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.
Sunday, 24 February 2008
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.
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
High Time for a New High Tea
Say the words 'high tea' and it brings to mind images of well-dressed ladies sitting around chatting, fingers curled daintily around the handle of a white china cup, a spread of dainty treats presented on a three-tiered cake stand before them, in hushed tea rooms. It might seem a throwback to a more genteel past, but it has been fashionably revived for women to gather together, whether it be for a simple afternoon meal with a friend, or for that celebration those traditional 'new stages' of a woman's life. In Sydney, specialist tearoom cum restaurants are thriving, hotels offer high tea in an attempt to seem more classy, and even the odd occasional bar wants to get in on the action.
But what, really, is the appeal of high tea? Why has it taken off in the imaginations of modern women whose lives bear little resemblance to those original Victorian ladies who lunched?
A group of friends and I ventured to the Victoria Room for high tea last weekend. In a dimly lit room, perched on worn lounge suites of character, and over our pots of tea with porcelain plates held in our ladylike hands, I asked them for their opinions on the appeal of high tea. The answers varied between the novelty ("it probably wouldn't be as fun if the food wasn't served on the tiered stand," was one repeated idea), the heightened sense of femininity, and the atmosphere in the rituals and paraphernalia associated. Apart from this, it could be observed that most of our group had made some effort to dress above and beyond their usual casual style, with dresses and pretty tops more prevalent than normal, and that 95% of those present in the room were female. There is also a moneyed air about the whole rigmarole, considering the relatively hefty price tag, and the fact that all the places offering high tea in Sydney are located in or around upmarket urban areas. High tea, therefore, seems to highlight and segregate on the basis of two concepts: gender and class.
Food and food customs, such as events like high tea, hold symbolic cultural meanings beyond their physical intrinsic value, and these cultural choices - what we appeals to us and what we partake of and how we go about it - define for us and for others our understanding of our place in society. High tea as a meal has no intrinsic value that makes it more feminine or more high class, but the development of such a meal has been subject to social regulation that intertwined high tea with concepts of femininity and gentility. Dining rooms - in hotels, at restaurants - were one of the first places were women of better social standards were allowed to present themselves in public without the chaperone of a male relative. It allowed for these women to gather socially in public of their own accord, and to partake in social rituals in an adopted space of one's own (gender); in some ways the consumption of food, which would seem the main point of a meal, is more a secondary consideration in this case. And afternoon tea was introduced as the thing do for the upper classes during the era of industrialisation in urbanised areas of England, fitted in around 4 o'clock between a luncheon and a late-evening dinner.
What does that have to do with modern women and her penchant for high tea? In a egalitarian society such as we live in now, we might dismiss the idea of a clear-cut class structure and thus the symbolic nature of high tea, but the truth is that we continue to make choices in our lives that define for ourselves and for others the class we belong to and what we aspire to. Attending high tea could be seen as an aspirational cultural choice, demonstrating in public both the femininity of being a participant in such a female tradition, and also the ability to afford the time and money to enjoy such a meal as a sign of class status.
However, an investigation of the history of the term 'high tea' unearths an unexpected irony. High tea originated in Victorian times as very much a working class meal, eaten early in the evening after a hard day's labour, a substitute for separate afternoon and evening meals. The term 'high' referred the height of the table it was eaten at, in comparison to the low tables (similar to modern coffee tables) where afternoon tea was taken. Instead of dainty morsels for ladylike appetites - those scones, finger sandwiches and sweets served on the stand - the meal would usually consist of some meat and other hot filling foods for sustenance, along with copious amounts of steaming tea.
This is surely not the ritzy image that the hotels and fancy tearooms are trying sell with their glossy, hyperbole rich advertisements for the luxury of high tea. But if it has already become a fashionable past time, why not get ahead of the trend? I say we should return high tea to its hearty origins, and in the process make it a more inclusive meal. Let us strip away its class issues and bridge the gender divide; next time someone suggests high tea, invite all your friends, male and female, over for a good hearty meal of hot and cold meats, stomach filling sandwiches and cakes, and plenty of hot tea, of course, for everyone.
But what, really, is the appeal of high tea? Why has it taken off in the imaginations of modern women whose lives bear little resemblance to those original Victorian ladies who lunched?
A group of friends and I ventured to the Victoria Room for high tea last weekend. In a dimly lit room, perched on worn lounge suites of character, and over our pots of tea with porcelain plates held in our ladylike hands, I asked them for their opinions on the appeal of high tea. The answers varied between the novelty ("it probably wouldn't be as fun if the food wasn't served on the tiered stand," was one repeated idea), the heightened sense of femininity, and the atmosphere in the rituals and paraphernalia associated. Apart from this, it could be observed that most of our group had made some effort to dress above and beyond their usual casual style, with dresses and pretty tops more prevalent than normal, and that 95% of those present in the room were female. There is also a moneyed air about the whole rigmarole, considering the relatively hefty price tag, and the fact that all the places offering high tea in Sydney are located in or around upmarket urban areas. High tea, therefore, seems to highlight and segregate on the basis of two concepts: gender and class.
Food and food customs, such as events like high tea, hold symbolic cultural meanings beyond their physical intrinsic value, and these cultural choices - what we appeals to us and what we partake of and how we go about it - define for us and for others our understanding of our place in society. High tea as a meal has no intrinsic value that makes it more feminine or more high class, but the development of such a meal has been subject to social regulation that intertwined high tea with concepts of femininity and gentility. Dining rooms - in hotels, at restaurants - were one of the first places were women of better social standards were allowed to present themselves in public without the chaperone of a male relative. It allowed for these women to gather socially in public of their own accord, and to partake in social rituals in an adopted space of one's own (gender); in some ways the consumption of food, which would seem the main point of a meal, is more a secondary consideration in this case. And afternoon tea was introduced as the thing do for the upper classes during the era of industrialisation in urbanised areas of England, fitted in around 4 o'clock between a luncheon and a late-evening dinner.
What does that have to do with modern women and her penchant for high tea? In a egalitarian society such as we live in now, we might dismiss the idea of a clear-cut class structure and thus the symbolic nature of high tea, but the truth is that we continue to make choices in our lives that define for ourselves and for others the class we belong to and what we aspire to. Attending high tea could be seen as an aspirational cultural choice, demonstrating in public both the femininity of being a participant in such a female tradition, and also the ability to afford the time and money to enjoy such a meal as a sign of class status.
However, an investigation of the history of the term 'high tea' unearths an unexpected irony. High tea originated in Victorian times as very much a working class meal, eaten early in the evening after a hard day's labour, a substitute for separate afternoon and evening meals. The term 'high' referred the height of the table it was eaten at, in comparison to the low tables (similar to modern coffee tables) where afternoon tea was taken. Instead of dainty morsels for ladylike appetites - those scones, finger sandwiches and sweets served on the stand - the meal would usually consist of some meat and other hot filling foods for sustenance, along with copious amounts of steaming tea.
This is surely not the ritzy image that the hotels and fancy tearooms are trying sell with their glossy, hyperbole rich advertisements for the luxury of high tea. But if it has already become a fashionable past time, why not get ahead of the trend? I say we should return high tea to its hearty origins, and in the process make it a more inclusive meal. Let us strip away its class issues and bridge the gender divide; next time someone suggests high tea, invite all your friends, male and female, over for a good hearty meal of hot and cold meats, stomach filling sandwiches and cakes, and plenty of hot tea, of course, for everyone.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Kenya all just stop fighting for one second?
With an estimated 1000 dead and over 300,000 displaced you would think that such a scenario is playing out in the Sudan or Somalia. However, anybody with knowledge of African politics would be shocked at the furious state in which violence has plunged the usually safe and rather democratic country of Kenya into a bloody civil war. Ever since the re-election of President Mwai Kibaki, Kenya has plummeted into a state of civil disarray only seen in its neighbouring countries. With savage clashes between those loyal to the President and Opposition Leader Raila Odinga worsening with the passing of each day, one can increasingly be forgiven for barely raising a hopeful eyebrow of peace even despite the presence of former UN Chief Kofi Anan currently attempting to broker a peace deal between both parties.
To the west of Kenya fresh violence has again erupted in the capital of Chad, N'Jamena, as rebels launched its latest assault on government troops in an attempt to oust President Idriss Deby. After two days of intense clashes the rebels finally withdrew but not before tens of thousands fled the capital to neighbouring Cameroon, which lies south west of N'Jamena. At the present situation no official death toll has been given despite bodies littering the city's streets.
What makes the current situation even more unstable are claims by the Chad Government backed up by the United States that the rebels were aided by neighbouring country Sudan, a country already infamous for its notorious ethnic civil war in Darfur that has already seen several hundreds of thousands dead and several million displaced.
Despite the plan by the European Union to deploy a peacekeeping force to protect the displaced multitudes of Sudanese and Chadian refugees, one must question the reality of whether Africa can truly embrace peace in the foreseeable future. After all, the volatility of sporadic violence happening in any African country is something that is not too far fetched. The current events in Kenya bears clear testament to that. Extremely violent civil wars without any shred of humanity waged on ethnic or religious differences are now as common as the Reserve Bank of Australia raising interest rates.
Yet what can a continent that has known little besides famine, poverty, and war be it via ethnic cleansing or with its neighbouring countries possibly do to alleviate its current situation? Peace talks though frequent are about as viable as the world actually caring about the situation. Plus talk in this instance is not only cheap but pointless in a region whereby the rule of law is in the form of a machete or an AK-47 toting soldier with a Russian made RPG strapped to his back.
Surprisingly or perhaps unsurprisingly, the world remains relatively detached, like a stranger in the street with their ipod blasting the latest itunes without a care in the world. Now why is that? Is it because Africa as a whole just is not as economically lucrative as the Middle East? Is it because despite its constant state of violence, these countries possess no firepower deserving of satellite analysis by the CIA? Or is it simply a case of TIA (This Is Africa) whereby the global thought pattern simply is: If it has always been broke, why fix it?
Regardless the situation, the world needs to stop sitting on the sidelines and realise that no matter how detached Africa may seem on their foreign policy agenda, basic humanity dictates that such violence cannot be allowed to continue to permeate a continent that has already been soaked in the very blood of its own people, regardless of ethnicity, religion or political allegiance.
To the west of Kenya fresh violence has again erupted in the capital of Chad, N'Jamena, as rebels launched its latest assault on government troops in an attempt to oust President Idriss Deby. After two days of intense clashes the rebels finally withdrew but not before tens of thousands fled the capital to neighbouring Cameroon, which lies south west of N'Jamena. At the present situation no official death toll has been given despite bodies littering the city's streets.
What makes the current situation even more unstable are claims by the Chad Government backed up by the United States that the rebels were aided by neighbouring country Sudan, a country already infamous for its notorious ethnic civil war in Darfur that has already seen several hundreds of thousands dead and several million displaced.
Despite the plan by the European Union to deploy a peacekeeping force to protect the displaced multitudes of Sudanese and Chadian refugees, one must question the reality of whether Africa can truly embrace peace in the foreseeable future. After all, the volatility of sporadic violence happening in any African country is something that is not too far fetched. The current events in Kenya bears clear testament to that. Extremely violent civil wars without any shred of humanity waged on ethnic or religious differences are now as common as the Reserve Bank of Australia raising interest rates.
Yet what can a continent that has known little besides famine, poverty, and war be it via ethnic cleansing or with its neighbouring countries possibly do to alleviate its current situation? Peace talks though frequent are about as viable as the world actually caring about the situation. Plus talk in this instance is not only cheap but pointless in a region whereby the rule of law is in the form of a machete or an AK-47 toting soldier with a Russian made RPG strapped to his back.
Surprisingly or perhaps unsurprisingly, the world remains relatively detached, like a stranger in the street with their ipod blasting the latest itunes without a care in the world. Now why is that? Is it because Africa as a whole just is not as economically lucrative as the Middle East? Is it because despite its constant state of violence, these countries possess no firepower deserving of satellite analysis by the CIA? Or is it simply a case of TIA (This Is Africa) whereby the global thought pattern simply is: If it has always been broke, why fix it?
Regardless the situation, the world needs to stop sitting on the sidelines and realise that no matter how detached Africa may seem on their foreign policy agenda, basic humanity dictates that such violence cannot be allowed to continue to permeate a continent that has already been soaked in the very blood of its own people, regardless of ethnicity, religion or political allegiance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
