I received one complaint about the image. There would possibly have been more complaints, but because my comments section, was messed up with some errors at the time, it didn't reach me. However, one complaint is enough for me, to want to talk about it. I will give you my view on this issue and then you can tell me, what you think.
First of all; people see things very differently, depending on a lot of personal issues, cultures, beliefs and so on. The different opinions and feelings, have to be respected. If you disagree with me, I would hope, that you don't take my views as an attack, against anyone. This is merely the way I see it, it's what comes natural to me. I would never claim that I'm always right, about everything I say or do. I am just one person, I am not entitled to tell anyone, what they should think, feel, or do, nor do I want it.
My question is; Is it sometimes wrong to take a photographic image, or film a warfare situation, where you have dying people? Is it sometimes more wrong, than other times? If the person is a criminal and not completely an innocent victim, is it then more correct to take a picture? Or is it always wrong, only right for a law enforcement? Consider yourself to be in that place and time, would you take a picture? If there were no one there to disagree, to oppose it, if there were no one healthy enough, to claim privacy? If there were bodies, with no voice left. Would you take a picture?
I have always thought that I would. I would if the reason for the dying, if the reason was a crime. And I have always thought that murder was a crime. And for those who wouldn't believe, who wouldn't want to see, I would take the picture, for them. So that maybe some of those people, would reconsider their support in war.
Because if it wasn't for those images; the wounded, the dying and the dead, would just be numbers in the statistics. Statistics that doesn't matter at all, not to those with power and not to those who hail their operations. Because when is it enough? Where goes the limit? -30,000 dead civilians? 60,000 dead civilians? 100,000 dead civilians? Is it enough when it reach a million? Is that enough? Too much? Does it bury the cause, the cause they had for the war, the humane cause? If it doesn't bury the cause for them, will it for you? If there was a good purpose with war, in some cases, if they believed it was a good humane idea; will it automatically blind, whatever negative effect it has, just because they called it good and you had faith in it? So is it never enough? If ten million people die for your faith, your good faith; you will still believe in it...
Some people feel the need to always, have faith in the leading folks, in the country, in the things they approve. They shape their morality and beliefs after those political standards, it becomes an egotistic drug; selfish, narrow-minded and a black and white philosophy. And then you don't have to see, anything else, it's not needed. Anything that can darken your view, will always be uneeded for yourself. You and yours.
If that's how it is; the idea made you blind.
Because even if the world isn't built on cruelty, even if the human race try to fix it's own errors, by using the only methods it's capable of, in the current state of it's evolution; The change will come, when we dare to see, admit our own faults and look ahead of this. The real crime of humanity today, are maybe not our old fashioned brutal ways, but our ignorance against it. The fact that we wish to not see, or be reminded of, those who die of hunger and world crime, every day... It's not your problem, besides there's nothing you can do? The pictures are not going to change anything? -Because you already made up your mind, about ignoring the crime? The fact that the death toll, for example, grew from 22,000 to 22,500 over a few days and those numbers didn't do anything to you. They didn't really shake you, maybe you just flipped out, a snappy comment about it once, just like a comment about bad weather. It didn't change your daily routines and you didn't even think of those numbers, as people.
The idea made you blind.
But then there's reality. Maybe it will never hit you much, but it's there. Terrible. Good. Bad. Completely unashamed. A lot, is not the way, you wanted it to be. You can create your own happiness they say, it's an easy thing to claim. And it works even better, for those who doesn't have to worry. Your day comes and it goes, you may take it for granted and you can do so, without shame or pity. Maybe even selfish people can be happy. Consider it.
I once had a friend that was a Nazi, he said that the only way for them, to seem gentle, their only excuse, is their idea, that the Holocaust never happened. And there are people, who actually believe that it never happened. I don't think my Nazi friend were convinced himself, but I'm sure he wanted, other's to think so. Because to lie for the cause, are sometimes fine and even completely right, in some peoples mind.I saw a documentary about some of these Neo-Nazis, that held meetings, were they tried to recruit people. They zoomed up a picture in front of the crowd, it showed the factories, on the Nazi concentration camps. The older wise leader Nazi guy, who seemed rather smart by the looks of him, pointed on the smoke coming out of the chimney in the photo. -"Look, you can easily see, that this is painted onto the picture, the smoke here. They did that. They wanted you to think they burned people in there. Burned! How crazy is that! Hitler was elected and he served the people. And they want you to think they burned people. Gassed them too! Those things were showers in there, they didn't gas or burn people. Never!" And so he went on and on and the people nodded and the things he said wasn't really crazy, and he seemed smart and the things he talked about, these horrid things, that was crazy. Because how could this happen? Are the good people really that bad. Because to a large majority in the world, the Nazi party represented a good side. Why? How? Could it happen again? Is it happening right now? No?
Maybe the crowd there was a very naive one, sure, because if I was that leader Nazi, being me, I would need more than a picture, of a building with a smoky chimney, to even convince myself. Because this picture didn't actually show the crime, it was like any other picture, it wouldn't move anyone, unless it had a story to go with it. And that's the type of pictures, that lying folks want you to see. Pictures of Hitler holding babies. Laughing people. A happy crowd. A picture of a brave wounded soldier maybe? That would work. A picture of a soldier sharing food, with a civilian child, during warfare? Yes, you could make a million lies, about such a picture. A filmed tape of shooting and bombs coming off, over a town? That will do. Pictures of flags, guns and people standing on two feet. You can lie about these things, invent something else, blame someone and make the others seem good and better, by the end of your lines. -But it's only your words; it's not your life, your struggle, your suffering, or your death. And those pictures says very little, about what war is really all about. Unless you were really there, your words and your "gentle" pictures, mean nothing, to those who can think longer, than their observation.
Because when I saw this documentary, featuring this smart looking Nazi, I thought about some other pictures that I had seen. He could have said, that they burned things, that they burn in factories, instead of saying they had painted, the smoke onto the picture. It looked like a factory and they were there to work, chimney smoke in such places, wouldn't really be very odd. These people were criminals in the minds of the Nazis, the Jews was a criminal race and there were people there, with a criminal culture and criminal illnesses and such and such. It was kind, to give them a job in a factory then? In society today, we think in this way, of criminals in modern jail systems. They are lucky, if they don't get death penalty and we wouldn't want to have one of them, in our neighborhood. But the majority of those people, in the Nazi concentration camps, were political prisoners. We like to look down upon Neo-Nazis of today, they are outcasts, freaks, it's easy to think we are better than them and imagine that we share and celebrate a free world. But many of our so called modern governments of today, are still playing the role of the good, they play it, while they abuse, neglect and kill for the blind and the deaf.
And who can say they are not doing it, for the same reason as the last ones did.
My grandmother said once, that they had a lot of fun during the war. They were poor, but they didn't suffer in extreme ways. You can't comfort yourself with the idea, that all civilians in warfare, feel the same way. Lots of people lived well, during the the second world war. And for the simple people; the Nazis promised them, so much more than they had, their poverty would vanish. It never happened. They had to help themselves, after having everything taken away from them. And that's typical. But a lot of people like my grandmother, never saw the real suffering and it would have seemed crazy, to them, to me, if it wasn't for the pictures, the remains. The pictures of the thin, pale and dying, the bodies. Do they stand in contrast to the poor, but livable life story to my grandmother? Did those pictures, say so much more about this war, than my grandmother's old food stamps did?
So was it wrong to take those pictures? It shows a moment, a brief moment, that we never saw. It could have vanished into history, without much attention. Cause a lot of people die, every day, and like my friend, the Nazi said; there's always an excuse, always, for everything. But a real picture, a face, can give you all those answers, you never got from the words, the babble, the ideas, the useless handshakes on the TV news, the promises, the hope and the faith you had, in the things you were presented with. It made an impact on a lot of people, it moved them and we are a race, that need to be emotionally moved, we do because of the way, we treat each other. Books have been written, films have been made, showing an empathy and a concern for the little man. Some are romanticized, completely unreal, but it makes you feel warm, for the human ideas. It lightens up our dark path in human history, because we do have an ability, to embrace what is good in us. We have an ability to grow and change and we are good at such things, when we get together and see the bad in us and feel ashamed. The majority of the world disagree, with what happens in those pictures and the resentment for the idea, behind the political philosophy that caused it, are often based on the images itself. And they started to notice and see the numbers, as people, when they were given an image to identify it with.
The picture of Saddam Hussein in his underwear, in prison, doesn't give you a good image of the crimes he has done, nor does it give you a good impression, of the jail system he's in. It makes you ashamed though, of the often aggressive attitude that people express. In some places around the world, it's acceptable and even considered decent, to spit on criminals, make fun of them, when they are transported. People degrade their own supposedly gentle morality, by claiming that it's sometimes okay to spit, trow a stone and take a picture of someone in a difficult situation, because what the criminal did was so much worse. It's an immature sandbox way of getting back at people and it usually says more about you, than it says about the criminal. If the Saddam Hussein in underwear picture, was taken for informational reasons, it was certainly not published as that. It's easy to see though, that the attack forces in Iraq, have a habit of taking pictures, of people in underwear, or without, to obviously use in interrogation and as a psychological weapon.
If you really want to downgrade, a political criminal leader (or any type of criminal), you should never let him become a victim. Publish pictures of his crime instead. Let the news be filled with the voices, of those who disagree. Let the pictures, the tapes become a documented history, of what shouldn't be. Put the leader trough a respectable fair trial and let the whole world see, the evidence and the justice. But never let him become a victim, not a victim of anything you represent.
Just to mention, I understand the pictures that were taken, of Hussein's dead sons, as well as the images, of the dead terrorists in the Beslan tragedy. While I might not agree, with what I see in the pictures, they can maybe be a good identification. The strange thing is, that less people seem angry, or upset about the images of dead criminals, dead terrorists, than they seem to be, about the images of dead civilians. Is it because these criminals and for example, the opponents in Iraq, are less worth, than the opposit part? It's more common to see killed Iraqi fighters, than to see killed attack soldiers, in the covered media pictures. I guess it's because of some kind of nonsense rule they have, those from the attack forces. I think I read some place, that it's illegal in USA, to publish photos, of dead American soldiers. Correct me if I'm wrong; It's also illegal for the soldiers, to talk about their operations, with the media, during warfare. It's never been illegal for political figures, to boost and brag and hail about their own wargod though. Makes sense? Not to me.
I'd rather see the mouth, of many of the political people, in the leading branches, shut and closed, a little bit more and be given the chance to get some real unpasteurized raw news coverage, a little bit more. There's always too much of some things, that you really don't need, and too little, of some other things, you should have been given the chance to see.
And about those specific pictures and videos, that were most likely created, to be used as psychological weapons. For example the torture images from Abu Graib, the execution videos, by terrorists and etc. People who torture or kill, for whatever reason, doesn't deserve to gain, or win, on their brutality. Not ever, none of them. I would easily say, that a photographer taking a picture of a crime, while being aware of that the picture, will be used as a psychological weapon, are also personally a part of the crime. A photographer taking a picture of a crime, while knowing that it will be used, to uncover the crime itself, to tell the truth, is a different type of photographer, than the other one. There should be a difference between the two words; abuse and info.
The way the media choose to expose it, the various forms of media people, their reasons and goals, can vary of course. Some news sources, are more interested, in supporting a political party, than they are to uncover the truth. They are always rather fancy in their reports. Sometimes it seems, it's presented, to get the attention away, from another story. Sometimes a story is added to the image and it doesn't necessarily give you, the whole truth. There can be a propaganda around this, that deludes the message of the image. The reality in my idea, can never be propaganda, in itself though. A raw war image of violence, an image without a story, gives you the story of war. It doesn't need words, facts, statistics, names, or faces of the perpetrators. You cannot support warfare and not also support it's crime. Was it the side you endorse, that killed the victim in the image? Or was it the others? -It doesn't matter, not at all, because it was the warfare that killed it. People doesn't get killed, because of evil, mad dictators, or lousy politicians. They die because it's what we accept. So if the image is used, to show you this and some call it propaganda, improper and what not, it doesn't change the fact that it happened, it was real. It doesn't change the fact, that you have to make up your mind, about whether you agree, with what happens in the picture, or if you don't agree. It's a choice you make.
Another response. The privacy of the victims of war, was not robbed by the media people though, it was robbed by the war. People have no rights, no rights whatsoever, in warfare zones. Some of the worsts human rights crimes reports, that you can find today, are coming from places, where you find warfare. It's there and when they came to take pictures of it, they gave us a glimpse, of a reality, that we wouldn't so easily have known about, if it wasn't for the pictures. A frozen history, that the war supporting politicians, didn't want you to know about.
But your country do well doesn't it? It's not your neighborhood, your family. It would be terrible if it was, we wouldn't talk about numbers, like we talk about bad weather then. And what if there was no news coverage, of the injustice that was done to you. Just the silence, as a reply. Your people would just be numbers, in a statistic, maybe not even that. Would that be okay to you? Because a lot of people here, are blind by the idea, that some countries, deserves to be bombed, for their own good.
But if that was my family, or yours, or theirs, I would take a picture, I would, even if you disagreed. So that it would never ever be forgotten, or left to be ignored.
These comments are taken from the site, where I used to keep my journal, before I moved it here.
You can add replies to the entry, or the comments below.
From czar: I am glad to be the first to comment on this. This post shows that your wisdom belies your years, it's fascinating for me to read your thoughts as you discover the world. I have learned that images have no meaning without implication. There is the implication that you bring with your biases and upbringing, and also the implication brought by context; the story that comes with the image. It seems to me that it is clear that if you provide only the context of war with an image of a mangled child, and people protest, it must be because of their own biases. Furthermore, if they protest and cry “HUMAN DIGNITY!” it seems to me that they ought to consider the greater violation of human dignity that the picture represents, that being death, rather than crying about privacy as if it were more important than the destruction of life. War is not ever something confined to those who are fighting, killing, dying and suffering, it is primarily about an ideological conviction that must be engendered in a nation in order for that nation to be complicit in the acts, no matter how horrible, of the government. This means that there is never just one war, but two. One ideological war that takes place in the arena of public opinion, and one that involves death and destruction. I like to think of those who support war (which ought to be differentiated from supporting troops since the troops are merely helpless pawns) as casualties of the war, for though they may have not lost their lives, they have lost their minds to the warring countries. Unfortunately it is harder to capture the ideological casualties with an image even though such images are on every TV channel nearly 24 hours a day. It almost makes me wonder which is more of a tragedy, but then I see pictures from the war…
From Bernard: A very interesting and provocative essay. Photographic images can be powerful and often don't need any accompanying words to elicit emotion, but I think it's a mistake to conclude they never show anything other than the truth. Images can be doctored, of course, though the neo-Nazi in the illustration seems to have been grasping too hopefully at this possibility as a means of explaining away an unpleasant fact. Words often accompany pictures for a the laudible purpose of helping us understand or interpret what we are seeing (though admittedly they can just as often and easily confuse or mislead). In the case of the uninitiated neo-Nazi, it is suitably ironic that a mere reading of his own hero's tome, Mein Kampf, could have gone a long ways towards disabusing him of silly, mistaken notions as to what his adopted raison d'etre is all about. But on the other hand, someone who wishes to believe that smoke rising from a chimney does so only because it is painted into the picture afterwards is probably capable of explaining away anything, and so is probably totally immune to reality anyway.
From f-i-n: What about the French film "Night and Fog" which speaks of the silent scream, the one that goes on throughout history?
From Truthseeker!: Images are a powerful thing, they truly speak a thousand words.. But sadly in our days of digital image manipulation they may be losing some power.. But in no way all of it.. The little boy in the coffin did speak a lot too me anyway.. It told me that a little boy who only wanted to play with his toys had to die because someone else decided that it was necessary... And I know that it was not God that decided it.. But something more sinister.. Something, someone, that does not care if innocent die. Someone that describes it as neccessary deaths to further their so called just cause .. I know images can be used to manipulate as well .. propaganda.. But .. still.. the image speaks anyway.. Its up to the viewer to see the words ?
From Bernard: Truthseeker!, it may be true that a picture can speak a thousand words, but that still doesn't stop people from trying to overlay their own words on top of the image. You mention propaganda, and I will agree that pictures have great potential in that regard, especially when accompanied by comments the likes of which you have just supplied. Yes, context is everything. So, for you, the tragic death of "a little boy who only wanted to play with his toys" involves some kind of evil intent:"something more sinister... Something, someone, that does not care if innocent die. Someone that describes it as neccessary deaths (sic) to further their so called just cause..." Well, you may be right. But I am somewhat confused because these words seem also to perfectly describe those who would strap explosive belts on their bodies and enter a bus or a market or synagogue for the sole purpose of killing people. It also describes those who would set off roadside bombs or send mortar-fire into now otherwise peaceful places with no intent but to wreak havoc and kill. But--silly me!--I don't imagine the perpetrators of these outrages constitute any part of the "something more sinister" to which you were referring. And so neither do I imagine those acts--and the images they leave behind--count for much in your reckoning of things.
From Truthseeker: Bernard: I agree that whoever sets off the bombs are part of "something more sinister".. And that was part of my reasoning.. THESE people are also evil.. BUT i know who was NOT part of it.. And that is that lil kid.. He was innocent. And he died. "Because someone else decided that it was necessary.." Suicide bombers or whoever.. And however i guess i would be called a so called conspiracy theorist .. So i am not positive that these folks are not part of the whole shebang of evil going on down there right now.. After all, 911 was likely perpetrated by some unknown entity connected to the US government not Al Quaida (or through Al Quaida..) refer to David Ray Griffin if you need a factual representation of this.. Or if you want a not so rational angle on it check out Alex Jones... :-P Or just read the Bible.. the book of Revelation for example.. :-P Im pretty sure that that time is near.. I see Bush popularity numbers slipping btw.. guess well have a bin laden arrest soon then...or a new terror attack.. to remind the sheeple that those pesky terrorists will show up in their homes soon unless they support that 'pious pastor of death' GW 'bring it on' Bush..
From TS: I forgot to say that :"If they could set up 911, they might also be able to make someone send waves of suicide bombers in Iraq... - And then the US administration announces they are in talks with the insurgents and suddenly the terror stops like a miracle and the holy Bush can take credit..." Well i guess its paranoia etc :-P
From Bernard: "Well i guess its paranoia etc" You said it, not me.
From TS: In these post 911 times paranoia might be more correct than ever before.. :-P With a US president that should have been impeached for deadly lies over and over again .. Only paranoid theories of the US plan for global domination can account for the insane attack on Iraq.. Of course.. Actually i wonder how the US of A political system now can be described rationally at all .. Without dragging paranoia and psychotic politicians into the picture .. Well ..
From Bernard: So... let me see if I've got it straight. The U.S. (well, the evil Bushco, at any rate) set up 911 as a pretext to go to war in Iraq in order "to make someone send waves of suicide bombers in Iraq" so that it would have a MORE DIFFICULT time embarking on "the US plan for global domination"??? Seriously, you really want to stick with that? I really don't know what to say except, to paraphrase slightly, I wonder how that line of 'reasoning' can be described rationally at all...
From TS: No 911 was done as a pretext to start the so called "war on terror".. And its not Bush who calls the shots, that is someone else behind the scenes.. The ultimate goal is a one world government police state . A global fascist empire.. The so called new world order. I dont know who is behind the suicide bombers.. But i feel its not quite like it seems.. And one thing that you can check out is PNAC.. Project for a new american century.. Its openly available on the net. And this is my final entry on this subject... Im ruining Ravens page with conspiracy theories again.. :-P
From TS: I agree that its slightly farfetched to claim that the suicide bombers are somehow organized by a US related entity.. But we all know how much shit the CIA has done up through history.. So i trust no one of them...