How much did you pay for your cell phone?
How much do you spend each month on the plan to make calls, send texts, and use data?
If you knew that $12.50 could help promote sustained peace in a county at a strategic point in transitioning from a long civil war, would you give it?
If you're on a tight budget (like me) would you sacrifice a meal out at a restaurant, or a cheap new shirt, or a couple of beers, to be able to make that donation? How much is peace in a tiny African country worth?
As many of you know, I did field work for my thesis in Rwanda. The histories of Rwanda and Burundi are tightly knit, and therefore so is their present. In fact, just as no man is an island, so is no county isolated. The politics of each country in the Great Lakes region of Africa reflect and impose upon each other, and those processes and relationships extend even further to the Great Lakes of America. How so? Because we in America (and Europe and Asia) are completely dependent on technology, and a great number of the resources we utilize to produce that technology come out of central Africa. But I don't actually want to pursue this argument. I recognize that there is something in human nature that compels us to want to get something for that which we give. But must we get a 'clean' iphone in exchange for supporting peace in Burundi? Not that I don't want responsible corporations, but is that the only compelling argument? Does the security of fellow human beings hold any weight? Is it worth $12.50? That's certainly a lot less than we might spend on a military or humanitarian operation should violence break out.... But enough with the guilt, what am I on about?
Healing and Rebuilding Our Communities is a trauma healing project which is pursuing an off-shoot project in response to the current elections taking place in Burundi. Since this is the first elections to take place in Burundi since a peace accord was signed in 2008, it is a volatile time in which many fear people will resort to violence to ensure whatever outcome they think is best. Many people feel that who is in office directly affects their daily existence, maybe even their lives, so a lot is at stake. As a result, things can get out of hand pretty quickly, rumors in particular being a fiendish culprit. So, after assessing what areas might be most prone to violence, HROC followed up the original workshop with trainings directly about community building in order to promote networks of support and to influence good communication. Along these lines, they are also training observers in each of the selected areas who will communicate with one another and with HROC 'headquarters' with cell phones. Having this rapid communication available to them makes it possible to stay informed about what is (or isn't) happening on the ground, which observers can also relay to their communities. How often have you felt comforted just KNOWING the details of what is happening? Communication is so important to sustaining healthy relationships!
There's one problem: the observers need cell phones! Few people in Burundi have the disposable income to purchase a cell phone, even when it only costs $12.50. Fortunately, lots of people with access to an extra $12.50 often find themselves wondering how it's possible to make a difference in a country like, say...Burundi, with the lowest per capita GDP in the world and which has essentially experienced decades of civil war. This is a fantastic opportunity! $12.50 puts the power in the hands of one observer, and his/her community, to actively build peace through good communication in a time of fear and questioning. We need to support more projects which use alternatives to guns, bombs and threats; which actively utilize peaceful means to peaceful ends and a more holistic concept of security.
You can learn more about Burundi, the elections, and this project from Andrew and Rich.
You can join the cause on facebook and make donations here.
08 July 2010
11 April 2010
What's the point of counter-protesting the WBC? (or Peace and Love in Colorado part II)
1) Showing support to the students and congregants who are being targeted with messages of hate. I am particularly concerned about the students, who as young people are particularly susceptible to the ideas and opinions of others. Many could be deeply hurt and disturbed by the message and actions of the WBC. Countering that message with one of love, support, acceptance, unity, and the power of standing together as a community can impact how they view the world, and their own role in it, in a positive way. It's empowerment! It's so important to show future generations that they have a voice and a choice to make the world a more secure place for us all.
2) It's a message to anyone here in CO who may share the opinions of the WBC, letting them know that an attack on any single member of our community for whatever reason is in fact an attack on the community as a whole, and we will actively pursue a peaceful community that accepts and values difference. If small messages of hatred are allowed, they will only grow. The WBC is not physically violent, but their acts open a space for others to push those boundaries and a potential for violence.
3) It's a message to the children whom the WBC manipulates to participate in spreading their hate. We can expose them to a message of love and acceptance, and show them that love is more powerful, maybe even provide a dash of hope. One of Phelps' estranged children describes a continuum of abuse (http://natephelps.com/), which makes apparent that they are in desperate need of some lovin.
4) How many times have you heard the phrase "American soldiers fought and died for freedom in America" or something like it? How often do you take advantage of that freedom? Westboro Baptist Church is taking advantage of that freedom. There are lots of people around the world who are either exiled for voicing something which their government didn't agree with, or too terrified, even in their own homes, to voice their thoughts for fear of what may happen to them. I don't agree with the message that WBC propagates, I think it is directly and significantly harmful to the peace and well-being of both individuals and the community as a whole. But they have the freedom in this country to voice their opinions (whether what they have to say is a violation of human rights, or even if it should in fact be defined as peaceful simply because they are not physically attacking someone, is an issue for discussion). So the question is, what do you think about what the WBC says? How do you think it impacts the students at the schools they picket, or the congregation at the churches they picket, or the mourners at the funerals they picket? What is the impact for others in our cities who may share the WBC's sentiments? If you believe that the United States has fought for justice and liberty, is it not spitting in the face of soldiers and human rights activists when you let the responsibility to ensure those things in your home pass by?
Peace does not just happen inherently. Nor is it simply the absence of war. We have to dream it, hope for it, build it through our everyday interactions with everyone around us and sometimes with a bold statement against anyone or anything that threatens it. No act goes without consequence.
Complacency is the most dangerous threat to peace.
“Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” Pope John Paul II
2) It's a message to anyone here in CO who may share the opinions of the WBC, letting them know that an attack on any single member of our community for whatever reason is in fact an attack on the community as a whole, and we will actively pursue a peaceful community that accepts and values difference. If small messages of hatred are allowed, they will only grow. The WBC is not physically violent, but their acts open a space for others to push those boundaries and a potential for violence.
3) It's a message to the children whom the WBC manipulates to participate in spreading their hate. We can expose them to a message of love and acceptance, and show them that love is more powerful, maybe even provide a dash of hope. One of Phelps' estranged children describes a continuum of abuse (http://natephelps.com/), which makes apparent that they are in desperate need of some lovin.
4) How many times have you heard the phrase "American soldiers fought and died for freedom in America" or something like it? How often do you take advantage of that freedom? Westboro Baptist Church is taking advantage of that freedom. There are lots of people around the world who are either exiled for voicing something which their government didn't agree with, or too terrified, even in their own homes, to voice their thoughts for fear of what may happen to them. I don't agree with the message that WBC propagates, I think it is directly and significantly harmful to the peace and well-being of both individuals and the community as a whole. But they have the freedom in this country to voice their opinions (whether what they have to say is a violation of human rights, or even if it should in fact be defined as peaceful simply because they are not physically attacking someone, is an issue for discussion). So the question is, what do you think about what the WBC says? How do you think it impacts the students at the schools they picket, or the congregation at the churches they picket, or the mourners at the funerals they picket? What is the impact for others in our cities who may share the WBC's sentiments? If you believe that the United States has fought for justice and liberty, is it not spitting in the face of soldiers and human rights activists when you let the responsibility to ensure those things in your home pass by?
Peace does not just happen inherently. Nor is it simply the absence of war. We have to dream it, hope for it, build it through our everyday interactions with everyone around us and sometimes with a bold statement against anyone or anything that threatens it. No act goes without consequence.
Complacency is the most dangerous threat to peace.
“Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” Pope John Paul II
04 April 2010
Peace and Love in Colorado
It's come to my attention that the Westboro Baptist Church, a hate group, is planning to picket several locations in Colorado later this month. They like to proclaim that "God hates you" and target homosexuals and Jews in particular. Some think that ignoring the picketers is the best response because it doesn't give them the attention they apparently so desperately want. However, I am of the breed that thinks silence and inaction are unacceptable and send the message to both aggressors and victims that hateful actions are acceptable. Ultimately this is a question of dignity and respect: even if one does not agree with the choice another has made, harassment is not an appropriate response.
Here's the CO picket schedule:
April 22: Pomona High School in Arvada, Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder, Boulder Hillel, Chatauqua Community House in Boulder
April 23: Standley Lake High School in Broomfield, Denver Academy of Torah, Intermountain Jewish News/ADL in Denver, Jewish Mosaic in Denver, Mountain Range High School in Denver, Hebrew Educational Alliance in Denver, Comedy Works in Greenwood Village
April 24: Temple Sinai in Denver, Temple Emmanuel in Denver, Jewish Community Center in Denver, Exdo Event Center in Denver
I find it particularly distasteful that they would stand outside schools with messages of hate. So I'm looking for people who want to take a stand for love, acceptance, peace, tolerance, kindness, education, life, choice, and even a God who doesn't hate you and me. The only religious creed or political allegiance that matters here is one that says hateful acts are not ok.
I would like to reach out to each of the places on the list above with a show of support, and to join forces with any other groups that might want to stage counter-protests. Let me know if you'd like to join me, by doing some research to get connected and/or by participating in peaceful protest/standup/shout-out. I emphasize the PEACEFUL nature of our response, countering with messages of hate (eg "God Hates WBC") or violence only adds to their ranks. And, let's be creative! How might we demonstrate love and peace and acceptance?
You can read up on WBC here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Here's one organization that is fighting hate-crimes:
http://preview.niot.org/action-hub/local-lessons/three-guiding-principles-when-confronting-hate
And here's how one high school responded to WBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEiwBCpiA0E
Stand with your community to make the statement that we won't let hate reside on our streets!
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." - Dalai Lama
Here's the CO picket schedule:
April 22: Pomona High School in Arvada, Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder, Boulder Hillel, Chatauqua Community House in Boulder
April 23: Standley Lake High School in Broomfield, Denver Academy of Torah, Intermountain Jewish News/ADL in Denver, Jewish Mosaic in Denver, Mountain Range High School in Denver, Hebrew Educational Alliance in Denver, Comedy Works in Greenwood Village
April 24: Temple Sinai in Denver, Temple Emmanuel in Denver, Jewish Community Center in Denver, Exdo Event Center in Denver
I find it particularly distasteful that they would stand outside schools with messages of hate. So I'm looking for people who want to take a stand for love, acceptance, peace, tolerance, kindness, education, life, choice, and even a God who doesn't hate you and me. The only religious creed or political allegiance that matters here is one that says hateful acts are not ok.
I would like to reach out to each of the places on the list above with a show of support, and to join forces with any other groups that might want to stage counter-protests. Let me know if you'd like to join me, by doing some research to get connected and/or by participating in peaceful protest/standup/shout-out. I emphasize the PEACEFUL nature of our response, countering with messages of hate (eg "God Hates WBC") or violence only adds to their ranks. And, let's be creative! How might we demonstrate love and peace and acceptance?
You can read up on WBC here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Here's one organization that is fighting hate-crimes:
http://preview.niot.org/action-hub/local-lessons/three-guiding-principles-when-confronting-hate
And here's how one high school responded to WBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEiwBCpiA0E
Stand with your community to make the statement that we won't let hate reside on our streets!
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." - Dalai Lama
31 March 2010
Elections and Democracy in E Africa
I've linked to a video from the Carter Center entitled "Africa: Elections Aren't Enough" featuring Paul Collier (author of "The Bottom Billion") and other Carter Center staff. The foundational idea is that elections in and of themselves do not a democracy make. It's a poignant talk at a time when so many African countries are approaching elections. I'll highlight a few in the region where I pay the most attention:
Sudan, April 2010--the first free elections in 24 years. The civil war between the north and south, which continued for over two decades, made holding any semblance of a democratic election impossible. The current president, Omar al Bashir, came into power through a coup d'état in 1989 (and, I should note, is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity in Darfur). In the south, this election in many ways is considered a precursor to the vote that is planned for January 2011 in which Southern Sudan will decide if it should become an independent state. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, with a population of 40 million, the majority of which are illiterate and live in rural areas. In addition, conflict is still prominent in the eastern Darfur state. As such, logistical issues are a huge concern. Furthermore, the International Crises Group has just published a report outlining the ways the ruling National Congress Party has rigged the election.
Burundi, May-July 2010--the first elections since a peace accord was signed in April 2009 between the ruling government, the National Council for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD), and the opposition National Liberation Forces (FNL). Burundi had been in Civil War since 1993. The current President Pierre Nkurunziza was elected in 2005 with the first elections since the start of the civil war. Human Rights Watch has produced reports documenting politically motivated killings, assaults, arrests, and other violence intended to intimidate and suppress opposing parties. Recent reports from IRIN identify party youth leagues, made up largely of demobilised combatants, as tools of the ruling party to intimidate voters.
In post-conflict states, elections are pivotal. After a peace agreement was signed in Burundi, people were relieved, but still hesitant about the how long-standing that peace would be. Most people say they will "wait and see" how the elections go: if it is pulled off peacefully and justly then they can feel confident that their country has really made a change for the better, but most worry that there will be new violence and manipulation. To explore the host of issues a country at such a turning point faces, see the recent Peacebuilding Commission report for Burundi.
Rwanda, August 2010--the second election since the Rwandese Patriotic Front took power after ending the genocide in 1994. The first election was in 2003, when then President Paul Kagame was elected with 95% of the vote (it should be noted that political organising was outlawed until shortly before the election was held). The constitution allows for the President to serve two, seven year terms, and most anticipate that Kagame, who has held the office of president since removing Pasteur Bizimungu in 2000, will be re-elected. However, the evidence that the election is being manipulated in order to maintain power is piling up. The opposition is being prevented from registering and meeting; accusations of revisionism and/or denial of the the 1994 genocide and divisionism serve as piercing attacks against the opposition which by law make them vulnerable to arrest; and members of opposition parties are publicly beaten.
Although Kagame has done much to rebuild Rwanda and maintain peace, his human rights record leaves much to be desired. He could stand among the great leaders in Africa if he were to follow in the footsteps of Mandela and step down when his time is up, but I fear he may choose the path of Mugabe, Museveni and so many others who entrench themselves in power and refuse to acknowledge that any other person may be capable of performing as president.
Uganda, 2011--Yoweri Museveni took power in 1985 through a coup d'état. He was later elected president in 1996, again in 2001, and again in 2006 (in the first multiparty election, and after changing the constitution to allow him to run for a third term). The elections have been contested with accusations of rigging, voter intimidation, and suppression of party activities. HRW documents elected officials who were charged with election abuses but never brought to justice and are still serving, while opposition candidates are arrested on trumped up charges. Conflicts over the upcoming elections are already being reported, and the coalition of opposition parties have hinted they would boycott the elections if changes are not made.
The three months I spent in Uganda were littered with stories of past elections, none of them were positive. Foreigners said that violence was inevitable (speaking from their own experience of riots and bombings) and that it was best to leave the country if you could. A young man in the eastern mountains described being kidnapped, beaten, and imprisoned until he agreed to never work for an opposition party again. Everyone expressed that the only reason President Museveni continued to win elections was through threat and manipulation, and because the international community continued to recognise him as a legitimate leader (although the Obama administration may be looking to change that).
You may recall that the last elections in this region were in Kenya in 2007, the population contested the results, in which the incumbent President Kibaki was declared winner, which led to widespread violence and killings that became ethnically charged in some areas (particularly the Rift Valley Province). A negotiated power-sharing agreement established the office of Prime Minister for the leading opposition, Odinga. The next elections in 2012 are anticipated with trepidation.
Elections are powerful, emotionally charged, and complex regardless of the country they take place in. They can be used as a tool for suppression and domination just as easily as they can be used for the stimulation of human rights and the freedom to voice your needs and desires. I believe it is important for the international community (which means not just governments but you and me) to hold each state accountable and to support good practices. It is also important to remain informed about the processes and voices in other countries in order to better understand your own and better identify good practices, not to mention defining your own needs and desires.
I would love to hear your thoughts or questions on these issues, if you have a response please post a comment on my blog!
Sudan, April 2010--the first free elections in 24 years. The civil war between the north and south, which continued for over two decades, made holding any semblance of a democratic election impossible. The current president, Omar al Bashir, came into power through a coup d'état in 1989 (and, I should note, is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity in Darfur). In the south, this election in many ways is considered a precursor to the vote that is planned for January 2011 in which Southern Sudan will decide if it should become an independent state. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, with a population of 40 million, the majority of which are illiterate and live in rural areas. In addition, conflict is still prominent in the eastern Darfur state. As such, logistical issues are a huge concern. Furthermore, the International Crises Group has just published a report outlining the ways the ruling National Congress Party has rigged the election.
Burundi, May-July 2010--the first elections since a peace accord was signed in April 2009 between the ruling government, the National Council for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD), and the opposition National Liberation Forces (FNL). Burundi had been in Civil War since 1993. The current President Pierre Nkurunziza was elected in 2005 with the first elections since the start of the civil war. Human Rights Watch has produced reports documenting politically motivated killings, assaults, arrests, and other violence intended to intimidate and suppress opposing parties. Recent reports from IRIN identify party youth leagues, made up largely of demobilised combatants, as tools of the ruling party to intimidate voters.
In post-conflict states, elections are pivotal. After a peace agreement was signed in Burundi, people were relieved, but still hesitant about the how long-standing that peace would be. Most people say they will "wait and see" how the elections go: if it is pulled off peacefully and justly then they can feel confident that their country has really made a change for the better, but most worry that there will be new violence and manipulation. To explore the host of issues a country at such a turning point faces, see the recent Peacebuilding Commission report for Burundi.
Rwanda, August 2010--the second election since the Rwandese Patriotic Front took power after ending the genocide in 1994. The first election was in 2003, when then President Paul Kagame was elected with 95% of the vote (it should be noted that political organising was outlawed until shortly before the election was held). The constitution allows for the President to serve two, seven year terms, and most anticipate that Kagame, who has held the office of president since removing Pasteur Bizimungu in 2000, will be re-elected. However, the evidence that the election is being manipulated in order to maintain power is piling up. The opposition is being prevented from registering and meeting; accusations of revisionism and/or denial of the the 1994 genocide and divisionism serve as piercing attacks against the opposition which by law make them vulnerable to arrest; and members of opposition parties are publicly beaten.
Although Kagame has done much to rebuild Rwanda and maintain peace, his human rights record leaves much to be desired. He could stand among the great leaders in Africa if he were to follow in the footsteps of Mandela and step down when his time is up, but I fear he may choose the path of Mugabe, Museveni and so many others who entrench themselves in power and refuse to acknowledge that any other person may be capable of performing as president.
Uganda, 2011--Yoweri Museveni took power in 1985 through a coup d'état. He was later elected president in 1996, again in 2001, and again in 2006 (in the first multiparty election, and after changing the constitution to allow him to run for a third term). The elections have been contested with accusations of rigging, voter intimidation, and suppression of party activities. HRW documents elected officials who were charged with election abuses but never brought to justice and are still serving, while opposition candidates are arrested on trumped up charges. Conflicts over the upcoming elections are already being reported, and the coalition of opposition parties have hinted they would boycott the elections if changes are not made.
The three months I spent in Uganda were littered with stories of past elections, none of them were positive. Foreigners said that violence was inevitable (speaking from their own experience of riots and bombings) and that it was best to leave the country if you could. A young man in the eastern mountains described being kidnapped, beaten, and imprisoned until he agreed to never work for an opposition party again. Everyone expressed that the only reason President Museveni continued to win elections was through threat and manipulation, and because the international community continued to recognise him as a legitimate leader (although the Obama administration may be looking to change that).
You may recall that the last elections in this region were in Kenya in 2007, the population contested the results, in which the incumbent President Kibaki was declared winner, which led to widespread violence and killings that became ethnically charged in some areas (particularly the Rift Valley Province). A negotiated power-sharing agreement established the office of Prime Minister for the leading opposition, Odinga. The next elections in 2012 are anticipated with trepidation.
Elections are powerful, emotionally charged, and complex regardless of the country they take place in. They can be used as a tool for suppression and domination just as easily as they can be used for the stimulation of human rights and the freedom to voice your needs and desires. I believe it is important for the international community (which means not just governments but you and me) to hold each state accountable and to support good practices. It is also important to remain informed about the processes and voices in other countries in order to better understand your own and better identify good practices, not to mention defining your own needs and desires.
I would love to hear your thoughts or questions on these issues, if you have a response please post a comment on my blog!
23 February 2010
"The Crazies"
I had a realisation today while watching a preview for the new movie "The Crazies": we are becoming more and more scared of ourselves.
Think about the history of horror movies in the US (not that I claim to be an expert). The earliest are based on myths found in literature: Dracula, Frankenstein, etc. In the 1950's it was gigantic irradiated mutants and monsters that reflected the fears at the time of nuclear bombs and the growing connections with mysterious foreign lands: King Kong, gigantic mosquitoes, and aliens featured. Then zombies (who are, or were, humans) entered into popular representation. From what I can tell from the preview, 'The Crazies' are not zombies, but people who are sick or somehow infected (which has been the case in other recent horror films, often reflecting the contemporary threat of chemical weapons and science gone wrong). But the title implies that something is making people go 'crazy' and turn (violently) on fellow humans.
My point is that there has been a slow transition, from fictitious monsters to those that seem much more real and plausible, and more to the point, they are much more like you and me. Having just spent a year working on a thesis about how life is rebuilt after genocide in Rwanda, it's no surprise to me that we should be terrified of what we can do to each other, but how has this notion entered into popular media? Is the public overwhelmed with dumb-downed news blurbs? An odd paradox presents itself: I imagine that the creators of horror films today want their movie to be the scariest it can be, and usually that means making it as real as possible, yet for most people movies are an escape from reality. Or maybe an escape from an individual's present reality.
I say this partially because of the present fascination with "reality" TV and the rising number of films that seem to try to represent some truth or desire to honor the reality of experience (I prefer the more escapist genre myself, unless the film really has something to say). Despite the effort in this new film to strike fear in our hearts and minds (for entertainment purposes, I suppose that's another area for exploration) by creating a plot that seems realistic, they don't come too close. After all, this happens, according to the preview, after "humanity is lost." I couldn't help but role my eyes when I heard that line, because I think our understanding of "humanity", of what it means to be "human", is a bit skewed. I say this because each of us is just as capable of causing harm as we are of being caring and considerate. There are limits of course, one who is exceedingly compassionate can be revered as a saint or an angel, and one who is exceedingly cruel may be reviled as a monster or a demon. But the boundaries are transient, and I think that if we don't acknowledge the not-so-pretty sides of "humanity" (conflict, anger, bitterness, etc), then the good stuff can get forgotten too. The movie preview drew other unnerving parallels for me to Rwanda, where people describe those who killed in the genocide as becoming like animals, putting the question of how we define "humanity" in a different tone.
But I digress (I mean, how we, and others, define 'human-ness' is a thesis topic!). This blog is not well thought out, it's surely flawed. For instance, I do not intend to suggest that Dracula in silent black and white was not terrifying to the audience of the day. My motivating question here is: why is it that what we find terrifying today is ourselves? Or ourselves gone mad? (yet we still try so very hard to relegate that fear to the realm of the mythical, thereby negating any substantial response to or recognition of that fear?)
Think about the history of horror movies in the US (not that I claim to be an expert). The earliest are based on myths found in literature: Dracula, Frankenstein, etc. In the 1950's it was gigantic irradiated mutants and monsters that reflected the fears at the time of nuclear bombs and the growing connections with mysterious foreign lands: King Kong, gigantic mosquitoes, and aliens featured. Then zombies (who are, or were, humans) entered into popular representation. From what I can tell from the preview, 'The Crazies' are not zombies, but people who are sick or somehow infected (which has been the case in other recent horror films, often reflecting the contemporary threat of chemical weapons and science gone wrong). But the title implies that something is making people go 'crazy' and turn (violently) on fellow humans.
My point is that there has been a slow transition, from fictitious monsters to those that seem much more real and plausible, and more to the point, they are much more like you and me. Having just spent a year working on a thesis about how life is rebuilt after genocide in Rwanda, it's no surprise to me that we should be terrified of what we can do to each other, but how has this notion entered into popular media? Is the public overwhelmed with dumb-downed news blurbs? An odd paradox presents itself: I imagine that the creators of horror films today want their movie to be the scariest it can be, and usually that means making it as real as possible, yet for most people movies are an escape from reality. Or maybe an escape from an individual's present reality.
I say this partially because of the present fascination with "reality" TV and the rising number of films that seem to try to represent some truth or desire to honor the reality of experience (I prefer the more escapist genre myself, unless the film really has something to say). Despite the effort in this new film to strike fear in our hearts and minds (for entertainment purposes, I suppose that's another area for exploration) by creating a plot that seems realistic, they don't come too close. After all, this happens, according to the preview, after "humanity is lost." I couldn't help but role my eyes when I heard that line, because I think our understanding of "humanity", of what it means to be "human", is a bit skewed. I say this because each of us is just as capable of causing harm as we are of being caring and considerate. There are limits of course, one who is exceedingly compassionate can be revered as a saint or an angel, and one who is exceedingly cruel may be reviled as a monster or a demon. But the boundaries are transient, and I think that if we don't acknowledge the not-so-pretty sides of "humanity" (conflict, anger, bitterness, etc), then the good stuff can get forgotten too. The movie preview drew other unnerving parallels for me to Rwanda, where people describe those who killed in the genocide as becoming like animals, putting the question of how we define "humanity" in a different tone.
But I digress (I mean, how we, and others, define 'human-ness' is a thesis topic!). This blog is not well thought out, it's surely flawed. For instance, I do not intend to suggest that Dracula in silent black and white was not terrifying to the audience of the day. My motivating question here is: why is it that what we find terrifying today is ourselves? Or ourselves gone mad? (yet we still try so very hard to relegate that fear to the realm of the mythical, thereby negating any substantial response to or recognition of that fear?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)