Post by: Guest on July 27, 2005, 11:51:24 AM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/v_for_vendetta/
I don't really know much about the movie (or the comic I assume it is based from), but it looks like a fun little waste of an afternoon.
Post by: ...has left the building. on July 27, 2005, 01:43:15 PM
Post by: Vodka7 on July 27, 2005, 02:19:48 PM
From what I remember, the basic theme of the book is that the way to deal with an oppressive government that curtails your freedoms is to blow it up and start over.
I'm tentatively looking forward to it, because as much as I loved the original Alan Moore script, I do not trust those two Matrix screwups to do anything good with it. They seem to have a knack for taking something that lots of people loved and finding a way to ruin it so even die-hard fans of the original walk away angry.
Oh well, I guess Lucas could have got it.
Post by: atek3 on August 03, 2005, 09:58:38 PM
I'm tentatively looking forward to it, because as much as I loved the original Alan Moore script, I do not trust those two Matrix screwups to do anything good with it. They seem to have a knack for taking something that lots of people loved and finding a way to ruin it so even die-hard fans of the original walk away angry.>
seriously... seriously...
could be awesome... could be @#%@.
atek3
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on August 04, 2005, 07:36:55 AM
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Gun Runner on August 04, 2005, 10:35:58 AM
Awesome!
Post by: atek3 on September 03, 2005, 12:34:45 PM
the movie should be shown on guy fawkes day... postponing it is retarded.
atek3
Post by: Justin on September 03, 2005, 12:49:42 PM
Fingers crossed that this one will buck the trend.
Post by: SpookyPistolero on February 27, 2006, 03:55:27 PM
Quote from: Gun Runner
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Awesome!
I just heard this quote on a commercial and was about to start a new thread on the the movie, but was smart enough to use the 'ol search function first. I think this movie has, at least, a lot of potential. Whether or not they butcher things will be a big 'if'. They did manage to mangle the matrix, so who knows...Awesome!
I'll see it just because the last 1/2 year at least has been crap at the box office.
Post by: Dannyboy on February 27, 2006, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Ego_Archive
someone standing up against a very 1984-esq regime.
That was the first thing I thought of too. Of course, it doesn't hurt that John Hurt was the guy on the big TV screen and he was the guy from 1984. That's actually what made me think of 1984.
Post by: mtnbkr on February 28, 2006, 02:13:45 AM
Chris
Post by: K Frame on February 28, 2006, 05:25:45 AM
A bald Natalie Portman doesn't really do it for me, either.
Post by: Guest on March 19, 2006, 05:12:02 PM
Post by: atek3 on March 19, 2006, 05:30:25 PM
atek3
Post by: SpookyPistolero on March 19, 2006, 05:34:00 PM
Post by: Ron on March 19, 2006, 05:37:45 PM
The fact that that the main target wasn't military and that innocents could have been killed in the bombing was the point of contention.
Not having seen it yet I cannot offer an opinion, I'll wait to rent it when it hits Blockbuster.
Thought that I would throw out the terrorism angle to see what you guys/gals think.
Post by: SpookyPistolero on March 19, 2006, 06:08:59 PM
Too add another log to the fire, if the terminology existed with the same subtext as now, I imagine the founding fathers might have been labeled terrorists. The term, of course, is used now to elicit the notion that there exists something from which people are defenseless and need protection, so that they might trade a little freedom for a little perceived safety.
Post by: atek3 on March 19, 2006, 06:11:58 PM
Quote
The fact that that the main target wasn't military and that innocents could have been killed in the bombing was the point of contention.
Terrorism is what every oppressive government calls any act of rebellion, regardless of its motivation or methods. (that isn't to say that killing civilians in is in any way, shape, or form, an acceptable part of rebellion)SPOILER ALERT!!!
The buildings were all government buildings except the british television station, which basically only ran government propaganda so it was basically an arm of the government. V never intentionally kills civilians and in one case even warns of an attack a year in advance. Think about it. If you live in Nazi Germany and are a resistance fighter, any branch of the government (except maybe sanitation
) is a valid target.atek3
Post by: theCZ on March 19, 2006, 06:44:59 PM
Post by: jefnvk on March 19, 2006, 06:56:12 PM
Post by: atek3 on March 19, 2006, 07:13:31 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
I liked it, but I spent most of the movie trying to place V's voice to the actor.
it was hugo weaving aka Mr. Smith from the matrix believe it or not.atek3
Post by: Guest on March 19, 2006, 07:19:08 PM
Quote
The fact that that the main target wasn't military and that innocents could have been killed in the bombing was the point of contention.
You would be amazed at the sort of things we bombed in WWII. There comes a time when there arent any civilians, the people who do nothing are simply supporting the status quo in their small way and are to be counted amongst them.Granted, that too is a sort of justification for terrorism.
Post by: K Frame on March 19, 2006, 07:27:13 PM
The sad fact is that one man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
Sam & John Adams, John Hancock, and all the rest were, to the British, terrorists.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 19, 2006, 07:30:24 PM
"A History of Violence" was much better.
Post by: Strings on March 19, 2006, 08:05:04 PM
Sam & John Adams, John Hancock, and all the rest were, to the British, terrorists<
Just as the insurgents in Iraq are "patriots", to their fellow Iraqies...
It's unfortunate tendancy of mankind to allow the victors to write the history. This differentiates between the "terrorist" and the "patriot" or "freedom fighter"...
Post by: doczinn on March 19, 2006, 08:41:37 PM
Quote
Just as the insurgents in Iraq are "patriots", to their fellow Iraqies...
Nope, sorry, you're wrong there. SOMETIMES the difference is in who writes the history. Sometimes, on the other hand, it's a little more black-and-white.
There are legitimate targets and illegitimate ones. If the insurgents attacked only military and government targets (US or Iraqi), we'd still call them terrorists, but they wouldn't necessarily be. However, they've attacked schools, hospitals, ambulance, mosques, and even crowds of children. That is terrorism, no matter what side you're on.
Post by: Strings on March 19, 2006, 08:55:52 PM
and we showed such discrimination during our previous wars?
I'm not condoning what they're doing over there. Nor am I talking about moral relativism. It's more a semantics discussion...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 19, 2006, 09:37:14 PM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Sam & John Adams, John Hancock, and all the rest were, to the British, terrorists.
OK, but would they have been right to call them such? I don't claim to know too much about Revolutionary history, but I can't recall anything akin to modern terrorism in the actions of the leaders of the movement. I'm sure some innocent loyalists were terrorized by "patriots," but were such things endorsed by the men you're talking about? Even if you look at the mob violence that occurred, it seems to me that it was aimed at people like Thomas Hutchinson; i.e. govt. officials who didn't go along with anti-Parliament or anti-British resistance. That is a far cry from blowing up a bus-full of civilians who had no say in the matter; or kidnapping and killing any Englishmen who happened to pass by.As I said, just from my meager knowledge of the subject.
Post by: doczinn on March 19, 2006, 10:00:41 PM
Quote
and we showed such discrimination during our previous wars?
We showed an apalling lack of concern for collateral damage, but hospitals, schools, and places of worship were never the targets. Yes, there is still a concrete difference between us and terrorists.
Post by: RevDisk on March 19, 2006, 10:43:08 PM
Quote from: doczinn
Quote
and we showed such discrimination during our previous wars?
We showed an apalling lack of concern for collateral damage, but hospitals, schools, and places of worship were never the targets. Yes, there is still a concrete difference between us and terrorists.Note, I'm not arguing against the usage of nuclear weapons during WWII. I do believe using nuclear weapons meant a ton of US soldiers came home alive. I'm just pointing out that the US has targetted civilian populations, as Hiroshima was selected expressly as a civilian target. It had only minor military value, and barely moderate industrial value. Also note that I'm not saying the US goes after civvie targets every time. Usually it's pretty rare for the US military to entirely target civvies.
Post by: Winston Smith on March 20, 2006, 05:07:39 AM
Regardless, I enjoyed it. A high b+ in my book. Uhh, the movie, not the thread.
Post by: Antibubba on March 20, 2006, 12:10:02 PM
There is violence, but I liked how most of it is incited, as a once-great people learn to stand up to what has been done to them. First by being shamed, then by being able to laugh at their government, and finally being "mad as hell and...". I don't want to spoil this for anyone, so I'll stop there.
GO SEE IT!
Post by: Guest on March 20, 2006, 12:35:17 PM
the only thing that bugged me (and not enough to ruin the movie) was how the bad guys rose from the conservative party, and not Labor (socialist). when you toss that in, and then insinuate that them evil conservatives are in bed with catholics and out to get gays and muslims, it adds a political element that takes away from the flick (but not much!)
and the mention of "America's War" annoyed me. I dunno who said it first, but if 10 bloody years of vietnam didn't spell an end of western civilization, i don't think a jaunt through the big litterbox would come close to being our end.
Post by: RevDisk on March 20, 2006, 01:46:06 PM
Great movie. If nothing else, the amount of discussion shown in this thread means it's more inspiring than the usual drivel put out by Hollywood.
Post by: xd9fan on March 20, 2006, 09:32:40 PM
by Anthony Gregory
It's interesting how much focus has been placed on whether V, the title character in the new movie V for Vendetta, is portrayed in such a way as to cast a favorable light on terrorism. The more astute reviewers have discussed the movie's blurring of the line between freedom fighters and terrorists. But the most important questions raised in the film, while they do indeed center around terrorism, concern not so much the nature of V but rather that of the main instigator of terrorism, both in the film and real life the state.
The ethical issues surrounding V's violence which is directed at the state orchestrators of a harrowing past atrocity, as well as the totalitarian state itself, its régime, its top officials, and its symbols are not unimportant. The cruelty of V is not a light matter. But his rampage is, for the most part, focused. He does at times, strictly speaking, aggress against the plot's heroine criminality that she later forgives. He mostly attacks aggressors and those who get in his way.
V's violence, however, pales in comparison, and is secondary, to that of the state, and perhaps it is not so much the alleged glorification of his, but rather the portrayal of the state's, that irks so many people so much about this movie.
In aggrandizement and protection of its power, the state in Vendetta has taken the church under its fold, making it an arm of the government and thus corrupting it completely. It divides and conquers, making the people more afraid of peaceful differences among one another than of the coercive institution that threatens them all. It explores the wretched avenues of biological warfare, tests demonic weapons on its own subjects, and scapegoats others for whatever goes wrong. It forbids unapproved religious texts and anything else seen as challenging its authority. It targets civilians while disingenuously accusing the vigilante of doing so. It murders, rapes, and spies on its citizens without relent.
Any serious dissent from or ridicule of the state is forbidden: the government kills a TV personality for his controversial comedy bit that lambasts the régime's chancellor. (Anti-authoritarians should be glad that Hollywood, although restrained somewhat by law and regulation, remains mostly dominated by private enterprise. Only an uncensored market can allow dissent to come through, as it does in this gloriously un-PC, anti-establishment film. One wonders how much some might actually favor censoring movies this radical in our own time and country.)
The state in Vendetta uses its puppet media to bombard the public with lies, disinformation, and dishonest good news of progress or inflated warnings of perennial threats and worldly strife, depending on its tactical needs of the day. It demonizes the enemy, foreigners, and minorities, rules by force and relies on fear.
It is a crude and secular theocracy, a corporatist managerial dictatorship in which the majority of people are still allowed to live normal lives albeit amidst economic turmoil caused by the state's policies as they raise their families, go to work, drink in bars, and drown any potentially dissident thoughts in the distracting drone of state-approved television.
If the film's detractor's don't see any parallels between the dramatized political crisis and that of real life, why do they worry that the movie provides a cover or excuse for terrorism as it is defined in the real world? Were the current situation so tyrannical and desperate as in the movie, would any and all violence against the present state be viewed as terrorism? (Notably, few people seem to similarly see terrorism in the brutalities of other comic book heroes who lash out mercilessly against common, rather than political, thugs.)
I cannot endorse all of V's violent methods. But that is not really the point. As for blowing up empty government buildings, while it may sometimes be arguably defensible in the context of a just revolution, such destruction rarely achieves any improvement. The right to revolution against tyranny, however, is itself an idea at least as old as the United States.
The movie is about such ideas. V considers himself the personification of the idea of retributive justice. He characterizes himself as an "equal and opposing reaction" to the "monstrous" state violence that created him, a monster. To dislike his methods, one must also dislike the brutality that spawned his reactive violence. A difference between him and the state is that the latter practices much more expansive violence against countless innocent people. V's retaliatory violence is met and overshadowed by the state's own, which is far more encompassing. Another difference is that the state's violence enjoys legal privilege; it is obscured and enabled by the concept, held by most its subjects, that the state should be allowed to do what private actors are not.
And that's the real important point to be found in the movie. When a single man does something criminal, he is generally perceived as an anti-social element. When the state practices criminality on a much grander scale, it is considered security. The double standard, taken to an extreme, is the ideology of totalitarianism, the ideology adopted tacitly by the populace in the film.
In response to the statist ideology, V offers his proposed corrective: "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should by afraid of their people." Coming from a masked avenger intent on blowing up Parliament, this might sound like extremism. But it's not too far from that adage attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who purportedly said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." The quotation, often invoked by conservatives, at least when the Democrats are in power, continues into the more radical: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Was Thomas Jefferson defending terrorism?
Actually, the American Revolution, widely seen as a just overthrow of a state, was far more violent against the innocent and guilty than the revolution portrayed in Vendetta. The belligerent detonation of Parliament is merely "symbolic," as V calls it, of a quieter revolution in social conscience. Ultimately, it is not V's onslaught that unravels the government. What really do the state in are its own precarious foundation and the refusal of people to follow its orders. The mass resistance at the end is non-violent thousands of denizens refuse to back down as they walk right past the hundreds of troops armed with battle rifles. The military refuses to fire on the people, and lets the outnumbering masses through peacefully. The high-ranking detective charged with apprehending V also refuses to keep playing the game, once he learns the truth about the institution he works for. As in the demise of the Soviet Union, non-compliance and lost faith in the régime are what kill the state in Vendetta.
Thus does a total state meet its maker, having spent massive resources and dedicated legions of people to catch the uncatchable one-man insurgency. The incompetence and inner conflict of bureaucracy come through elegantly in the film. Its curfews, its NSA-style surveillance of every home, its mass arrests do nothing to defeat its elusive and ubiquitous adversary. Instead, both the state and the reactive belligerent it incited fall in concert, as freedom becomes reclaimed by the people.
In the end we see that only fear and passive acquiescence have allowed the oppression to persist. When the people finally realize they far outnumber the state's minions and can stand up to repression, they do so and the despotic charade crumbles. What must happen first is that they must admit to themselves that something has gone terribly wrong with their country. Once they all see the tyranny for what it is and are willing to confront it, it doesn't stand a chance.
When we consider the movie's treatment of government, and for a second look beyond the rogue antics of the horrifying hero it has begotten, then we can perhaps see why some people hate the movie so much. We wouldn't want people to understand the immorality and transience of the state, now would we? If we would, we can only cheer on the popularity of the film, for rarely has the corrupt essence of the state been so compellingly vivified on the silver screen.
March 20, 2006
Anthony Gregory [send him mail] is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is a research analyst at the Independent Institute. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.
Post by: TarpleyG on March 21, 2006, 04:54:39 AM
Quote
When a single man does something criminal, he is generally perceived as an anti-social element. When the state practices criminality on a much grander scale, it is considered security.
Sound familiar???I saw the movie on Saturday and loved it. I think every one should see it and take away from it what they will. What I have noticed is that the more conservative amonst us tend not to like it while the more liberal amongst us do seem to like it. Interesting how that works, isn't it.
Greg
Post by: xd9fan on March 21, 2006, 05:08:54 AM
Both Pro-Govt parties have equal chance of throwing this country into a legal dictatorship. They just go about it in two differant ways.......warfare and welfare.
The GOP better wake up and calm this "its for your security" crap down.
I have always felt that legal Conceal carry holders should have been adressed by the President to help keep your eyes and ears open. If a President calls on free Citizens to stay sharp, I have no problem with that. After all we are armed to protect ourselves, our famlies....and our streets if we have to. Instead the Admin tells us to look for the rainbow color warning system and to go buy socks(to keep the economy going...like good little drones)........some "war on terror".
The GOP better learn that War does not justifiy limiting our Civil Rights. I think that is why "V" hits home for me.
Post by: doczinn on March 21, 2006, 06:29:40 AM
Quote
Usually it's pretty rare for the US military to entirely target civvies.
So rare then as to be the eception that proves the rule, and the word you're looking for in the present day is "never."
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 21, 2006, 07:56:41 AM
Quote from: TarpleyG
Sound familiar???
I saw the movie on Saturday and loved it. I think every one should see it and take away from it what they will. What I have noticed is that the more conservative amonst us tend not to like it while the more liberal amongst us do seem to like it. Interesting how that works, isn't it.
Greg
Not very interesting at all, actually. A big part of the movie is a thinly disguised hatchet job against conservative views and values. Would you expect the conservatives to enjoy that as much as the loony fringe leftists?I saw the movie on Saturday and loved it. I think every one should see it and take away from it what they will. What I have noticed is that the more conservative amonst us tend not to like it while the more liberal amongst us do seem to like it. Interesting how that works, isn't it.
Greg
The movie advances the absurd notion that conservatives want to send homosexuals off to concentration camps. It supports the equally absurd notion that the war in Iraq will lead naturally towards a civil war in the US, and that this was the war's secret purpose all along. The heroes of the film are all people victimized by this straw-man depiction of conservative Hitler-wannabes.
As long as you accept it for what it is, a piece fantasy and fiction, "V for Vendetta" is entertaining enough. But it would have been much better without the kooky Michael Moore politics.
Post by: TarpleyG on March 21, 2006, 09:01:59 AM
Quote
It supports the equally absurd notion that the war in Iraq will lead naturally towards a civil war in the US,
This, I do believe, or at least believe that it is the catalyst, perhaps not the sole reason.Quote
and that this was the war's secret purpose all along
I don't believe it was engineered as such.Gregiguessi'makookTarpley
Post by: Firethorn on March 21, 2006, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
Not very interesting at all, actually. A big part of the movie is a thinly disguised hatchet job against conservative views and values. Would you expect the conservatives to enjoy that as much as the loony fringe leftists?
Call it strange, but I felt that the government wasn't so much conservative, as taking 'conservative' twist on the actions of Hitler and the Nazi party.Given that the liberals are currently in charge of the government, the dictator wanna-be took the side of a 'reform' party. Instigate a crisis where peole loose faith in their current leaders and look towards the other side for leadership.
Quote
The movie advances the absurd notion that conservatives want to send homosexuals off to concentration camps. It supports the equally absurd notion that the war in Iraq will lead naturally towards a civil war in the US, and that this was the war's secret purpose all along. The heroes of the film are all people victimized by this straw-man depiction of conservative Hitler-wannabes.
And the Nazis took some mild dislikes and turned them into death camps. It wasn't just the Jews that went there. Many 'undesirable' races such as the gypsies were also sent there.Quote
As long as you accept it for what it is, a piece fantasy and fiction, "V for Vendetta" is entertaining enough. But it would have been much better without the kooky Michael Moore politics.
Personally, I felt that the very over the topness of it robbed it of such a political message.
Post by: RevDisk on March 21, 2006, 11:06:42 AM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
The movie advances the absurd notion that conservatives want to send homosexuals off to concentration camps. It supports the equally absurd notion that the war in Iraq will lead naturally towards a civil war in the US, and that this was the war's secret purpose all along. The heroes of the film are all people victimized by this straw-man depiction of conservative Hitler-wannabes.
Yes, because no conservative political movement has sent homosexuals off to concentration camps in relatively recent history, right? As for "The Iraqi War causing a civil war in the US", remember this comes from the state TV in the movie. The same state TV which reports how much false news throughout the movie?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 21, 2006, 02:37:30 PM
Quote
its NSA-style surveillance of every home
Please.Quote
And the Nazis took some mild dislikes and turned them into death camps.
Mild dislikes? Are you joking, or do you just ignore Europe's long history of anti-Semitism? Were there not ghettos for Jews, and an inquisition against Jews? I am told that Passion plays often led to anti-Jewish violence. All I'm trying to say is that Nazism, I think, was acting on a history of deep-seated and often violent anti-Semitism, not a "mild dislike."Post by: Perd Hapley on March 21, 2006, 02:58:42 PM
Quote
Yes, because no conservative political movement has sent homosexuals off to concentration camps in relatively recent history, right?
I don't know which regime you're referring to, but what resemblance did they bear to modern American conservatism? The issue being discussed in this regard is whether the govt. in the film is meant to be a stand-in for a fully-developed American conservative govt. - Bush unleashed, if you will. Even if American conservatives could resurrect statutes against sodomy, they are far too libertarian for any kind of concentration camp nonsense. Come to think of it, American conservatism is too libertarian too outlaw sodomy. Do we seek to keep government from recognizing homosexual marriage? Yes, but that is a far cry from concentration camps - the two are in no way ideologically linked.For the record, homosexual marriage is an extension of government power, but we've beat that horse to death on this forum.
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
It supports the equally absurd notion that the war in Iraq will lead naturally towards a civil war in the US,
Quote from: TarpleyG
This, I do believe, or at least believe that it is the catalyst, perhaps not the sole reason.
Ya think? TarpleyG, perhaps you are a young fellow like me, and didn't see what went during the Vietnam war. From the impression that I get, the opposition to that war dwarfed anything we have today. If civil war erupts in this country, it will take much more of a catalyst than a very small, but successful war with few casualties, followed by a turbulent occupation with a few more casualties. Few casualties? Yes. Putting things in perspective, a few thousand is a blessedly small amount.Post by: Perd Hapley on March 21, 2006, 08:23:19 PM
Quote from: Blackburn
The closest thing to terrorism I can possibly think of would be the Boston Tea Party....
Calling the men of the Revolution 'terrorists' is beyond semantics, it's a misuse of verbage.
It's beyond that; it's a slander. I would really like to know of the terrorism comitted or condoned by the leadership of the American Revolution. Calling the men of the Revolution 'terrorists' is beyond semantics, it's a misuse of verbage.
I don't deny that some acts committed against loyalist families may have amounted to terrorism, but let us define the word. It refers to violence against non-military targets in order to make a political point. The actual war against Britain was not terrorism, it was...war. Mob violence against civilians could be called terrorism, but if so it was extremely mild form, especially when many of these civilians were govt. officials and not innocent bystanders. Milder still, if the leadership did not celebrate and demand it as do Bin Laden and his ilk.
Had the American revolutionaries wished to blow people up, they had no shortage of gunpowder and fuses. Sniping was certainly an option. I don't recall that such things happened. Instead, destruction of houses and property were common, and in some cases tarring and feathering. This last was painful, no doubt, but nothing to compare to the mass slaughter of modern terrorism.
The Boston Tea Party? Destruction of property, pure and simple. Direct action, maybe, but not terrorism. According to the two Oxford histories I consulted, (Morison and Middlekauf), no one was hurt. A padlock broken by mistake was replaced by the perpatrators. Yeah, that sounds just like Osama, don't it?
Post by: Strings on March 21, 2006, 08:23:23 PM
Haven't seen the movie yet. However, the fact that a movie with an anti-government message made it to the screen is somewhat amazing to me...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 21, 2006, 08:29:13 PM
Post by: Strings on March 21, 2006, 08:30:42 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 21, 2006, 08:42:45 PM
Quote
You must wait 60 seconds between posts.
Post by: Strings on March 22, 2006, 09:29:53 AM
"Rosie"?!?!!?
Post by: Glock Glockler on March 22, 2006, 10:06:18 AM
Post by: Antibubba on March 22, 2006, 03:18:53 PM
Eternal vigilance...
Post by: Guest on March 22, 2006, 03:43:12 PM
What I got out of it is, it's part of the debate about whether people can (and should?) change a government through violent or peaceful means. Basically, is MLKJr the appropriate model, or Huey Newton?
Prayers, or bombs?
Ghandi affected social change via non-violent means. BUT he himself was dead wrong about what would be needed to do that in Germany under Hitler. Ghandi wrote two letters to Adolf Hitler trying to get him to "play nice". Didn't work out so well. But worse, Ghandi advised the Jews of Europe to peacefully surrender to whatever the Nazis wanted to do while acknowledging that a heck of a lot of 'em would die. He felt that their peaceful sacrafice would convince the Nazis to turn themselves around.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Bigtime.
There are people out there so evil that flat-out killing them to death is the only sane, moral and practical answer. Ghandi couldn't see that. A lot of today's left can't either. I'm not sure whether MLKJr. realized it. I suspect he did but decided that the USofA circa 1960ish was morally no worse than Britain circa 1945 in India, which is probably about right.
In my view, the peaceful tools of Ghandi/King are just that, a tool to be used when possible but set aside when not practical. That's when things get ugly to prevent uglier.
V MOVIE SPOILER ALERT BELOW!
In "V" they came up with an interesting middle ground. Assassinate the top-level creeps and then use Ghandi/MLKJr-style non-violence resistence against the lower ranks and hope that with the "head cut off the beast" the lower levels will hold their fire.
It's...hmmm...not entirely crazy. Unlikely, yeah, but...
Makes me wonder whether we should have dealt with Saddam via plain ol' assassination. Of Saddam and his sicko sons. A decent case can be made for it...
Spoiler over.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2006, 05:01:46 PM
Quote
I'm not sure whether MLKJr. realized it. I suspect he did but decided that the USofA circa 1960ish was morally no worse than Britain circa 1945 in India, which is probably about right.
I think you may be asking the wrong question here. Violent overthrow is something to be seriously considered only after petition, protest and politics have failed. Such violence is justified by necessity, not by what the other side is guilty of.
Post by: Guest on March 22, 2006, 05:25:01 PM
sadamn being sadamn, I believe that the only real option we had, was to take him out, and then try to sort out the aftermath to our best advantage as we are doing now.
Post by: Guest on March 22, 2006, 05:26:29 PM
Post by: Guest on March 22, 2006, 05:30:56 PM
If it is clearly unsafe to speak out based on what's happened to others who have done so, it is not necessary to voluntarily stick your own head on the chopping block. That's the time to hoist the Jolly Roger and start cutting throats.
NOTE: "unsafe" is definable as "gonna get you killed or disappeared" - NOT "gonna get you thrown in the county jail for a few days (or even months) until a judge brings the local cops under control and pops you loose".
I hope the difference is clear. I say that as somebody jailed for 18 hours in San Diego for daring to excercise my right to observe the counting of the vote during an election...a right I excercised completely unarmed. I'm not trying to brag, I'm simply saying that this issue isn't theoretical to me.
Post by: Guest on March 22, 2006, 05:33:32 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2006, 06:34:14 PM
Quote
If it is clearly unsafe to speak out based on what's happened to others who have done so, it is not necessary to voluntarily stick your own head on the chopping block. That's the time to hoist the Jolly Roger and start cutting throats.
And hoisting the Jolly Roger* and cutting throats won't lead you to the chopping block? Violent revolutions may be proper at times, but they are certainly no way to avoid being "killed or disappeared." The point is that either route will be dangerous to your health, but which is appropriate to the situation? It seems to me that violent overthrow must, first, be morally justified; and second, enjoy popular support. Otherwise, you're just having a temper tantrum that gets you, and the cause, in worse trouble.Jim, MLK's approach worked. He was killed, and it still worked. If I remember right, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, as in more than one, were listening to the man. His approach swayed public opinion. Black Power violence would only have proved that Blacks were a dangerous race to be kept in their place by repression and occasional lynchings.
*the Jolly Roger is a symbol of either freelance piracy, or piracy in service of a hostile govt. Either way, this is an odd symbol to use for the defense of one's rights. Yes, I know, it comes from a well-known quotation.
Post by: xd9fan on March 22, 2006, 08:53:46 PM
The beauty of the Founding Fathers as that their/the Declaration of Independance (to the world)
".....The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world......"
gave them the moral high ground.
They simple said we dont like this and we are leaving this tryanny. And the British response was "No" you will stay with us or you will die. And so we did not start the fight...we just defended ourselves (which is defending the Right to be free). The moral high ground.
I do think V's actions where/are justified. The "State" is far more of a killing machine than V.
Post by: Guest on March 23, 2006, 07:23:44 AM
Big difference and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point: MLKJr's death wasn't grounds for general revolt and his followers (not to mention wife) wisely saw that.
Put it another way:
You're a Jew circa 1940 in the Warsaw Ghetto. You can fight or you can get on a cattle car. Which do you choose?
Or if you prefer, people are getting PUT on cattle cars. Maybe not you, maybe your "type" isn't "targetted". Yet. Which path do you take?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 23, 2006, 07:53:22 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
If it is clearly unsafe to speak out based on what's happened to others who have done so, it is not necessary to voluntarily stick your own head on the chopping block. That's the time to hoist the Jolly Roger and start cutting throats.
And hoisting the Jolly Roger* and cutting throats won't lead you to the chopping block? Violent revolutions may be proper at times, but they are certainly no way to avoid being "killed or disappeared." The point is that either route will be dangerous to your health, but which is appropriate to the situation? It seems to me that violent overthrow must, first, be morally justified; and second, enjoy popular support. Otherwise, you're just having a temper tantrum that gets you, and the cause, in worse trouble.Jim, MLK's approach worked. He was killed, and it still worked. If I remember right, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, as in more than one, were listening to the man. His approach swayed public opinion. Black Power violence would only have proved that Blacks were a dangerous race to be kept in their place by repression and occasional lynchings.
*the Jolly Roger is a symbol of either freelance piracy, or piracy in service of a hostile govt. Either way, this is an odd symbol to use for the defense of one's rights. Yes, I know, it comes from a well-known quotation.
Violent resistance doesn't need to have popular support. It, especially if wildly successful or, contrariwise, over-brutally suppressed, can GALVANIZE popular support from those who would otherwise just meekly continue muddling along the fence.
And it always needs to be made clear that MLK and Ghandi's tactics only worked because of the relative civilization and moral tenor of the societies they were resisting. Occasional brutality by govt. agents in the South or India does not equate to a Nazi, Khmer Rouge or Red China govt. Non-violent resistance just makes it easier for those in power with no civilized moral code to sweep up the dissidents en masse at no danger to themselves and utterly (udderly
Post by: tyme on March 23, 2006, 09:17:05 AM
Quote
The closest thing to terrorism I can possibly think of would be the Boston Tea Party, and that didn't involve kids being blown up in a pizzaria.
There was a lot of terrorism, but it gets glossed over in history books. Revolutionaries (remember, they were a small minority... estimates suggest that 2/3 of the people were neutral or supported the Crown) harassed and committed property crimes (including vandalism and arson) against British supporters.Quote
Violent overthrow is something to be seriously considered only after petition, protest and politics have failed. Such violence is justified by necessity, not by what the other side is guilty of.
Political violence is never a strict necessity. It is always possible to live in relative peace under the yoke of an oppressive government. And then there's the option of non-violent influence...I'm reading, and strongly recommend, Gene Sharp's Politics of Nonviolent Action part 2 - Methods of Nonviolent Action, isbn 0875580718. It's in essence a catalogue of ways to exert political influence without resorting to violence.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 23, 2006, 03:24:50 PM
I'm glad to hear that claim again about terrorism in the American Revolution. I'd like to know any specific incidents anyone can remember that were acts of violence against civilians who were not govt. officials. It seems I've heard about such things, but can't remember where. I'd also like to know if such things were endorsed or promoted by leaders of the movement.
Quote
Political violence is never a strict necessity.
I agree, and maybe I used the wrong word there. Would you also agree that war is never a "last resort"? In my opinion, the last resort is capitulation.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 23, 2006, 03:41:03 PM
I think we probably agree on this whole issue for the most part; we're probably just talking past each other. Perhaps if I saw this V movie I'd have a better idea of what you mean.
Quote from: JimMarch
You're a Jew circa 1940 in the Warsaw Ghetto. You can fight or you can get on a cattle car. Which do you choose?
Or if you prefer, people are getting PUT on cattle cars. Maybe not you, maybe your "type" isn't "targetted". Yet. Which path do you take?
Well, now we're talking about resisting an occupying military or a collaborationist government, so it's a different situation. Seems like time for organized violent resistance, to me. Even in Germany, a wise man named Bonhoffer was party to an assasination attempt on der Fuhrer.Or if you prefer, people are getting PUT on cattle cars. Maybe not you, maybe your "type" isn't "targetted". Yet. Which path do you take?
Quote from: carebear
Violent resistance doesn't need to have popular support.
Actually, I was talking about violent overthrow. Not just resistance, but a toppling of the extant government.
Post by: Strings on March 23, 2006, 09:02:03 PM
Post by: O.F.Fascist on March 24, 2006, 09:41:01 PM
While there were a few things I disliked about the movie, I definately liked the overall message.
On the topic of the Civil War in America, here is my take on that.
Unlike the British who had no means with which to resist tryanny and thus became resigned to it, we Americans have the means and choose to fight it, and thus the Civil War.
Post by: RevDisk on March 30, 2006, 06:02:54 AM
Warning, do not click on link if you haven't seen the movie yet. Nothing BUT spoilers.
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: O.F.Fascist
On the topic of the Civil War in America, here is my take on that.
Unlike the British who had no means with which to resist tryanny and thus became resigned to it, we Americans have the means and choose to fight it, and thus the Civil War.
We had our own civil war, and it had something to do with resisting tyrannical authorities. Nobody likes civil wars. I've just been reading Beevor's 'The Spanish Civil War', some of the stuff in there reminds you that civil wars are far from civil, and in fact may be the furthest.
Unlike the British who had no means with which to resist tryanny and thus became resigned to it, we Americans have the means and choose to fight it, and thus the Civil War.