Documentary Post 2: Darfur Now

Sorry it's very long!

The film’s purpose and argument is vague at times.  However, one of the claims that it does make in the introduction is that “Indifference is complicity.”  This essentially states that if we are bystanders to a massive crime, we are basically committing that crime by letting it continue.  While the documentary did a horribly vague job at explaining this argument, I will attempt to outline it as I believe the film intended.  

The argument is that in particular situations such as Darfur, the Jewish Holocaust, or Global Warming, staying neutral is no longer actually staying neutral.  Neutrality serves the purpose of the persecutor, and therefore is the same as persecution.  This stems back to the base idea that we are connected through a Social Contract: the idea that we owe the people in our community certain things so that we can enjoy protection.  It states that there is a moral obligation to help those in our community.

It is arguable that Darfur is a part of our community.  After all, as technology continues to expand its influence and our sense of connection, the global community has started to increase in importance. In olden days, take for example the Medieval Age, the people were not expected to help native Americans all the way over in the Americas or people in Africa.  The reason is that they did not have sufficient knowledge of these peoples.  Plus, they did not directly affect each other’s lives.  Therefore, they had no responsibility for each other.  However, nowadays, everyone has the capability to affect everyone else.  This is obvious through the international trade (oil), the influences of government, media coverage, etc.  Everyone knows what goes on in different parts of the world.  Therefore, there arises a new sense of responsibility.  Because we know, we must act on what we know.  This is the moral obligation that Darfur poses on Americans today.

Since the world is being viewed as this new global community, to not help Darfur means to sabotage a supposedly group effort.  It brings the rest of the community down due to one’s own self-interests, symbolically and perhaps indirectly.  That is what makes aiding Darfur an obligation, because in this case of the Social Contract, “not helping” becomes synonymous with “hurting.”  If one ignores his responsibilities as an individual within a community, he is hurting the community, and in turn hurting the people within the community.  His actions are therefore unjust and he, immoral.  

The counter-argument against this, however, can also be quite convincing.  It is also much easier to synthesize.  Whereas the Social Contract applies large, broad laws, to an increasingly complicated society, the counter-argument simply dismisses the Social Contract.  The entire idea of morality, when viewed honestly, can sometimes be  questionable.  The Social Contract implies that people are naturally individual and they do not work together.  Therefore, by agreeing to work together, the idea of morality means much more and is magnified.  However, there is virtually no way to say what people are naturally like.  We all make theories about humans being inherently good or inherently bad but the fact of the matter is these are merely assumptions.  In truth, this is not a simple question to answer at all.

With this said, the counter-argument would be that since the base state of human existence is impossible to know, we cannot infer that morality is even a valid concept.  Who says we owe anyone anything?  Who says that offering protection for one another is such a big favor?  Who says that justice is such a number one priority?  Without morality or justice, there is little link between America and Darfur.  And therefore, there is no obligation to stop the genocide.

NOW, this leads me to my personal belief.  Personally, I sometimes have little faith in morality.  Therefore, the first argument is somewhat of a stretch for me, despite its vastly good intentions.  BUT, I do not fully contend with the counter-argument either (being that I have gone out of my way to help Darfur since the 8^th grade).  While there may be some uncertainty in morality, one concept that cannot be died is practicality.  I believe helping Darfur, for me, is a practical decision, meaning that it simplifies my life and avoids possible bad karma.  The idea is that if I were to hurt someone in my school, that person would probably find some way to hurt me back.  Even if I get away with hurting him, I forever attain this reputation of being mean, causing the people around me to avoid me.  Either way, something bad happens in return.  That is a simple example.  In the same way, I believe I should not hurt Darfur.  It is a practical decision, because I do not see the difference between hurting a person in America and a person in Darfur.  The only thing that separates me from Darfur is distance.  To me, distance does not erase the practical laws of nature.

Documentary Post 1: Darfur Now

Darfur Now. Dir. Theodore Braun. By Theodore Braun. Prod. Cathy Schulman, Don Cheadle, and Mark Jonathan Harris. Warner Independent Pictures, 2007.

The documentary I watched was Darfur Now.  It was filmed in 2007 and is meant to raise awareness about the Darfur Genocide.  The conflict started in the early 1980s when drought hit the country of Sudan.  At the same time, overpopulation was also becoming an issue.  Resources and fertile land became a serious source of conflict as different groups of people started to compete over these resources.  While the conflict started as something one can only accept as natural, the fight quickly became rigged when the Sudanese government started to favor one side over the other.  The “Arab” dominated government supplied “Arab” groups to wipe out the “African” population.  Soldiers riding on horseback, known as Janjaweed, began to carry out a mass execution of Darfurian villages.  Today, up to 3 million Darfurians have become displaced and hundreds of thousands more killed.  Roughly 8 years have passed since the official initiation of the holocaust.

The filmmaker’s purpose was to draw attention to the genocide and urge people to take action.  The filmmaker included lots of footage of travels in Darfur.  There is a constant use of testimonials throughout the video, both from victims and outside activists.  Refugees can be seen carrying weapons and machine guns, marching through the dirt in their sandals.  This is meant to bring the conflict to the viewer’s eyes, where he can see it up close and personal.  The documentary has several parts.  One of the parts is following activists such as Don Cheadle and Ahmed Mahammed Abaka as they attempt to bring light to the issue given their own unique positions.  Abaka tries to establish credibility for himself by speaking on a similar issue in his homeland Colombia.

Although the filmmaker tries to draw empathy from its viewers and attempts to appeal to pathos, honestly I thought he did an extremely poor job.  First of all, he overused his testimonials.  One can only stand so much “touchy-feely” emotion in one sitting.  Emotion is powerful in contrast with other elements of argument, such as logic and reality.  But the filmmaker’s use of it was especially poor.  Not only that, but the testimonials that the filmmaker chose to use were inadequate in portraying what truly goes on in Darfur.  So not only was I hearing the same things over and over again, but I could sense no real seriousness, no real pain, no real intensity.   The documentary’s presentation of Darfur seemed “fake,” and that was the sad part because it deserved to be presented in a more honest light.

There were also many disrespectful, foolish, and ineffective rhetorical decisions in the video.  The filmmaker used absolutely no logic in his argument.   I expected some type of real moral context, some philosophical push to aid Darfur but I received none.  I merely received the same naïve, childish excuse of “Oh genocide is bad and it is important to help people.”  If the video’s purpose is to get people to realize, and to make them take action, then that explanation is simply not enough.  Having been around this issue for so long, I just did not feel like the video did Darfur justice.  To me, it was the work of an outsider not fully committed to his proposed mission, but rather someone who was more concerned with giving off the impression that he cared.  This goes the same for many of the activists in the documentary.  Their efforts were honestly very naïve in some ways and disrespectful to Darfurian victims in that they did not understand the full seriousness of the issue.

One last aspect of the documentary that was extremely annoying to me was the music and the dialogue.  The music playing whenever Darfur victims were interviewed was jumpy African music.  I understand that this may be a part of their culture, but to make this loud distinction really hurts the cause.  The video makes all Africans look like they are tribal and “early humans,” like they are not fully developed.  This really upsets me because this is a group of activists that claim they respect and care for these victims, and yet they fail to view them as equal beings.  Also, at the end of the documentary, there was joyful hopeful music playing the background.  This was very disrespectful in my eyes because it gave off the impression that the genocide was over when in reality, it is still taking place today.  It was irresponsible in that the filmmaker did not put in enough thought to realize what a dangerous toll this mistake has.  Because of this “hopeful” sensation, audience members will entirely dismiss the situation as if it has already passed, or that it is too late to help now.

AOW #28

"Cross My Mind" by Jill Scott is one of my favorite songs.  In the song, Scott reminisces about an old lover.  She revisits their memories together but realizes that ultimately, and honestly, they were never meant for each other.  I think this song is really beautiful because it transitions from nostalgic attachment to heartbreaking honesty.  As you listen to the song, you would like to believe that there is no ending; you would like to believe that there is still a chance to amend things, that there is an opening for reparation, even if the situation does not pertain to you personally.  But when the Jill finally ends with the words, "you were never good for me, and I was never good for you," the reader realizes that there is a conclusion - a sad one at that.  It is tragic because of the outcome but beautiful for its honesty.  The song is an example of natural poetry.  It is not forced, it is not scripted.  Rather, it is intimate, real, pure in its expression.  Although I don't like to get technical with works of art like these, Jill Scott does incorporate a good variety of diction.  She uses both literal as well as metaphorical lyrics.  She also doesn't fail to remain personal, constantly making allusions that probably only she and her subject fully understand.  It is as if she is speaking to herself on record..  While this may seem fairly obvious, since music is supposed to be "self-expression," I think this aspect of her song sticks out because most artists often struggle with true-expression.  They often give in to outer influences such as their fans, critics, fame; they start to talk about things not for their own sake but for other people's sake.  This song by Jill Scott is a good rhetorical example of staying true, and as a result of that truthfulness, the song becomes  emotionally-appealing and effective.  It is important not to mistake the cause for the effect: the song focuses on being true; its effectiveness and appeal come afterward.

AOW #27

Independent, IRB - Your Voice in My Head by Emma Forest

Your Voice in My Head is a memoir.  Emma writes about a very complicated and tragic phase in her life.  She had somehow become attached to a person who was not good for her, extremely depressed, and suicidal.  She talks about a failed suicide attempt and her meetings with her deceased therapist who played a huge role in her life.  Without this therapist, Emma is now left in the world alone.  She reflects on what he was to her, how he helped her overcome her depression, and what it meant to lose him. 

I had high expectations for this book.  At first, it was the title that caught my eye.  It sounded interesting to me, and a good book review from Eat Pray Love's author Elizabeth Gilbert also persuaded me to give this book a try.  However, nearly a third of the way in now, I admit I'm a little bit disappointed.  Part of it is because I’ve been through my share of difficult circumstances and therefore I expected something deeply personal, given the description of the book. I expected something that would make me feel, make me empathize, perhaps even give me insight into my own life.  But instead, I have found the memoir to be a bit dry.  I don’t want to speak too soon but her words seem, to me, a bit scripted.  They are not real or passionate enough.  Also, the quotations she draws from her therapist are only mildly impressive.  Hopefully, the book will start to dive in deeper as I read on; after all, some books do take a while to get started.  But if I were to give a suggestion on what could have helped the introduction of this memoir to be more interesting, I would have approached it in a more serious tone (even if it is only at intervals).  The author’s voice is overly unserious and comical.  I understand that this can be seen as her humorous personality but if her reason for writing this book was to establish any type of connection with the reader, I’m not especially feeling a spark right now. 

AOW #26

Barack Obama Weekly Address: Investing in Clean Energy Future

The speech was about the state of the economy as well as investing in clean energy resources.  President Obama presents statistics and real life proof to show that there is progress being made.  He also uses reservations to show that he has made an effort to compromise, but more needs to be done besides drilling for oil.   He approaches the speech in a semi-casual tone.  He remains professional, but he lights up the mood by using the word "stuff."  In some ways, this might help Barack acquire a better relationship with his audience.  In some ways, it might show that he is not out of touch with the people, and that he is still an everyday American, not some high-minded, snotty-nose politician.  Personally, I appreciate how he kept everything very simple but clear.  It is not drowned in dramatic hyperbole or complicated terms.  He is concise and efficient in the examples he brings in.  His words are minimal, which I think is helpful.  There is enough logic there to satisfy his audience (unless of course they are out to get him).  He presents only what is necessary, which I think is important so that he doesn't end up annoying the audience (being that he does give a speech weekly).

IRB: Everything is Illuminated

Everything is Illuminated is different from most books that I have read.  Even the plot is somewhat difficult to grasp until you actually start reading it.  It is essentially about a boy Jonathan Safran Foer (also the author), his translator and an old man who go out to find a woman who supposedly saved Foer's grandfather from the Holocaust. 

The structure of the book is somewhat odd.  The story starts as if it has already passed.  Everything has already happened and the story is just a series of flashbacks.  I feel like this arrangement allows the author to do a good amount of reflection.  Since the story isn't constantly progressing and constantly moving forward, the author has time to let his thoughts linger.  Also, the POV is also somewhat bizarre.  It is not consistent throughout the book.  Point of views may switch with each chapter.  One chapter it will be first person (Foer's translator) and the next it will be in third person.  In fact, the "jumping around" of point of views confused me a great deal at first.  I actually had to force myself to read the first 30-40 pages to actually start to get a feel for what was going on.  After that, however, it started to become pretty interesting.  Since the POV keeps on changing, the voice changes as well.  For example, the translator's voice is really conversational.  His English can be very choppy and he might use the wrong word at the wrong time, which can be very humorous.  I love the relationship this character establishes with the reader (me).  Since he is so direct and human, I actually enjoy his persona. 

The last thing I observed about the book so far is that it is not so focused on being "professional."  It is not your typical intellectual-sounding writing.  It is loose, normal, direct.  There is not much description on things.  Details are not specific.  The author merely states a thought and then another thought and then states a reaction to that thought and so on.

AOW #23

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyag3eLbU71qdbea3o1_500.png

The following poem was titled "Drown" by Bianca Stewart.  It was about the author who supposedly saw a friend of hers drown.  It was extremely short.  It's not the type of poetry we're typically used to but it kind of struck a chord with me.  The brevity of the poem combined with the "choice" of diction was very interesting.  For example, the author used the word "hugged" as opposed to "swallowed" or "captured."  I think this choice gave the poem a sort of intimacy and acceptance.  The last part "as though you were responsible for keeping it blue" brings with it a strange sense of peace.  It establishes almost a love connection between the friend and the ocean, as opposed to a murder or something harsh of that nature.  This makes the idea of death more tender and mellow.  Also, not to mention that the "keeping it blue" part was a clever pun.  I love the fact that this poem is not forcibly dramatic; it does not try to persuade the reader that this occasion was sad.  It is not an argumentative piece, but rather a self-expression piece.  The author speaks in a very natural, life-driven tone, and I think it is through these factors that the piece becomes poetry.