[lit-ideas] Re: Blood Diamond
- From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:28:42 -0500
On 12/27/06, Andreas Ramos <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I watched "Blood Diamond" last night -- it was actually a pretty
interesting
> depiction of a microcosm of the troubles in Sierra Leone and Africa as
a
> whole -- in terms of how the continent fits into today's world. Two
quotes
> stand out:
>
> 2) the main African protagonist says to the main White protagonist "I
can
> understand you - the white man -- doing this [slavery, murder,
pillaging,
> raping etc.] to us, but I don't understand us doing it to each other".
I also saw Blood Diamond. It's a very good movie. DiCaprio does a
remarkable performance.
The white man was Rhodesian, which means he is also African.
I was going to say "black" and "white" but thought I would be PC. Of course
DiCaprio's Archer was Rhodesian -- interesting that he referred to himself
as such, since Connelly's character points out "isn't it called Zibabwe?".
The underlying motto of "TIA -- This is Africa" is interesting. Also
interesting that his goal -- like Solomon's -- even though for very
different reasons and in very different ways -- is to get OUT of Africa.
Sentence #2 sounds good, but makes little sense.
SEE point 1.
The pre-European sub-Saharan Africans had a long history of wars with each
other to capture slaves, women, etc. If Europeans had never come to Africa,
there would still be endless meaningless wars. It was the British, by the
way, who stopped the slave trade on the west coast. On the east coast of
Africa and in Madagascar, slavery continues even today.
I wasn't making a political point and I know that there is history of
slavery on both sides, I was merely reporting what a guy in the movie said.
It was HIS opinion.
The current wars in Africa can hardly be blamed on Europeans. The war in
Sudan is entirely
local.
> The obvious reason that USA rarely interferes in Africa is
> that there's nothing there [worth money] to interfere with.
This isn't true at all.
It is substantially true. The main reason that Africa is almost entirely
undeveloped is because most of it is to this day, undeveloped, BY OUTSIDERS.
Why? because it is uneconomical -- read, there's nothing much worth
developing. It's already been raped of most of what was valuable.
I'm sure that racism plays a role as well, but I'm also sure that it's
pretty racist to purport that there are lots of resources there. If there
were, it would be developed, because if there were and they weren't
developed, that would insinuate something about the native people there --
i.e. they are incapable of developing it.
Look at oil in Africa. Nigeria is a disaster. The USA has become all
lovey-dovey with Libya
because they also have oil, even tho' Libya blew up half the CIA in
Lebanon.
Some might say that the US has become all lovey-dovey with Libya because
they [Libya] showed weakness in the most recent Gulf conflicts and the US
finally recognized that they might be able to put their boot on Quaddafi's
throat with results.
paul
Other related posts:
