Satyagrahi

Sunday, February 28, 2010

District 9: Sci-fi Realism Tackles The Horrors Of Globalization | NEWS JUNKIE POST

The intensity and cinematography of director Neil Blomkamp%u2019s %u201CDistrict 9%u2033, which is up for a Best Picture Oscar, are to be marveled over. But the sci-fi thriller%u2019s pace and visuals are also matched by the film%u2019s political message. As conceptually original as the first %u201CMatrix%u201D film, %u201CDistrict 9%u2033 also serves as a critique, par excellence, of the horrors of today%u2019s global capitalism. And as such, it easily rivals notable films like %u201CBlood Diamond%u201D and %u201CThe Constant Gardener%u201D.

%u201CDistrict 9%u2033 opens with a documentary-style exposition: An enormous alien spacecraft has entered the earth%u2019s atmosphere and coasted to a halt, above contemporary Johannesburg, South Africa. After three months of seeing no activity from the ship, the world governments send an expedition to investigate the craft. The expedition enters the ship and finds it filled with malnourished, insect-like aliens. It is theorized that the aliens were once part of a larger fleet of ships. But they somehow detached from that fleet, became lost, and ran out of fuel and food. Helpless, the aliens then %u201Cwashed ashore%u201D, into Earth%u2019s orbit.

This discovery quickly turns the expedition into a %u201Chumanitarian crisis%u201D, to save the dying aliens. But as is well-known, the modus operandi of any (so-called) foreign aid mission today is %u201Cdisaster capitalism%u201D. And this is no different when it comes to extra-terrestrial aid. The world governments enlist Multi-National United (MNU), to assist in the %u201Chumanitarian%u201D operation. As the name implies, MNU is a kind of conglomerate of logistical and defense corporations and contractors. And as such, they have a profit-motive.

MNU sets-up an alien %u201Crefugee camp%u201D in Johannesburg, that soon becomes a militarized slum, known as District 9. The aliens are moved into District 9 and are subjected to MNU%u2019s martial law. Blackwater-like mercenaries are hired to violently police the District, while MNU conducts raids on the alien%u2019s temporary living quarters, in attempts to steal alien technology for weapons development. MNU, it turns out, is a major component of the military-industrial complex. And it hopes to further its bio-weaponry research by monopolizing on the alien%u2019s vulnerability.

Meanwhile, local Africans become angered by the alien presence. Already impoverished by the character of global capitalism, the locals see MNU%u2019s focus on the aliens as an even further distraction form their own poverty. Thus, a new form of racism evolves, and the aliens are targeted with a racial slur: %u201CPrawn%u201D. Social tensions between the local humans and the Prawns continue to mount. And MNU uses this racial hatred as an excuse mobilize a %u201Cresettlement%u201D of the Prawns, away from the restless locals. The resettlement program, of course, serves as a further cover for MNU to steal the Prawn technology for weapons development.

MNU%u2019s dual exploitation of the Africans and the Prawns, though, soon explodes. While conducting a raid on a Prawn%u2019s living quarters, Wikus Van De Merwe, the head of MNU%u2019s resettlement program, is exposed to the chemicals in some of the Prawn technology. And from that point, the situation in District 9 begins to radically change, in more ways than one%u2026.

This fantastical premise of %u201CDistrict 9%u2033 could have fallen apart in execution, as is always the case with sci-fi epics. The bar for suspension of disbelief is set particularly high with such movies. And it is rarely met. But Blomkamp%u2019s treatment of the script results in one of the strongest political films in recent history. Much of this is due to the realism created by the setting, itself. The movie was shot in a real Johannesburg slum, one which was recently the target of an actual resettlement program.

Adding to this %u201Cpure%u201D setting is the fact that film is presented as a documentary. The story, itself, unfolds via interview clips with MNU employees, spliced with footage from embedded cameramen filming the resettlement, as well as with footage from security cameras in District 9 and other locales. The special effects, as well, are used not to dazzle (as is in the case with many thrillers), but rather to support the realism of the film%u2019s events. None of the the violence in the film is hyperbolic or self-justifying. Instead, it is presented as the raw meaninglessness of war, violence at the %u201Czero level%u201D, which is rarely captured by real photojournalists on the nightly news.

On an equally rewarding level, the plot%u2019s density does not sacrifice the agonizing character development of Wikus, himself, which equally drives the movie forward, to its phenomenal conclusion.

But on a grander, more philosophical sense, what %u201CDistrict 9%u2033 addresses is the horrific inhumanity of globalization%u2019s own ideology. Globalization, in itself, is meaningless. What gives it character is its corporatist element, the driving force behind its growth.

Propelled by the inhuman interests of multi-national corporations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the G8 governments, globalization%u2019s ethics are the dehumanized ethics of the global %u201Cmarket%u201D. Such a system considers the profit of the few over the humanity of the countless many. This dynamic is what psychoanalyst Viktor Frankl calls our %u201CExistential Vacuum%u201D, a world totally void of human-oriented values, replaced only by the pursuit of capital.

Thus, in %u201CDistrict 9%u2033, the meaningless deaths of the %u201CPrawns%u201D (supported only by the equally meaningless racism) for the sake corporate profit, is a mirror of our world. The %u201CPrawn%u201D is thus a symbol, a symbol for any individual or group of individuals, who are subjected to the legal violence of global capitalism. The %u201CPrawn%u201D, who is oppressed or murdered for profit in the film, is the same as the impoverished Guatemalan, or Nigerian, or Indian, or American, who dies meaninglessly so shareholder wealth can flourish in the real-world.

As such, %u201CDistrict 9%u2033 serves as the diagnosis of the inhumanity that hallmarks our era. It certainly deserves the Oscar. But more importantly, it deserves to be widely seen and discussed.

Editor%u2019s Note: Stephen Dufrechou is a college professor in Memphis, TN. He is the Editor of Opinion and Analysis for News Junkie Post. Please follow this author on Twitter. His archive may be accessed here.

Related Articles
February 10, 2010 -- Avatar: A Predictable Storyline With A Powerful Political Message
January 16, 2010 -- Jeff Bridges Deserves An Oscar For %u201CCrazy Heart%u201D
January 9, 2010 -- The Coming Emergency State
January 2, 2010 -- A Leftist Critique of Liberal Tolerance (pt. 2 of 2)
October 12, 2009 -- UN%u2019s Navi Pillay Takes On Caste Discrimination
February 19, 2010 -- How Facebook Can Stunt Grassroots Activism
February 16, 2010 -- Chris Hedges: The US Government Is %u201CInverted Totalitarianism%u201D
February 1, 2010 -- Corportist Ideology & the Fantasy of Power (pt. 2 of 2)
January 28, 2010 -- Historian Howard Zinn Dies at 87
January 28, 2010 -- Corporatist Ideology & the Fantasy of Power (pt. 1 of 2)

via newsjunkiepost.com

Posted via web from Satyagraha_Ji

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

How War Tests the Allies - Page 1 - The Daily Beast

Your email has been sent.

Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!

X Close

Patrick Baz, AFP / Getty Images The Dutch government fell over its part in the Afghan war—just the latest strain on NATO’s unity. Richard Wolffe talks to Secretary General Rasmussen and Madeleine Albright about its growing pains.

NATO has at least two big challenges that will determine its future as the world’s strongest military alliance. One is on the battlefield in Afghanistan, where the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban has drained its resources and political will for several years. The Dutch government collapsed last weekend in large part because the left-of-center Labour Party made a promise to pull troops out of the Afghan war.

The other challenge is what NATO stands for. After two decades of expansion, and two out-of-area wars—in Kosovo and Afghanistan—the alliance is rewriting its strategic mission. That means going beyond the traditional concept of mutual self-defense, under Article Five of the North Atlantic treaty. With the help of an expert panel, led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, NATO is trying to plan for the next decade.

“It’s understandable that people are impatient,” said Rasmussen, of the Dutch government’s collapse over its role in the Afghan war. “They want to see clear progress on the ground."

Albright makes for an unusual partner with NATO’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister. She was President Clinton’s chief diplomat and a sharp critic of Bush’s foreign policy. He led a right-of-center government and was one of President Bush’s closest allies in Europe, committing Danish troops to the invasion of Iraq.

The two gave an exclusive interview to The Daily Beast just before Rasmussen delivered a speech on Monday at Georgetown University, where Albright teaches at the School of Foreign Service.

The Daily Beast: With what happened to the Dutch government over the weekend, have the politics of war and the politics of NATO changed?

Secretary General Rasmussen: Basically no. But obviously our mission in Afghanistan puts focus on what is territorial defense in today’s world. Territorial defense of our nations and populations has been the core task of NATO since it was established 61 years ago and will remain the core task. However we have to realize that to defend our own borders we very often have to go far away, like in Afghanistan. So in that respect you may say that the nature of collective defense has changed. But it’s still with the aim of ensuring a strong, credible territorial defense.

Do you think this idea of out-of-area operations in Afghanistan is harder for the public to grasp? Do they have less of an appetite for enduring longer operations, difficult wars, because they are not engaged in direct self-defense? It’s indirect self-defense.

Rasmussen: Indeed it is a bigger challenge to communicate a strong narrative. But we have to repeat the clear message that we are in Afghanistan primarily to protect and defend our own populations against terrorism. If Afghanistan once again became a safe haven for terrorists, they could easily spread through central Asia and further, not to speak about the risk of destabilizing neighboring Pakistan, a nuclear power. That would be a very dangerous situation. So basically it’s the same notion but the message should be conveyed convincingly. And it is indeed, communications-wise, a bigger challenge than in the past.

via thedailybeast.com

Posted via web from Satyagraha_Ji

Monday, February 22, 2010

BC professor Lisa Dodson tracks ‘economic’ disobedience - The Boston Globe

As Newton resident Lisa Dodson, a Boston College sociology professor in the thick of a research project, was interviewing a grocery story manager in the Midwest about the difficulties of the low-income workers he supervised, he asked her a curious question: “Don’t you want to know what this does to me too?’’
Discuss
COMMENTS (10)

She did. And so the manager talked about the sense of unfairness he felt as a supervisor, making enough to live comfortably while overseeing workers who couldn’t feed their families on the money they earned. That inequality, he told her, tainted his job, making him feel complicit in an unfair system that paid hard workers too little to cover basic needs.
The interview changed the way Dodson talked with other supervisors and managers of low-income workers, and she began to find that many of them felt the same discomfort as the grocery store manager. And many went a step further, finding ways to undermine the system and slip their workers extra money, food, or time needed to care for sick children. She was surprised how widespread these acts were. In her new book, “The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy,’’ she called such behavior “economic disobedience.’’
As Dodson’s questions grew more pointed, she began to hear fascinating stories. Andrew, a manager in a large Midwest food business, said he put extra money in the paychecks of those earning a “poverty wage,’’ punched out their time cards at the usual quitting time when they had to leave early for a doctor’s appointment, and gave them food.
Andrew had decided that by supervising workers who were treated unfairly - paid too little and subjected to inflexible schedules that prevented them from taking care of their families - he was playing a direct role in the unfair system, and so he was morally obligated to act.
Dodson concluded that Andrew and many like him were following the American tradition of civil disobedience - this time, against the economy - and creating a “moral underground.’’
But her book, which came out late last year, has provoked debate about the morality of such acts.
After Dodson talked about her book on a radio program, American Public Media’s “Marketplace,’’ some listeners posted comments on the show’s website arguing that supervisors like Andrew are cheating their employers.
Referring to the show’s host, a listener from Leesburg, Va., wrote, “I was surprised that throughout the entire interview, neither Tess Vigeland nor Ms. Dodson touched on what would seem to me a rather crucial point - that these ‘Ordinary Americans’ are stealing from the companies who employ them.
“The examples Ms. Dodson gave . . . are acts of theft from the companies, yet they are described as if somehow moral and virtuous. It’s one thing for me to see someone in need and open my wallet; its quite another to address that need by giving something I’ve stolen from my neighbor.’’Continued...

Although Dodson makes clear where she stands - the subtitle of her book includes the phrase “unfair economy’’ - she said she believes the debate is important.
“I think that this is a really important conversation that we should have in this country,’’ Dodson said. “What is the worst wrong here? Is it to break a rule or to pass some food over, or is it that we have tens of millions of children and people in families that are working as hard as they can and they can’t take care of their families?’’
Not all supervisors felt troubled by the plight of those who worked under them. Dodson interviewed supervisors who said they had no obligation beyond the bottom line of their company; some complained bitterly about the work ethic of those who filled low-wage jobs.
Dodson has had an unusual career trajectory for an academic. She was a union activist and an obstetrical nurse in Dorchester before she began teaching, first at Harvard and now at Boston College. In her first book, “Don’t Call Us Out of Name: The Untold Lives of Women and Girls in Poor America,’’ Dodson studied how women and their families coped in the face of welfare reform as their safety net vanished.
This time, though, she was drawn largely to the stories of those Americans who worked with the working poor, suggesting that the difficulties of that group also affect the lives of those who intersect with them.
“I feel as though there’s this tendency is this society to kind of think about low-income people as those people over there,’’ she said, “as though it’s an experience that’s sort of marginal and distant from those of us who are not poor.’’
In her new book, some of the most wrenching stories are about women who cannot afford child care and leave their children unattended at home, asking older children to watch the younger ones. They feared social service agencies would investigate them for neglect, but they felt they had no choice if they were going to keep their jobs.
“It was very common for parents to tell me that their kids spent a lot of time all by themselves at home,’’ Dodson said. “That puts the parent into just an untenable position: You’re a bad worker or you’re a bad parent.’’
Kathleen Burge can be reached at kburge@globe.com

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.