Since Cyclone Nargis ravaged Myanmar (otherwise known as Burma) last Friday, thousands have lost their lives and millions more have been displaced as a result of nature's fury at its most destructive.
Yet over a week since the devastation, a multitude of lives remain hanging in the balance as the inevitable threat of disease looms ever closer.
As international aid agencies and the United Nations stand by to deliver relief to the delta regions of Myanmar, an obstacle stands in their way more destructive then the very cyclone itself.
Known as the State Peace and Development Council, or Junta, the military government of Myanmar are the poster boys of an isolationist government so afraid of foreign threats to their leadership that in the midst of the largest natural disaster since the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004, have resorted to impounding crucial aid shipments and negating entry of any foreign aid agencies.
This very same government revels in its own riches whilst the overwhelming majority of its citizens live below the poverty line.
Well known for its human rights abuses, swift suppression of any form of political activity (as well documented in the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest) and censorship of any material that may pose a threat to the government, Myanmar continues along the agenda of the Junta despite international outcry because of its powerful allies in China and Russia.
In a country that is known for its wealth of natural resources such as gas, timber and precious gems, Myanmar is again a classic case study of political mismanagement at its best.
Today, in an atmosphere of dire consequences for its very people whereby everyday passes with more government inaction, the death toll will rise in what is quickly becoming a humanitarian nightmare that could very well spiral out of control to a stage whereby even with international assistance (should it even be allowed later on), would prove futile.
What needs to be taken into serious consideration is this: Although the Boxing Day Tsunami resulted in around 250,000 deaths, these deaths occurred in the initial stages of the disaster.
Yet as the countries affected opened their doors to international aid, the threats of disease was quickly stemmed, with a relatively low number of casualties after the initial phase.
Unfortunately, the situation in Myanmar is gravely different given that without a swift and effective clean up of the initial impact of Cyclone Nargis, the threat of disease could very well result in a death toll well into the millions.
At a time whereby such a scene is very much real given the inaction of a government that would rather see more of its people die from a preventable scenario then relinquish is stranglehold, the world holds their breath in anticipation as to the Junta's next response whilst others in the country increasingly breathe their last.
Sunday 11 May 2008
Sunday 6 April 2008
Anyone for a game of Ping Pyong?
Tension between South Korea and their neighbours to the North have again escalated after what has been a period of relative calm between the two sides, which are still technically at war since the Korean War in the 1950s "stopped" after the signing of a fragile armistice.
Having had two rather liberal presidents in recent times, the North and South began a Sunshine policy whereby trade, investments and cross border relations flowed with relative ease.
However, all that seems to have changed after the recent election of South Korea's new president, Lee Myung-Bak, a conservative who has infuriated those in Pyongyang by linking economic aid to the North's nuclear disarmament as well as revisiting the topic of North Korea's dismal human rights record.
Mr Lee's actions of late have resulted in a series of hostile dialogue between the North and South which to date has no end in sight.
The catalyst for a gradual deterioration in relations began in March 27, when South Korean officials were asked to leave from a joint industrial complex just north of the border.
The North then began test-firing its missiles the following day and subsequently accused Seoul of breaching the sea border, when three warships allegedly entered North Korean waters.
Tensions escalated when Seoul's top military general, General Kim Tae-Young, hinted at a pre-emptive strike on North's nuclear sites which was followed by a comment by Pyongyang's chief delegate to inter-Korean military talks, Lieutenant General Kim Yong-Chol,who saying that the North would take military countermeasures and leave South Korea in "ashes."
South Korea has responded by rejecting Pyongyang's demand for an apology for the general's remarks and has asked the North to return to talks.
On Thursday the North said that it was suspending all inter-Korean dialogue and closing the border to Seoul officials.
With all these mounting tensions and threats of all out war, one might assume that the Koreas are on the brink of total annihilation. However, given the track record between the North and South, it would be a safe bet to hold that this is nothing short of a political storm in a tea cup.
North Korea just like Iraq in the Saddam era, Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Palestine under Hamas and every other country under every other leader who hates the west is simply bluffing.
The stance from these countries plays like a broken record that cannot be changed, (except possibly via economic sanctions). It is almost like a scenario playing out between a mother and their child if you may.
When the child does not get its way, it sulks and cries and throws a tantrum in the middle of the shopping centre in the hope that the louder its cries of protests, the closer it is to getting its way.
Yet little does the child know that the mother is calling the child's bluff without even a hint of humouring the child's requests.
As such, amidst this political tantrum by Pyongyang, expect little more than a bat of the eyelid by Seoul or the United States. After all, the North requires economic aid and without the constant flow of international assistance, it is simply a country in famine with a million strong army.
Although the scenario of a starving country with multiple nuclear weapons in its arsenal that is led by an anti-Western dictator paints a rather bleak picture, track records have shown that the North is unwilling to unleash total war.
Given the climate and situation back home it is therefore in the best interests of the North to swallow its pride and to resume talks with the South given that the closing of its borders is simply an act of self isolation that will hurt no one but itself.
Having had two rather liberal presidents in recent times, the North and South began a Sunshine policy whereby trade, investments and cross border relations flowed with relative ease.
However, all that seems to have changed after the recent election of South Korea's new president, Lee Myung-Bak, a conservative who has infuriated those in Pyongyang by linking economic aid to the North's nuclear disarmament as well as revisiting the topic of North Korea's dismal human rights record.
Mr Lee's actions of late have resulted in a series of hostile dialogue between the North and South which to date has no end in sight.
The catalyst for a gradual deterioration in relations began in March 27, when South Korean officials were asked to leave from a joint industrial complex just north of the border.
The North then began test-firing its missiles the following day and subsequently accused Seoul of breaching the sea border, when three warships allegedly entered North Korean waters.
Tensions escalated when Seoul's top military general, General Kim Tae-Young, hinted at a pre-emptive strike on North's nuclear sites which was followed by a comment by Pyongyang's chief delegate to inter-Korean military talks, Lieutenant General Kim Yong-Chol,who saying that the North would take military countermeasures and leave South Korea in "ashes."
South Korea has responded by rejecting Pyongyang's demand for an apology for the general's remarks and has asked the North to return to talks.
On Thursday the North said that it was suspending all inter-Korean dialogue and closing the border to Seoul officials.
With all these mounting tensions and threats of all out war, one might assume that the Koreas are on the brink of total annihilation. However, given the track record between the North and South, it would be a safe bet to hold that this is nothing short of a political storm in a tea cup.
North Korea just like Iraq in the Saddam era, Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Palestine under Hamas and every other country under every other leader who hates the west is simply bluffing.
The stance from these countries plays like a broken record that cannot be changed, (except possibly via economic sanctions). It is almost like a scenario playing out between a mother and their child if you may.
When the child does not get its way, it sulks and cries and throws a tantrum in the middle of the shopping centre in the hope that the louder its cries of protests, the closer it is to getting its way.
Yet little does the child know that the mother is calling the child's bluff without even a hint of humouring the child's requests.
As such, amidst this political tantrum by Pyongyang, expect little more than a bat of the eyelid by Seoul or the United States. After all, the North requires economic aid and without the constant flow of international assistance, it is simply a country in famine with a million strong army.
Although the scenario of a starving country with multiple nuclear weapons in its arsenal that is led by an anti-Western dictator paints a rather bleak picture, track records have shown that the North is unwilling to unleash total war.
Given the climate and situation back home it is therefore in the best interests of the North to swallow its pride and to resume talks with the South given that the closing of its borders is simply an act of self isolation that will hurt no one but itself.
Wednesday 19 March 2008
To bet or not Tibet?
As worldwide demonstrations grow about China's clamp down on pro-independence protests by Tibetans, world leaders are increasingly calling the super power to exercise restraint. With every Chinese action against Tibet provoking a reaction of unsurpassable disdain by a growing number of people around the world, it is a mounting notion that it would be a rather unenviable position for anyone to have to side with China at this point in time.
Step forward Mr. Kevin Rudd, our Mandarin speaking China loving Prime Minister. In an era whereby countries have to side with China in order to prosper economically, Mr. Rudd is fast approaching a hurdle that he must jump, one way or another.
Given his solid relationship with the Chinese Government it seems likely that Mr. Rudd will do little more than raise a whimper about the situation in Tibet when he visits China next month as part of his 19 day world tour.
This would be the very same tour whereby Mr. Rudd completely snubbed Australia's greatest Asian ally, Japan, in a blatant step towards favouring an emerging power house over a traditional ally.
Yet are all the latest events of any concern given that Australia has always recognised China's sovereignty over Tibet? Taking into account the condemnation that is rife throughout every corner of the earth; this is a situation that warrants much more than a simple raise of the Government’s eyelid.
After all, the actions of late by China surely go beyond the issue of sovereignty as it comes down to basic human rights, a topic that China is well versed in but never a disciple of. Even with the Olympic Games in Beijing just five months away, vintage China is flexing its muscle at what has to be the worst opportune moment. Do not be surprised if athletes begin to pull out because of the lack of air quality and more importantly, the deaths of at least 80 Tibetans.
As a former diplomat to China, Mr. Rudd must now make a decision that goes beyond the faint echo that "China must exercise restraint", a common catch phrase mimicked around the world by political leaders. But Mr. Rudd has demonstrated to the world that he has what it takes to go beyond the expectations of the common man, having done what governments of the past could not do by apologising to the Indigenous people.
This current unrest in Tibet however is undoubtedly Mr. Rudd's first true test on the political stage and it is inevitable that he must step up. In Rudd and human rights the Australian people trust. As such, the question that begs is whether Mr. Rudd is willing to gamble on his economic alliance with China by taking a tough stance on the gross violations occurring in Tibet or whether he will fold and take the road most travelled.
Step forward Mr. Kevin Rudd, our Mandarin speaking China loving Prime Minister. In an era whereby countries have to side with China in order to prosper economically, Mr. Rudd is fast approaching a hurdle that he must jump, one way or another.
Given his solid relationship with the Chinese Government it seems likely that Mr. Rudd will do little more than raise a whimper about the situation in Tibet when he visits China next month as part of his 19 day world tour.
This would be the very same tour whereby Mr. Rudd completely snubbed Australia's greatest Asian ally, Japan, in a blatant step towards favouring an emerging power house over a traditional ally.
Yet are all the latest events of any concern given that Australia has always recognised China's sovereignty over Tibet? Taking into account the condemnation that is rife throughout every corner of the earth; this is a situation that warrants much more than a simple raise of the Government’s eyelid.
After all, the actions of late by China surely go beyond the issue of sovereignty as it comes down to basic human rights, a topic that China is well versed in but never a disciple of. Even with the Olympic Games in Beijing just five months away, vintage China is flexing its muscle at what has to be the worst opportune moment. Do not be surprised if athletes begin to pull out because of the lack of air quality and more importantly, the deaths of at least 80 Tibetans.
As a former diplomat to China, Mr. Rudd must now make a decision that goes beyond the faint echo that "China must exercise restraint", a common catch phrase mimicked around the world by political leaders. But Mr. Rudd has demonstrated to the world that he has what it takes to go beyond the expectations of the common man, having done what governments of the past could not do by apologising to the Indigenous people.
This current unrest in Tibet however is undoubtedly Mr. Rudd's first true test on the political stage and it is inevitable that he must step up. In Rudd and human rights the Australian people trust. As such, the question that begs is whether Mr. Rudd is willing to gamble on his economic alliance with China by taking a tough stance on the gross violations occurring in Tibet or whether he will fold and take the road most travelled.
Sunday 24 February 2008
Best in Show
With less than twenty four hours to until the 80th Academy Awards, here's an overview of the nominations in the major categories, and some hastily made predictions.
Best Picture
Atonement
Michael Clayton
Juno
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Atonement has only won one major best picture award in the awards season leading up to the Oscars - the British dominant BAFTAs - and Michael Clayton, while garnering solid critical reviews and the occasional acting award has yet to receive a prize in this category, so the general consensus is that neither of these two films have much of a chance.
There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men have been hailed as the front-runners for this year's race, unlikely as they may seem considering the Academy's penchant for the overblown epic, the triumph of the human spirit over adversity, the smug morality play where villains get their comeuppance. In both these movies, the protagonists are amoral if not immoral, thieves and liars at best, and the so-called villains triumph over their counterparts and finish the movie unpunished by death, and their stories play out against the backdrop of a harsh America. There Will Be Blood has an epic madness in its favour, and an eerie resonance with modern day troubles - though set at the turn of the previous century it is at heart a story of oil, capitalist greed, and the struggle for power between church and state - but the bold, almost histrionic, tale has polarised viewers such that its detractors are as many and as rabid as its supporters. No Country For Old Men lacks the bravura scope and scenery chewing performances, but opts instead for a tight and tense quiet menace in its retelling of a hunter being hunted by a different kind of madness in Javier Bardem's hired killer. Both films are cynical and bleak in its outlook regarding humankind and their cruel interactions, and both have demonstrated a remarkable ability to enthrall - in its use of the American landscape, in its central performances, in its direction - and also to frustrate in their highly different yet highly unsettling and inchoate endings.
Some warn that if votes are split between the above two films, the final film in this field, Juno, stands a chance to win. However, its ostensible subject matter - teenage pregnancy - is played for laughs without little exploration of consequences in reality, and the frenetic use of pop cultural references makes it feel rather forced, particularly at the start of the film, and may alienate the older Academy voters. While it is an enjoyable comedy, it does not seem to have the same depth and vision as the other nominees, and it seems to be punching above its weight, despite being the one and only real box-office hit.
Personal prediction: No Country for Old Men
Should win: No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood
Achievement in directing
Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Jason Reitman, Juno
Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
This is the first time the Coens brothers have been able to be nominated together for the Best Director. They're the favourites, having won pretty much every award out there for directing in the lead-up, including the BAFTA and the Director's Guild. Their only real competition is PT Anderson, but There Will Be Blood is, as mentioned above, a polarising movie; or Schnabel for an interesting adaptation of a seemingly difficult memoirs of a man suffering from 'locked-in syndrome' though it is rare for a director to win when their film is not nominated for Best Picture.
Personal prediction: Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men
Should win: Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men
Performance by an actress in a leading role
Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie in Away from Her
Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney in The Savages
Ellen Page in Juno
No one liked Elizabeth: The Golden Age, so no matter how good Cate Blanchett was in that movie, there has been no buzz for her in this category. No one saw Laura Linney in The Savages, and despite her excellent body of work, there is a uniformity in the roles she picks, so it is unlikely they will award her for this performance either. Ellen Page is very good in Juno, but the momentum has been behind Cotillard and Christie from the very beginning of the season, the two women splitting most of the major awards in this category (Christie took the Golden Globe for Drama and the Screen Actors Guild, Cotillard the Golden Globe for musical/comedy and the BAFTA). Oscar likes to award women for acting in disguise and generally for pitch-perfect mimicry of famous people and Cotillard has been critically acclaimed for her portrayal of Edith Piaf through all ages of her turbulent life, but Christie has the long-standing admiration for her body of work behind her.
Personal prediction: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Should win: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Performance by an actor in a leading role
George Clooney in Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises
In the Valley of Elah is a movie criticising the Iraq war, and those are not very popular in the States these days. It was also the lesser known Tommy Lee Jones performance this year, so it is unlikely he'll win. Viggo Mortensen's confronting (ahem) performance in Eastern Promises has been much talked about, but has seen very little in the way of actual accolades. George Clooney is consistently good, but his performance in Michael Clayton hasn't garnered particularly strong praise. It will come down to Johnny Depp's anguished Sweeney Todd, wracked with guilt and mad vengeance, and Daniel Day-Lewis' intense portrayal of the disappearing man within the monster.
Personal prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
should win: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton
Another category of strong performers. The momentum is behind Javier Bardem, whose performance as the calmly psychopathic Anton Chigur is amazing and measured and frightening, and I would be very surprised if he did not win. However, a lot of critical acclaim has been shown to both Affleck, and Holbrook, though both performances featured in films that again were incredibly polarising. There is also an argument that Affleck's Robert Ford is hardly a supporting role.
Personal prediction: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Should win: Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There
Ruby Dee in American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan in Atonement
Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton
An interesting category and seemingly one of the most unpredictable of this year. There has been no real front-runner, with Tilda Swinton winning the BAFTA, Cate Blanchett winning the Golden Globe, and Ruby Dee winning the Screen Actor's Guild. Almost all are playing unlikeable characters - Blanchett as an incarnation of Bob Dylan during a difficult stage of his career, Ronan as the precocious sister who tears two lovers apart, Ryan as a drug addicted mother, and Swinton as a uptight unstable lawyer; only Dee plays a 'good' mother and mother. It will probably come down to Dee, who is only onscreen for a brief minutes long performance (though precedent has been set by Judy Dench's tiny winning performance as Queen Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love), and Blanchett, who not only manages to convince as a man, and Bob Dylan no less, in another short performance.
personal prediction: Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There
should win: no idea!
If you've managed to read down to here, you probably also deserve an award! Good luck with your own tipping, and here's to hours of overblown speeches, odd musical performances (THREE songs from Enchanted, really?), upsets, and hopefully some sharply observed laughs from host Jon Stewart.
Best Picture
Atonement
Michael Clayton
Juno
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Atonement has only won one major best picture award in the awards season leading up to the Oscars - the British dominant BAFTAs - and Michael Clayton, while garnering solid critical reviews and the occasional acting award has yet to receive a prize in this category, so the general consensus is that neither of these two films have much of a chance.
There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men have been hailed as the front-runners for this year's race, unlikely as they may seem considering the Academy's penchant for the overblown epic, the triumph of the human spirit over adversity, the smug morality play where villains get their comeuppance. In both these movies, the protagonists are amoral if not immoral, thieves and liars at best, and the so-called villains triumph over their counterparts and finish the movie unpunished by death, and their stories play out against the backdrop of a harsh America. There Will Be Blood has an epic madness in its favour, and an eerie resonance with modern day troubles - though set at the turn of the previous century it is at heart a story of oil, capitalist greed, and the struggle for power between church and state - but the bold, almost histrionic, tale has polarised viewers such that its detractors are as many and as rabid as its supporters. No Country For Old Men lacks the bravura scope and scenery chewing performances, but opts instead for a tight and tense quiet menace in its retelling of a hunter being hunted by a different kind of madness in Javier Bardem's hired killer. Both films are cynical and bleak in its outlook regarding humankind and their cruel interactions, and both have demonstrated a remarkable ability to enthrall - in its use of the American landscape, in its central performances, in its direction - and also to frustrate in their highly different yet highly unsettling and inchoate endings.
Some warn that if votes are split between the above two films, the final film in this field, Juno, stands a chance to win. However, its ostensible subject matter - teenage pregnancy - is played for laughs without little exploration of consequences in reality, and the frenetic use of pop cultural references makes it feel rather forced, particularly at the start of the film, and may alienate the older Academy voters. While it is an enjoyable comedy, it does not seem to have the same depth and vision as the other nominees, and it seems to be punching above its weight, despite being the one and only real box-office hit.
Personal prediction: No Country for Old Men
Should win: No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood
Achievement in directing
Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Jason Reitman, Juno
Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
This is the first time the Coens brothers have been able to be nominated together for the Best Director. They're the favourites, having won pretty much every award out there for directing in the lead-up, including the BAFTA and the Director's Guild. Their only real competition is PT Anderson, but There Will Be Blood is, as mentioned above, a polarising movie; or Schnabel for an interesting adaptation of a seemingly difficult memoirs of a man suffering from 'locked-in syndrome' though it is rare for a director to win when their film is not nominated for Best Picture.
Personal prediction: Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men
Should win: Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men
Performance by an actress in a leading role
Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie in Away from Her
Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney in The Savages
Ellen Page in Juno
No one liked Elizabeth: The Golden Age, so no matter how good Cate Blanchett was in that movie, there has been no buzz for her in this category. No one saw Laura Linney in The Savages, and despite her excellent body of work, there is a uniformity in the roles she picks, so it is unlikely they will award her for this performance either. Ellen Page is very good in Juno, but the momentum has been behind Cotillard and Christie from the very beginning of the season, the two women splitting most of the major awards in this category (Christie took the Golden Globe for Drama and the Screen Actors Guild, Cotillard the Golden Globe for musical/comedy and the BAFTA). Oscar likes to award women for acting in disguise and generally for pitch-perfect mimicry of famous people and Cotillard has been critically acclaimed for her portrayal of Edith Piaf through all ages of her turbulent life, but Christie has the long-standing admiration for her body of work behind her.
Personal prediction: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Should win: Julie Christie, Away From Her
Performance by an actor in a leading role
George Clooney in Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises
In the Valley of Elah is a movie criticising the Iraq war, and those are not very popular in the States these days. It was also the lesser known Tommy Lee Jones performance this year, so it is unlikely he'll win. Viggo Mortensen's confronting (ahem) performance in Eastern Promises has been much talked about, but has seen very little in the way of actual accolades. George Clooney is consistently good, but his performance in Michael Clayton hasn't garnered particularly strong praise. It will come down to Johnny Depp's anguished Sweeney Todd, wracked with guilt and mad vengeance, and Daniel Day-Lewis' intense portrayal of the disappearing man within the monster.
Personal prediction: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
should win: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton
Another category of strong performers. The momentum is behind Javier Bardem, whose performance as the calmly psychopathic Anton Chigur is amazing and measured and frightening, and I would be very surprised if he did not win. However, a lot of critical acclaim has been shown to both Affleck, and Holbrook, though both performances featured in films that again were incredibly polarising. There is also an argument that Affleck's Robert Ford is hardly a supporting role.
Personal prediction: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Should win: Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There
Ruby Dee in American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan in Atonement
Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton
An interesting category and seemingly one of the most unpredictable of this year. There has been no real front-runner, with Tilda Swinton winning the BAFTA, Cate Blanchett winning the Golden Globe, and Ruby Dee winning the Screen Actor's Guild. Almost all are playing unlikeable characters - Blanchett as an incarnation of Bob Dylan during a difficult stage of his career, Ronan as the precocious sister who tears two lovers apart, Ryan as a drug addicted mother, and Swinton as a uptight unstable lawyer; only Dee plays a 'good' mother and mother. It will probably come down to Dee, who is only onscreen for a brief minutes long performance (though precedent has been set by Judy Dench's tiny winning performance as Queen Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love), and Blanchett, who not only manages to convince as a man, and Bob Dylan no less, in another short performance.
personal prediction: Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There
should win: no idea!
If you've managed to read down to here, you probably also deserve an award! Good luck with your own tipping, and here's to hours of overblown speeches, odd musical performances (THREE songs from Enchanted, really?), upsets, and hopefully some sharply observed laughs from host Jon Stewart.
Thursday 14 February 2008
Sorry not the hardest word to say
In a landmark speech, Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities for the injustices of past governments in removing Indigenous children from their parents. It was a grand gesture from Mr. Rudd in righting a wrong that past governments have been reluctant to correct. It was also a moment that healed many wounds, wounds that are still fresh in the memories of many.
The Indigenous community has always been a neglected and mistreated community. Ever since the White Settlers arrived in 1788 and "settled" on a land that was already settled, they have experienced injustice in its utmost form. Their lands were removed from them and when that proved insufficient, so were their children in an attempt to assimilate a whole culture. Since then the Indigenous community has been placed at the bottom of society's rung, whereby overwhelmingly high rates of incarceration, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, unemployment and high mortality rates are the norm.
Despite such blatant injustices there has been little recognition of the plight of the Indigenous people. There has been condemnation from the people of Australia itself through events such as the Walk of Reconciliation and the famous Redfern speech by then Prime Minister Paul Keating. However, this is a country whereby injustice is itself embedded in the Law itself.
A blatant example would be in the area of land rights. Australian property law states that all land is Crown land. Such land is deemed to have been settled when the First Settlers arrived, meaning that there were no inhabitants when they first set foot. However, given that the Indigenous people were already living here, the more appropriate truth that Australia was a conquered land is therefore warranted.
Without any compensation let alone acknowledgement for taking land from its Indigenous owners, Australia has simply written its laws in a manner that simply shuns the existence of the Indigenous people. Since then landmark decisions such as Mabo have been passed down although that has failed to trigger a flood gate of appeals in regards to land rights.
In regards to criminal law, it is well documented that the Indigenous people continue to face injustices of the harshest conditions. Deaths in custody still occur and incarceration rates remain at a level clearly above that of any other race. All of this is linked to the rampant alcohol abuse faced by the Indigenous communities ranging from suburban Redfern to the rural towns of Northern Queensland.
Yet injustices of the entire Indigenous people aside, let us just focus on the apology to the Stolen Generation. The term Stolen Generation itself draws up vivid imagery of an entire generation taken forcibly from families. Parents never to see their children again, children growing up in a culture previously unknown to them and all this without the core of what democracy itself stands for: Choice. To even attempt to understand the tip of such an event is probably beyond the comprehension of most non-Indigenous people. Just imagine being removed from the care of one’s parents simply because you did not fit in with society's norms.
Not only was it long overdue for Mr. Rudd to stand up in Parliament and acknowledge the injustices of past governments for their wrongdoing in displacing an entire race but it was an action commendable on so many levels.
However, landmark as Mr. Rudd's speech was, the track record of this Nation in helping the Indigenous people is nothing short of unimpressive and as such leaves must scepticism as to what the Government will actually do to alleviate the various levels of oppression still being faced by the Indigenous people.
Yet hopefully through Mr. Rudd's speech, seeds can be sown that will bear significant changes. Hopefully Mr. Nelson will accept Mr. Rudd's proposal to combine arms in forming a War Cabinet to tackle this issue and look past the reluctance of his predecessor Mr. Howard, who was absent from Sorry Day, instead choosing to hold on to his staunch views that one should not apologise for another's mistake.
Sorry Day was a turning point in the history of this nation. Let that day mark the beginning whereby the Nation's leaders utilised the very power entrusted to them to provide a long overdue empowerment of the Indigenous people who after experiencing generations of mistreatment can finally look towards a better future.
The Indigenous community has always been a neglected and mistreated community. Ever since the White Settlers arrived in 1788 and "settled" on a land that was already settled, they have experienced injustice in its utmost form. Their lands were removed from them and when that proved insufficient, so were their children in an attempt to assimilate a whole culture. Since then the Indigenous community has been placed at the bottom of society's rung, whereby overwhelmingly high rates of incarceration, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, unemployment and high mortality rates are the norm.
Despite such blatant injustices there has been little recognition of the plight of the Indigenous people. There has been condemnation from the people of Australia itself through events such as the Walk of Reconciliation and the famous Redfern speech by then Prime Minister Paul Keating. However, this is a country whereby injustice is itself embedded in the Law itself.
A blatant example would be in the area of land rights. Australian property law states that all land is Crown land. Such land is deemed to have been settled when the First Settlers arrived, meaning that there were no inhabitants when they first set foot. However, given that the Indigenous people were already living here, the more appropriate truth that Australia was a conquered land is therefore warranted.
Without any compensation let alone acknowledgement for taking land from its Indigenous owners, Australia has simply written its laws in a manner that simply shuns the existence of the Indigenous people. Since then landmark decisions such as Mabo have been passed down although that has failed to trigger a flood gate of appeals in regards to land rights.
In regards to criminal law, it is well documented that the Indigenous people continue to face injustices of the harshest conditions. Deaths in custody still occur and incarceration rates remain at a level clearly above that of any other race. All of this is linked to the rampant alcohol abuse faced by the Indigenous communities ranging from suburban Redfern to the rural towns of Northern Queensland.
Yet injustices of the entire Indigenous people aside, let us just focus on the apology to the Stolen Generation. The term Stolen Generation itself draws up vivid imagery of an entire generation taken forcibly from families. Parents never to see their children again, children growing up in a culture previously unknown to them and all this without the core of what democracy itself stands for: Choice. To even attempt to understand the tip of such an event is probably beyond the comprehension of most non-Indigenous people. Just imagine being removed from the care of one’s parents simply because you did not fit in with society's norms.
Not only was it long overdue for Mr. Rudd to stand up in Parliament and acknowledge the injustices of past governments for their wrongdoing in displacing an entire race but it was an action commendable on so many levels.
However, landmark as Mr. Rudd's speech was, the track record of this Nation in helping the Indigenous people is nothing short of unimpressive and as such leaves must scepticism as to what the Government will actually do to alleviate the various levels of oppression still being faced by the Indigenous people.
Yet hopefully through Mr. Rudd's speech, seeds can be sown that will bear significant changes. Hopefully Mr. Nelson will accept Mr. Rudd's proposal to combine arms in forming a War Cabinet to tackle this issue and look past the reluctance of his predecessor Mr. Howard, who was absent from Sorry Day, instead choosing to hold on to his staunch views that one should not apologise for another's mistake.
Sorry Day was a turning point in the history of this nation. Let that day mark the beginning whereby the Nation's leaders utilised the very power entrusted to them to provide a long overdue empowerment of the Indigenous people who after experiencing generations of mistreatment can finally look towards a better future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
