<p>

I agree a photo forum should stick to photography, given the level of political sophistication displayed here!

[igor_johanson]

Tim Curry - are you talking about your taxpayers dollars which in the amount of billions go each year to Israel? I agree, that support should be stopped.

 

But you are wrong on other issues. The Iraq will NOT be paid for its oil. The Iraqi oil revenues will be used to pay for the American invasion, but the proceeds will not go to your pocket. The buck will go to the Pentagon generals and shareholders (like vp. Cheiny, Perle and the likes) of Raytheon, Halliburton, etc. That is why many foreign nations hate Americans!

 

And do not worry about democracy and freedom, or its lack elsewhere on Earth. Just stick to the confinement of US borders.

[alex_hawley]

Its time to end this thread. Its grown ugly and is getting uglier and is completely off subject.

[steven_clark]

Not as ugly as some I've seen.

[igor_johanson]

Tim - thanks for your follow-up email which I received. You might be interested in reading this:

 

<A href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,935648,00.html"> Gravy train</A>

[brian_ellis3]

Domenico - I suggest that you read a little history of this country to which you chose to immigrate before ranting about something of which you clearly have no knowledge. FYI, the economy of this country was far from "shaky" during WWII. On the contrary, the economy was booming, so dropping the atomic bomb could have had nothing to do with the "shaky" economy to which you refer. You might pay attention to the old adage that it's better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool rather than opening your mouth and eliminating all doubt.