Films about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust can extend our knowledge considerably. Firstly, experiences can become more personal and therefore have more emotional impact.
Emotionally attaching the audience to a certain character can sometimes lead to generating sympathy for the particular group of people that the character represents.
In Schindler's List, for example. the girl with the red coat symbolises Schindler's awareness of the difficulties that those persecuted had to endure. In Polanski's, Pianist, the audience witnesses the destruction of a town, a family and a man, which seems to imply that these hardships were universal to the Jewish Poles of the period.
In the Downfall, one could argue that the film attempts to generate sympathy for the German people as on multiple occasions members of the Third Reich are presented as uncaring towards the people of Germany.
Emotional involvement can lead to more interest in a particular subject and possibly even provoke further research.
Film can also change our perceptions of either Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. Again in the Downfall, the audience is witness to a side of Adolf Hitler which has never been portrayed on the screen. A side of sentimentality and kindness to close ones and also his pet dog, Blondi.
Also, in Triumph of the Will, the audience can witness the visual aspect of Nazi propaganda and understand that presentation was one of the most important aspects of persuading the German people that the National Socialist party was the correct path.
In The Grey Zone, the film portrays Jews who had decidedly helped the Germans organise the death camps and move Jews through to the gassing chambers. They also helped in other areas such as moving dead bodies and keeping order in the camp.
Some would be quick to condemn these men as traitors and evil for what they did. This film attempts to understand the state of mind of these men and gives them a chance to allow them to be seen as good deep down. They succeeded in bombing of the gas chamber late in the film and again portrayed them in a general positive light, one quite distinct from the 'evil' Nazis.
The actual visualisation of the destruction of life, especially in Night and Fog, can sometimes be far more powerful and profound than reading the statistics in a textbook and consequently change our perception of events.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Film-maker and Historian
The first problem between these two, specifically in regard of the representation of the Holocaust, is the controversy of representing the events.
Some people, such as the maker of Shoah, believe that the Holocaust is unrepresentable due to the extent of the horror. As a consequence, Shoah lacks any recreation or even real video or images from the 40s, instead its nine hours of Jewish survivors being interviewed and sharing their experiences.
Shoah was a response to feature films that were attempting to recreate the Holocaust and represented the dissatisfaction with the Holocaust represented on the screen. Schindler's List does appear in black and white almost as if to pretend that its actual footage from the 1940s in attempt to authenticate and legitimise the ongoings.
Another problem between the two is the fact that most feature films follow a single narrative and only have one or two perspectives which are sufficiently represented. Historians prefer multiple perspectives as their goal is to provide a neutral explanation of the past.
As a consequence, the two collide when the film maker attempts to personalise a story while an Historian attempts to generalise several.
Some people, such as the maker of Shoah, believe that the Holocaust is unrepresentable due to the extent of the horror. As a consequence, Shoah lacks any recreation or even real video or images from the 40s, instead its nine hours of Jewish survivors being interviewed and sharing their experiences.
Shoah was a response to feature films that were attempting to recreate the Holocaust and represented the dissatisfaction with the Holocaust represented on the screen. Schindler's List does appear in black and white almost as if to pretend that its actual footage from the 1940s in attempt to authenticate and legitimise the ongoings.
Another problem between the two is the fact that most feature films follow a single narrative and only have one or two perspectives which are sufficiently represented. Historians prefer multiple perspectives as their goal is to provide a neutral explanation of the past.
As a consequence, the two collide when the film maker attempts to personalise a story while an Historian attempts to generalise several.
Monday, 26 May 2008
Representation of the Holocaust
Triumph of the Will has significant footage of Adolf Hitler and also the positive and public perception of the Nazi party. Perhaps understanding their glorious representation can provide clues which one can understand how such a man could rise to power. Perhaps it provides a certain sympathy for the German people because we see the National Socialist party through their eyes.
In contrast, Der Untergang represents Hitler in a film with actors devoid of any actual footage, and confronted much controversy on the topic of humanising Hitler (discussed in an earlier entry in the blog.)
Documentaries such as Night and Fog, Shoah and The World at War, strengthen the sympathy for those who were persecuted and exterminated by the Nazis by displaying real images of the camps, real video footage, and generally making the nightmare a reality.
The Pianist and Schindler's List also attempts to portray the horrors of the Holocaust but in a different way. They use personal narratives to capture the audience, instead of real footage. Either way they accomplish the same result.
An argument could arise here which would suggest that perhaps the represented is not actually representable. In other words, the Holocaust cannot be represented on the screen because the unimaginable horror people suffered cannot even be imagined let alone written or depicted.
It is this argument which raises the question of whether or not any of these films can in fact truly teach us what it was like and thus avoid anything like it in the future. But what other options do we have? Assuming that you and I are not Holocaust victims, simply put, we cannot experience what they did.
These films will be as close as we will get and as a consequence we must utilise and understand them to the fullest extent. Novels and history books confront the same limitations that films based on a single perspectives and documentaries confront which is the failure to represent the experience of the Holocaust.
In contrast, Der Untergang represents Hitler in a film with actors devoid of any actual footage, and confronted much controversy on the topic of humanising Hitler (discussed in an earlier entry in the blog.)
Documentaries such as Night and Fog, Shoah and The World at War, strengthen the sympathy for those who were persecuted and exterminated by the Nazis by displaying real images of the camps, real video footage, and generally making the nightmare a reality.
The Pianist and Schindler's List also attempts to portray the horrors of the Holocaust but in a different way. They use personal narratives to capture the audience, instead of real footage. Either way they accomplish the same result.
An argument could arise here which would suggest that perhaps the represented is not actually representable. In other words, the Holocaust cannot be represented on the screen because the unimaginable horror people suffered cannot even be imagined let alone written or depicted.
It is this argument which raises the question of whether or not any of these films can in fact truly teach us what it was like and thus avoid anything like it in the future. But what other options do we have? Assuming that you and I are not Holocaust victims, simply put, we cannot experience what they did.
These films will be as close as we will get and as a consequence we must utilise and understand them to the fullest extent. Novels and history books confront the same limitations that films based on a single perspectives and documentaries confront which is the failure to represent the experience of the Holocaust.
Historical Cinema
I was reading an interesting article by R.C. Raack called Historiography as Cinematography, which writes that since film is such a powerful tool to provoke emotion, the history in these films must go through a more rigorous analysis by qualified historians.
Theres an upside and a downside to this perspective. Firstly, if you watch the Patriot with Mel Gibson, theres a reference to the burning of a church which the innocent Americans are inside and die.
In reality, the church was actually full of the British families of the soldiers and was started by an American rebel. The reversal of facts, which would be readily inhaled by the public, does indeed provide more basis to the theme of the film however completely skews the historical perspective with incorrect facts.
This lost any historical credit that the film claimed, however a majority of viewers are unaware of this error to this day as they would not look up and question the legitimacy of such an assumption (and understandably so).
Another film, 10,000 B.C., has countless historical errors. There are people on horses and have some type of metal swords which both didn't happen until thousands of years later. However, by the end the film there was magic involved and I asked myself, if I'm ready to accept such a notion perhaps I can abide the historical inaccuracy.
My personal experience was my history professor always used to say that he never watches Hollywood films involving history because of their inaccuracies, however Raack argues that more historians such watch as perhaps their attention may provoke questions surrounding the realism of the film and consequently undermining the whole basis of the plot (and hopefully harming the popularity of the film.)
So basically Raack blames the evils of Hollywood and film-makers, and subsequently the whole tradition of making films, for the supposed deliberate lack of professional historical analysis.
Rosenstone argues quite a different perspective in an article called History in Images, in which he/she says that the reason there is no room for real history in films is due to nature of the film.
History is boundless with countless perspectives and multiple narratives which could never be represented in a single film, and as such the inability to present this truly realistic environment leads to the simplification of a story and encompassing limited perspective.
Theres an upside and a downside to this perspective. Firstly, if you watch the Patriot with Mel Gibson, theres a reference to the burning of a church which the innocent Americans are inside and die.
In reality, the church was actually full of the British families of the soldiers and was started by an American rebel. The reversal of facts, which would be readily inhaled by the public, does indeed provide more basis to the theme of the film however completely skews the historical perspective with incorrect facts.
This lost any historical credit that the film claimed, however a majority of viewers are unaware of this error to this day as they would not look up and question the legitimacy of such an assumption (and understandably so).
Another film, 10,000 B.C., has countless historical errors. There are people on horses and have some type of metal swords which both didn't happen until thousands of years later. However, by the end the film there was magic involved and I asked myself, if I'm ready to accept such a notion perhaps I can abide the historical inaccuracy.
My personal experience was my history professor always used to say that he never watches Hollywood films involving history because of their inaccuracies, however Raack argues that more historians such watch as perhaps their attention may provoke questions surrounding the realism of the film and consequently undermining the whole basis of the plot (and hopefully harming the popularity of the film.)
So basically Raack blames the evils of Hollywood and film-makers, and subsequently the whole tradition of making films, for the supposed deliberate lack of professional historical analysis.
Rosenstone argues quite a different perspective in an article called History in Images, in which he/she says that the reason there is no room for real history in films is due to nature of the film.
History is boundless with countless perspectives and multiple narratives which could never be represented in a single film, and as such the inability to present this truly realistic environment leads to the simplification of a story and encompassing limited perspective.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Anti-War Protests
Gustainis suggests that while many Vietnam scholars come to the conclusion that the strong, anti-war movement helped end the Vietnam War sooner, it actually did not help the overall goal of withdrawing troops from Vietnam.
Firstly, he shows evidence which suggests the anti-war protests had no correlation with public polls on whether or not Americans approved of the war.
Secondly, the anti-war protesters gave the call for peace a bad name and thus kept away support from the middle class. Although Gustainis writes that the anti-war protests, at least the existence of any, did help demonstrate a dovish perspective, the extent of such protests went beyond what they needed to be.
One emergence of the protests was the 'counter-culture' movement which possibly was the founding basis of the 'hippie.' They went against the American culture of well-dressed, job-keeping citizens who loved their country and grew long hair, did drugs, and had lots of sex.
The association between opposition to the war and this counter-culture movement discouraged the average American to join such a cause.
Firstly, he shows evidence which suggests the anti-war protests had no correlation with public polls on whether or not Americans approved of the war.
Secondly, the anti-war protesters gave the call for peace a bad name and thus kept away support from the middle class. Although Gustainis writes that the anti-war protests, at least the existence of any, did help demonstrate a dovish perspective, the extent of such protests went beyond what they needed to be.
One emergence of the protests was the 'counter-culture' movement which possibly was the founding basis of the 'hippie.' They went against the American culture of well-dressed, job-keeping citizens who loved their country and grew long hair, did drugs, and had lots of sex.
The association between opposition to the war and this counter-culture movement discouraged the average American to join such a cause.
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Domino Theory
The 'Domino Theory,' which was first publicly suggested by Dwight Eisenhower, predicted that if Vietnam fell to Communist forces then the rest of Southeast Asia would follow suit.
J.Justin Gustainis suggests in his book, American Rhetoric and the Vietnam War that the 'domino theory' is based upon a chauvinistic belief in American superiority.
He suggests that the theory assumes that all Third World countries are the same. Void of recognising any individuality in these nations, American foreign policy makers view these smaller countries in black and white.
Alternatively, once the North Vietnamese were victorious in establishing a single Communist state, Laos and Cambodia quickly followed. To a certain extent this would prove the domino theory.
However, Eisenhower suggested that it would spread even further into Japan, Indonesia, and even Australia and New Zealand. These assumptions were obviously proved wrong.
J.Justin Gustainis suggests in his book, American Rhetoric and the Vietnam War that the 'domino theory' is based upon a chauvinistic belief in American superiority.
He suggests that the theory assumes that all Third World countries are the same. Void of recognising any individuality in these nations, American foreign policy makers view these smaller countries in black and white.
Alternatively, once the North Vietnamese were victorious in establishing a single Communist state, Laos and Cambodia quickly followed. To a certain extent this would prove the domino theory.
However, Eisenhower suggested that it would spread even further into Japan, Indonesia, and even Australia and New Zealand. These assumptions were obviously proved wrong.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Effects of the Vietnam War
Well, arguably the United States did 'unofficially' lose the War of 1812. The rules of war indicate that a country has lost a war if it's capital city has been captured.
The White House was captured by the British in 1812, in fact the British generals even had supper in the dining room before they burnt the original building down.
The Americans then decided to establish Philadelphia as their temporary capital and thus avoiding the loss. As a consequence, the United States had not ever 'officially' lost a war.
That was before the Vietnam War. They invaded and helped the South to achieve its aim of stopping it from becoming Communist. They were not able to do so, and lost countless American lives in the attempt.
American dominance in the world became questioned. Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power significantly questioned American conduct in world affairs. Understandably so, a reexamination of foreign policy was conducted beginning with Richard Nixon.
I've discussed in a prior blog one result of the loss of the war, and the ensuing disillusionment with American power, was the Neoconservative principle. A foreign policy strongly based upon Powell's Doctrine that public support is important, overwhelming and decisive military action must be utilised as quickly as possible, clear objectives and purely US interests must all be involved when considering invading a nation.
Ronald Reagan united the Republican party and attempted to restore the confidence which had dwindled since the loss. The fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident also provoked feelings of government deception.
The significant loss on the Home Front for the United States forced it to reconsider its relations with the media particularly the television. As war scenes streamed in from the TV stations and truly alerted the people to what was happening during the war for the first time. Fox News seems to be a prominent Republican attempt to conceal that which would provoke much anti-war protest with respect to Iraq.
To sum up, we have the approach of the media towards war perhaps more government controlled and the war provoked controversy around the fact that the US had drifted from its isolationist position. Also, the Gulf of Tonkin incident gave Lyndon Johnson a 'blank check' to deal with Vietnam. This was almost substitute for a declaration of war.
Without the declaration, public support was perhaps not as intense and consistent as it would have been.
The White House was captured by the British in 1812, in fact the British generals even had supper in the dining room before they burnt the original building down.
The Americans then decided to establish Philadelphia as their temporary capital and thus avoiding the loss. As a consequence, the United States had not ever 'officially' lost a war.
That was before the Vietnam War. They invaded and helped the South to achieve its aim of stopping it from becoming Communist. They were not able to do so, and lost countless American lives in the attempt.
American dominance in the world became questioned. Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power significantly questioned American conduct in world affairs. Understandably so, a reexamination of foreign policy was conducted beginning with Richard Nixon.
I've discussed in a prior blog one result of the loss of the war, and the ensuing disillusionment with American power, was the Neoconservative principle. A foreign policy strongly based upon Powell's Doctrine that public support is important, overwhelming and decisive military action must be utilised as quickly as possible, clear objectives and purely US interests must all be involved when considering invading a nation.
Ronald Reagan united the Republican party and attempted to restore the confidence which had dwindled since the loss. The fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident also provoked feelings of government deception.
The significant loss on the Home Front for the United States forced it to reconsider its relations with the media particularly the television. As war scenes streamed in from the TV stations and truly alerted the people to what was happening during the war for the first time. Fox News seems to be a prominent Republican attempt to conceal that which would provoke much anti-war protest with respect to Iraq.
To sum up, we have the approach of the media towards war perhaps more government controlled and the war provoked controversy around the fact that the US had drifted from its isolationist position. Also, the Gulf of Tonkin incident gave Lyndon Johnson a 'blank check' to deal with Vietnam. This was almost substitute for a declaration of war.
Without the declaration, public support was perhaps not as intense and consistent as it would have been.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Eisenhower
Eisenhower became President of the United States in 1953. The French would continue to fight the Vietnamese forces however were beginning to show signs of fatigue due to the length of the war.
A Geneva Conference was held in 1954 which effectively split Vietnam right down the middle (the 17th Parallel to be exact) creating a North and South. These were the beginnings of a civil war. The North assumed a Communist ruler under Ho Chi Minh and eventually the South came under power of a leader called Diem.
Diem was a corrupt and oppressive ruler who won a fixed election to become leader and then assigned close relatives to positions of power. Diem was the fellow who the United States decided to endorse.
While some historians argue that perhaps the US chose the wrong side in a civil war, what other options did they have? They couldn't have chosen the North and backed a Communist leader, despite his supposed 'close relationship' with the US.
Assuming that involvement in Vietnam was absolutely necessary (which in itself is still heavily debated, and rightfully so) the US had no option but to find a leader for the South and to their misfortune Diem appeared to be the best choice.
Eventually, Diem's suppressive ruling technique resulted in a coup where Diem was assassinated. Supposedly, some US intelligence existed which suggested that the US government was aware of this assassination but seemingly ignored it.
Nevertheless, much before Diem's assassination, which was in 63, the French pulled out of Southeast Asia entirely. The United States supported Diem and hoped that he would win the civil war and once again unite Vietnam. Though Diem was authoritarian, more importantly he was anti-communist and consequently important to the new Vietnam.
A Geneva Conference was held in 1954 which effectively split Vietnam right down the middle (the 17th Parallel to be exact) creating a North and South. These were the beginnings of a civil war. The North assumed a Communist ruler under Ho Chi Minh and eventually the South came under power of a leader called Diem.
Diem was a corrupt and oppressive ruler who won a fixed election to become leader and then assigned close relatives to positions of power. Diem was the fellow who the United States decided to endorse.
While some historians argue that perhaps the US chose the wrong side in a civil war, what other options did they have? They couldn't have chosen the North and backed a Communist leader, despite his supposed 'close relationship' with the US.
Assuming that involvement in Vietnam was absolutely necessary (which in itself is still heavily debated, and rightfully so) the US had no option but to find a leader for the South and to their misfortune Diem appeared to be the best choice.
Eventually, Diem's suppressive ruling technique resulted in a coup where Diem was assassinated. Supposedly, some US intelligence existed which suggested that the US government was aware of this assassination but seemingly ignored it.
Nevertheless, much before Diem's assassination, which was in 63, the French pulled out of Southeast Asia entirely. The United States supported Diem and hoped that he would win the civil war and once again unite Vietnam. Though Diem was authoritarian, more importantly he was anti-communist and consequently important to the new Vietnam.
The Irony of It All
In 1945, Ho Chi Minh celebrated Vietnamese independence with the 'Star Spangled Banner' playing in the background. Ho Chi Minh constantly mentioned their very close relationship with their American friends.
Ho Chi Minh had been a self-confessed Communist since 1930, however 1945 was during a time period upon which the threat of Communism, and particularly the Soviet Union, was not significant.
Franklin D. Roosevelt had an anti-colonialist perspective on how the future should pan out. This idea of FDR was very contemporary and understandable as particularly French colonialism was very intrusive and tended to entirely assimilate a culture and turn it French.
An anti-colonial sentiment would fit in very well with the expected US foreign policy particularly because the United States themselves were the product of European colonialism and their success over which provided them with an identity.
Previous involvement in Latin America strongly emphasised the American initiative to forbid colonialism. However, the Second World War really established the United States as a super power and new threats to this status had to considered and anticipated.
One such threat was the rise of the Soviet Union and the ideology that it strictly endorsed: Communism. The next President, President Truman, took the threat into account and consequently shifted his perspective on this neo-colonialism.
France had just emerged from a terribly humiliating defeat in the Second World War and was looking for a glorious way to reignite the flame of the great French Empire. France had to reacquire their holdings in Indochina and were attempting to do so all the way through the late 1940s and through to the early 50s.
FDR condemned the French venture into South East Asia, however Truman acquired a 'pro-French neutrality' regarding Vietnam. Eventually this neutrality led to direct financial aid for the French. American foreign policy had changed significantly with respect to South East Asia during the late 1940s.
Ho Chi Minh had been a self-confessed Communist since 1930, however 1945 was during a time period upon which the threat of Communism, and particularly the Soviet Union, was not significant.
Franklin D. Roosevelt had an anti-colonialist perspective on how the future should pan out. This idea of FDR was very contemporary and understandable as particularly French colonialism was very intrusive and tended to entirely assimilate a culture and turn it French.
An anti-colonial sentiment would fit in very well with the expected US foreign policy particularly because the United States themselves were the product of European colonialism and their success over which provided them with an identity.
Previous involvement in Latin America strongly emphasised the American initiative to forbid colonialism. However, the Second World War really established the United States as a super power and new threats to this status had to considered and anticipated.
One such threat was the rise of the Soviet Union and the ideology that it strictly endorsed: Communism. The next President, President Truman, took the threat into account and consequently shifted his perspective on this neo-colonialism.
France had just emerged from a terribly humiliating defeat in the Second World War and was looking for a glorious way to reignite the flame of the great French Empire. France had to reacquire their holdings in Indochina and were attempting to do so all the way through the late 1940s and through to the early 50s.
FDR condemned the French venture into South East Asia, however Truman acquired a 'pro-French neutrality' regarding Vietnam. Eventually this neutrality led to direct financial aid for the French. American foreign policy had changed significantly with respect to South East Asia during the late 1940s.
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Burma
When I first heard about the Burma cyclone initial reports were reporting a little over 200 people had died in the incident. The very next day the number rose up to 4,000 and I was very surprised how far off the first reports were (all of these reports are from BBC by the way).
The next thing I heard is that perhaps the new number of deaths is reach tens of thousands and this surprised me even more. At first I thought a cyclone was another name for a tornado.
I looked it up and apparently its another name for a hurricane inside which MULTIPLE tornadoes can take form. You can correct me if you know more about this, but it seems these cyclones are called Hurricanes in the Western Hemisphere and Typhoons, or 'cyclones' in the Eastern Hemisphere. The very next day BBC reported that the death toll had risen to 22,000 and I believed there was no end in the estimated escalation.
Indeed, presently BBC is reporting that the United Nations fears that the death toll could be somewhere near to 100,000. Google even has a main donation link on their front page.
Comparing the destruction of this cyclone to others, for example Hurricane Katrina only killed less than 2,000 people, the destruction is truly emphasised.
To add to the devastation, Burma is home to a seemingly very strict and limiting government, which is refusing to accept aid! Surely, some kind of humanitarian intervention must be considered with respect to UN policy.
The next thing I heard is that perhaps the new number of deaths is reach tens of thousands and this surprised me even more. At first I thought a cyclone was another name for a tornado.
I looked it up and apparently its another name for a hurricane inside which MULTIPLE tornadoes can take form. You can correct me if you know more about this, but it seems these cyclones are called Hurricanes in the Western Hemisphere and Typhoons, or 'cyclones' in the Eastern Hemisphere. The very next day BBC reported that the death toll had risen to 22,000 and I believed there was no end in the estimated escalation.
Indeed, presently BBC is reporting that the United Nations fears that the death toll could be somewhere near to 100,000. Google even has a main donation link on their front page.
Comparing the destruction of this cyclone to others, for example Hurricane Katrina only killed less than 2,000 people, the destruction is truly emphasised.
To add to the devastation, Burma is home to a seemingly very strict and limiting government, which is refusing to accept aid! Surely, some kind of humanitarian intervention must be considered with respect to UN policy.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Economists for the Economy?
Hillary Clinton just won the primary in Indiana, while Obama won North Carolina. However, it seems the general prediction is still that Obama will win the nomination.
I was watching an interview with Hillary on ABC the other day and she was asked about a tax that she proposes which would temporarily lower the federal tax on gas. At first, I thought anything which would lower the gas bill would be great!
However, the interviewer asked if she could name any economist that would believe this is a good idea and she went ranting on about something completely irrelevant and seemingly avoided the question. When the question was repeated she said she 'wasn't going to put her lot in with any economists.'
This comment alone completely changed my mind about Hillary Clinton, and not in a good way. It reminded me of the way George W. Bush can seemingly not answer a single question directly in any press conference.
I researched this proposed tax and some economists predict that gas companies will increase their own prices to compensate, which Obama has chosen to use in defence. Overall, the general feeling is the temporary decrease in federal gas tax will not benefit the average driver in the long run and that Obama's $1,000 middle-class tax cut along with his energy plan will prove to be more beneficial to the average American.
I hate to be so biased on the current race for a Democratic nomination and to be honest I preferred Hillary Clinton at the beginning. However, the general rhetoric that I hear from the Clinton campaign has changed my mind significantly.
The supposedly neutral Bill Moyers spoke on Democracy Now on Wednesday saying that the only way Hillary Clinton can proceed now is by attacking Obama and consequently ripping the Democratic party apart. In my opinion, the last thing American needs right now is a Republican president.
Moyers also talked about the attack on Reverend Wright saying that it was unfair for the Obama as well as the Reverend and that the situation has gotten out of hand by getting far too much media coverage.
I was watching an interview with Hillary on ABC the other day and she was asked about a tax that she proposes which would temporarily lower the federal tax on gas. At first, I thought anything which would lower the gas bill would be great!
However, the interviewer asked if she could name any economist that would believe this is a good idea and she went ranting on about something completely irrelevant and seemingly avoided the question. When the question was repeated she said she 'wasn't going to put her lot in with any economists.'
This comment alone completely changed my mind about Hillary Clinton, and not in a good way. It reminded me of the way George W. Bush can seemingly not answer a single question directly in any press conference.
I researched this proposed tax and some economists predict that gas companies will increase their own prices to compensate, which Obama has chosen to use in defence. Overall, the general feeling is the temporary decrease in federal gas tax will not benefit the average driver in the long run and that Obama's $1,000 middle-class tax cut along with his energy plan will prove to be more beneficial to the average American.
I hate to be so biased on the current race for a Democratic nomination and to be honest I preferred Hillary Clinton at the beginning. However, the general rhetoric that I hear from the Clinton campaign has changed my mind significantly.
The supposedly neutral Bill Moyers spoke on Democracy Now on Wednesday saying that the only way Hillary Clinton can proceed now is by attacking Obama and consequently ripping the Democratic party apart. In my opinion, the last thing American needs right now is a Republican president.
Moyers also talked about the attack on Reverend Wright saying that it was unfair for the Obama as well as the Reverend and that the situation has gotten out of hand by getting far too much media coverage.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Israeli Effect
A debate continues on whether or not the security of Israel is a key component of neoconservatism or whether the promoters of Israel are behind neoconservatives because of their foreign policy.
In Halper and Clarke's American Alone, they describe a neoconservative principle of simplifying the world into two sections, one of good and one of evil. The good in this case are the democratic states of the world, with several exceptions most notably Saudi Arabia where a separate perhaps more materialistic incentive justifies the close relationship, while the bad are any other forms of government.
Israel is a democratic, 'Westernised' nation and would fall under the 'good' side and subsequently they must be protected. Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative and a member of several neocon thinktanks, was making a speech in 1996. I don't remember the exact details of this, so forgive any incorrect recollections.
Perle said that a Hashemite government in Iraq would be pro-Jordan and consequently beneficial for Israel as it would balance the power against other forces in the region particularly Syria who at the time were considered to be a threat to the security of Israel. It's all rather theoretical and intricate, however Perle's theory, whether it originated from him I'm not sure, was accepted amongst the Jewish elite, Jewish media outlets, and any pro-Israel politicians or political commentators.
Mearsheimer, author of the Israel Lobby, suggests that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was due to the threat that Iraq posed to the stability of the Middle East and subsequently the security of Israel. Understandably, the neoconservative principle of Good vs. Evil would suggest that Israel must be protected and that in itself the 'Israeli influence' is indeed an integral part of the neoconservative 'persuasion.'
Heres the controversial part: Mearsheimer continues to elaborate on a theory that the September 11th attacks provided an opportunity to convince the American public that Iraq had significant ties, financial or otherwise, with terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda, and that the United States should overthrow Hussein in retaliation of the attacks.
I'm not saying these theories are true or false, but in particular Mearsheimer has intriguing evidence to prove his point. I mean the true causes of the Iraq War have yet to be told in any definitive manner.
Associations with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were both proved wrong, or more precisely were not proved right. The humanitarian argument, which seems to be the only public justification of the invasion emanating from the US government, has one major drawback.
The inconsistency of US foreign policy is so important when making this argument because human rights have been violated all over the world and the US hasn't shown anywhere near the interest that it has in Iraq. Presently speaking, the atrocities in Somalia as well as Darfur are enormously devastating.
In Halper and Clarke's American Alone, they describe a neoconservative principle of simplifying the world into two sections, one of good and one of evil. The good in this case are the democratic states of the world, with several exceptions most notably Saudi Arabia where a separate perhaps more materialistic incentive justifies the close relationship, while the bad are any other forms of government.
Israel is a democratic, 'Westernised' nation and would fall under the 'good' side and subsequently they must be protected. Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative and a member of several neocon thinktanks, was making a speech in 1996. I don't remember the exact details of this, so forgive any incorrect recollections.
Perle said that a Hashemite government in Iraq would be pro-Jordan and consequently beneficial for Israel as it would balance the power against other forces in the region particularly Syria who at the time were considered to be a threat to the security of Israel. It's all rather theoretical and intricate, however Perle's theory, whether it originated from him I'm not sure, was accepted amongst the Jewish elite, Jewish media outlets, and any pro-Israel politicians or political commentators.
Mearsheimer, author of the Israel Lobby, suggests that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was due to the threat that Iraq posed to the stability of the Middle East and subsequently the security of Israel. Understandably, the neoconservative principle of Good vs. Evil would suggest that Israel must be protected and that in itself the 'Israeli influence' is indeed an integral part of the neoconservative 'persuasion.'
Heres the controversial part: Mearsheimer continues to elaborate on a theory that the September 11th attacks provided an opportunity to convince the American public that Iraq had significant ties, financial or otherwise, with terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda, and that the United States should overthrow Hussein in retaliation of the attacks.
I'm not saying these theories are true or false, but in particular Mearsheimer has intriguing evidence to prove his point. I mean the true causes of the Iraq War have yet to be told in any definitive manner.
Associations with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were both proved wrong, or more precisely were not proved right. The humanitarian argument, which seems to be the only public justification of the invasion emanating from the US government, has one major drawback.
The inconsistency of US foreign policy is so important when making this argument because human rights have been violated all over the world and the US hasn't shown anywhere near the interest that it has in Iraq. Presently speaking, the atrocities in Somalia as well as Darfur are enormously devastating.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
In Theory, In Reality and Real Reality
To be honest, the American Presidential election is absolutely baffling to me. I have been trying to keep up with the primary results, listening to Democracy Now and BBC News. But I am struggling with finding significance in any of the results, especially with these primaries.
For example, a quote from a fellow blogger: 'The delegate numbers can only go up from this point. Which means, even though there are 72 total delegates at stake in Indiana and 115 in North Carolina, in reality, there are only 71 delegates that are really up for grabs (and in real reality, its a lot less than that).' http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/north-
carolina-and-indiana-primary.html
I assume that whoever wins the most delegates has the higher chance of winning the Democratic nomination to run for President. McCain has already won the Republican nomination, but the competition is still alive between Clinton and Obama.
News outlets, in the UK at least, are predicting Clinton will win Indiana by a slight amount due to her 'rural following.' Obama will capture North Carolina due to his more 'urban' appeal. It was suggested on BBC today, that if Clinton lost Indiana and North Carolina there would be no realistic chance of success for her. Any comments or corrections are welcome.
For example, a quote from a fellow blogger: 'The delegate numbers can only go up from this point. Which means, even though there are 72 total delegates at stake in Indiana and 115 in North Carolina, in reality, there are only 71 delegates that are really up for grabs (and in real reality, its a lot less than that).' http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/north-
carolina-and-indiana-primary.html
I assume that whoever wins the most delegates has the higher chance of winning the Democratic nomination to run for President. McCain has already won the Republican nomination, but the competition is still alive between Clinton and Obama.
News outlets, in the UK at least, are predicting Clinton will win Indiana by a slight amount due to her 'rural following.' Obama will capture North Carolina due to his more 'urban' appeal. It was suggested on BBC today, that if Clinton lost Indiana and North Carolina there would be no realistic chance of success for her. Any comments or corrections are welcome.
The New American Century
Neoconservatism. The phrase seems to be thrown everywhere in the United States without any basis of how this new form of the ideology has come about. This is my interpretation of how it happened, I don't claim to be an expert, so please correct me if you have different ideas.
The United States had just emerged from the Vietnam War. Although some may dispute it, the fact is Vietnam fell to Communist forces and consequently the United States did not achieve its goal. Events substantially humbled United States in terms of their military prowess.
Proposals of a return to the traditional isolationist position on world affairs were well-founded as the quagmire in Vietnam demonstrates. However, one could also suggest that the United States needed a strong leader, who believed in the glorious American empire with the strongest military in the world and unafraid to use it. They found such beliefs in a bloke named Ronald Reagan. The idea is founded upon the belief that a hesitancy to commit American military force to Vietnam ruined their chances of success, as a consequence future military campaigns should be 'all or nothing.'
Reaganite Republicanism is often viewed as the basis of neoconservatism, however there are slight differences in the belief of the neocon and the beliefs of the Reagan administration. Reagan proposed a weak federal government, a characteristic truly conservative of the United States republic, however Irving Kristol (the 'godfather of neoconservatism') suggests that the neocon should not be worried about the expansion of state powers, and view it as indeed 'inevitable.'
Of course, the exception to the rule is the welfare system, which 'alternative methods' would be considered. This exception is very controversial and has various supposed, conservative 'justifications.' The Left would argue that capitalist forces are behind such an exception.
The Patriot Act in itself, perhaps one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation in American history, justifies the proposal that the neocon prefers a strong central government.
Also, there are suggestions that the neocon has a strong connection with the interests of Israel (a good book on this is Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby). Whether or not, the security of Israel is a direct principle of the neocon is debated. It's possible that these 'Zionist' Americans feel at home with an intrusive foreign policy which is a neoconservative characteristic and thus align themselves with this ideology. Nevertheless, the two have a strong relationship under the current Bush administration. As far as I know Reagan showed little interest in Isreal in particular.
The actual group of 'neoconservatives' before they assumed the name, had no political allegiance because their beliefs contradicted anything mainstream. Reagan's nationalist, meddlesome foreign policy provided an opportunity for the neocons to find a new home in Republicanism.
The new American empire, which the neocons seemingly seek, is founded upon a strong military and, with the idea that they dislike international institutions such as the United Nations, they believe the United States should be the world's police.
The United States had just emerged from the Vietnam War. Although some may dispute it, the fact is Vietnam fell to Communist forces and consequently the United States did not achieve its goal. Events substantially humbled United States in terms of their military prowess.
Proposals of a return to the traditional isolationist position on world affairs were well-founded as the quagmire in Vietnam demonstrates. However, one could also suggest that the United States needed a strong leader, who believed in the glorious American empire with the strongest military in the world and unafraid to use it. They found such beliefs in a bloke named Ronald Reagan. The idea is founded upon the belief that a hesitancy to commit American military force to Vietnam ruined their chances of success, as a consequence future military campaigns should be 'all or nothing.'
Reaganite Republicanism is often viewed as the basis of neoconservatism, however there are slight differences in the belief of the neocon and the beliefs of the Reagan administration. Reagan proposed a weak federal government, a characteristic truly conservative of the United States republic, however Irving Kristol (the 'godfather of neoconservatism') suggests that the neocon should not be worried about the expansion of state powers, and view it as indeed 'inevitable.'
Of course, the exception to the rule is the welfare system, which 'alternative methods' would be considered. This exception is very controversial and has various supposed, conservative 'justifications.' The Left would argue that capitalist forces are behind such an exception.
The Patriot Act in itself, perhaps one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation in American history, justifies the proposal that the neocon prefers a strong central government.
Also, there are suggestions that the neocon has a strong connection with the interests of Israel (a good book on this is Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby). Whether or not, the security of Israel is a direct principle of the neocon is debated. It's possible that these 'Zionist' Americans feel at home with an intrusive foreign policy which is a neoconservative characteristic and thus align themselves with this ideology. Nevertheless, the two have a strong relationship under the current Bush administration. As far as I know Reagan showed little interest in Isreal in particular.
The actual group of 'neoconservatives' before they assumed the name, had no political allegiance because their beliefs contradicted anything mainstream. Reagan's nationalist, meddlesome foreign policy provided an opportunity for the neocons to find a new home in Republicanism.
The new American empire, which the neocons seemingly seek, is founded upon a strong military and, with the idea that they dislike international institutions such as the United Nations, they believe the United States should be the world's police.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
The Downfall
A very, very good film was just released called The Downfall (Der Untergang in German). The entire film is in German with English subtitles. Its a wonderful portrayal of Hitler's last few days in his bunker. I would recommend this film to everyone.
Much controversy has surrounded the film since its release in Germany in 2004 because it was the first attempt to 'humanise' Adolf Hitler. Hitler is excellently played by Bruno Ganz and is often seen being sentimental and kind to his pet dog, Blondi and his secretaries. Also, the film emphasises the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian as if to say if Hitler is concerned about the welfare of an animal perhaps some part of him must be human.
In Germany, the Holocaust and the Nazi regime have been taboos in the media and everyday life. Hitler has been portrayed as a 'demonic,' almost supernatural being with no association with mankind let alone with Germany. Let me underline my intentions with this blog. Under no circumstances can the Holocaust be justified or defended and Hitler's goals of ethnic cleansing and world domination were wrong on every level.
Almost every film, video game and TV show with a swastika was banned from Germany. Understandably, the film only has two passing references of the horrors of the Holocaust and each are only in conversation with no visual representation of the Jewish experience during the Second World War. And indeed if one were to be unaware of the Holocaust, the film would certainly portray Hitler and his men in a generally positive light.
However, the possibility that someone would be watching the film without prior knowledge of these events would be seriously slim to none at all. My main point here is this. Perhaps with the deeper knowledge of Hitler's personal character and mentality, it would be possible to prevent similar future tyrannical leaders rising in the name of ultranationalism.
After all, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.
Much controversy has surrounded the film since its release in Germany in 2004 because it was the first attempt to 'humanise' Adolf Hitler. Hitler is excellently played by Bruno Ganz and is often seen being sentimental and kind to his pet dog, Blondi and his secretaries. Also, the film emphasises the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian as if to say if Hitler is concerned about the welfare of an animal perhaps some part of him must be human.
In Germany, the Holocaust and the Nazi regime have been taboos in the media and everyday life. Hitler has been portrayed as a 'demonic,' almost supernatural being with no association with mankind let alone with Germany. Let me underline my intentions with this blog. Under no circumstances can the Holocaust be justified or defended and Hitler's goals of ethnic cleansing and world domination were wrong on every level.
Almost every film, video game and TV show with a swastika was banned from Germany. Understandably, the film only has two passing references of the horrors of the Holocaust and each are only in conversation with no visual representation of the Jewish experience during the Second World War. And indeed if one were to be unaware of the Holocaust, the film would certainly portray Hitler and his men in a generally positive light.
However, the possibility that someone would be watching the film without prior knowledge of these events would be seriously slim to none at all. My main point here is this. Perhaps with the deeper knowledge of Hitler's personal character and mentality, it would be possible to prevent similar future tyrannical leaders rising in the name of ultranationalism.
After all, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.
Hillary vs. Obama
Hillary Clinton and Obama both have President Bush's extremely Right views to thank for creating a political climate which can possibly sustain each administration. The political pendulum has swung so far to the Right under Bush that now it's about to swing back to the Left and reach unprecedented regions of liberal legislation.
Indeed, a woman president or a black president emphasise this. To my understanding, Hillary praises Bush's venture into Iraq which, personally discredits her campaign. Understandably, she seeks a 'dignified withdrawal' which is certainly a positive, however to praise anything Bush's foreign policy has promoted over the last 8 years, in my eyes at least, indicates and suggests an administration that exactly what the American public do not need.
Obama condemns the Iraqi invasion and also promotes a dignified withdrawal. I remember when Hillary Clinton used to promote single-payer universal health care for all Americans. What happened to this suggestion? Perhaps claiming such a radical, liberal position she would be alienating many of her older, more conservative supporters, particularly in rural areas. I recognise that a politician must sacrifice some personal ambitions in an electoral effort.
On the other hand, it has been suggested that health insurance companies have provided campaign finances for Hillary; which understandably are controversial and have no material evidence or basis. I believe that if Hillary still promoted such an idea, she would gain much support.
Now, more than any other time, would be a perfect opportunity to promote universal health care because of the conservative cloud the nation has been suffocating in during the current Bush administration.
Perhaps, the U.K. perspective is biased or prejudiced as we have a universal health care system, but I believe this would benefit Americans nationwide. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Indeed, a woman president or a black president emphasise this. To my understanding, Hillary praises Bush's venture into Iraq which, personally discredits her campaign. Understandably, she seeks a 'dignified withdrawal' which is certainly a positive, however to praise anything Bush's foreign policy has promoted over the last 8 years, in my eyes at least, indicates and suggests an administration that exactly what the American public do not need.
Obama condemns the Iraqi invasion and also promotes a dignified withdrawal. I remember when Hillary Clinton used to promote single-payer universal health care for all Americans. What happened to this suggestion? Perhaps claiming such a radical, liberal position she would be alienating many of her older, more conservative supporters, particularly in rural areas. I recognise that a politician must sacrifice some personal ambitions in an electoral effort.
On the other hand, it has been suggested that health insurance companies have provided campaign finances for Hillary; which understandably are controversial and have no material evidence or basis. I believe that if Hillary still promoted such an idea, she would gain much support.
Now, more than any other time, would be a perfect opportunity to promote universal health care because of the conservative cloud the nation has been suffocating in during the current Bush administration.
Perhaps, the U.K. perspective is biased or prejudiced as we have a universal health care system, but I believe this would benefit Americans nationwide. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Liberalism vs Conservatism
I was having an interesting conversation with a very liberal Texan the other day. I know right off the bat, the term 'Liberal Texan' is quite an oxymoron in itself. His theory was that the higher the IQ of a person, the more liberal his political orientation was.
He said this was the reason liberalism seemed to dominate universities, staff and student-wise, and that most Southern states, with supposedly on average lower-IQ citizens were often conservative. I have no opinion on the subject, but I would like to hear about what Americans would think of such a theory. Myself being from the United Kingdom, I find it very intriguing the way the American political system has evolved.
Traditionally, the United States was very isolationist, however this new form of conservative Republicanism seems to embrace a particularly intrusive foreign policy. Neo-conservatism, or the modern Republicanism, which ever you would prefer, seems to embody several very 'liberal' ideas. The very definition of what is conservative and what is liberal seems extremely ambiguous.
Similarly, within the United Kingdom, the 'Conservative' party has confused the word conservative ever since Blair's 'New Labour' as the Left seemed to be pushed into the center, or 'mainstream,' of the political spectrum. To conserve the traditions of the government, as opposed to the liberal evolution of the system, should certainly be a characteristic of whoever is considered conservative.
Under President George W. Bush, the foreign policy, and also the enlargement of federalism through the Patriot Act, are very liberal ideas in themselves and perhaps these 'neo-cons' would be more at home under the idea of 'neo-liberalism.' Nevertheless, a suspicion of international organisations, particularly the United Nations and the European Union, would I suppose fit under a conservative perspective.
This view would be conservative as the power of a state being elevated to a higher body, higher than anything before, would be quite a liberal idea. For example, the Europeanisation of the United Kingdom is still considered to be quite liberal. I suppose to conclude the suggestion that liberalism finds its home in the more 'intelligent' sections of society could be contradicted and questioned as liberalism and conservatism, particularly in the United States, seem to be vague and their definitions seem to beyond the ones found in the dictionary.
He said this was the reason liberalism seemed to dominate universities, staff and student-wise, and that most Southern states, with supposedly on average lower-IQ citizens were often conservative. I have no opinion on the subject, but I would like to hear about what Americans would think of such a theory. Myself being from the United Kingdom, I find it very intriguing the way the American political system has evolved.
Traditionally, the United States was very isolationist, however this new form of conservative Republicanism seems to embrace a particularly intrusive foreign policy. Neo-conservatism, or the modern Republicanism, which ever you would prefer, seems to embody several very 'liberal' ideas. The very definition of what is conservative and what is liberal seems extremely ambiguous.
Similarly, within the United Kingdom, the 'Conservative' party has confused the word conservative ever since Blair's 'New Labour' as the Left seemed to be pushed into the center, or 'mainstream,' of the political spectrum. To conserve the traditions of the government, as opposed to the liberal evolution of the system, should certainly be a characteristic of whoever is considered conservative.
Under President George W. Bush, the foreign policy, and also the enlargement of federalism through the Patriot Act, are very liberal ideas in themselves and perhaps these 'neo-cons' would be more at home under the idea of 'neo-liberalism.' Nevertheless, a suspicion of international organisations, particularly the United Nations and the European Union, would I suppose fit under a conservative perspective.
This view would be conservative as the power of a state being elevated to a higher body, higher than anything before, would be quite a liberal idea. For example, the Europeanisation of the United Kingdom is still considered to be quite liberal. I suppose to conclude the suggestion that liberalism finds its home in the more 'intelligent' sections of society could be contradicted and questioned as liberalism and conservatism, particularly in the United States, seem to be vague and their definitions seem to beyond the ones found in the dictionary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
