FrankS
Registered User
We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. (1984)
antiquark
Derek Ross
Hey, it's easy to be a social dissident: next time you're in a voting booth, place your vote for Barack Obama. Piece of cake! No photography necessary! 
(Too bad I'm a Canuck!)
(Too bad I'm a Canuck!)
bmattock
Veteran
FrankS said:
We are not at war. America's military is at war. America is at the mall.
bmattock
Veteran
sitemistic said:
Imagine how I react when I see read about the city of Berkeley, CA sending a letter to the US Marines stating that they are unwelcome and unwanted guests and that they are required to register like sex offenders due to their predatory nature, which (literally) encourages people everywhere to 'harass, detain, and hinder' US Marines wherever they find them. I suppose to be expected out of Berkeley, but then I read the mayor of Toledo, Ohio, tossed out Marine reservists drilling prior to deployment to Iraq according to previously agreed-upon rules with the city because 'men with guns scare people', that is a little spooky to me.
When I see the sheer, seathing hatred in the eyes of Code Pink marchers who insist that they don't hate the troops but who denigrate our veterans (they are the troops, duh) as dupes, tools, idiots and criminals, I find that rhetoric a little spooky.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
One odd little thought here. When was the last time American troops fought for their country?
Not 'against communism' or 'for oil' or 'in support of UN objectives' but in defence of their homeland, as in WW2?
This is not to denigrate the profession of arms. My father served in the Royal Navy (and both my grandfathers were killed in the Royal Navy in WW2), and I have several relatives in various branches of the armed services, including a cousin who is a colonel. But it struck me as an interesting question.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Roger
Not 'against communism' or 'for oil' or 'in support of UN objectives' but in defence of their homeland, as in WW2?
This is not to denigrate the profession of arms. My father served in the Royal Navy (and both my grandfathers were killed in the Royal Navy in WW2), and I have several relatives in various branches of the armed services, including a cousin who is a colonel. But it struck me as an interesting question.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,bmattock said:
And it is a legitimate debate as to which are which.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
bmattock, nice photo, very socially dissident.
goo0h
Well-known
Well, that wasn't the impression I got. I felt that the OP was struggling for a sense of meaning in a society that, whether we like it or not, has become pretty glib and superficial. At the heart of the OP's expression of frustration, I thought, was "why bother?" I thought it was a very real concern. How does one combine the practical life of paying the bills with one's passion for photography? How does one keep from feeling disenchanted with photography because at times it seems like a waste of time and money, and not all of us have tons of money to blow? What drove those in the past that produced remarkable documentary work, and how did it bring meaning to their lives and to the lives of others? How much, if any, does social documentary photography impact society, anyway?bmattock said:
I have to admit to pondering similar things myself lately. While I was home sick with the flu last week, I was looking through old books on Walker Evans, W. Eugine Smith, Frank Capa, and Dorothea Lange. I also just ordered the new book on Gerda Taro (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3865215327).
I can sympathize with the OP's frustration. About 15 years ago, due to a myriad of reasons, I totally bailed on photography. One of those was a sense of "why bother?" Then I realized: "because it makes me happy!" Duh. (Well, when you grow up poor, sometimes that reason isn't always sufficient.) And despite having a long held appreciation for social documentary, will I ever achieve such work? Probably not. But that doesn't stop my enjoyment of what others are doing, nor does it stop my enjoyment of tinkering with a camera, even if at times it's a bit pathetic.
I think it's somewhat unfortunate, but sadly inevitable, that someone's sincere expression of frustration turns into a political pissing match. Folks need to not take things so personally all the time.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
memphis said:
Amen! I got myself in trouble once by stating something about the "approved worldview" of RFF. What I was talking about is plainly evident in this thread. (And I don't believe it is intentional on the part of the mods or the owner, it kind of rears it's head on it's own). I come here to read about rangefinders, not to read anti-Bush or anti-Christian or anti-American screeds. There are plenty of places on the web where people of various political stripes (any of them) can go and have a circle jerk. This should not be the place. Just my opinion. I'm off to find my flame-retardant undershorts...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
bmattock said:
Amen to that as well Bill.
I was too young to have joined many of you in SE Asia, but I do remember the lack of respect shown to returning servicemen in the 1970's.
Thank you for your service.
dadsm3
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
Roger: Had the US stepped in to stop another petty dictator with a clear expansionist agenda , say, in 1938, would that have been "in defense of their homeland"? Probaby not, but 20M dead is a pretty strong argument in favour of it.
Was kicking Saddam out of Kuwait another example of American adventurism? I guess Saddam would have used all that oil money to redistribute the wealth and secure free healthcare for his people, and the other Gulf states and Israel would sleep soundly.
The people who scream about American intervention in Afghanistan, where crazy religious fanatics are killing people, are the very same who scream about American indifference in Darfur, where crazy religious fanatics are killing people.
I'll stop short of calling these people historically ignorant, maybe just naive.
But the only thing worse than American interventionism is American isolationism, and I think history backs this argument up pretty soundly.
Mike
dazedgonebye
Veteran
dadsm3 said:
Amen Brother.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
memphis said:
the sad thing is that this scenario has crossed my mind, when their man Obama starts thinking for himself and has to be replaced with VP Hillary.
America does not need to get into any more Inquisitorial wars, and finally stop being a huge war machine controlled by an outside force.
tripod
Well-known
I'll go with answer #5.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
memphis said:
there is a 7th one on the list that controls the six that you mention.
it all fully started with the 14th amendment when America stopped being the great Free Republic that George Washington created.
tripod
Well-known
I think he was rich enough and connected enough to become leader and protector of multi-national business interests, esp. petro-chemical. Certainly not based on intellectual merit. Just my opinion.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
Most people in the UK don't vote as it really does not matter any more, they (politicians) all fill the same pot and feather their own nests. Our current "leader" is unelected anyway don't you just love democracy ? (or elected autocracy as it has become)
don't you just love democracy ? (or elected autocracy as it has become)
bcostin
Well-known
Photography as a vehicle for social change has always been overrated. IMHO, this is primarly because many photographers and photojournalists followed their print bretheren and abandoned objectivity and professionalism to become part of whatever world-changing movment was popular at the time. Or, even less useful, movements of 40 years ago. That's their choice, of course, but they shouldn't be surprised when people wonder if that amazing shot is really just another bit of fauxtography, staged or fabricated because the real world stubbornly refuses to yield photos that fit their message. Or if people look at their work skeptically and ask what else is out there that they're not taking pictures of.
There's plenty of very important photo work coming out of Iraq and the Middle East right now, for example. Unfortunately much of it tends to support points of view that are politically unpopular among other mainstream photojournalist. Or they were taken (horrors!) by millitary photographers who, unlike themselves, have suspect motives. If you're only willing to accept one possible view of the world then challenges to that worldview are uncomfortable and easy to ignore.
There's plenty of very important photo work coming out of Iraq and the Middle East right now, for example. Unfortunately much of it tends to support points of view that are politically unpopular among other mainstream photojournalist. Or they were taken (horrors!) by millitary photographers who, unlike themselves, have suspect motives. If you're only willing to accept one possible view of the world then challenges to that worldview are uncomfortable and easy to ignore.
tripod
Well-known
memphis said:
Simply because there is no oil there. The "interventions" are not about helping people, it is about securing valuable resources for consumer nations. (Man, am I cynical!)
kmack
do your job, then let go
williams473 said:
You are responsible for your work. if you put the maximum amount of thought and effort into your craft as you can spare, then it is not a waste of time.
Film, properly developed and stored, can last for hundreds of years. Time enough.