Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
V For Vendetta Pro Terrorist
- Thread starter A_Wanderer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Tiger Edge
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
See, I saw V for Vendetta and thought it was actually more Pro-Government than anything.
The whole point is to create chaos in order to restore real order. From chaos comes a new government, one accepted by the people and for the people. Sound familiar?
Without the Boston Tea Party or Shay's Rebellion, etc, we wouldn't be here today. Many of us.
The movie didn't promote anarchy, it promotes change into a government that best serves the people.
The whole point is to create chaos in order to restore real order. From chaos comes a new government, one accepted by the people and for the people. Sound familiar?
Without the Boston Tea Party or Shay's Rebellion, etc, we wouldn't be here today. Many of us.
The movie didn't promote anarchy, it promotes change into a government that best serves the people.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I'd believe it, I am hoping that it retains the anarchy versus statism argument - it is self serving to say that the conservatives a grip on statism.
Clearly, the comic had anarchist principles and part of why its author has disowned the film has to do with how those may have been watered down.
Now, I saw the film and loved it. I don't think any movie "based on" a previous primary text is obligatged to be "faithful." Film is an art form of its own validity, period.
Since I'm seeing a lot of pejorative misuse of the term "anarchy" on this thread, people might want to know that the term literally means without government. It's a negation; what takes the place of government in a free and stateless society is up to the people.
Since so many people are greedy, violent, pathological creeps, many assume that anarchy will be horrifying and that the state is a necessary evil. I, however, disagree.
As an anarchist and a pacifist, I thought I should emphasize what anarchists mean when we talk about anarchy: a non-coercive, cooperative, decentralized society. A synonym for many of us is "libertarian socialism."
Some anarchists set up a website about the movie. It's interesting and worth a look.
http://www.aforanarchy.org/
Now, I saw the film and loved it. I don't think any movie "based on" a previous primary text is obligatged to be "faithful." Film is an art form of its own validity, period.
Since I'm seeing a lot of pejorative misuse of the term "anarchy" on this thread, people might want to know that the term literally means without government. It's a negation; what takes the place of government in a free and stateless society is up to the people.
Since so many people are greedy, violent, pathological creeps, many assume that anarchy will be horrifying and that the state is a necessary evil. I, however, disagree.
As an anarchist and a pacifist, I thought I should emphasize what anarchists mean when we talk about anarchy: a non-coercive, cooperative, decentralized society. A synonym for many of us is "libertarian socialism."
Some anarchists set up a website about the movie. It's interesting and worth a look.
http://www.aforanarchy.org/
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
How exactly is socialism compatiable with anarchism or even libertarianism?
Of course, most libertarians in this country are staunch capitalists, but exceptions do exist.
Briefly: Libertarian in personal freedoms, socialist in terms of sharing wealth.
Or
Another abbreviated answer from Wikipedia.
Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the State.
The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since, according to socialists, when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.
Briefly: Libertarian in personal freedoms, socialist in terms of sharing wealth.
Or
Another abbreviated answer from Wikipedia.
Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the State.
The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since, according to socialists, when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.
Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
A_Wanderer said:
haven't you ever heard of anarcho-communism or libertarian socialism? as anu pointed out, common management of a society's productive mechanisms is not necessarily relevant to, nor dependent on, a state apparatus.
anu - i thought i was the only libertarian socialist on this board.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
A_Wanderer said:
Well, that is interesting. Let me put it this way, they're at least as compatible as libertarianism and neo-'conservatism'.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
In what respect? It seems like comparing entirely different things.
Foreign policy: Interventionism versus Isolationism
Economic policy: Socialism versus Neo-Liberalism
The issue that I have is the concept of individual property rights not being part of the society - without that how can other individual rights possibly be guaranteed?
Foreign policy: Interventionism versus Isolationism
Economic policy: Socialism versus Neo-Liberalism
The issue that I have is the concept of individual property rights not being part of the society - without that how can other individual rights possibly be guaranteed?
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I just saw this movie this past weekend and was very happy with it.
Several points of interest was the "America's war" comment. Initially, I interpreted this as the war that "Dubya" started with Iraq that kept spreading (N. Korea, Sudan, Iran, etc.). But later in the movie, there is mention of a civil war in the "former United States", which sent a chill down my spine. This country is already very split - a quick look at the last two presidential elections shows this. Instead of unifying the country, Bush has torn us apart even more - the fact that he won in 2004 is more a sign of how weak Kerry was as opposed to how strong Bush was. But could this be the beginning of something bigger?
Fortunately, there's a reason our country has had one government for over 200 years - the power to vote people or regimes out of office. It happened in 1992 after 12 years of a Republican led White House, and it may happen soon again. Even with the Civil War in the 1860's, the goal wasn't to go back to a king or dictator, but rather to form a new union - to keep a different version of democracy going.
But this movie made me think of a line from another film I enjoy, "National Treasure". In that movie, Nicolas Cage's character comments how the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence were committing high treason - and he's right! In England's mind, these men were the equivalent of modern day terrorists! They were trying to undermine the current regime. But in our mind, these men are heroes - they helped form a new country.
Current terrorists aren't as "elegant", preferring to commit cowardly suicide attacks on the innocent. But in their minds, they are the heroes.
So where does the line of terrorism and an oppressive government begin and end? We've already have proof that Bush lied (see my topic on Bush's lies). We have proof that he was illegally tapping communications from "every day people". Where does the White House oppression end? What act of rebellion finally makes one a "hero"?
Several points of interest was the "America's war" comment. Initially, I interpreted this as the war that "Dubya" started with Iraq that kept spreading (N. Korea, Sudan, Iran, etc.). But later in the movie, there is mention of a civil war in the "former United States", which sent a chill down my spine. This country is already very split - a quick look at the last two presidential elections shows this. Instead of unifying the country, Bush has torn us apart even more - the fact that he won in 2004 is more a sign of how weak Kerry was as opposed to how strong Bush was. But could this be the beginning of something bigger?
Fortunately, there's a reason our country has had one government for over 200 years - the power to vote people or regimes out of office. It happened in 1992 after 12 years of a Republican led White House, and it may happen soon again. Even with the Civil War in the 1860's, the goal wasn't to go back to a king or dictator, but rather to form a new union - to keep a different version of democracy going.
But this movie made me think of a line from another film I enjoy, "National Treasure". In that movie, Nicolas Cage's character comments how the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence were committing high treason - and he's right! In England's mind, these men were the equivalent of modern day terrorists! They were trying to undermine the current regime. But in our mind, these men are heroes - they helped form a new country.
Current terrorists aren't as "elegant", preferring to commit cowardly suicide attacks on the innocent. But in their minds, they are the heroes.
So where does the line of terrorism and an oppressive government begin and end? We've already have proof that Bush lied (see my topic on Bush's lies). We have proof that he was illegally tapping communications from "every day people". Where does the White House oppression end? What act of rebellion finally makes one a "hero"?
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I saw V for Vendetta about 10 days ago but I’ve been traveling so I really haven’t had a chance to comment on it. In my opinion, the film wasn’t particularly fresh or memorable. I enjoyed it well enough and it did have some thought provoking moments. But there were also these little things that just bugged me. For example, Natalie Merchant’s character is taken to V’s lair where she spends the night. In the morning, she’s wearing pajamas, and she’s got all kinds of changes of clothing. Where did she get these from? I also don’t buy her willingness to go with him to see him conduct his “symphony” near the beginning of the film. This movie just didn’t blow me away and I’m not sure how “deep” the message really was. It seemed a little too political, a little too "Bush is the bad guy."
I'm more interested in the question raised by doctorwho. What makes a terrorist? Certainly blowing up buildings or taking people hostage are terrorist acts. But then how how is terrorism different from war? In war you bomb buildings and blow them up. In war you take people prisoners and refuse to let them go (unless the other side surrenders of course). What is terrorism if not acts of war done outside the "rules." Terrorism merely reveals the true ugliness and horror of war. And throughout history people who've chosen to ignore the "rules" of war (which is really an absurdity when you think about it--rules about killing people. . .any close study of war reveals how ridiculous this is) have been considered "terrorists" including some heroes of American history (Francis Marion, William Tecumseh Sherman and his March to the Sea).
The key difference between "war" and "terrorism" is in the attacking of the innocent. Innocent people--civilians--and "innocent" buildings (non-military structures like the World Trade Towers). Native Americans attacking white settlers were considered "terrorists" (though that word didn't exist in those days) because they often attacked any white settlers, seeing any and all whites on their land as part of the problem. Terrorism is also characterized by it's zealous nature and it's unwillingness to negotiate. Terrorists generally aren't willing to compromise their goals. Another characteristic of terrorists is that they generally act without the blessings or support of a state. The Nazis committed all sorts of atrocities on innocents but generally are not termed terrorists.
According to this definition was V a terrorist? Yeah, I think so. And yet, he is the "hero" of this film. Why? Because the audience is expected to agree with his views.
To tell the truth, terrorist is a perjorative term we apply to those whose views we disagree with who attack us in ways we deem "unfair."
I'm more interested in the question raised by doctorwho. What makes a terrorist? Certainly blowing up buildings or taking people hostage are terrorist acts. But then how how is terrorism different from war? In war you bomb buildings and blow them up. In war you take people prisoners and refuse to let them go (unless the other side surrenders of course). What is terrorism if not acts of war done outside the "rules." Terrorism merely reveals the true ugliness and horror of war. And throughout history people who've chosen to ignore the "rules" of war (which is really an absurdity when you think about it--rules about killing people. . .any close study of war reveals how ridiculous this is) have been considered "terrorists" including some heroes of American history (Francis Marion, William Tecumseh Sherman and his March to the Sea).
The key difference between "war" and "terrorism" is in the attacking of the innocent. Innocent people--civilians--and "innocent" buildings (non-military structures like the World Trade Towers). Native Americans attacking white settlers were considered "terrorists" (though that word didn't exist in those days) because they often attacked any white settlers, seeing any and all whites on their land as part of the problem. Terrorism is also characterized by it's zealous nature and it's unwillingness to negotiate. Terrorists generally aren't willing to compromise their goals. Another characteristic of terrorists is that they generally act without the blessings or support of a state. The Nazis committed all sorts of atrocities on innocents but generally are not termed terrorists.
According to this definition was V a terrorist? Yeah, I think so. And yet, he is the "hero" of this film. Why? Because the audience is expected to agree with his views.
To tell the truth, terrorist is a perjorative term we apply to those whose views we disagree with who attack us in ways we deem "unfair."
The Disciple
New Yorker
This was a brilliant movie.
trevster2k
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,330
I don't think the attacking of innocents is a particular difference between war and terrorism. Many innocents were deliberately targeted during the wars of the 20th Century. Also, a zealous nature is not a unique characteristic of a terrorist, many world leaders during conflicts and even today have displayed an unwillingness to negotiate and zealous nature.
I do agree that terrorist is a term which can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, some suggest terrorists are cowards for using the tactics of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and roadside bombings. But from the terrorist view, what other method of attack to do they have against a superior military force? Is blowing up a military convoy vehicle with roadside bomb more or less cowardly than dropping a missile on a house filled with innocents from a remote-controlled drone because it was thought to be a military target? People have different views depending on their position in the conflict.
And go read V for Vendetta, much better than the movie.
I do agree that terrorist is a term which can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, some suggest terrorists are cowards for using the tactics of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and roadside bombings. But from the terrorist view, what other method of attack to do they have against a superior military force? Is blowing up a military convoy vehicle with roadside bomb more or less cowardly than dropping a missile on a house filled with innocents from a remote-controlled drone because it was thought to be a military target? People have different views depending on their position in the conflict.
And go read V for Vendetta, much better than the movie.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
To what end, terrorism? That would be the key element in evaluation.
a-mole
War Child
ok, in the beginning i was doubting the movie (or rather: fearing the wachovsky brothers would have mistreated it)
anyways.. saw it last night and loved it
I mean, ok.. it has all been there (oppressive governments, some criticism of systems etc) and the whole symbolism speech was spot on what i had just studied for my communication theory class
However, I loved it
very good movie, some very fine acting (kudos to Hugo Weaving for playing such an expressive charcter without being able to use facial expressions) and overall visually awesome
go see
P.S. of course it is pro-terrorist. His actions can be defined as terrorism and we are on his side, but then again, who does he bring terror to? the ruling elite - terrorizing their own people. terror against terror.. in my little world full of greytones (lacking black and white) that is a rather positive thing
anyways.. saw it last night and loved it
I mean, ok.. it has all been there (oppressive governments, some criticism of systems etc) and the whole symbolism speech was spot on what i had just studied for my communication theory class
However, I loved it
very good movie, some very fine acting (kudos to Hugo Weaving for playing such an expressive charcter without being able to use facial expressions) and overall visually awesome
go see
P.S. of course it is pro-terrorist. His actions can be defined as terrorism and we are on his side, but then again, who does he bring terror to? the ruling elite - terrorizing their own people. terror against terror.. in my little world full of greytones (lacking black and white) that is a rather positive thing
blueyedpoet
Refugee
Throughout the movie, I kept thinking of Bono's words, "Fuck the revolution." Here's my take on the movie: V was brutally tortured; the government - much like Frankenstein - created a monster; like Frankenstein's monster, V sought revenge; V - like Frankenstein's monster, is smart; unlike Frankenstein's monster, V SIMPLY stoops to the level of the fascist, murdering government (I realize Frankenstein's monster also seeks revenge and does kill innocent people, but that story is a bit more complicated, hence the word "simply" being of great importance; V, who supposedly is all about liberating people never does anything that liberates anyone - Ev isn't liberated by fear, she's bound to numbness, hatred, and confusion; and, when the people come together at the end of the movie they aren't liberated as they're all hiding behind white masks. Is the message that you must hide behind a mask in order to be free? Shall we all be "white" then?
V is hardly a political hero. He creates chaos to satisfy his revenge and hate.
Gandhi is a hero. Stalin was not. Martin Luther King Jr was a hero. Che was not (although his image now represents something completely different than who he actually was).
In order to break free of the system, we must free ourselves from the mental chains. Because of social hegemony we think we all have to act out certain prescribed roles. As Bob Marley sang, we must free ourselves from this form of slavery. Killing oppressors only enslaves one to the chains of murder and hate.
Many people say Jesus changed and saved the world, and yet he never lifted a sword, even though many wanted him to.
V is hardly a political hero. He creates chaos to satisfy his revenge and hate.
Gandhi is a hero. Stalin was not. Martin Luther King Jr was a hero. Che was not (although his image now represents something completely different than who he actually was).
In order to break free of the system, we must free ourselves from the mental chains. Because of social hegemony we think we all have to act out certain prescribed roles. As Bob Marley sang, we must free ourselves from this form of slavery. Killing oppressors only enslaves one to the chains of murder and hate.
Many people say Jesus changed and saved the world, and yet he never lifted a sword, even though many wanted him to.
a-mole
War Child
see... i am not sure if you left the movie earlier
but they where discarting the masks in the end! and i think that is an important deatil which puts a different spin on the popular criticism of that movie.
I think this was done deliberately. 1st they are not free at all, they where hiding behind another mask, probably for security. However, that mask, being a symbol for the resistance (all movements have symbols) gives them the inital kick in the behind and strength to finally DO something. Even if it just walking down the street together. The mask could have been any color. It is the meaning of the mask , not the mask itself. It is the symbol that the opressive regime feared - so what do you do to really tell them that you support the "leader"? YOu use his symbol
Furthermore i it important to notice how V never claimed to be the leader (and probably never would have been). He followed his own venegance and apart from killing people, destroying the system was an important part of this. He merely shook up the to pick up their own revolution - he did not found/ lead it - he leyd the 1st stepstone. Converting Evey was in my opinion another selfish act. He fell in love with her and wanted to bind her to himself. Only by understanding his way, she would stay. (though i admit this whole part can be seen completely different, but this is how i understood it -> fits better into his charcter
) And to come to a final conclusion we would need the after story. WHo says it was effectfull at all? what it the system was not soley based on 2 people, but quickly re-build and Evey hunted down, while some inner workings gradually bring about the change? Change from actually by someone else with other ideas/ approaches?
Generally I find a bit much to ask of a mere blockbuster movie to live up to MLK, Ghandi or some big philosophies.
It is still entertainment and ok, it does have some supposedly deep stuff in it, but no one can possibly expect it to be new and relevant. After all it is a story with a limited elaborated setting (how exactly did the governemnt come into power? who is to blame? people for letting and not reacting in time... like the old Nazi discussion)
I agree about Evey, but it this a popular conception about human psychologie in these kind of movies/ comics. That's fine.. it is genre
Anyways, I need to get comic to get the whole picture I think. I am pretty sure that movie and comic combined while shed a more accurate light in V. Even though Moore said he does not want to be asociated with teh mobie, many avid comic lovers have approved of teh move and are fine with the different portrail of V and Evey (the transition from paper to screen is always bound to result in changes). Moore , even though the creator, is generally a bit itchy with his creations.
Last edited:
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
Insightful movie of things possibly to come. But I don't understand the principles of this 'Anarchist' movement (that V supposedly represents). But by taking action against the oppressing facists, how does society function under anarchaic rule? (rule being possibly ironic to the meaning of ararchy) Explain someone please.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
a-mole said:
see... i am not sure if you left the movie earlier
but they where discarding the masks in the end! and i think that is an important detail which puts a different spin on the popular criticism of that movie.
I think this was done deliberately. 1st they are not free at all, they where hiding behind another mask, probably for security. However, that mask, being a symbol for the resistance (all movements have symbols) gives them the initial kick in the behind and strength to finally DO something. Even if it just walking down the street together. The mask could have been any color. It is the meaning of the mask , not the mask itself. It is the symbol that the opressive regime feared - so what do you do to really tell them that you support the "leader"? YOu use his symbol
Furthermore i it important to notice how V never claimed to be the leader (and probably never would have been). He followed his own venegance and apart from killing people, destroying the system was an important part of this. He merely shook up the to pick up their own revolution - he did not found/ lead it - he leyd the 1st stepstone. Converting Evey was in my opinion another selfish act. He fell in love with her and wanted to bind her to himself. Only by understanding his way, she would stay. (though i admit this whole part can be seen completely different, but this is how i understood it -> fits better into his charcter
And to come to a final conclusion we would need the after story. WHo says it was effectfull at all? what it the system was not soley based on 2 people, but quickly re-build and Evey hunted down, while some inner workings gradually bring about the change? Change from actually by someone else with other ideas/ approaches?
Generally I find a bit much to ask of a mere blockbuster movie to live up to MLK, Ghandi or some big philosophies.
It is still entertainment and ok, it does have some supposedly deep stuff in it, but no one can possibly expect it to be new and relevant. After all it is a story with a limited elaborated setting (how exactly did the governemnt come into power? who is to blame? people for letting and not reacting in time... like the old Nazi discussion)
I agree about Evey, but it this a popular conception about human psychologie in these kind of movies/ comics. That's fine.. it is genre
Anyways, I need to get comic to get the whole picture I think. I am pretty sure that movie and comic combined while shed a more accurate light in V. Even though Moore said he does not want to be asociated with teh mobie, many avid comic lovers have approved of teh move and are fine with the different portrail of V and Evey (the transition from paper to screen is always bound to result in changes). Moore , even though the creator, is generally a bit itchy with his creations.
I stayed to watch the whole movie. The only movie I stopped watching was Freddie Got Fingered (but I rented that, so I still have yet to walk out on a movie).
Ok, so they take their masks off at the end. This reminds me of the early feminist movement when lesbians were not welcome and considered the "lavender menace." The message is then, we need to all be the same and then once we're free you can be whatever. However, unless people demand to be who they are from the get go, people will never be free.
I agree that to ask a blockbuster movie to live up to a Gandhi, MLK Jr, or Jesus is a bit much. Nevertheless, i think what is partly so irritating about this movie is, it thinks it somehow can. This movie is so damn pretentious.
V may never have asked to be the leader, but by becoming the symbol for the resistance, became one.
Let's take a look at Jesus. Many (the zealots) wanted Jesus to advocate violence against the oppressive Roman empire; others, (pharisees) wanted Jesus to advocate following the law; and, others (Essenes) wanted to Jesus to only wander around preaching about the soul. Jesus demanded his followers civilly disobey.
a-mole
War Child
true
but i still do not see why fictional charcters should live up to or copy real life figures
V may have become a leader when turning into th symbol.. but that does not force im to become ethical or so
And furthermore am I convinced that in the case of regims like depicted (or the Nazis) violence is not the worst thing. MLK or Ghandi could not have reached s*** in NS Germany.. trust me.
I think the moviemakers and comic writer have the same feeling and thus depict their view on how it could/ should be handled. That it is not in comliance with other popular philosophies is on another sheet of paper
I actually also think that you interpretation about being hiding andbeing free contradicts the movie. I find the ending open enough to have these thoughts very well too. We do not know how it continues and whether it was really the solution. After all, it leaves us where it starts to show. I could not fully agree with Evey in the end (her enthusiasm for continuing V's work), but i do not think the film necessarily wanst you too. I think it's point is rather the possible danger of a future big bro totalitarian society and how it can only be and end ugly. There will be no shining hero, with everyone comming out clean. V was a monster, (de)formed by the very same system he tried to destroy... I have no idea how GHandi and MLK even come into discussion there. Apart from wanting to get rid of opression, I cnnot see parallels. Historicly I can only see paralells to Nazi Germany and WWII. An ugly and gruesom war was necessary to free my country... The fiction V for Vendetta is way milder and nicer than this reality (hey, 2 bad guys, some foolish guardsmen and 2 buildings... !
but i still do not see why fictional charcters should live up to or copy real life figures
V may have become a leader when turning into th symbol.. but that does not force im to become ethical or so
And furthermore am I convinced that in the case of regims like depicted (or the Nazis) violence is not the worst thing. MLK or Ghandi could not have reached s*** in NS Germany.. trust me.
I think the moviemakers and comic writer have the same feeling and thus depict their view on how it could/ should be handled. That it is not in comliance with other popular philosophies is on another sheet of paper
I actually also think that you interpretation about being hiding andbeing free contradicts the movie. I find the ending open enough to have these thoughts very well too. We do not know how it continues and whether it was really the solution. After all, it leaves us where it starts to show. I could not fully agree with Evey in the end (her enthusiasm for continuing V's work), but i do not think the film necessarily wanst you too. I think it's point is rather the possible danger of a future big bro totalitarian society and how it can only be and end ugly. There will be no shining hero, with everyone comming out clean. V was a monster, (de)formed by the very same system he tried to destroy... I have no idea how GHandi and MLK even come into discussion there. Apart from wanting to get rid of opression, I cnnot see parallels. Historicly I can only see paralells to Nazi Germany and WWII. An ugly and gruesom war was necessary to free my country... The fiction V for Vendetta is way milder and nicer than this reality (hey, 2 bad guys, some foolish guardsmen and 2 buildings... !
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I prefer the ZZW and ZOB to the story of Jesus.
a-mole
War Child
the what?
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The Jewish resistance groups that operated in the Warsaw Ghetto during WW2, they did not represent the behaviour that Ghandi advocated after the fact
a-mole
War Child
oh i do not agree with Ghandi there at all
generally i find that i can afford only so much toleranance and peace for oether's who think they can just walk all over me and not give a damn.
I really cannot comply with the "other cheek" philosophy. If it is about my freedom i am pretty archaic ( i never purposely attack, but hell breaks lose if I GET attacked)
generally i find that i can afford only so much toleranance and peace for oether's who think they can just walk all over me and not give a damn.
I really cannot comply with the "other cheek" philosophy. If it is about my freedom i am pretty archaic ( i never purposely attack, but hell breaks lose if I GET attacked)
But then, the British in India never stooped to the ghastly, :all-out war" tactics of the world's most oppressive regimes. it was unremittingly awful but never a case of "Armenians (ermeni) are like weeds. Every so often they have to be trimmed, otherwise they'd grow too thick and too tall and pollute the landscape." (a popular saying in Ottoman Empire adminstration, according to my grandfather's Sunday School teacher almost 100 yrs ago...he had Turkish friends at the local level who had friends who worked in Sultan Abdul Hamid's Civil Service.) Some historians beleive that if 1915 hadn't happened, the Armenians in Turkey would have been slowly eliminated over the next 20 yrs by the pogroms that had been happening every 3 or 4 yrs from 1896 onwards...mini-massacres that routinely killed 20,000-50,00o people.)
Cruel as it is to say this, the people of India had it good, compared to other oppressors. And yes, I've read the history, extensively. Whatever their Empirical faults, the Brits never attempted all-out genocide. The Indians fared, for example, much better than the Irish (England's first conquest, of nearly 1000 yrs ago, and Ulster the only part of the Empire still remaining in English hands. Some historians beleive that if the iriush had called for anothe rof thier periodic uprsings at the time of the Famine, Queen Victoria would have gone in and wiped the "croppies" out for good. They were looking for an excuse. The rising never happened, though Parnell tried to suggest one.)
I can think of other rough exampkles that might be suggested...the Spanish in the New World (but disease helped a lot there), and the French in Vietnam. But on a whole, the Indians were merely oppressed, not subjected to the national equivalent of a gulag.
Great example, actgually. What would Gandhi have done if the Brits had operated a Soviet-style gulag system in India, in which millions of people disappeared every year? I wonder how much he would have put up with....Satyagraha would have been sorely tested, in today's world.
Cruel as it is to say this, the people of India had it good, compared to other oppressors. And yes, I've read the history, extensively. Whatever their Empirical faults, the Brits never attempted all-out genocide. The Indians fared, for example, much better than the Irish (England's first conquest, of nearly 1000 yrs ago, and Ulster the only part of the Empire still remaining in English hands. Some historians beleive that if the iriush had called for anothe rof thier periodic uprsings at the time of the Famine, Queen Victoria would have gone in and wiped the "croppies" out for good. They were looking for an excuse. The rising never happened, though Parnell tried to suggest one.)
I can think of other rough exampkles that might be suggested...the Spanish in the New World (but disease helped a lot there), and the French in Vietnam. But on a whole, the Indians were merely oppressed, not subjected to the national equivalent of a gulag.
Great example, actgually. What would Gandhi have done if the Brits had operated a Soviet-style gulag system in India, in which millions of people disappeared every year? I wonder how much he would have put up with....Satyagraha would have been sorely tested, in today's world.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
"Turn the other cheek" is a misunderstood concept. Jesus isn't advocating being a wimp; Jesus is advocating civil disobedience. In Rome, if someone slaps you from their right, it's a back-handed slap. A back-handed slap was given from a superior to an inferior. If the inferior then were to turn the other cheek, the superior would either have to slap him with an open palm, and thereby asserting the two individuals were equal, or stop slapping him.
Walking the extra mile and taking off all your clothes were also about shaming others.
Walking the extra mile and taking off all your clothes were also about shaming others.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Civil disobedience and passive resistance achieves no end but ones own death at the hands of an amoral opponent.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
I'm quiet sure that actually India is free, black people do have civil rights in America, and that Jesus did, in fact, have an enormous effect on the world. But, I do suppose those things are not worth a whole lot. No end, indeed.
Seriously, what was the point of that movie? Obviously, the writers and director made a pointed movie, so what was the point? America's government is far too big brother, almost as bad as the movie's government. So, should Americans blow up the White House or Congress?
You know, if we chop off Bush's head all of his sins will suddenly be erased. Iraq will suddenly become a zone of peace. Africa will be healed. Halliburton will sponateously combust. Of course, we'll have to strangle Cheney too.
Seriously, what was the point of that movie? Obviously, the writers and director made a pointed movie, so what was the point? America's government is far too big brother, almost as bad as the movie's government. So, should Americans blow up the White House or Congress?
You know, if we chop off Bush's head all of his sins will suddenly be erased. Iraq will suddenly become a zone of peace. Africa will be healed. Halliburton will sponateously combust. Of course, we'll have to strangle Cheney too.
a-mole
War Child
1st. the comic is by any means not about america
the movie is altered to draw closer parallels to the USA, that is true... Nevertheless, it is still open enough and still set in GB (a bit beyond me me how people keep thinking this is supposed to be america, when clearly location and state of affaires are different. showing parallels to current tactics, scarres and isues is certainly a nice touch and brings it closer to the viewer - but for once the movie world does NOT revolve around teh USA)
however, i find it quite obvious that it aims to depict current state of affairs and it's cure - but rather a dark future vision which at best wants to warn/ shake up people to act before it is too late. And no - acting BEFORE it is too late does then not necessarily mean blowing buildings up. What it means is not said... but if humanity needed a movie to tell them, now that would be sad
2nd: Civil disobiedience is another concept i personally do not agree with
I admire people whoo go through with it, but i would not
so in its consequence it does not matter to me how the concept is correct
(though i agree it is rather clever in the situation of the inferior in ancient rome)
the movie is altered to draw closer parallels to the USA, that is true... Nevertheless, it is still open enough and still set in GB (a bit beyond me me how people keep thinking this is supposed to be america, when clearly location and state of affaires are different. showing parallels to current tactics, scarres and isues is certainly a nice touch and brings it closer to the viewer - but for once the movie world does NOT revolve around teh USA)
however, i find it quite obvious that it aims to depict current state of affairs and it's cure - but rather a dark future vision which at best wants to warn/ shake up people to act before it is too late. And no - acting BEFORE it is too late does then not necessarily mean blowing buildings up. What it means is not said... but if humanity needed a movie to tell them, now that would be sad
2nd: Civil disobiedience is another concept i personally do not agree with
I admire people whoo go through with it, but i would not
so in its consequence it does not matter to me how the concept is correct
(though i agree it is rather clever in the situation of the inferior in ancient rome)
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I read an interview with the author of the original comic and he seemed to be very angry with the movie. He accused the writers of turning it into a anti-Bush, anti-conservative movie.
I'll try to dig up the article sometime soon.
I'll try to dig up the article sometime soon.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
