Disney blocks next Michael Moore film

[DGMacphee]

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

Barcik, earlier you criticised Moore for "giving half-truths" and "manipulating stastics". Yet, propaganda does the same thing. How can you accept one and not the other?

I follow Andail's line of thinking here. You also said earlier that you'd seek your own truth. But accepting propaganda on national pride without any criticial judgement limits one's truth (no offense intended). You can criticise Moore, fine. But you doesn't seem at all critical of textbook propaganda.

[Andail]

But people can feel national pride without having artifical sentiments and phrases hammered in their heads.

A natural sense of pride will take place if people can unite under things and ideas they have found to be good by themselves, that they can appreciate while still being neutral and unbiased.

In Swedish schools we are tought how cowardly Sweden acted when we let Germans soldiers transport through our borders, since we were neutral during the world wars.

We have learnt how the vikings pillaged the english countryside and raped their women and girls.

I'm not particularly proud of Sweden; except for a few things that have to do with social wellfare and living conditions, I don't find many things to be proud over.

Would things be better if my teachers had painted up wonderful images of the swedish heroism, of the importance we've had throughout history?
Would I have been better off with a false sense of pride in my mind?

Can you even imagine how ridiculous a swede would find the idea of "Captain Sweden"?

[SSH]

It looks like an irregular verb:

I encourage national pride and patriotism
You distribute propoganda
He has made a viciously anti-american pack of lies into a movie...

[DGMacphee]

Gotta love a triple-standard! 

[Nacho]

I truly believe that young americans are exposed to more patriotic propaganda than other western countries, and I don't want this to this new Europe we're creating...

I feel in many people the firm believe that we as an europeans have the moral basis to criticise America. Don't you realise that you're becoming that what you hate?

Maybe captain Sweden is far, but Captain Europe is very very close. Whereas we as a members of individuals countries have been educated into a non-patriotic terms (We spent more time studying the 6 years of the Spanish civil war and their consequences than any of the previous centuries) the new generation of Europeans will grow up with a feeling of a moral and intelectual superiority against the Americans.

For me,it's a funny paradox fighting against the american patrotics values enhacing the European ones. Please, allow me to be humble and get closer to Las Narangas sentence ("We're all abunch of bastards"  ) than to any other.

That goes very into the line of what Ross is also saying (Ross is Shbazjenkins).

The new post about my beloved friend Petter gets closer to this, IMO, recognising that his country is not perfect and that he won't feel more pride about it than the necessary.

Please allow me to make clear that I COULD share all that critics, but I won't focus them JUST to the US.

[Primus]

Farlander, sorry if you misunderstood myself. I wrote my post based on almost posts, not on yours in particular. Congratulations on your marks. About History, I have never got less than 14-15 marks or more than 18 (from 0 to 20) , even in superior courses (BTW, I have two licenciate degrees - Arts and Business Administration -, however none of them is a History degree).
But my point is that History is thaught very subjectively, by each country itself, and by the teachers, too: a Japanese universal or local history book always differs a lot (eg about II World War) from a Chinese one, from an Iraqi one, from a US one, from a UK one, from an Afghani one, from a French one, from a Spanish one, from a Russian one, from a Portuguese one, and so on, and so on, and so on: I am sure you got my point of view. So what's good for the US, may not be so good for eg an European country: look at Spain, where the Prime Minister lost his elections, and the British one is probably going to lose them too...

As a Portuguese, I just can't forget or forgive the role of the US supporting Indonesia, and their hypocritical "closed eyes", both in Timor Lorosae case. So what Portugal should have done was the same the US did, about Afghani, Iraqi, etc., cases.

Now a hypothesis... (almost a philosophy one): would the "twin towers" be now on its place yet, if the actual US President hadn't rob...Ã,  er... won the elections? My own opinion: maybe yes...

Just a few oil topics:
Prescott Bush: Dresser Industries; Pennsylvania Water and Power Co.;
George H. W. Bush: Ideco (Dresser subsidiary International Derrick and Equipment Co.); Bush-Overbey Oil Development Corp.; Zapata Petroleum Corp; Zapata Offshore Co; friend... er... business parter of Muhammad Bin Laden; Director of the CIA (Nov. 1975-77);
G. W. Bush: Arbusto Energy - Bush Exploration; Spectrum 7 Energy Corp.; friend ...er... business partner of Salem Bin Laden; Richard B. Cheney; etc.

Of course almost criticism must be focused in the US, as they're also the focus of the most important evenments and acts in the last years: Indonesian support, Gulf War, Iraqi war, and so on, and so on, and so on. The first cold war, now real war, still goes, only it has a new "partner"... Of course it is also because the US have always supported the Israeli (what I personally congratulate. I even read a David Ben-Gurion's book a few years ago), but is not just that... and not so simple...

[Barcik]

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

Barcik, earlier you criticised Moore for "giving half-truths" and "manipulating stastics". Yet, propaganda does the same thing. How can you accept one and not the other?

I follow Andail's line of thinking here. You also said earlier that you'd seek your own truth. But accepting propaganda on national pride without any criticial judgement limits one's truth (no offense intended). You can criticise Moore, fine. But you doesn't seem at all critical of textbook propaganda.

I didn't criticize Moore for creating a biased documentary, but for this statement: "if you just give the people the truth ... the Americans will be saved", when it is clearly not what he did. I don't have any problems at all with propaganda, half-truths and manipulation. Maybe I am not ethical, maybe I'm just realistic. I accept all of those as absolutely natural. I believe a person should be smart enough to know what is propaganda and what is not.

[Nacho]

No Primus, no need to apology, I just mentioned my marks in history because sometimes a radical (located in any of the "sides") starts to write crap, gets flamed and the conversation gets stupid. I have seen no radicals of that mentioned in this latest posts, though. By posting my marks I just wanted to put distance between that radicals and me.

And, hey! I have one degree too, and not related to history neither! But one of the subjects was history (I also had economical history of the World of the XXth century, and the same focused in Spain).

(Allow me to say that from that subjects I dared to ask for the sources of the member who said that the US were providing supplies to the Axis before the war. I studied pages and pages full of figures and no substantial supply for the war was traded by the Americans)

And about the hypothesis... You just gotta know that the terrorists were in US floor before G.W. Bush entered in the White house. Now, my hypothesis... Should the WTC be in its place yet, if Clinton hadn't bombed that plant in Sudan?

My own reply... no, because the terrorists are mad, and they need no excuses to hurt. Trying to understand their causes it the first step to show "sympathies" for them.

Would you ask if it's been fair if a hornet bites you? No... it's nature is to bite.

About the Spanish elections... I think that the 11-m had something to see, because the conservative won elections after the war (The local ones). Also, look at France and Germany, who didn't supported the war, a big fall for the government in the elections.

People see the war as something distant, they don't change their vote if it affects them directly ( Like it happened with the 11-M). The majority of the people is pragmatic, they punish bad management (france and Germany), no matter whether their goverment is aggressive or not if that does report a great change into their lives. That's why Bush Sr. lost, and why Bush Jr. is going to, IMO. Imagine a great management by G.W. Bush in this termin, and include to that management the black spot of the war... Do you really think that a guy who voted republicans should change their vote for their concept of idealism or peacifism? I think not.

[DGMacphee]

I don't have any problems at all with propaganda, half-truths and manipulation.

In that case, I must have misread what you wrote in the past.

My own reply... no, because the terrorists are mad, and they need no excuses to hurt. Trying to understand their causes it the first step to show "sympathies" for them.

Would you ask if it's been fair if a hornet bites you? No... it's nature is to bite.

Comparing hornets to humans is a little silly. But I'm not going to debate it further because that'd be taking this argument into the realms of animal sciene instead of politics. And I think this discussion is intense enough.

However, I don't think terrorists are killing without reason. Trying to understand their causes isn't "showing sympathy". It's being logical instead of jumping to wild theories that have no basis in fact.

[Fuzzpilz]

I believe a person should be smart enough to know what is propaganda and what is not.

And if they don't, for example because they're schoolchildren, screw them! Let them eat lies! Maybe they'll find out when they're older, and either go into denial about it or end up with a hostile stance to the society they grew up in. That's their problem.

Seriously, this isn't like telling children there's an Easter Bunny or something. This is the important stuff. When you're about five years old, the Easter Bunny may be pretty important to you, but it's rare that anybody isn't able to deal with the fact that it doesn't exist when they grow up. And a person for whom this information leads to a severe crisis of faith would have to have a lot more wrong with them. This, however, is serious real-life stuff. And you should start giving children the truth as well as you know it, as early as you can - without scarring the minds of seven-year-olds by telling them in graphic detail about the horrors of war or NS concentration camps, of course, but don't, e.g., turn $historical_figure into another Santa Claus-like creature of pure good or tell them that $country has only ever done (good|bad). Or if you do something of the sort, stop doing it as soon as possible. People can look back at when they believed in the Tooth Fairy and smile. Disillusionment with reality is much harsher, especially if it's something part of your Pride in the Glorious Fatherland is built on.

An addition:

I didn't criticize Moore for creating a biased documentary, but for this statement: "if you just give the people the truth ... the Americans will be saved", when it is clearly not what he did.

How many textbooks have you read that contained a statement to the effect of "Oh yeah, and a lot of this isn't really true, or not completely. We made some stuff up and left some more out to make you feel good about your homeland's history. Sorry."? I don't think I've ever seen anything of the sort, and I doubt you have. And don't ask back whether textbooks generally include the phrase "this is all 100% TRUE!!" - the authors know their work is mostly going to be presented as fact, or at any rate it's their intention.

[Nacho]

I tend to prefer any kind of animal form than a human being whose hate against a country is so intense for hijacking a plane and direct it to a building.

When I told that there is no way to understand the real causes of their hate is because no one we know could be able to do something remetely similar in cruelty and madness.

Actually, the real causes can be found in the foundational clauses of Al-Quaeda.  More or less: "We will fight till the last rest of Occidental culture will be out of our holy places" Do you see how vague it is? That works for anything... What does "the last rest of Occidental Culture"? Whereas some people thinks it means that the american military bases must go our of Arabia, they can have the excuse to fight till the last can of Coca-Cola will be out of Arabia.
Which are their holy lands? Does that include Al-Andalus (Spain)? Their hate and their determination to fight is so big that the intelectual effort I should do to understand it is overwhelming than I preffer not to attempt it.

You can't really undestand it because you haven't suffered a terrorist threat as we as Spanish did. The original foundation clauses of ETA demanded something like "the finish of the dictadure and a sufficient level of autonomy for the Basque Country". Now, Franco is dead and the basques have the highest autonomy level of a region in Europe, but they go on killing... That's why I say "Don't try to undestand them, because all their "reasons" are a bunch of excuses. Terrorism is their job...

[DGMacphee]

I tend to prefer any kind of animal form than a human being whose hate against a country is so intense for hijacking a plane and direct it to a building.

But you just made a comparison between hornets and terrorists. Now you prefer them to terrorists?

When I told that there is no way to understand the real causes of their hate is because no one we know could be able to do something remetely similar in cruelty and madness.

I could name a few examples of other groups. E.g. the KKK.

You can't really undestand it because you haven't suffered a terrorist threat as we as Spanish did. The original foundation clauses of ETA demanded something like "the finish of the dictadure and a sufficient level of autonomy for the Basque Country". Now, Franco is dead and the basques have the highest autonomy level of a region in Europe, but they go on killing... That's why I say "Don't try to undestand them, because all their "reasons" are a bunch of excuses. Terrorism is their job...

While I understand and sympathise with your pain, I don't think it's fair to say I don't understand terrorism because our country hasn't suffered a internal terrorist attack. Nevertheless, many Australians died in the Bali bombing, so we have felt the effect of terrorism. However, I can still view terrorism with some rationalism, despite how wrong I think it is. And to say I don't understand seems a little unfair in this instance. That's why I feel some disappointment with your presumption.

As for your opinion on discarding reason, I feel that if you don't try to understand something it leads to ignorance and irrational behaviour. That is why I try to view terrorism with a rational outlook.

Also, if terrorism is their job, does that mean there are classified ads for terrorist employment in Middle Eastern newspapers? Do they have their own union? What kind of rates do they pay? Do they get paternity leave?

[Nacho]

a) I prefer hornets to terrorists, whereas a hornet can cause me a harmful bite, terrorists can put a bomb in a train where my girlfriend is going, in the plane I am flying...

b) I completely agree. I can't understand the hate of that stupids against some other human beings. I am attacking one side of the extremism, the ultra anti-occidental one, but that does not mean that I support the other side.

c) No, it hasn't been fair saying that you can't understand because you haven't suffered. The sense was more that you can't understand that long term, internal way of terrorism that we suffered. In that case, people in Ireland, Spain or Palestine could better know what I am talking about.

[Fuzzpilz]

Also, if terrorism is their job, does that mean there are classified ads for terrorist employment in Middle Eastern newspapers? Do they have their own union? What kind of rates do they pay? Do they get paternity leave?

Cut government subsidies to the terrorism industry! Maybe they'll go on strike.

[Nacho]

Just if they don't do a Japanese strike! 

Even with the joke, that has a lot of sense... most of the money the terrorist earn comes form the Wahabi mosques in Arabia. The Islam itself is not more hard as a religion than cristianism can be, whereas the Wahabi wing is more radical and aggressive, and it's the one in Arabia. To put an example, it is the same like in Texas the religion should be the "KKKlanish", and all of the great petro-richs of there were sponsoring "KKKlanish" churchs around the world... Not a very optimistic horizon, is it?

[DGMacphee]

c) No, it hasn't been fair saying that you can't understand because you haven't suffered. The sense was more that you can't understand that long term, internal way of terrorism that we suffered. In that case, people in Ireland, Spain or Palestine could better know what I am talking about.

Though my country hasn't suffered internal terrorism, that still doesn't mean I don't understand. My country has suffered from a great many other internal struggles. But I don't assume you don't understand things that my country has faced.

Fuzz: Hehehe. Perhaps Moore could do "Osama and Me" as his next film. (EDIT: What am I saying? That's what F911 is!)

[SSH]

 

[Nacho]

Excuses DG, no... I'm not very into Australian history.

I'd be pleased to read a quick resume of the Australian history, I just know it was a continent prison for Brits, that the original people there were the aborigens.

I also know that Aussies' mothers like to mix milk with Foster's, while daddy is hunting crocs, or killing a Koala or a Kangaroo. 

[YOke]

Just want to insert a couple of words about the "9/11"-attacks. When Farlander, as many others, make this out to be worse than other acts of war, they are really just stating their own "preferences".
IMO an act of war is an act of war. The life of a soldier is not more or less worth than the life of a civilian. To attack civilians or military is really just a question of personal ethics. Theese are not the same all over the world.

[DGMacphee]

I'd be pleased to read a quick resume of the Australian history, I just know it was a continent prison for Brits, that the original people there were the aborigens.

And that's just the beginning... However, my point is this: I'm sure if you look further into Australian history, you'll understand the inner struggles we've had to face.

I also know that Aussies' mothers like to mix milk with Foster's, while daddy is hunting crocs, or killing a Koala or a Kangaroo.Ã, 

Plus, we're all insane and play the piano really well. Most of us are also drag queens who ride around the desert in buses. That's how we get to our cricket and rugby games.