Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Christopher Sanderson on August 12, 2009, 09:47:16 am
-
Today, the New York Times has a searing collection of photographs taken by Claudio Edinger in a Sao Paulo psychiatric hospital (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/showcase-33/?ref=global-home)
-
Not searing, IMO, more like the photographer and the NY Times know nothing of respect or shame.
It is a true reflection of our era that people find favor in exploiting people with mental issues. These are people at their worst. They dissere privacy.
-
This is anything but exploitation. It is classic photojournalism at its best. We are shown a world which we would otherwise not be aware of, and our humanity is expended as a consequence.
Michael
-
^^I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. In the US this could not happen expressly due to privacy issues.
-
Not searing, IMO, more like the photographer and the NY Times know nothing of respect or shame.
It is a true reflection of our era that people find favor in exploiting people with mental issues. These are people at their worst. They dissere privacy.
Chris, I heartily agree with Justan. Gene Smith did a thing like this in a Haiti asylum in 1959. He made a photograph of an insane woman that was very, very striking but the feeling of his invasion of the sanctity of that poor woman's soul has never left me.
Justan's right. The NYT has no shame. It's been a long time since the rag actually did honest journalism.
-
Then I guess most of Salgado's work is similarly tainted.
Michael
-
Michael, I wasn't aware that Sebastaio Salgado shot any insane asylum pictures. I've seen a lot of his pictures of the misery of refugees, but that's not the same kind of thing. Can you point me to one of his pictures of the insane?
-
I wonder what reactions would be if Mr. Edinger had made public that he would take some or all of the proceeds from his book(s) and given them to organizations to raise awareness of mental health issues.
To me, the trouble is that he seems to be profiting from this work at the expense of the patients of the "hospital"
I understand the concept of photojournalism and the importance of publicizing events and situations that make us cringe in hopes of helping the people involved, but putting your $$$ where your mouth (or lens) is goes a lot further.
The photographs are powerful, but they can be so much more than that with a little compassion on the part of the photographer and the people publishing them.
-
It is a true reflection of our era that people find favor in exploiting people with mental issues. These are people at their worst. They dissere privacy.
Privacy to moulder away unseen and with little care?
-
Privacy to moulder away unseen and with little care?
Exactly ... the shameless are the family, friends and compatriots who stick people in such places, not the artist or journalist who chronicles the fact.
Also ... one can fairly take issue with the politics of the editorial board of the NYT, but to say it isn't one of the world's leading journalistic efforts isn't fair or true in my opinion.
-
I was unaware that institutionalized and neglected mental patients were in a different moral category than exploited miners or abandoned refugees.
Documenting the misfortunes of others is the role of a journalist, and when its done with sensitivity and insight, as is the work here, we owe that journalist our thanks for exposing injustice and hardship, not our censure for being the messenger of an unpleasant truth.
Michael
-
Exactly ... the shameless are the family, friends and compatriots who stick people in such places, not the artist or journalist who chronicles the fact.
Also ... one can fairly take issue with the politics of the editorial board of the NYT, but to say it isn't one of the world's leading journalistic efforts isn't fair or true in my opinion.
Jeremy, It's unusual for you and me to disagree, but on this one we clearly do. What I look at is the idea of "expectation of privacy," which, as Justan pointed out, would be the critical consideration here in the U.S. It seems to me that someone with advanced mental illness has a God-given right not to have the misery of his condition exposed to the world.
As far as the NYT is concerned, over the past few years they've been involved in enough clear-cut cases of plagiarism and outright fiction presented as news that it's awfully hard for me to see it as "one of the world's leading journalistic efforts." I'd agree that it once merited that title, but that was a long time ago.
-
Not searing, IMO, more like the photographer and the NY Times know nothing of respect or shame.
It is a true reflection of our era that people find favor in exploiting people with mental issues. These are people at their worst. They dissere privacy.
Gotta disagree with you there. "Privacy" here is tantamount to closing the gate and padlocking it, preventing anyone from knowing what happens to these unfortunates.
The appalling neglect of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, especially in the developing world, is one of the ugliest aspects of human society. It really is a classic case of "out of sight, out of mind"; unless we are compelled to see it, nothing changes. Eugene Richards has a book out on the subject (A Procession of Them) which goes into greater depth. It's one of the greatest human rights/morality issues of our age.
In the 1940s-1970s, truly horrific abuses were inflicted upon mentally disabled residents of an institution in New York State called Willowbrook. All this happened in silence over decades, until muck-raking journalism finally exposed the abuses in the 1970s. This led directly to judicial mandates and landmark legislation that shuttered Willowbrook and created a system of humane care for the developmentally disabled in carefully supervised group home environments dispersed throughout the state. Today New York provides developmentally disabled folks the highest quality care. People do occasionally gripe about the cost; but all you have to say is "remember Willowbrook".
So, is this work "exploitation"? I don't think so.
-
so would photo s of death camps in aushwitz (sp) and POWs in WW 11 be considered invading priviacy,, Seems to me it that without the photographs, we may have never seen some of the atrocities,,, sounds like a nimby sort of arguement. May not be art, but its what people have been photographing for years. No one owes any part of his profits to anyone, its what he does for a living, why bash him, you dont like the content, simply dont look,
-
Chris, I heartily agree with Justan. Gene Smith did a thing like this in a Haiti asylum in 1959. He made a photograph of an insane woman that was very, very striking but the feeling of his invasion of the sanctity of that poor woman's soul has never left me.
Justan's right. The NYT has no shame. It's been a long time since the rag actually did honest journalism.
I wouldn’t go that far. The NY times has a long vast number of expertly presented and well researched topics. The growth of the web has transformed virtually every major paper, and a lot of minor ones to be accessible by all. As a result, the NY Times has become one of many sources people can turn to. It is perhaps due to this that they more frequently turn to more inflammatory subjects. But I do agree the paper has given away more than a little of it’s former glory.
The core issue on the topic of the photos revolves around the concept or definitions of “exploitation” and if these photos do or do not fit the criteria. I suggest that the interested use Mr. Google to find a working definition of exploitation and proceed from there. Understandably there will be arguments to be made on both sides of the topic.
In this case, it appears that the photographer was more interested in using these troubled people to advance his own interest than to serve any humanitarian interest….or at least any humanitarian interest that is apparent.
I will agree with Russ far enough to add that if we define humanity in part by respect given for the disturbed, this photo series is telling, both for the photographer and the NY Times.
-
In this case, it appears that the photographer was more interested in using these troubled people to advance his own interest than to serve any humanitarian interest….or at least any humanitarian interest that is apparent.
I'm not sure where you get that. Do you know much about this issue in Brazil? Do you know what happened after this book was published?
Perhaps you are well-informed on the topic, but somehow I'm not sure that's case ...
-
Jeremy, It's unusual for you and me to disagree, but on this one we clearly do.
Eh ... it happens ... I think we are 180 degrees on this one, both on the NYT and the photographs.
I crop, too.
-
Privacy to moulder away unseen and with little care?
That is a valid point. While I'm sure that any of us would like to get a portfolio in the NY Times, but would any of us do something similar to accomplish that?
As a reply to your point, have you ever been to a mental hospital? I don’t intend this as a quip. My SO, a RN, worked in one for 2 years. In the US, patients right to privacy are protected both as a general respect, for their and their families safety, and also due to HIPPA laws. According to my SO, you could theoretically see many of the same scenes in mental hospitals in the US. The conditions are somewhat better, but sadly, conditions vary widely. In any event, the detail is that in the US, the general public would not be allowed to do so.
Were something like this to take place in the US, it is likely that the photographer and the newspaper could or would have a law suit made against them by each of the subjects. Being a patient mental hospital, by it’s very definition means that these people don’t have the state of mind to decide it’s okay permit this kind of thing.
I'm pretty sure the photographer and the Times was aware of this, so they probably did the deed where rights to privacy are not so restrictive. Slice it as you wish, it still amounts exploiting disabled people.
There is a long history on the advancement of the mental asylums, and treatment of those who are disturbed. Interested people can look into a wide variety of works on the topic. I read a few books while a student, and can make some recommendations if anyone is interested The reading will show that the treatment of disturbed people has come a long way. Perhaps not as much in Brazil as other places, but the goal of any modern hospital or asylum is to provide safety and aid.
Were these photographs made on random streets, that would be more tolerable both from a right to privacy and a photojournalism perspective, than what amounts to going behind closed doors and taking advantage of disturbed people.
-
Exactly ... the shameless are the family, friends and compatriots who stick people in such places, not the artist or journalist who chronicles the fact.
None above are exempt in shamelessness. All patients in mental hospitals are there as they have no where else to go. The real failure here is that the government permits these conditions.
I don’t know if the reason is due to poverty or convenience. We’d have to know something about the local economy and how much $$ there is for caring for mentally disturbed, or anyone else for that matter. At least these people are not living on the street. A hundred years ago most of them would have
Also, i wouldn’t call this art, but realize that many do.
-
Justan ...
Let me make sure I understand your point.
The photographer watched his grandmother descend into dementia and was moved to document the plight of less fortunate mentally ill citizens in his country. He found conditions that horrified him. He pursued the issue doggedly, eventually getting permission to move into the asylum and live with the patients.
He documents their condition, spends YEARS trying to get the images published ... and when they are, sheds light on conditions in this and other hospitals in Brazil which leads to changes, reform and the closure of some institutions.
You would have rather he stayed home and made 'art'?
I don't get it.
Respectfully yours,
Jeremy Payne
-
I'm pretty sure the photographer and the Times was aware of this, so they probably did the deed where rights to privacy are not so restrictive. Slice it as you wish, it still amounts exploiting disabled people.
I don't think you have your facts straight. These images were taken between 1989 and 1990 and the project had nothing to do with the NYT. They were later published in a book in 1997, again with no involvement from the newspaper.
The photographer chose Brazil because that is where he is from, not because of some cynical view on privacy law and this was most definitely not something 'cooked up' at the New York Times.
-
Justan ...
Let me make sure I understand your point.
The photographer watched his grandmother descend into dementia and was moved to document the plight of less fortunate mentally ill citizens in his country. He found conditions that horrified him. He pursued the issue doggedly, eventually getting permission to move into the asylum and live with the patients.
He documents their condition, spends YEARS trying to get the images published ... and when they are, sheds light on conditions in this and other hospitals in Brazil which leads to changes, reform and the closure of some institutions.
You would have rather he stayed home and made 'art'?
I don't get it.
Respectfully yours,
Jeremy Payne
That’s a valid point and I take no disrespect.
I am 100% guilty of judging the photographer’s and the NY Times actions by the legal standards of my country.
In answer to the question….i don’t know what the right thing to do would be. Were it me, I would have pursued the issue with their government. If that didn't work, i would have brought it to the attention of the US government. I wouldn’t have gone the route the photographer did.
BTW it is nice to see the readership willing to discuss the topic rationally.
-
I don't think you have your facts straight. These images were taken between 1989 and 1990 and the project had nothing to do with the NYT. They were later published in a book in 1997, again with no involvement from the newspaper.
The photographer chose Brazil because that is where he is from, not because of some cynical view on privacy law and this was most definitely not something 'cooked up' at the New York Times.
Thanks, i didn't know that. While it doesn't change my view that these are exploitation, it does change my view on the photographer’s intent.
-
I want to give my thoughts to the topic. On a general level: Yes, I think its appropriate to show such images.
Every image shows something wich is there, regardless if its a painting or a documentary and regardless of original intention. The more inconvinient a topic the more the desire to push it out of sight, to dismiss or control it in some way.
The purpose and perception of an image is a whole different topic. Everything can be used or abused in many ways and at different levels. As a possible starting point for introspection I regard these images very high and spot on. As a possible justification for "active world improvement" //edit// wich only looks outside, points at other people //edit end// on the other hand would hate them.
And about the issue in itself: My personal believe is, mental patients suffer from things every person has to some extent - regardless of awareness. The lack of public care the isolation and the disrespect these people face shows only the public repression of the underlying problems. I view it not so much as a question of lacking actions from relatives or the goverment, or places with insufficient hygiene, but more as a sign that nearly everybody represses the underlying topics. That in turn leads to places like in this photo. Only when the perception of mental ill people changes, wich means that our perception also of ourselfes would change, the conditions for these people will change too. Until then, they might get cleaner but nevertheless possibly hostile places, as it is undoubtely often the case. A rotten enviroment might be bad, but I would consider inhumane threatment in a clinically sterile enviroment much much worse.
So I think, as good and important it is to show such images, they are somehow inappropriate for grasping the underlying issue because they fail to show what it is these persons are suffering from. If the public discussion remains only on the somehow "shocking" and "raising awareness" level, without nobody actually understanding WHY these people are as they are, then the discussion is no real one, could be even counterproductive, since we could successfully pretend to "care" while still neglecting the issues. The stories of these people - along with images - would be much more insightful and meaningful.
So I conclude, its good and important to see such images, regardless of dismission, "mishandling" or even abuse wich might result.
And what I personally like about the images, I dont see an accusation. It just shows these people.
-
I don't think you have your facts straight. These images were taken between 1989 and 1990 and the project had nothing to do with the NYT. They were later published in a book in 1997, again with no involvement from the newspaper.
The photographer chose Brazil because that is where he is from, not because of some cynical view on privacy law and this was most definitely not something 'cooked up' at the New York Times.
Jeremy, I'm quite willing to concede the point if the images actually result in improvements. But in Gene Smith's case he was shooting in Papa Doc's Haiti, which means no amount of photographic exposure would make any difference. Papa Doc wasn't the kind of guy who was going to worry about what happened to people in asylums -- unless Smith's photographs caused the U.S. to invade Haiti in order to improve the asylums. Also, the photograph I referred to was a tight picture of the woman's face -- worked in the lab to make it very, very dark and haunting. It was intended to be art, and it was! But it was a terrible violation of that woman's right to privacy. I just spent half an hour trying to find a copy of the picture on the web -- with no success. I can find dozens of Smith's Minamata pictures but not the Haiti pictures.
Guess we're going to have to disagree on the NYT, though.
-
I crop, too.
Well, you're going to have to appear before the cropping control commissar and the community anti-cropping board and confess your sins.
If you keep on cropping, it's a pretty sure thing you'll come a cropper.
-
I want to give my thoughts to the topic. On a general level: Yes, I think its appropriate to show such images.
Every image shows something wich is there, regardless if its a painting or a documentary and regardless of original intention. The more inconvinient a topic the more the desire to push it out of sight, to dismiss or control it in some way.
The purpose and perception of an image is a whole different topic. Everything can be used or abused in many ways and at different levels. As a possible starting point for introspection I regard these images very high and spot on. As a possible justification for "active world improvement" //edit// wich only looks outside, points at other people //edit end// on the other hand would hate them.
And about the issue in itself: My personal believe is, mental patients suffer from things every person has to some extent - regardless of awareness. The lack of public care the isolation and the disrespect these people face shows only the public repression of the underlying problems. I view it not so much as a question of lacking actions from relatives or the goverment, or places with insufficient hygiene, but more as a sign that nearly everybody represses the underlying topics. That in turn leads to places like in this photo. Only when the perception of mental ill people changes, wich means that our perception also of ourselfes would change, the conditions for these people will change too. Until then, they might get cleaner but nevertheless possibly hostile places, as it is undoubtely often the case. A rotten enviroment might be bad, but I would consider inhumane threatment in a clinically sterile enviroment much much worse.
So I think, as good and important it is to show such images, they are somehow inappropriate for grasping the underlying issue because they fail to show what it is these persons are suffering from. If the public discussion remains only on the somehow "shocking" and "raising awareness" level, without nobody actually understanding WHY these people are as they are, then the discussion is no real one, could be even counterproductive, since we could successfully pretend to "care" while still neglecting the issues. The stories of these people - along with images - would be much more insightful and meaningful.
So I conclude, its good and important to see such images, regardless of dismission, "mishandling" or even abuse wich might result.
And what I personally like about the images, I dont see an accusation. It just shows these people.
First I want to say this is a nicely presented, thoughtful, and well written commentary.
But I have a couple of questions, and I’ll say up front that I don’t know the answer. Here’s the question: If we accept that its okay to show more about what you characterize as repressed parts of life, where is the line? Do we put motor vehicle crash fatalities, or casualties of war, or people who have suffered brutal crime on the front page? How about people who have lost a leg or an eye? Do we show their wounds in full gore? How about abused children? How about rape victims? Do we photograph them being examined (or worse) and put that on the front page or make a book from a disaster they endured?
I submit that things such as these are not generally trotted before the public to avoid perpetuating repression (but that absolutely can be a valid argument); rather they are not shown because it is cruel to the victims and their families and their friends, to have their life’s worst moments put in print by those who seek to exploit victims for the purpose of profiteering.
Now lets go a step further and deal with the issue as an abstraction: At what point can we package something that is clearly exploitation, yet permit it, by claiming a humanitarian purpose? IMO, doing so typically, but not always, amounts to a contrived tool of convenience. Or is it a convenient tool of contrivance….
-
Justan,
Again ... respectfully ... I'd like to suggest you brush up on the concept of photojournalism. In reading your posts, it is as if it doesn't exist within your world view.
Here's a start ... from the Wikipedia ...
Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism (the collecting, editing, and presenting of news material for publication or broadcast) that creates images in order to tell a news story. It is now usually understood to refer only to still images, and in some cases to video used in broadcast journalism or for personal use. Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (such as documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by the qualities of:
* Timeliness — the images have meaning in the context of a recently published record of events.
* Objectivity — the situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict in both content and tone.
* Narrative — the images combine with other news elements to make facts relatable to the viewer or reader on a cultural level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism)
Photojournalists often bring us images that without the journalistic context would certainly be viewed as discomforting at the very least.
This isn't about art.
-
Justan,
Again ... respectfully ... I'd like to suggest you brush up on the concept of photojournalism. In reading your posts, it is as if it doesn't exist within your world view.
Here's a start ... from the Wikipedia ...
Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism (the collecting, editing, and presenting of news material for publication or broadcast) that creates images in order to tell a news story. It is now usually understood to refer only to still images, and in some cases to video used in broadcast journalism or for personal use. Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (such as documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by the qualities of:
* Timeliness — the images have meaning in the context of a recently published record of events.
* Objectivity — the situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict in both content and tone.
* Narrative — the images combine with other news elements to make facts relatable to the viewer or reader on a cultural level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism)
Photojournalists often bring us images that without the journalistic context would certainly be viewed as discomforting at the very least.
This isn't about art.
Jeremy, I'm willing to concede that photographs of mentally ill people in inexcusably degrading surroundings published in order to help bring about changes may be a legitimate function of photojournalism, but I'll have to agree with what Justan's saying.
There's a point at which photojournalistic exploitation ceases to be legitimate. In the last few decades we've seen an awful lot of that.
To me the classic example of legitimate photojournalistic exploitation is Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother." Dorothea certainly exposed the misery of the woman and her children, but, if you look at the totality of Lange's work you realize that this was an exception for her. In every other case I can think of, even though she was showing the miserable conditions in which her subjects lived, she also went out of her way to show their innate dignity in the face of their adversity. In this case, though, she turned in the picture. It was published all over the country, and it led to immediate government action to help the itinerants stranded and starving because the pea crop they had come to pick had frozen.
But far too often I see outfits like Associated Press circulate something like the grieving face of a woman who's just lost her child, or the terrified face of a child who's lost its mother. This kind of exploitation is utterly unnecessary and inexcusable. The pictures add nothing to one's understanding of the story, and expose the moral shortcomings of the photographer and the publisher. Arthur Fellig (Wegee) did a lot of this back in prohibition days. The Wegee picture I remember above all is a picture of a woman in shock, behind the wheel of her car, after she's just struck and killed a pedestrian. There was nothing in the story that required that picture, and the picture did nothing to add to a reader's understanding of the accident. It was needless exploitation, pure and simple.
There are limits to what's moral to publish. The moral limits don't correspond with legal limits, but they're there nonetheless. I'll buy the moral acceptability of Edinger's Sao Paulo photographs, though just barely, and very reluctantly, but I'll never be able to buy the moral acceptability of Gene Smith's Haiti asylum pictures. I concede that they're high art, but that doesn't excuse what he did.
-
Russ,
I agree to an extent. I think what's important is who gets to make that admittedly often tough call.
As long as that is exclusively the domain of the journalist and his editorial process, I'm cool.
The minute the public mob or the government begins dictating what is and is not newsworthy, we are 'effed.
-
Russ,
I agree to an extent. I think what's important is who gets to make that admittedly often tough call.
As long as that is exclusively the domain of the journalist and his editorial process, I'm cool.
The minute the public mob or the government begins dictating what is and is not newsworthy, we are 'effed.
Jeremy, Absolutely no argument there. I'm not suggesting any sort of violation of the first amendment, otherwise known as censorship. We've already seen the disaster that's caused in the curbing of political speech through McCain-Feingold. Egregiously offensive photojournalism isn't the only departure from decency and basic good taste I've watched develop over the past few decades, but the only legitimate curb for that sort of thing is for people to turn away and shun the perpetrators.
The problem will either get worse or go away. If it doesn't go away, we've had it -- but not in my lifetime I suspect. I think about the excesses of Elizabethan England which, eventually led to the counter-excesses of Victorianism and wonder if it might be possible for that to happen here.
-
Difficult subject; difficult opinions.
For what it´s worth, I seem to read into much of this a kind of holier than thou mindset at play. And I mean at play. Subtly, the images themselves seem to be drifting into the background and more emphasis would appear to be being applied to the correspendents´ own sense of their possibly superior morality, or could it just be a public stance that´s on display?
Frankly, unless you have had the experience of taking into your own home someone who is on the brink of a breakdown, dementia or other form of mental illness, seen that develop to the stage where it is of itself breaking up your home, then you really haven´t the slightest idea of what you speak other than in theoretical terms which, sadly, differ wildly from the reality.
One of the strongest natural forces within us is the one we like to think of as self-preservation. It isn´t there by accident.
Photojournalism is a weapon as much as it is a service; it can destroy and it can save. In the end, it is what it is and in a market where traditional outlets are ever diminishing and new ones being grown by virtue of dumbing down - the great marketing invention of our enlightened age; everyone gets a degree! - perhaps one should be grateful that the unpalatable does get an airing.
But nonetheles, I sense something bogus in some of the 'respectful' sentiments being offered within this thread.
As the man said (or if he didn´t soon will), just my two devalued sterling cents worth.
Rob C
-
...
Justan,
saying its important to show vehicle crash fatalities, or war crime on front page as you say, because they remind us of our repressed sides would be completely silly. I talked strictly about these images here and I dont feel comfortable to extend my argument to some sort of general case. I also dont want to take part in the discussion about these issues you raise, through I see they may be very important to you.
Christian
-
But nonetheles, I sense something bogus in some of the 'respectful' sentiments being offered within this thread.
Excuse me? It would seem that you would be referring to me.
You can assume all you want about theory and reality ... but in my case at least, you are wildly off the mark.
And I thought you seemed like you might be decent guy ...
-
And I thought you seemed like you might be decent guy ...
Jeremy, I might or I might not be; as with most of us the truth might lie somewhere in between the two. Regardless, my opinion, which is all I can express, leads me to the conclusion that much piety often cloaks its opposite. And much piety is what I see in this thread. If the cap doesn´t fit, please don´t wear it but leave it hanging on the rack for its owner to claim. Hell, it might even be mine!
;-)
Rob C
-
If by 'piety' you mean a deep passion for the importance of the freedom of the press, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
However, that passion is not born or based on faith, but on experience and deep study of modern history.
I'm allowed to form opinions as well ... and my opinion of you has changed. Oh well.
-
If by 'piety' you mean a deep passion for the importance of the freedom of the press, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
However, that passion is not born or based on faith, but on experience and deep study of modern history.
I'm allowed to form opinions as well ... and my opinion of you has changed. Oh well.
Jeremy, at times of deep stress, follow my lead and have another peppermint; clears the tubes.
Freedom of the press - a wonderful concept. Just as long as it prints/says that which you want it to print, that is. Perish the thought it might stray into territory outwith one´s own taste, opinions or view of the world. But these are diversions, not a lot to do with the matter in hand, as nothing, really ever does remain. And that´s the main finding of my deep study of modern times. How much with Iraq, Afghanistan et al has to do with freedom for the distant 'others' and how much is simply a quest for markets and more control; we killed thousands of Germans and now we crave a Beemer or a Merc; we derided the Italians but stand in line for that ellusive Ferrari and night in Rome; we laugh at the ways of the French but envy them their chic which all the money in Manhattan just can't buy... Don´t put your faith in modern history, Jeremy, it covers too short a time span and is too close to vested manipulation. Stick with the old stuff: as false as the present but relatively harmless for its battles have long been fought. Except in the lands of the distant others, which brings us back to where we might have come in, realising which prompts us to head for the exit sign.
Really, have that mint. Your dentist recommends them - many of them.
Rob C
-
Jeremy, at times of deep stress, follow my lead and have another peppermint; clears the tubes.
Freedom of the press - a wonderful concept. Just as long as it prints/says that which you want it to print, that is. Perish the thought it might stray into territory outwith one´s own taste, opinions or view of the world. But these are diversions, not a lot to do with the matter in hand, as nothing, really ever does remain. And that´s the main finding of my deep study of modern times. How much with Iraq, Afghanistan et al has to do with freedom for the distant 'others' and how much is simply a quest for markets and more control; we killed thousands of Germans and now we crave a Beemer or a Merc; we derided the Italians but stand in line for that ellusive Ferrari and night in Rome; we laugh at the ways of the French but envy them their chic which all the money in Manhattan just can't buy... Don´t put your faith in modern history, Jeremy, it covers too short a time span and is too close to vested manipulation. Stick with the old stuff: as false as the present but relatively harmless for its battles have long been fought. Except in the lands of the distant others, which brings us back to where we might have come in, realising which prompts us to head for the exit sign.
Really, have that mint. Your dentist recommends them - many of them.
Rob C
Rob,
I'm afraid your view of recent history (by recent I mean back through WW II) sounds a lot like conspiracy theory. What's your view of "the grassy knoll?"
-
Rob,
I'm afraid your view of recent history (by recent I mean back through WW II) sounds a lot like conspiracy theory. What's your view of "the grassy knoll?"
Russ
My view of the "grassy knoll" is far more romantic than that of most: it brings back memories of myself at sixteen flying model aircraft (told you I dug the Sabre Jet, but guess it´s best not in balsa) in the local park and making my finest aeronautical manoeuvres in usually vain attempts to fly the damn thing so that it might land beside some of the stunning young women disporting themselves on said grassy knolls.
At least, I though they were stunning, but what would one know at sixteen - everything in a tight skirt and stockings looked ravishing. Solace came courtesy Hollywood and dreams of Susan Hayward, Ava Gardner but not, strangely, Marilyn Monroe or her later clones. Speaking of later clones reminds me that by the time Miss Mansfield and Miss Van Doren appeared I had found the real thing anyway. Then of course, the fantasy became Brigitte. And so it goes.
But if you want me to venture into the current wars, then I despair of presenting you with any cogent response: it can´t be done. How do you rationalise/explain/ seek an honest answer to a situation that appears to make the 'saviours' the hated ones; that rather than create local wealth via 'reconstruction' of war damage, it makes the riches flow right back whence came the helicopters? Sure, some local potentates get rich too, but graft was ever so. The basic problem, and I'd be surprised if you don't already know this from your time in the eastern world, is that all peoples are not the same and neither are their expectations or desires. This obsession that the west shows toward the spreading of 'democracy', for example, is an ugly mistake that is rooted in huge assumptions the most arrogant of which is that it is the only way. Almost evengelical in its blindness, and as frightening.
Unpopular as it will inevitably be, the truth as I see it, the workable answer for the millions of poor and primitive, is not western ideology but strong leadership which may or may not mean dictatorship. That the latter has had its share of disasters is not outwith my view, but let's look more closely: take Spain, where I have spent the best twenty-eight years of my life - they had Franco, much reviled by the current popular crowd but, should you care to speak to the older generation (our own lot) they will tell you that yes, there were problems, but you could go shopping and leave the house unlocked. (Would you dream of doing that back in the States? In the UK? In Spain today?) Think of the Civil War here: had Franco lost, Spain would have been a communist state. Does anyone pretend that would have served Spain better? Good God - just look at the aftermath of communism as it was within a western context - one miserable, failed country after another; we didn´t have a communist government in the UK but the next best thing ran the unions: where our industrial leadership today? As it is, Spain has some of the most sophisticated cities and people in the world. Russia, where they sent so many Spaniards at that time - where did they all end up I wonder - unknown, untraceable fodder for the red machine.
There are no perfect, universal answers because of the nature of man. There never will be and the sooner we realise that and accept that diffferent folks really do like different strokes, the better for all of us. Why can´t we mind our own business and let them just live their lives?
That the Afghan thing has something to do with fighting and, importantly, winning a drug war is a sick joke. If you really wanted to fight a drug war, you could win it in a very short time indeed and you could do it from the comfort of home. You adopt a no quarter given philosophy. You jail every user as you should every supplier; as with Prohibition, too many important pockets get topped up by the industry and so it isn´t going to happen. The trade is good business for too many: hell, isn't it the single biggest earner you have? Bigger even than tourism? (Today´s tv news told us that 90% of all US currency notes bear traces of cocaine - go figure the size of the market!) Without the will there will be no way and it makes perfect sense, instead, to take the mock battle to the poor sod in the mountains of Afghanistan and blow his friggin' brains out. But not too many, you understand, business must go on ;-)
Rob C
-
My view of the "grassy knoll" is far more romantic than that of most: it brings back memories of myself at sixteen flying model aircraft (told you I dug the Sabre Jet, but guess it´s best not in balsa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza)
-
you could go shopping and leave the house unlocked. (Would you dream of doing that back in the States?
Yes. I do it all the time - both in Manhattan and in the country. I feel very safe.
-
Yes. I do it all the time - both in Manhattan and in the country. I feel very safe.
Very interesting, but - no, wrong reaction: what are you on? But seriously, Jeremy, is your insurance company fully aware of this untraditional behaviour?
Rob C
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza)
This is highlighted because?
Rob C
-
This is highlighted because?
Rob C
You whiffed the "grassy knoll" reference and I thought you might like to brush up on a little modern history.
-
Very interesting, but - no, wrong reaction: what are you on? But seriously, Jeremy, is your insurance company fully aware of this untraditional behaviour?
Rob C
How can you, sitting on your little perch in Spain, have any idea what makes sense here?
Given your penchant for banal stereotypes and assumptions, I'm not surprised you think the states is a scary, crime-ridden place. It's not.
-
You whiffed the "grassy knoll" reference and I thought you might like to brush up on a little modern history.
You have GOT to be joking!
It has been the largest single issue in US politics since the creation of the place - life on Mars would have been the only means of escaping it. But then, it has oft been said that some citizens of your land don´t do irony or, possibly, much else.
Rob C
-
How can you, sitting on your little perch in Spain, have any idea what makes sense here?
Given your penchant for banal stereotypes and assumptions, I'm not surprised you think the states is a scary, crime-ridden place. It's not.
Given my little perch in Spain, your little ones in Manhattan and posibly in the 'country', perhaps the one common factor is that insurance is a pretty international concoction of interconnected companies and policy concepts; interesting that you resort to personal attack rather than answer the direct technical question which was, in case you missed that too, offered in a tone of mild ammusement...
My penchant for banal stereotyping has determined that two working trips to your land were quite sufficient, thanks all the same, and not an inch removed from the experiences of return visits to my own native soil: distance and novelty often illuminate what constant exposure hides only too well, is the inevitable assumption that you might like me to make.
But don´t worry about it - it´s only silly computer games.
Rob C
-
My view of the "grassy knoll" is far more romantic than that of most: it brings back memories of myself at sixteen flying model aircraft (told you I dug the Sabre Jet, but guess it´s best not in balsa) in the local park and making my finest aeronautical manoeuvres in usually vain attempts to fly the damn thing so that it might land beside some of the stunning young women disporting themselves on said grassy knolls.
Rob, Jeremy gave you a reference to the real “grassy knoll” thing. How long have you been living in Spain? Was John Kennedy still president when you moved there?
How do you rationalise/explain/ seek an honest answer to a situation that appears to make the 'saviours' the hated ones; that rather than create local wealth via 'reconstruction' of war damage, it makes the riches flow right back whence came the helicopters? Sure, some local potentates get rich too, but graft was ever so. The basic problem, and I'd be surprised if you don't already know this from your time in the eastern world, is that all peoples are not the same and neither are their expectations or desires. This obsession that the west shows toward the spreading of 'democracy', for example, is an ugly mistake that is rooted in huge assumptions the most arrogant of which is that it is the only way. Almost evengelical in its blindness, and as frightening.
You’re right. All people are not the same. That’s exactly why it bothers me when American kids head overseas believing that other countries are the same as the U.S. – that the same legal guarantees, etc., are available to them in other countries. I spent about three years in Canada, and I love that country, and some of my best military friends are Canadian, but some of the guardrails against political excesses that exist in the U.S. simply don’t exist even there. Can you imagine any country other than the U.S. spreading pictures of the outrages perpetrated by a few of our losers at Abu Ghraib around the whole world? Can you imagine another country conducting court martials of those troops and telling the world about the results? Almost any other country would have swept the whole thing under the rug. In a lot of ways, our openness about Abu Ghraib is pathetic, but it’s what we do, and it’s what causes the world to trust us – which it does, self-serving political outbursts to the contrary notwithstanding.
Unpopular as it will inevitably be, the truth as I see it, the workable answer for the millions of poor and primitive, is not western ideology but strong leadership which may or may not mean dictatorship.
I agree with you to a certain extent. What our liberal friends who push “democracy” forget, or, in many cases never knew, is that western ideology took roughly a thousand years to form. People who haven’t gone through some of the ideological transformations we’ve gone through can’t handle the kind of ideology we live by. But as far as “strong leadership” is concerned, look at Africa. There’s plenty of “strong leadership” there. Try Zimbabwe. You’d certainly have to call Mugabe “strong.” According to your assumption, Zimbabwe should be a much nicer place than Spain for your retirement.
take Spain, where I have spent the best twenty-eight years of my life - they had Franco, much reviled by the current popular crowd but, should you care to speak to the older generation (our own lot) they will tell you that yes, there were problems, but you could go shopping and leave the house unlocked. (Would you dream of doing that back in the States? In the UK? In Spain today?)
Right. And pretty much the same thing could said of Chicago when the elder Daley was in charge.
Think of the Civil War here: had Franco lost, Spain would have been a communist state
I agree. In the Spanish civil war the world lucked out. Franco was a disaster, but communism would have been a catastrophe.
the sooner we realise that and accept that diffferent folks really do like different strokes, the better for all of us. Why can´t we mind our own business and let them just live their lives?
Seems to me that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to do since about the time Teddy Roosevelt stepped down. We were minding our own business on 9/11 – perhaps to an excessive degree.
That the Afghan thing has something to do with fighting and, importantly, winning a drug war is a sick joke.
You won’t get an argument from me on that one. It was before my time (even), but I look back on the days when Sherlock could get his seven-percent solution from the local drugstore (chemist) and I’m convinced that was the way to do things. As far as I’m concerned, anyone should be able to walk into a drugstore and buy anything he wants to buy. In the early part of the twentieth century, when you could do exactly that, the U.S. wasn’t a society of zonked zombies. Seems to me the drug problem is self-limiting. If someone wants to kill himself with drugs, more power to him. But the other side of that coin is that considering the kind of people we elect to run our governments we’d soon have a medical program to save the druggies that would bankrupt us even faster than the current plan for “universal coverage.”
-
RSL quote:
I agree. In the Spanish civil war the world lucked out. Franco was a disaster, but communism would have been a catastrophe.
Like a Hegelian Dialectic, RSL offers only two choices. Heads I win tails you lose, etc.
Don't take the bait.
-
RSL quote:
I agree. In the Spanish civil war the world lucked out. Franco was a disaster, but communism would have been a catastrophe.
Like a Hegelian Dialectic, RSL offers only two choices. Heads I win tails you lose, etc.
Don't take the bait.
Dale, As usual you're way over your head in something you have neither the mental equipment nor the background to understand or deal with. Why don't you stick with shooting blurry pictures of birds and flowers? We'll try to be be kind to you in our criticisms.
-
Respectfully, this thread should probably be closed now.
-
Dale, As usual you're way over your head in something you have neither the mental equipment nor the background to understand or deal with. Why don't you stick with shooting blurry pictures of birds and flowers? We'll try to be be kind to you in our criticisms.
As usual, blurry, over head, etc. etc.
As a person with a certified IQ over 200, and (paraphrasing Chevy Chase) you're not, *we* can ignore *your* uninformed criticism. I don't mean to say criticism to dignify your verbiage, merely for lack of a better term. Your mental equipment (yours, not mine) will not improve with age. And age you have lots of.
-
Respectfully, this thread should probably be closed now.
Closed is OK, but you can't close everything. The point is that some folks insist on having total control of the terms of a discussion, and when that is challenged, they go on a personal attack. It's sad, but nothing to worry about.