Today we looked at a photograph from yesterday's Los Angeles Times depicting the graphic violence occurring in Baghdad. The photo, taken by Karim Kadim of the Associated Press, shows three Iraqi men carrying wounded small children (perhaps toddlers) covered in blood either unconscious or dead. The headline reads "Clashes kill more than 20 in Sadr City" and the subtitle reads "Mortar shells land in residential areas. The deaths of five U.S. troops are reported". The description under the photo reads "Young victims: wounded children are taken to a hospital ...by foot because of a ban on vehicles in the Shiite stronghold, where militiamen are battling Iraqi and U.S. Forces". The photo is found on page 5.
In class we looked at issues surrounding violence in the media and the danger of becoming desensitized. The photo in the Los Angeles Times is an example of one type of violent imagery found in the media. What is your reaction to the photograph?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I can’t say that my reaction was of sympathy, but more of anger. We’ve seen too many photographs like that which have managed to not only desensitize us, but almost make it seem normal. You mentioned in class that these are the types of photos that should be printed so that we can see the atrocities that are being committed, but I would bet everything I own that this photo is just a toned down version of what is truly happening.
Unfortunately, I like many others have managed to tune out what has been going on in the Middle East, but that doesn’t take away the fact that seeing little children being injured and killed angers me. I honestly don’t know who to blame more, the president, the soldiers, or the extremists. In regards to the soldiers and extremists, excuses such as they are only doing what they are told and defending ones own territory may be used in their justification. Where does that leave the president? This also brings up many more questions that I honestly can’t answer. Was our invasion for the betterment of Americans and Iraqis? Why do certain people still consider our president as being righteous in invading another country (after all, not everyone disapproves of him)? Simply, what happens next?
August, the questions you ask are all thoughtful and important. I too felt anger when I saw the photo in addition to the emotions of sadness and grief. I am angry that my tax dollars are being used for the occupation of Iraq which has opened up a Pandora's box of misery and suffering. I do not mind paying taxes but I want my tax dollars used for good and for helping humanity not for death and destruction.
In my case the photo deeply affected me because I immediately imagined my own two small children in the place of the wounded children in the photos. I used my higher level cognitive abilities (as described by Piaget) and stepped outside myself, and imagined how the loved ones of those injured children are feeling. It is sad and infuriating that innocent precious children are being harmed due to the callous foreign policy of the war criminals currently leading our country. I am hopeful that we will get a new president that will not rush to war so recklessly as Bush did. I was also angry but not surprised that this photo ran on page 5 instead of the front page. I do believe that the American public needs to see the true consequences of war.
After reading the newspaper and seeing the picture, I was very madden about what is going on, but that's just like .1% thats going on in the world. There is mass genocide going on in Africa right now.
It is sad to see small children harmed by terrorists. They are very young and will probably lived a hard life because of this. The media should really focus on the biggest problems, instead of trivial things. The media trys to distract us will small things. I also am upset because we could have been helping people on Sudan instead of harming people in Iraq.
I am glad Carlos pointed out the horrible atrocities being committed in Darfur. I agree that instead of spending billions of dollars to invade and occupy a country which never threatened us and did not attack us, our government could have sent peace keeping troops to Darfur. If our government would apply even the smallest amount of creativity to U.S. foreign policy, I believe there is an infinite amount of better uses for our tax dollars than waging war. To me, in our current modern times, the decision to go to war represents the ultimate absence of creativity.
I agree that the mainstream media tries "to distract us with small things". One huge bipartisan problem is the consolidation/monopolization of the media. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed concern about this alarming trend. It is imperative that we as concerned citizens seek out alternative forms of media that are not corporate owned so that we can get a complete and accurate view of current events.
I found the photograph to be very gruesome and was saddened by it. There is so much hate and war in the world that even the deaths of innocent children does not stop the massive bloodshed. This photograph, as Mrs. Winnard explained in class, is the type of violence in the media that needs to be seen. Although it is just a picture and covers the smallest fraction of the type of violence that is occuring around us everyday, it allows society to see the impacts of war. So many people support the war and this photograph shows the results of something they support.What type of person would support the killings of millions of civilians, including innocent children? Although their reasons to why they support war may be in favor of their people and nation, they do not consider the impact it will have on the civilians and children. This photograph and article help us see what really happens during war. Maybe, no hopefully, it will change the mind of some supporters, and soon enough end these gruesome murders.
The first time I saw photographs of the situation In Iraq I was so hurt. Seeing little kids hurt and killed, so much destruction truly aggravated me. The photo in class did not affect me as much. Sadly I am being desensitized. I felt bad for the families of those children yet forgot about the photo the next minute. So many civilians have been killed; even American soldiers have commit suicide due to PTSD. The negative aspects of the war are endless as well as the war itself. My feelings towards the picture seen in class were definitely of grief, but there was no anger in my heart this time. The war has been going on for so long, and that picture was just a light example of all the destruction. The war seems so endless, Id rather forget about the situation then stress over something that I have no control over.
When i first saw photograph i was saddened to what had happened to innocent children. At the moment when i saw it i felt grief and felt bad for the families that had to go through that but by the time this subject was over i pretty much forgot about it. I too have become desensitized to it. I partly think i tune this all out due to the fact that this war has been going on for so long that all you here about it people dieing left and right and yet still no progress. It is sad to see that innocent people as for instance those children have to die for something they did not even do.
Although the picture was somewhat gruesome i guess people need to see that because it shows them what is really going on and more and more people will hopefully go against it.
Thank you for all of your honest and open comments. What are some alternative nonviolent solutions to war?
Some alternatives to war is simply a peace treaty. War is due to miscommunication between nations and largely due to jealousy and want of power. If nations were to discuss the reasons for which they go to war with each other many lives would be saved and much needed money to be spent on necessary things would be available. Billions of dollars are going to waste on nuclear weapons and arms each year. Nations are in debt and their people in bad economic states due to the mass expenses spent to support the war.
Nations know that it would be in their best interest to stay out of war yet their unwillingness to communicate and negotiate leads to the deaths of many. Simply put nations need to put their pride away and settle for a treaty that is fair for both sides. Thus avoiding throwing away much needed money and saving many lives.
Seeing this image was very alarming, and I first could not understand why they would show something so gruesome, but I then realized that we need to see things like this to make us ware of what is going on. I think it is a very strong image and it is very moving, and it has really opened my eyes.
Thank you for your eloquent comments. Alexandra, I really like your suggestion of using peace treaties instead of engaging in war, and I like how you speak in favor of using more diplomacy. I was wondering, if your were writing a peace treaty, what specific items would you include in the peace treaty?
To be honest theres just some people who don't like and will never be able to accept each other. To go back in time for a bit, what we learned in class is that we "label" people. What I mean is that some people classify other people as a waste of time, money, and effort. Some people would want to rid the world depending on your ethnicity, because people just can't get along with each other. Not that it's impossible, but I just don't see even with a peace treaty, people all over in the world are dying regardless for different reasons or beliefs that we all have been acquainted with justify what we know and what we see. Sorry if I did not make any sense at all.
The peace treaty would have to be something both nations can settle on. For example, if one nation is attempting to invade another, the peace treaty could include the nations rights against invasion if they settle to compromise to give the other nation what they desire under good terms. If that did not make sense, lets say the United States wanted more oil from Iran and threatened to invade them if they did not comply. The treaty would state that Iran, in attempting to avoid war, would supply the United States with a reasonable amount of oil for a reasonable amount of money, and that the United States would in turn respect Iran and not invade.
I think you have the right idea Alexandra about using negotiation and diplomacy over military force. My view is that in current modern industrial times, there is always an alternative to military force. It may not be a perfect alternative, but when you weigh the consequences of war versus non-military solutions, the peaceful solution is always better no matter how imperfect.
I think any peace treaty involving the United States needs to include some drastic changes to our foreign policy. As I alluded to in the post on Arlington West, ending the arms trade would do more to end terrorism than invading countries and waging war, which only sparks more violence. We know for example, that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been very effective in reducing nuclear stockpiles, and a similar treaty could be created that would address the dangerous arms trade.
Of course, we have many treaties in place that if our government would follow them, peace would prevail. For example, the treaty signed at the Geneva Convention bans torture yet the Bush administration sanctioned the use of torture. Also, according to the United Nations charter, weapons inspectors are supposed to have all of the time they want to complete their inspections. Yet, prior to the invasion of Iraq, when Hans Blix (head weapons inspector) requested more time to complete his work looking for weapons of mass destruction, Bush refused to comply with Blix's request and rushed to war. There are so many other examples, but I will stop now. Alexandra, maybe you should go into politics- we need more women and people like you in politics!
Carlos, I understand how the world looks like a place where people seem incapable of getting along, yet for every example of people killing each other over religion, land disputes, control of oil, etc. there is an example of people living in peace despite their differences.
I'm reminded of the time I travelled to Nepal with my husband. We visited a beautiful temple in Kathmandu. This temple was so interesting to me, because one side of the temple was designated for Hindus and the other side was designated for Muslims. Both religions recognized and accepted that this was a holy site for both religions, and they had been sharing the temple grounds peacefully for hundreds of years.
Examples such as this give me hope and prove to me that coexisting peacefully despite differences is in fact possible.
nWhen I looked at the photograph in the article, it made me feel mad because children are innocent. Looking at this image, really helps us understand what the world is going through, not just war but the deaths of innocent lives. Children can't do anything about what goes on. People can be selfish and not think of the little ones. The children can't prevent themselves from getting hurt.
It's true what Ana said about children being defenseless. They cannot speak out against atrocities committed against their innocent selves. They are vulnerable and completely dependent on the compassion of adults to protect them from harm. Children are our most precious and valuable citizens of society as they are the future. This is why I believe it is a moral imperative to speak out against violence committed against children.
I am glad that you shared how the photo made you feel, Ana, because it is important for us to process our feelings and emotions regarding the effects of war.
Well I think personally, it will take many years for peace to happen, because the old generation type people influence the new breed of people being borned into the world and are being taught what's good and what's bad from the person's point of view. Depending on the individual a number of things could possibly happen, but at any rate I would like to see everyone being accepted as individual beings and nothing more or less. We are just human and thats what we will always remain to be. (Off topic, but I hope Obama wins the election 08*.)
If you look around, there are signs that we are evoloving towards a more peaceful society. For example, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq the whole world rallied together and took to the streets to protest. In fact, the biggest antiwar protests since the beginning of human history took place before the start of the Iraq War. It was truly amazing if you think about it.
Did you know that right now in Dublin, Ireland 128 countries have gathered to negotiate and sign a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs? Of course, the U.S. the largest producer, stockpiler, and user of these bombs isn't there, but the belief is that the U.S. will stop using these weapons after the international communty overwhelmingly bans their use. There is hope for our species after all!
Go Obama!
Another thing that makes me upset is the fact that people still think this war is for a good cause. I can't even think of one good thing that has resulted from all this. It makes me sad when civilians get involved in battles. Many people's lives have been ruined by events like this, yet not too many people care. I can't believe that a lot of people don't even want to learn or think about events such as this, it's like they only care about the people they know.
Post a Comment