Five, six, seven...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill, this is going back to the absolutism thing again (post #102). Probably we should blame the invention of travel. Before people found out there were other cultures around the world which were different (and therefore "wrong") perhaps everyone was a bit more content.

Most/all religious and moral systems worked in their own place, otherwise they wouldn't have developed that way. This is what I mean when I mentioned that I really don't mind if other people want to honestly worship something or other. Although I disagree they might be truthful, I can see that these things are frequently an excellent and compassionate system for societies to follow.

A problem with instilling specific moral attributes may be that our individual morals are a product of our individual upbringing, so are different here and there. The point of a society type of system is(?) that it is successful at benefiting everyone in it, whether providing food and shelter or emotional support. So it doesn't just always mean the other group is wrong (note that I am not suggesting violence is an answer that anyone should want to use). One of the functions of governments/leadership is to provide an inter-personal structure to the citizens/subjects isn't it ? I do think that the least harmful moral system for a society is one that is shared, rather than varying slightly from family to family (extremes excepted of course) so the education system in most industrialised countries might be a good place to organise that.

But, we were talking about the context, and hence "meaning", of some photos from Afghanistan weren't we ? I hope that we have returned to that while I have been typing this rubbish.

PS. The camera case could, of course, be made from a non-living material which I haven't met yet but which is better than the stuff used by Contax/Yashica . . .
 
Relax guys, go out and take a photograph.
...I just blame everything on the Jesuits and move on.🙂
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

Sorry, I must be misunderstanding you here. Do you or don't you believe that the schools should counter hatred (e.g. race-hate, religious supremacy) if it is taught by parents?
Click to expand...

Sorry, let me make it clear - no.

If I read you right -- and as I say, I cannot believe that I do -- then you are saying, "Parents should not teach racism, but if they do, it is no business of the schools to attempt to counter this".
Click to expand...

Correct. That is my belief.

Likewise, if parents teach creationism, it is scarcely possible for the school not to teach evolution, as the accepted scientific norm, disbelieved only by those with a religious agenda supported only by a Holy Book without strong supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with schools teaching evolution, as it is the currently-accepted scientific standard. If parents wish to teach their children that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, I believe that is their prerogative as parents. Likewise, if they wish to find a private school that will teach their child creationism, I have no problem with that.

By the same token, I can't quite see what is reactionary in this stance.
Click to expand...

Not the stance, Roger - the choice of words.

Saying that I think parents should teach their values to their children and not schools is not the same as saying I think racism is nifty keen. That was the reactionary bit.
 
Errrrm, I don't want to sound too confusing, but the quote you gave from me was initially used a bit ambiguously Roger, and perhaps this is what Pitxu saw, though you tided it up in the next few posts.

What I had intended to mean is that the broadness of a society may be somewhat dependent on the breadth of the education and information available (and possibly vice versa, though that is another discussion). The breadth of ideas within the society would usually then be reflected in the leadership of in some sort of consensual form, regardless of whether it is an industrialised western arrangement or not. I am specifically trying to avoid declaring system-X is right and system-Y is wrong, because that is not the way to progress on anything is it ?

Back to the photo-essay, which is why we are here. Do our american co-members have any feelings about what would be "too much" to see in such an essay, published in the US, what and why ?
EDIT: Being more clear, what would be the reason for publishing, or not publishing something at the moment - do the election campaigns affect the published photo-journalism ?
 
Last edited:
what a load of horse manure this thread has turned into!!

most of you should take your soap boxes and find a real street corner and see how long the debate lasts!

this thread has long since stopped being even remotely about photography, photographers or images.

get ready for the closed sign to go up.
joe
 
back alley said:
what a load of horse manure this thread has turned into!!

most of you should take your soap boxes and find a real street corner and see how long the debate lasts!

this thread has long since stopped being even remotely about photography, photographers or images.

get ready for the closed sign to go up.
joe
Click to expand...

Joe, I thought that everyone has been pretty polite with each other, which I'll admit is amazing. But I don't see a real problem here. Just my 2 cents.
 
bmattock said:
I have no problem with schools teaching evolution, as it is the currently-accepted scientific standard. If parents wish to teach their children that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, I believe that is their prerogative as parents. Likewise, if they wish to find a private school that will teach their child creationism, I have no problem with that.
.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

The basic problem here is that we have completely different definitions of the word 'reactionary'. Someone who supports the world-view of (at best) 100 years ago, and has no problem with parents looking for schools to support that view, strikes me as the reactionary, in that they are reacting against all the scientific evidence of the last 150 or so years and (as I have said) the zeitgeist.

To be sure, no-one can stop you holding such views (though equally, no-one is obliged to regard them as reasonable) but it does seem odd to me that you accuse me of being the reactionary.

Perhaps -- and I do not wish to be unduly contentious -- it is your world-picture which leads you to be naturally antipathetic to what you see as extending the bounds of debate beyond the limits which you consider should exist, whereas those more in tune with the 21st century may not see the limits as being quite so narrow.

I am all too aware that "more in tune with the 21st century" may sound patronizing, but as evolution has been generally accepted as far more convincing than creationism for over 100 years, and shows no sign of being overturned by any evidence whatsoever, your view does seem to me, well, reactionary and of the 19th century, not the 21st.

I am also aware that I am walking on very thin ice here, and that there are plenty who will say, "This is a photographic forum, not a political forum', While this is true, I (and several others) would contend that it is impossible to separate politics fully from most other aspects of life, and that wheh politics raises its head, it may be as well to address questions as tactfully as possible, rather thasn to close them down for fear of where they may lead.

I hope I have addressed them tactfully, and I am most grateful for your straightforwardness in spelling out your position on the questions I raised. Now that we uderstand one another's position, I feel no need to press you further, but if you wish to press me on anything, I shall do my best to answer.

Cheers,

Roger
 
back alley said:
what a load of horse manure this thread has turned into!!

most of you should take your soap boxes and find a real street corner and see how long the debate lasts!

this thread has long since stopped being even remotely about photography, photographers or images.

get ready for the closed sign to go up.
joe
Click to expand...

What he said. I'll refrain from posting my thoughts, as I'm not in the mood to throw gasoline onto a fire...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

The basic problem here is that we have completely different definitions of the word 'reactionary'. Someone who supports the world-view of (at best) 100 years ago, and has no problem with parents looking for schools to support that view, strikes me as the reactionary, in that they are reacting against all the scientific evidence of the last 150 or so years and (as I have said) the zeitgeist.
Click to expand...

We seem not to be able to come to terms on the meaning of the word, so let me please retract. I do not think your viewpoint is reactionary - just your choice of words, and only that one specific set of them.

To be sure, no-one can stop you holding such views (though equally, no-one is obliged to regard them as reasonable) but it does seem odd to me that you accuse me of being the reactionary.
Click to expand...

I withdraw the term. I really did not mean 'you'.

Perhaps -- and I do not wish to be unduly contentious -- it is your world-picture which leads you to be naturally antipathetic to what you see as extending the bounds of debate beyond the limits which you consider should exist, whereas those more in tune with the 21st century may not see the limits as being quite so narrow.

I am all too aware that "more in tune with the 21st century" may sound patronizing, but as evolution has been generally accepted as far more convincing than creationism for over 100 years, and shows no sign of being overturned by any evidence whatsoever, your view does seem to me, well, reactionary and of the 19th century, not the 21st.
Click to expand...

Actually, I haven't said what my view is. I have no problems with the teaching of evolution, as I've stated. My *personal* views are just that - and if I had a child and wanted him taught my personal beliefs, I'd do so - but I'd not complain that he or she was also being taught evolution in the schools.

I am also aware that I am walking on very thin ice here, and that there are plenty who will say, "This is a photographic forum, not a political forum', While this is true, I (and several others) would contend that it is impossible to separate politics fully from most other aspects of life, and that wheh politics raises its head, it may be as well to address questions as tactfully as possible, rather thasn to close them down for fear of where they may lead.

I hope I have addressed them tactfully, and I am most grateful for your straightforwardness in spelling out your position on the questions I raised. Now that we uderstand one another's position, I feel no need to press you further, but if you wish to press me on anything, I shall do my best to answer.
Click to expand...

I have no complaints about our discussion thus far. I think you misunderstand me as being in favor of a particular brand of world-view being taught - or withheld - from public schools. I am more in favor of letting parents control what beliefs they wish their children to be inculcated with than I am the schools. Ultimately, my trust is more in people than in government, whatever the curriculum. I tend not to trust government to 'do the right thing' in any given situation.
 
MartinP said:
Errrrm, I don't want to sound too confusing, but the quote you gave from me was initially used a bit ambiguously Roger, and perhaps this is what Pitxu saw, though you tided it up in the next few posts.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Martin, I had no desire to traduce you.

I am sure we are in agreement: education is the key.

My argument is that all and any input -- including a 'free' press, even if its 'freedom' is limited by editors, money, political pressures, and the zeitgeist -- is inherently valuable, the more so if people are encouraged to look at the so-called 'free' press critically.

Indeed, I would argue that being taught to think critically is one of the most important things in education. For example, consider four possible responses to the pictures (there are of course others):

1 What brave young men, fighting on our behalf!

2 How can our leaders waste lives like this?

3 What unfortunate young men, to be fighting an unwinnable war.

4 Thank God I'm not out there!

The intriguing thing is that these are not mutually exclusive, though they are usually published with the intention of inspiring only one of the above reactions (or some other specific reaction wished for by the publisher).

If you are taught to think critically, you are unlikely to choose only one of those reactions; you will be pulled in several directions, and you may in due course (armed with other information as well) make up your mind for yourself.

If on the other hand you are taught always to believe what you are told, and you are presented with a framework in which one of the above reactions is strongly suggested -- the classic Party Line -- then in the absence of further information (including the absence of a free press) there is a grievous danger that you will fall into one of the propaganda traps that is laid for you.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Well, we are not exactly 'on topic' anymore, although it was not clearly defined to start with we are certainly no longer on it . . . .
🙁

EDIT: In the last few minutes I have missed more posts - maybe i should go on a speed-typing course.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
I tend not to trust government to 'do the right thing' in any given situation.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

We are not alone in this!

But I'm not sure that 'government' equates (in particular) to 'schools'. Schoolteachers are people who live in the same town as you; who went to the same schools and university; who buy things at the same shops; who may even go to the same church.

I am very much against rigorously enforced national curricula, and against the Party Line in schools. I am a qualified teacher (though I gave it up in my 20s) and more than once I offered to resign over refusing to toe what was held up as the Party Line but turned out to be local prejudice. My resignations were never accepted.

In other words, I have no problem with one teacher telling kids that evolution is true, one telling them that creationism is true, and as many of them as possible telling them that they need to examine evidence and think for themselves. I have a much greater problem with anyone teaching them anything, no matter what it is, unless they encourage the children to ask difficult questions.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

We are not alone in this!

But I'm not sure that 'government' equates (in particular) to 'schools'. Schoolteachers are people who live in the same town as you; who went to the same schools and university; who buy things at the same shops; who may even go to the same church.

I am very much against rigorously enforced national curricula, and against the Party Line in schools. I am a qualified teacher (though I gave it up in my 20s) and more than once I offered to resign over refusing to toe what was held up as the Party Line but turned out to be local prejudice. My resignations were never accepted.

In other words, I have no problem with one teacher telling kids that evolution is true, one telling them that creationism is true, and as many of them as possible telling them that they need to examine evidence and think for themselves. I have a much greater problem with anyone teaching them anything, no matter what it is, unless they encourage the children to ask difficult questions.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

My wife's siblings are nearly all school teachers in the NYC system. One is also a high-ranking muckity-muck in the teacher's union. So at least I've had to opportunity to discuss some of this with them.

In the USA, local school boards tend to control curricula. This does not just tell the teachers what books to use - it very often tells them what to teach and how to teach it.

Some parents of, shall we say, 'edge' viewpoints, have figured out long ago that most people don't pay a lot of attention to the school board elections. It is fairly easy to 'stack the deck' of many small to medium sized towns with those who feel a certain way. Often they run unopposed. In larger cities, it is more difficult, but there are PACs and and big money to bring to bear on getting those powerful, but little-known, people elected.

These are things I fear.
 
After reading Roger's post #113, the context we could search for in the reporting might be coming back in to the viewfinder.

We don't know what was going through the mind of the photographer when he accepted the embedding, or of the commissioning-editor when they picked the project (at whatever stage, maybe it was even shot on spec) - but is the project seen as information, or dis-information, or neutral news, or art, or ?

My feeling was that the intention was that people should be questioning why these guys were sent there doing this particular job. By that I mean in the national and international area, not at a human level on the ground. Isn't it our separate knowledge (based on education and information, again) that affects how we see the images, whether they are Art or a Political tool ? An exhibition of this sort of project is meant to encourage debate, isn't it ? (But maybe not in this forum, sorry for that back-alley).

These are not well-exposed photographs of a cauliflower at f128, after all....

[Probably this post comes after several others, due to time lag in refreshing, typing, thinking etc.]
 
bmattock said:
. . . In larger cities, it is more difficult, but there are PACs and and big money to bring to bear on getting those powerful, but little-known, people elected.

These are things I fear.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Entirely legitimately. But this is not quite the same as 'government', and is an indictment of elected school boards.

Also, a teacher that will not resign under pressure to teach loony beliefs -- and make a stink about it -- should not be teaching.

Cheers,

Roger
 
bmattock said:
Joe, I thought that everyone has been pretty polite with each other, which I'll admit is amazing. But I don't see a real problem here. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

polite, do you mean before or after all the threads that have been deleted?
no matter, i'm not talking about politness but the fact that this thread has nothing to do with photography.

there are many political forums out there for all to partake.
joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom