Kony 2012

We have to differentiate the two fundamental parts of the issue of Kony 2012. The actual campaign, which is what we are disputing, and the conflict in central Africa. We can all agree that the conflict is bad and it needs to be resolved, there is no question about it, but there is debating, on the campaign which aims to help end the conflict.

Everything must be questioned, to be able to find a neutral and unbiased opinion on a topic, and to not be brainwashed into doing anything or be too cynical to believe in anything.

The Kony 2012 campaign is great because it aims to help innocent children have proper lives and not get abducted by anyone, and be forced to become child soldiers or become sex slaves. It aims to spread awareness of this conflict so that there is enough support, for the government of several nations to be the active voice of its people in taking action against this inhumane act. All democratic nations have several parties that compete to gain the majority of the people´s vote, so that they can represent the people. The leader of a democratic nation would have to help take action against this conflict if the people demanded this, in large quantities and in an organized and diplomatic manor.

This campaign aims to end the conflict and bring peace to the people of central Africa. It aims to improve the living conditions of the people of this region and it does so, by giving the people of every nation the power to do so. Which for the first time in history, or one of the first times in history, brings the war to the people, so people can help people.

The government is a key element of a nation but the people have the power to choose and the power to change the government, through majority votes and diplomacy. In other cases violence has to be used, and again in this case the people are in charge of their own fate.

The campaign not only helps to end the conflict, but it puts the responsibility in the hands of the people, making them the key functionaries that end the war. It is endorsing the ‘people for people’ mentality. This is again one of the prime components of the propaganda that they use; they give confidence and give the people a sense of complete power, which has only been done very rarely in the past. This campaign does this, by using the word “you” many times in its propaganda, giving a sense of familiarity and importance to every individual who sees it.

What we must not forget is to also judge the campaign in a critical manor. If not we will fall into a propaganda made fantasy of what the organization and their actions are. Everything must be questioned.

The propaganda gives many opinions, and presents hyperboles as facts in many cases, causing an effect of immensity, which doesn´t exist. It gives incomplete facts, such as the number of child soldiers that Joseph Kony has. It does not present the present population, but it presents the total population of children that have become child soldiers ever since these atrocities started. This in itself must be questioned as this implies that the organization, “Invisible Children” has been manipulating the data and statistics that they put forward, which again can be used to question their ethics and true purpose.

The doubting of their true purpose can be supported by the lack of transparency that the organization displays when the issue of independent audits is raised. This makes any critical and self-learning person think what could the organization be hiding. Their constant use of Gavin and the subliminal comparison with Jacob, produces an internal familiarity with the observer, as it introduces compassion and the innocence of a young toddler, which in a way can be interpreted as pathetic fallacy. Using Gavin is an excellent manipulation of people’s feelings, which in turn is a great resource for propaganda. This makes you think about if this kind of manipulation is appropriate for a product which takes the form of a cause and which of such a serious issue.

In conclusion, the Kony 2012 campaign is great because it raises awareness, and contributes to the people, by allowing the people to the principal figure of action, but it´s lack of transparency, and its data manipulation and distortion is, a serious issue that raises in itself more doubt than awareness. The campaign uses a revolutionary way of propaganda, and dispersion of their information, by making the citizens of the nations the main form of propaganda, and management. Their support is the base and it is built on the community, and its unity, which in turn feeds the viral spread of its aims.

Israel and Palestine

Middle East Blog

This week in the Global Perspective class we saw a documentary of a British reporter that was both Jewish and Muslim, and it was about how this reporter was going through Israel and Palestine, and talking to different people about their perspective on the situation and what can be a solution for them. She interviewed people from the cities, settlers and military officers on both sides about their opinion on the conflict and their perspective on how they live their lives and if the conflict affected their lifestyles. As she was doing this she wanted to know more about where she came from and she wanted to discover more about the two cultures she came from. Nearing the end of the documentary she says that being part of many cultures can either open your mind to a limitless source of cultural richness and diversity or it can close all the doors of learning about cultures.

I believe that this is a very important part of the documentary as it shows how closed and strict some cultures are and how liberal others are, in her experience she found that because of her cultural heritage she is was the only one that was interrogated before going into different touristic destinations and before being let out of the airport. She was even denied entry of one of the most holy Muslim landmarks because she was part Jewish.

As she comes to discover that religion is a tool that opens and closes doors she feels frustrated and confused which leads to her thinking that she will never be able to understand and be part of her heritage and religions. She believes that she will not be able to fit in or feel comfortable in Israel or Palestine, which saddens her as she was in a journey to discover herself.

The interviews that she takes confuse her even more as she finds opinions that are very controversial and extremely closed minded in some cases.

For example she interviewed a military officer from the Israeli army, her way of seeing the conflict was that Palestine was their enemy and Israel was righteous. She thought of Israel as love and compassion and as Palestine as the enemy, as something to fear and evil. This could be because of her involvement in the army, the fact of her witnessing her friends, her people dyeing because Palestinian troops have attacked, has to have tarnished her way of seeing the conflict, and that is why she must have had a closed and one sided opinion. The horrors that she must have seen had to affect her in some way, she couldn´t see the whole picture or perspectives of the conflict, because of her close relationship with it. She was too close to the conflict to be able to see the other side’s opinions or views.  Also the remarkable calmness that she presented infront of 18 year olds with weapons and thinking that it was natural was stunning. This is another attitude that one, as an outsider cannot relate to, or comprehend these are people that have just finished high school and are risking their lives, because the government dictates that´s what they have to do. The idea in my way of viewing it is outrageous.

Another perspective that she saw was that of two young women about her age, that had come to live in Israel recently after spending all their life in England. Since they were just recently exposed into the interior of the conflict that´s probably why they didn´t have much of a personal view, but their views on how their living was certainly interesting. The reporter asked them if they´re life had really changed or if they experienced fear because they lived so close to where a terrorist attack had just occurred, but they answered that they didn´t lead their lives based on fear but based it on living in the moment. They were conscious of the threat but they didn´t really feel the need to be worried they lived as they had lived in England, except for the fact that they had a beach nearby now.

This was very interesting because I didn´t expect such an attitude from people who live under a constant awareness that they might be attacked.

This reporter also interviewed a settler community that lives very close to the border. When she asked who gave them the right to live there. Their response was that they had the right to because it was their land; it was land that was given to them just like the rest of Israel. The situation that they are in is very complicated and dangerous, just how dangerous, can be shown by the murder of a baby, it father, mother, and elder sister. This community is very interesting, because although it is dangerous for the people to live there they still do it, and I believe that they will continue doing it, because they think that it is their land and that they have the right to occupy it.

The British reporter also interviewed the Palestinian side of the area, where she interviewed a person from the town that the murderers came from, he told her that when this happened, the Israeli troops came and for a short period of time occupied the town, and interrogated everyone in it. There were Israeli soldiers living in their homes, and there was nothing they could do. This man didn´t speak with any inclination for the any side just for a certain kind of peace, and tranquility, no worrying that, if he walk to far to their side of the land, that he would get shot at. The small scale invasion of the Israeli troops, had to be a violation to the few understandings they have.

She also had a very interesting conversation with a Palestinian citizen, this citizen had a very ignorant and closed view on what should happen with the population of Israel, but she stood and explained her beliefs and thoughts thoroughly. She thought that the whole of the Israeli population should go back to where they came, to go back to the rest of the world, and that if the USA loved the Israelis so much they should give them space, that the USA was a big nation. This conversation was a very one-way view, but it had to be respected.

She also had the chance to interview a local family, in the area. She was just filming and these kids came up to her and guided her to their home, where she interviewed the mother, of the children. The mother´s point of view was very open minded and wasn´t focused on who had to do what or who was wrong, but she looked at the conflict as a whole and said that she just wanted peace, she said that when her children play, they play “Guns”, one team was Palestine and the other Israel. She asked her son what he wanted to be and he said he wanted to be a fighter. The mother said that she wanted peace for her children, so that they would have a future without violence. I believe that this mother´s opinion was focused at looking at the conflict as a whole, not as one side or the other, this is something that I believe is great, because she just wished for a better future for her children, not for the retreat of a nation, or the death of one.

After this the reporter went to an important holy site for the Palestinian people, where she saw a form of gender separation. The site was divided into two, where the men had a rather large piece and the women a rather small and thin piece of it. This was totally unfair as the men and women have an equal right to this holy site, a separation of this kind is an injustice and this injustice should be amended. The reporter shared the same ideas as me in this matter.

As I had started this blog I will finish it with the same thought, a diversity of cultures that one can call his or her own heritage, can open many doors in learning one´s origin and cultures or it can close the mind and close the doors of learning and reaching a cultural awareness of one´s heritage. In my opinion the reporter finished learning a lot from each culture and their views on the conflict. She learned what is happening in her national homes, and how they live, but I believe that she has to dig deeper not necessarily into her heritage to know who she is, but look more closely at herself, one´s past does not define who we are, the actions we take for the future are what mold us into what are becoming.

The Kite Runner

This film shows the reality of what most people must live in Afghanistan. It is the struggle of a young boy to overcome timid and shyness, and stand up for the things that are dear to him. This film portrays the respect and the strength of the bond between employer and employee was. It shows how powerful friendship can be and the lessons it teaches. At the beginning of the film, when Hassan says that he would eat dirt for Amir, and Amir asks if he would really do this, if he told him to, as Hassan answers yes, he asks Amir “But would you ask me to do such a thing?”, finally Amir responds “No”, this moment  is a perfect example of the strength of the bond that the employer and employee share. Such respect for one another cannot be found easily at this time.

This film revives the now ancient respect that once stood as a common value amongst all people. This movie shows the fading of this trait to shyness and embarrassment. This factor of human life is now seen as a weakness. In most parts of the world people have become self-centered. Now the general thought is to save one’s self at all cost, no matter the sacrifice, even if it is at the cost of others’ lives.

‘The Kite Runner’ is a voyage through a time where standing up for someone was seen as brave and honorific. Now standing up for someone is seen as someone embarrassing themself, or as something not worth doing. This is why humanity is entering an age of decomposition. Our world is turning into a reality where no one fights for their rights, or tries to sacrifice even the most minimum of things to give something else to another person.

This is why ‘The Kite Runner’ is such an excellent film it depicts the struggle of one man, in changing his character and becoming strong. All his life Amir was a gentle and in a way weak, person. He did not defend anyone even if it was his best friend, or himself.

It was always Hassan who stood up to the bullies and showed no fear, even when he had it on the inside. He remained strong until the end, he paid dearly for his strength and the values that he had. Nevertheless he never backed down. He was a noble and brave person.

Amir saw this and in a way felt ashamed of his weakness. He felt he was not worthy, to be the son of a rich man. He saw that even if Hassan was poor he was not weak. Hassan was a model of a person, and Amir didn’t know how to react to such respect and bravery that he saw in Hassan.

The only reason that Amir went back to Afghanistan was because he felt he owed it to Hassan to come back. When Amir heard what happened to Hassan´s family he felt he owed it to Hassan to get his son back and raise him. He felt that backing away like he had done all his life was no longer an option.  He had to be strong, he had to be brave, and he was. He thought of retrieving Sohrab at all cost, just as Hassan retrieved the blue kite for Amir at all cost. He made a decision in his mind to never back down at this precise moment, not even in the littlest of details, for Hassan, his best friend, and brother he had to be strong.  This moment in his life was the time he had finally chosen to change; he had finally chosen to be what his father and Hassan were. He decided to be strong. He knew the consequences of what this meant and accepted them. He became what he saw in his childhood he became a model of a person. He became his father, when he defended the women on the truck from being rapped, he became Hassan when he retrieved the blue kite, even when he had to get rapped.

He became them through the actions he did, and the things he said.

This film is excellent because of how it shows that any person can become strong even after a life of being weak.  Any person can change, for the better or for the worst. Like Amir became strong and stood up for what he believed in, and like Assef who became an even bigger threat to humanity.

This film captures the essence of the human soul, and portrays how it can be changed, made stronger, made blacker, or made greater. In this time and day not many have the attitude to do what Hassan, Amir, or Amir´s father did. Not many people would get rapped just to get a kite, because they promised to do so. Not many would defend a woman who is going to get rapped, unarmed and with the consequence of loosing his or her liberty. Finally not many would go back to a country filled with terror just to retrieve a young boy.

I believe that this film shows what any person should aspire to be. This film is a memory of what most people were. It reminds us how important it is to stand up for what one believes in and for one´s self. This film shows that even with the smallest of good deeds comes, the power to do greater ones. This film is a model for the whole of humanity, to follow.