Mainly in reaction to Steven Spielberg's decision of today...
You accuse them over Sudan.
You accuse them over Burma.
You accuse them over Korea
America, oh great America,
You left villages in rubble.
Bloody armor tracks in the sand.
You rained down fire from the skies.
The children of Baghdad cry.
The widows of Falujah weep.
The pensioners of Najaf sob.
How dare you even accuse others?
|
Written by Phil (6730 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
Point well made - and it did occur to me too. However - are you not confusing an individual with a state here? I'm a British citizen, I even voted for Blair, but I'm not responsible for his decision to invade Iraq along with Bush. It wasn't his stated intention when votes were cast. Is Iraq, stupid bloody mess that it is, comparable to the organised genocide that is going on in Sudan?
Difficult one.
Phil |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3362 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
I agree with you about the double stanards of America but Steven Spielberg wasn't responsible for any of the atrocities mentioned so I don't see how he is a hypocrite.
Being born in a country doesn't make you responsible for the actions of it's political masters. I take no repsonsibility for Tony Blair's war on Iraq and demonstrated against it, does that make me a hypocrite? I know you feel strongly about these things but I feel you don't think them through always |
P,S
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3362 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
| A typo in the title -Hypocrisy |
Written by Fledermaus (3301 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
Hi Phil and BBS.
Mr. Spielberg may not have invaded Iraq, but I haven't heard him object to the Iraq war in the same way he now seems to object to the PRC's reaction to the events in Sudan. If we would apply his own argument to the USA, he shouldn't be making any film in Hollywood anymore either.
I am indeed not very objective, as I think people should disconnect the Olympics and politics, yet I did notice the flaw both of you mention, which is why mr. Spielberg is not IN the poem, but only in the introduction. |
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
Nor, I think, can you visit on the American people as a whole the sins of their president et al.
SS is perhaps one of those with a big enough 'voice' in America - and the world - to be able to be heard in the parliamentary wildernesses; but don't hold out any hope. The Chinese have their own agendas
There are invariably conflicts; from time immemorial - witness your previous poem.
Deposing a dictator inevitably leaves a void; and there are always people - frequently as bad or worse - wishing to fill it; an ever-present tide.
Far greater minds than ours have wrestled with these problems - if one man, of whatever stature, thinks that his conscience alone can hold back the tide, I fear he is mistaken.
PTV
|
Written by Fledermaus (3301 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
Thanks Pete.
I do doubt indeed if his action would do anything for Darfur. Yet what I also wonder about is if it's indeed his conscience that troubles him, why had he accepted the offer in the first place? If he is truly concerned about Darfur, he would have known all about it already, and he could have made a polite apology. Somehow I do think it's more about media attention than mr. Spielberg's conscience... |
HI Fledermaus
Written by jean.day (2283 comments posted) 13th February 2008 |
I liked this poem. And I was surprised that Mr. Spielberg withdrew - since he had accepted in the first place, knowing what the situation was like - as you say. And no doubt there was more to the situation than what we saw on tv.
America is a funny place. You grow up there absolutely conviced that your country is right and perfect - and you are fed that in school, and in the newspapers and from your parents. We learned the slogan "My country, right or wrong," and believed that it was true. I now find it harder and harder to find anything about America to be proud of.
|
Hi
Written by maipenrai (783 comments posted) 14th February 2008 |
Fledermaus, 1st point, all countrys support regimes that are not the best in the world, take the support that the UK gives to despotic countrys in Central Asia, it's called Realpolitik mate
2nd point , no matter how many people have been killed in Iraq since this mis-judged war started I would think that the majority have been killed in inter-muslim slaughter ( would be good if you could go onto that subject)
Sudan/Darfur is complex as I am sure you are aware, scratch the surface and look and you may well see a racist, tribal conflict made worse by the oil which Sudan is "blessed " with, again as far as I am aware this is a muslim on muslim conflict, again maybe another you could write about?
as for Spielberg, your view of Mr. Spielberg are the same as mine on Geldorf.
a decent but dare I say it somewhat simplistic one
Bernie |
hi
Written by maipenrai (783 comments posted) 14th February 2008 |
last line on previous comment should read
a decent write, but dare I say it a somewhat simplistic one. |
Written by coosh (868 comments posted) 14th February 2008 |
Certainly direct and to the point - but, as regards hypocrisy, US criticism of human rights in China seems largely to apply here when the Chinese invest in Africa, whereas US investment there remains undiminished. Had Rwanda, for example, had oil, the genocide may not have been significantly ignored.
Moreover, why have the Beijing Olympic Games suddenly become an issue now, rather than when they were awarded way back in 2001? Spielberg's decision may have helped to highlight the dilemma, but not only did he initially accept the job, he said he was "honoured" to receive it. He had no qualms then about promoting a country with a more than dubious human rights record.
Thought-provoking, Fledermaus. |
Written by Fledermaus (3301 comments posted) 14th February 2008 |
Thanks Jean, Bernie and Coosh.
Jean: There's still a lot about America to be proud about, but it's just that no country is perfect and the USA doesn't seem to be very subtle in its international relations. I could write a similar nasty piece about the Netherlands too though, as this little country isn't exactly innocent either and over here people seem to be even more convinced that they are a beacon of ethics and human rights...
Bernie: No doubt it's complicated, and I suppose that's exactly the reason why the PRC doesn't want to meddle in it. The more I learn about the PRC, the more different it seems from the West. People over here often think that everyone thinks like Dutchmen, and no doubt many Americans think everyone thinks like an American. No surprise diplomatic rows arise.
Coosh: Seems the world revolves around oil, doesn't it? I guess that countries without any oil should be glad. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register.
Previous item
