posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:17 AM
*Please do not be put off by the length of this thread, and if you really cant bear reading the intro, dont worry too much because the main
point are under the subheading below.*
Recent events in Iran have shown me something absurd. Not the events themselves, more the way the western media presents those events to us. So to
start off I'd like to briefly explain what has been going through my mind recently when watching the news:
First and foremost is why. Why am i being shown this story today, at this time in our civilisations history, as opposed to the many other events
currently being ignored by the people whos job it is to "inform". It could simply be that sometimes the people doing the reporting genuinely do not
know what else there is to report. But seeing as we have global communications far wider reaching than ever before, i find it difficult to beleive
that the content of a particular news program doesn't have some sort of set agenda. Who sets that agenda, and why? I do not care to speculate in this
thread. Im more intersted in the implications and affects of such agendas.
Secondly, how is this news being presented to me. Does the presenter or reporter use an excess of emotive language? And what emotion(s) are they
trying to make me feel about what im being told. These questions (and similar) are my anti propoganda tools.
So, are you equipt? Good, now read on my dear friend.
Making all wars history (how i would approach this issue)
The way wars happen today completely baffles me. Not because i have misunderstood the nature of the conflicts. Its more due to the fact that the west
(well okay the UK and USA.... at least!) consistently make no attempt whatsoever to understand the culture and mindsets of those they consider a
"threat", or those who "need our intervention" (foreign policy). In addition to this, we take very little consideration of what those differences
actually mean. For example, when you say to an Englishman "philosophy" a typical response might be along the lines of "yea its interesting, you
know,, whats the meaning of life an all that" - please try your best to forgive these sweeping generalisations im currently providing. just think
about the main point of what im saying - But if you were to say "philosophy" to a frenchman his typical response might be "Of course! Philosophy,
something very important we must think about as human beings." Can you see the difference. Its sublte, very subtle, but i think very indicative of
the difference in cultural values. How values are expressed is for me very important in understanding the significance of that value, which
shows how much we truly value it. no?
As for values themselves, i think we are long overdue some sort of public discussion concerning, not just what our own values really are as a
community, but more importantly how those values differ to the rest of the world. And for that to happen we need to do something we have for too long
negleted; understand as much as possible about the cultures of other countries we have an active working relationship with, especially if that
relationship is even slightly moving closer to conflict and war.
Now another question arises however. Why hasn't this been done yet!? People wonder why diplomacy doesn't work to resolve all conflicts, when really
it should, for the sake of innocent lives. Because, when values differ there is usually a fundamental difference between what is means to be human
too. So understanding that difference is the first step. Even if it means waking up to the fact that certain aspects of your culture are flawed in
comparison. the second step i think should be to understand what is commonly valued by the humans of the conflicting societies, not just valued
materially (as the west could be summed up), but spiritially, socially (many important subtleties lie here), emotionally, intillectually, politically
and so on.