Where are our social dissidents?

[FrankS]

We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. (1984)

 

[antiquark]

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!)

 

[bmattock]

We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. (1984)

We are not at war. America's military is at war. America is at the mall.

 

[bmattock]

You know, that kind of rhetoric is a little spooky to me.

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]

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

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not for everyone. Some are sheep and some are sheepdogs.

Dear Bill,

And it is a legitimate debate as to which are which.

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

bmattock, nice photo, very socially dissident.

 

[goo0h]

The presumption of the O/P was that documentary photography needs to be done because of how awful we all are.

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?

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]

I am here to serve as a voice of dissent.

Everytime one of these threads gets going, someone starts taking it on a very leftist political route.

I really hate these Bush Sucks threads and have made a promise to myself that if the political tides ever turn, I will take every opportunity available to throw the same egg back to the faces of the "Bush Sucks, Bush Lies, People Die" people for an equal ammount of time because payback is hell...

Maybe I am the true radical and voice of dissent here - I am not running with the crowd, I think our president's reaction was VERY restrained given the circumstances... and has continued to be an understated response to a crucial situation...

I seem to recall several places in the world where Clinton should have stuck his boot in a country's arse -- hmmm so maybe we should have tried this holler "Bill squirts, people die!" --- I almost decided to do some urban warefare during primary elections in the vein of the Chicago 7 -- I was going to stand at a busy street corner loaded with hillary supporters -- holding a sign proclaiming "Show your t1ts for Hillary"

I truly believe most of the screaming frothing liberals are one of the more serious problems ---

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

Amen Brother.

 

[xayraa33]

I was so hoping for Michelle Obama to don a pink pillbox hat two days ago in dallas --- I was waiting for his convertable to drive around Dealey Plaza --- history always begs to repeat itself --

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]

I'll go with answer #5.

 

[xayraa33]

If you can answer this question correclty, it would affect where you should direct your ire and plan for social change:

Who currently controls America?
1) The FreeMasons
2) It's a zionist occupied government (the jews)
3) A New World Order (Illuminati)
4) George W Bush
5) Large Corporations (Who controls them?)
6) The Skull and Crossbones (a small group of wealthy and powerful white men)


Pick your flavor of conspiracy cereal -- truth be told, Obama, Clinton, McCain, George Bush, and so forth on down to congress and others are NOT acting independently -- someone is pulling the strings and playing puppetmaster ---

so, the real thing is liberal or conservative? doesn't really matter, the end result is the same --- they will only go so far as Gepetto allows...

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]

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]

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)

 

[bcostin]

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.

 

[tripod]

maybe the world doesn't need saving --- the problem is not the world itself - but it's an animal control problem -- man has been killing man since cain and abel or cavemen (perspective), israel and the mideast has been an issue since the split and the curse --- we as a species failed to intervene on behalf of other men on countless genocides - Chairman Mao, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Napoleon, General Sherman's march to Atlanta, Che, Noriega, everything going on in Africa for the past 200 years --- no democrat or republican has intervened seriously in Africa -- their genocides are not as important i guess == and so forth --- what makes man's actions any different than anything in our past?

go, son, go save the world ---

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]

Here's the real question I ask myself every day - if I bust my butt working (outside of my day job,) pound away as a working class artist, produce thousands of photographs, make my points - maybe even some people see the work - does it matter? Are people in this country interested in work that isn't endorsed by one of the major media outlets? Is social photography a complete waste of time if there is no significant audience?

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.