VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:52:02 04/19/03 Sat
Author: Kharn
Author Host/IP: kharnserv.xs4all.nl / 213.84.47.237
Subject: That's an interesting point
In reply to: Gwydion 's message, "Bowling for Columbine" on 12:52:54 04/19/03 Sat

>I think an in-depth analysis of the movie would be
>redundant, but I will say that he had an interesting
>point about media coverage of tragedies and fear fads
>in America. It's too bad that message was marred by
>Moore's politics, his penchant for distorting the
>truth, and his hypocrisy. Did anyone else wonder that
>he criticized people for scapegoating Marilyn Manson
>while he himself implied that our government's
>policies and Lockheed-Martin might be responsible?

Aye, aye

>Also, Moore claimed that because many different
>histories had violence, that that argument was also
>not valid. Again, I have to disagree. While Britain
>and Germany both have very violent histories, these
>histories frequently place them as the oppressors.
>America was a nation conceived in violence, but that
>violence was a struggle for rights. Even the last war
>fought on our soil, the Civil War, dealt strongly with
>rights. As a result, America has a strong history of
>demanding rights, especially individual rights.
>European violent histories are looked at by Europeans
>as disgraceful, but America's violent history is
>looked at by Americans as righteous* because of that
>difference. I believe this translates into day to day
>decisions. To Kharn, shooting an assailant violates
>the assailant's rights. To me, it's defending my own
>rights. Maybe I'm wrong, but again it adds another
>spin to the violent history theory.


That's an interesting point,. Obviously, Moore's "fear-only" theory is stupid, because fear alone can't be responsible, in all likeliness, it's a mix of all the old theories.

However, I do believe you don't completely understand European history; believe me, the Dutch are NOT ashamed for their war of independance ('gainst Spain), no more than the Belgians are ashamed of their war of independance ('gainst Holland). We do not glorify them, though, we accept them as facts and remember our ancestors that died in this struggle (Willem of Orange for one, he was killed by Balthasar Gerards, he was our first King) as heroes, but glorification is a step too far.

And there are a lot of countries that are proud to have taken up arms for their own freedom; Indonesia, to name one...But I'm not sure about those countries and what effect possible glorification of war could have on them.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.