I read a post yesterday that I haven't been able to get out of my mind. I even dreamed about it last night.

The poster in discussing something else said that they had never realised, until viewing "Born on the 4th of July", how horrific war was.

I read that post over and over again, and I still find it incomprehensible. I had always thought that this person was elderly. Surely, however, they can't be? But they must, at least, be adult.

HOW could any adult person, living in 2008CE possibly not know what is surely one of the most basic facts of life: war is nasty. It involves murder and slaughter. People die screaming in agony. Human dignity is lost. It hurts.

Admittedly this prolific poster is not well educated. But even if one hadn't read any of the countless poems, books, memoirs, articles, reports, pamphlets and plays written over the centuries one would have at least a glimmering? One must have talked to other people (the poster admits he has now talked to someone who has given him a secondary factual source), seen amputees, watched parades, seen war memorials?

Even without all of the above, there's that undisputed educator of the masses - television. Do such people think that footage of children screaming in indescribable pain, mangled bodies, pools of blood and the whole gamut of human suffering paraded before one as an entree to our evening meal is done with smoke, mirrors and Special FX?

Is this the reason hoary old parties consistently advise that troubled youth should be sent to the Army to "straighten them out"? That sleek men in boardrooms send thousands of human beings to their deaths over a cup of coffee? That testosterone-laced young men smuggle killing machines across borders?

They just don't know that war is not nice?

I agree with you however I don't think you realise how our government has controls to censor the media. Graphic war images for example, are classed as obscenity and news organisations can't publish them, which ironically provides an excellent means of censorship for the government. There are numerous images that would educate people available on the internet.

And even now Rudd's government is doing it's to increase the level of censorship to embrace potentially the most educating media platform in the world: the internet. The plans seem inspired by and are reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party's control of internet provision and censorship in China. Rudd's connections to the Chinese apparently extend to the government with it's tight control and less so to actual commerce and trade.

Dear Romany,

It depends on the type of upbringing the poster had that you're referring to. What kind of education and influences they were exposed to.

Sure they might have missed all those great episodes of the TV series, "M.A.S.H." or not had any exposure to think about relevant issues of the day. They may not be aware of the existence of things like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, violence, and murder. Their education may be lacking in all of these intellectual pursuits, including that "War is not healthy for children and other living things."

They may have grown up in an extremely conservative,
sheltered environment, where choices were limited as to what was
acceptable to be viewed, read, or thought. Perhaps censorship applied to everything that was judged "inappropriate material." (Like Tom Cruise does with his family). Things deemed "offensive" were not allowed.

Personally, I'm for educating people. Teaching them to think for themselves. I'm not for denying, but adding, enriching, stimulating, and amplifying their education.

I hope that ignorance does not shape our world. I hope that the poster you're referring to is an exception. And I feel sorry for them.
I want to leave you with this thought:

Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent Lorca, their greatest poet, to death before a firing squad. Somebody in Germany under Hitler burned the books, drove Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish scholars to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece long ago gave Socrates the hemlock to drink. Somebody in the USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak...
No one remembers their names!

Any conflict is a result of disagreement/retaliation. First we must accept what causes such disagreement. If one individual or one group forces it's view onto another individual or group then, as everyone would accept, you have conflict. If this involves taking property or life you have a recipe war before you can blink. So why are wars ? Because people can't leave people live their lives without interfering.
Just look at today's situation. TV rams so much crap down our throats that it makes us miserable from the breakfast shows onwards right throughout the day. Well, don't watch Tv I hear many saying. Well, say I what gives you the right to to deny me good, sensible entertainment ?
See, just a simple, however petty conflict already. Now place yourself into a situation where your livelyhood is threatened, or your family
or whatever is important to you. At the same time you must curb selfishness because it, after all, is the #1 cause of conflict. Petty disagreement or massive conflict all stem from someone's selfishness.
That's why guidelines are so important & should never have become a playground for lawyers who hardly have any understanding of fair justice.

Of course ignorance shapes our world ... decisions are made with limited knowledge. Look at the decision for Iraq - weapons of mass destruction ... the result still in Iraq, execution of Saddam Hussein, 1000's of dead in "collateral damage", increasing terrorism.

As for ignorance around war, so much of our entertainment and games industry glorifies the acts of war. It's nothing to play a consol game where you can use any number of weapons to "defeat" your foes - oh, and if you get hit - just restart.

IMO we are being desensitised towards violence. It's nothing to turn on the TV and see all manner of acts of violence, but god forbid we show male frontal nudity or couples having sex, no that's taboo. But a serial rapist chopping victims to bits and then going on trial ... well that's just another epidode of Law and Order, or any other number of similar shows.

Should we be surprised when people don't appreciate the acts of war ... speak to a veteran, few want to discuss it. Even fewer wish to go into gory details ... so we end up with a few medals, big turnouts to Remembrance Day, an increasing interest in Tobruk, the Kokoda Trail, Gallipoli ... but continue to send our young off to Iraq and Afghanistan.

My father was a post-WW2 European refugee and I recall one occasion many years ago where they were advertising one of those “sexed-up/collect-them-all” monthly magazines about that war on TV and he got up and left the room in disgust.

He never spoke much about his experiences in a POW labour camp until then but it soon became apparent that his memories were not of “glorious victories”, “adventures” and “valiant struggles between good and evil”.

His opinion was that it was a shameful, horrific and obscene chapter in human history and that it should only be promoted in that way – not as some sort of Hollywood style propaganda to sell some tawdry publications for personal entertainment.

I don’t think we’ve become desensitised as much as convinced it’s just a bloodless game where anonymous bad guys just fall down at the feet of righteous avenging warriors.

The Iraq shock-and awe campaign was just victimless fireworks and flashing lights with not an innocent broken body in sight. It’s part of the same illusion that results in the USA not allowed to see the coffins of killed returning soldiers or count the number of civilian deaths.

Images of the Holocaust didn't stop the Kosovo or Rwanda slaughters but they may have helped stop Vietnam politically.

Perhaps the difference is that it's OK for us to make these judgements while we are so far away from the real action but we still continue to mindlessly crank the appropriate meat grinder as long as our masters decide it's necessary.

Foxy, I think there's a difference between knowing something, and really 'knowing' it. You can be aware of something, but not truly grasp its significance until something rams it home.

Generally it's an experience, but a well made film can do it too.

As an example - we may be aware war is horrific, but not in the same way as someone who survived a concentration camp.
By the same token, people are aware that something like heartbreak is painful, but not really 'know' that until they experience it for themselves.

I think the poster was just saying that the film brought home the message of how nasty war can be.

Romany, good topic.

I read the post you refered to in a different context. That the film made an emotional connection with the poster which brought home the horror of war, not necessarily that the poster was unaware of "the facts". Most of us are aware of things which should horrify us but are not always emotionally aware of the horror.

I think that our world is shaped more by the world views we use to interpret data than by ignorance (which I take to mean lack of knowledge).

Another poster mentioned the invasion of Iraq, those who ordered the invasion had access to some of the worlds best information gathering resources. They and those reporting to them interpreted the data based on existing pre-conceptions, discarding what did not fit and paying great attention to what did fit.

We all do that as well to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly the problem is not lack of data but what we do with it.

Sometimes the amazing thing is that we are able to overcome that and change how we see a topic.

R0bert

It is a good thread but should we be surprised?
Northern NSW floods have hurt farmer just weeks out of drought.
Telling of a fish and prawn kill as a result of that flood yesterday one said it was a disgrace?
What that the flood took the air out of the water? who could have stopped it and how?
Today in a single lane road a young lady stopped short of the traffic signal activation loop under ground.
The lights would not change, as each driver asked her to move up she refused.
She pulled over upset and after I calmed her and explained why the horns blew she said how would I know?
A fair question life exposes us to different things.

yes, wobbles, that's why it's important to get the grinder out of the hands of our masters.

War is horrific, but then, so is non-war.

Every day, workers at or on their way to work, are mangled in road accidents or minced or mashed by machinery, & tens of thousands of others die slow deaths from work induced ulcers, cancers & coronary conditions.
Every day, tens of thousands of animals are slaughtered.
Every day, thousands of foetuses are terminated.
[Aren’t the above -when you get down to basics- collateral damage arising from our modern way of life?]

But some things it’s considered progressive to have a conscience about –and other things equally as gory– it’s customary to hold your tongue about.

And, while it's misleading to portray war as all glory.
It's equally misleading to portray it as all gory.
It is cliché, but true, that if others hadn't looked beyond the gory aspects we would not all be sitting here bemoaning its goriness.

And, I wonder, just how you address “testosterone-laced young men smuggle killing machines across borders” who have had a one-sided education (read: indoctrination) and only want to kill infidels –without doing at least some things which polite, detached society may consider gory?

See, I'm not actually questioning the ethics (or lack thereof) of war. That's a bit of a no-brainer, I think, because, like religion, racism, abortion etc. an enormous amount of people have completely immovable attitudes to that question.

What I was stunned about was the apparent ignorance regarding the effects of war.

Yes, TRTL and Robert, your points regarding emotional knowledge are well taken. I still have difficulty however, with someone claiming ignorance of the horrors of war - whether they experienced them emotionally or not. Even if you were not personally disturbed and horrified, surely you would know that the subject was worthy of horror and disturbance? Do you get what I mean?

I don't think that censorship can be relevantly cited in this instance either: that which is allowed is sufficiently graphic. How for instance, could one see the images that accompany wars in Bosnia, the African continent and the Middle East which feature children and other non-combatants with gaping wounds and shattered limbs and still claim not to KNOW?

I'm afraid I do not for one single moment believe that those leaders who called for the current Mid-Eastern conflict were ignorant that their cause was invalid either. Bloody hell, even the local "Kid's Crossing" man in Caloundra told me there were no bloody WOMD so how come GW, Johnny and Tones didn't know

Romany, I think censorship is an issue ... just think how deep the images of the Twin Towers are on your psyche - shown over and over again (an attack on Western democracy). Now how often are images shown of Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda, etc - where many more deaths occured (and occur).

The acts of terrorism on US soil are constantly being reshown, while attacks elsewhere MAY be given air time depending on the news line up. Certainly we hear about Australian and US / allied casualties, but I don't recall hearing too much about Iraqi deaths ... inless it's the police who were trained by Western allies.

I don't watch Al Jazeera but I'm sure the broadcast on that station tells a completely different story (albeit as biased).

Corri,
Yes, I take your point and agree absolutely. It is undeniable that media is an important part of propaganda. The most effective component, in fact.

What I meant about censorship not being an issue was that, whatever partisan issue such images are bolstering, they are still graphic images of the effects of war.

Therefore the fact that a person, after seeing images of the reality, could say that they were unaware of what war does until a film crew armed with a few thousand fake blood capsules and skillful make-up artists makes them pay to view such artistry, completely astounds me.

I am not so shallow that it was only the words of the poster that caused such angst. It was all the questions that were thrown up by it: is our view of reality generally distorted; do we consider that "others" are somehow not like us, so that it takes a Tom Cruise or someone we "know" to actually touch us;why is it that when we suspend our disbelief (as in watching a movie) we actually are more affected than when we are presented with not-so-glamorous reality; have we become incapable of feeling empathy except when we are personally involved; are we becoming so devoid of imagination that we need things explained; without a carefully crafted script explaining it all to us, are we incapable on our own of processing the images before our eyes?

Roberts point about the way we process things being individualist gave me a lot to think about. But I am still, believe it or not, mulling this whole thing over

Romany, loved this bit "But I am still, believe it or not, mulling this whole thing over".

Something I often find myself doing as part of my OLO experience (and other parts of life). That is a big part of what I really enjoy out of this - the times my mind just keeps fiddling with something I've read and trying to see how it fit's, what it changes or sometimes asking myself if I have a viable response to an idea thats been put which I disagree with.

R0bert