h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Fifty years from now I do believe that September 11, 2001 will be looked upon as a major paradigm shift for the entire world."

With respect (and I really do mean with respect: I'm not trying to stir the pot; this really is my impression of things) I don't think it will be looked upon as a major paradigm shift for the entire world. It's a major pardigm shift for a bunch of the world, maybe, but I'm sure for the Congo, for example, having lost three million people in the present civil war, september 11 don't mean didley. And I also know that the paradigm shift I had hoped for (gee, super-power foreign policy can get people pissed off and pissed-off people sometimes do crazy, dangerous, unjustifiable things, maybe we should be careful) didn't happen.

I fear that a paradigm will be imposed on the world because of september 11, but I'm not sure how new it will be to a good deal of the planet.

I hope I haven't pissed any one off (see above).

You have not pissed me off. It is my fault for not being clear. I said what i did not out of some delusion that america is the world and visa versa. I say it because I truly believe that now in this time more than any other that world events are effected by the powers that be. I also am of the opinion that the turmoil going on now is the apex of several centuries of two distinct ideologies. These two mindsets while paralell in composition are very diametric. On 911 that imposed cease-fire was fractured and all the kings men and all the kings horses will not be able to put it back again

::bookmark::

I certainly agree with you to a certain extent. What you say is true. My disagreement (if it can be called a disagreement) would come from the fact that I think there is a much bigger ceasefire still sitting out there waiting to be fractured, and when that fracture comes, I fear that September 11 will be quickly forgotten.

That's a scary scary thought.

it will be thought of as the begining

Yes, a scary thought. But a thought that a lot of the world has been thinking for a long time. I mean 3 million Congolese have left grieving families, but there's no CNN coverage. Famine and flooding in Bangladesh kills thousands or hundreds of thousands every year, but there's no CNN coverage. Seven astronauts die (an event which I've felt shattered over twice in my life) and CNN covers it on their "World News" section. Far more civilians were killed in Afghanistan than in Manhattan, and I heard an individual happily announcing to the press a few days a go that somewhere around 3000 (he didn't know for sure) had been killed in a single day (you know where). There's a big ceasefire out there, as I said. The third world war is going to be a Third World war and they'll be gunning for the First and Second worlds and most people in those worlds won't even see it coming.

I guess this post will be moderated. oh well. At least I saw it coming.

Hey... not moderated yet!!!

This is a case where I feel people are justified in blaming television. Also, people are to blame in their own turn for allowing television to be their sole means of instruction on the world.

Why do you think it is that the media is so weak in its "world" coverage? It's quite depressing.

Personally, I think the simplest explanation is that it is a perpetuation of colonialism and imperialism. Some lives (and deaths) are worth more than others. Here's a joke that I heard told about the present conflict but it could be applied to a great number.

Two military planners are sitting discussing their next campaign. a visitor asks them about their plans. On planner replies "we're going to kill 5 million (insert a nationality) and one bicycle repairman."

"a bicycle reapairman? Why a bicycle repairman?"

one planner turned to the other and said, "see, I told you no one would care about the (insert a nationality)."

It's not funny. It is, however, the perception from the outside. And, actually, since I'm in the First World, it's the perception from the inside as well.

Do people not wonder why so little seems to happen in Africa and South America? We only here about China if they launch a rocket or if there's a really big earthquake (or a good disease starts there). And Afghanistan is pretty much unheard of now, even though the war continues (another innocent family was wiped out by "coalition" bombs yesterday. I guess it's a head for an eye rather than an eye for an eye.) I'm sorry, I'm feeling quite bitter about what is so obviously an imbalanced racist imperialism which is growing in the world.

response to #187

It is not surprising that cnn does not cover 3rd world tragedies with the same attention that s story that affects or intrests it's audience gets. CNN like any news network has a target audience that they play to. This is true of all news networks from all contenants and countrys in the world. It is a sad fact that many third world countrys just do not have thier own newsnetworks.

When I spoke of 'two opposing ideologys' it was not the third world I was addressing. There has always existed a void that separates those of the have and have nots. That void is ever widening with the increase of technology. It is a dispicaple situation I give you that. One that we should all work to change.

However your 'ceasefire' theory does not hold water no matter the humanistic values attached to it. It has two fatal flaws that it must over come that being the imposed dogma and technological gulf inherent in the equation. {please do not take this personal}

Here's an interesting take on the current debate about this conflict affecting the potency of the UN. It is a map of the world showing who was in the League of Nations and for how long:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/lego-nat.htm

"I was talking about the classic, WWI rules of engagement. No longer does there seem to be as much care for non-combatants. I was referring specifically to the media but even more so it seems to civilians." - Are these the ones that were in effect for the US Civil War, WWI, and WWII, in which the concept of "Total War" was first introduced, practiced, and perfected, respectively? Where war on a nation meant that everything that can conceivably affect their ability to fight was a target, from road junctions and rail lines to farms? Where carpet-bombing is practiced as a method whose intent is to demoralize the enemy and break their will to fight?

The rules of war as we understand them didn't come about until the Geneva Convention, post-WWII. And if you're talking about a current conflict that cannot be mentioned, one particular side has broken every rule of the Geneva Convention, not surprisingly. Another side has done everything reasonably possible to avoid civillian casualties, but it must be understood that this is a war... accidents happen, people are human, and sometimes individuals make wrong choices based on bad information or frayed nerves. It is not conceivably possible to have a war with 0 civillian casualties.

Codified rules of engagement have existed in various ways for long before the Geneva Convention. I am referring to a generally unspoken code of conduct similar to that which existed until early in WWII, until which civilian targets for bombing, for instance were considered to be collateral but not primary. Dresden, Hiroshima and other cities changed that. WWI bombings of civilian targets were rare and usually an accident. Similarly the sanctity of medical units and media has been continuously eroded since the *War to End All Wars*. Currently it is at an all-time ebb, it would seem.

You are right, anhaga! Today I got some emails from Americans who are acquaintances of a woman I used to correspond with. Each one (she must have forwarded to them, my last email to her)of these Americans has in the course of abusing me, mentioned his/her impression of 9/11, and accused me of not caring about it (because of my oppostion to diese verdammde Kr**g!)

This post has been removed.

Starbirth:

I thought the ceasefire theory was yours: " On 911 that imposed cease-fire was fractured and all the
kings men and all the kings horses will not be able to put it back again " I only used the term to maintain continuity: It's not a ceasefire; the firing is yet to start. CNN and First World foreign policies have taught the people of the third world that their lives are cheap. There are a lot of those lives that will be willingly spent stealling the lives the first world places a high value on.

CNN has marketed itself as the world's news source. Gee, I guess marketers really do stretch the truth.

I know you weren't addressing the third world: that was my point. You talked about a paradigm shift for the whole world; I suggested that a goodly portion of the world didn't really give a fig about that paradigm shift and that it would behove the minority in the First world to pay attention to that fig which is not being given. The paradigm that would be shifted by wisdom is the one that is held by the first world, the one that values the third world very little.

I don't expect, based on the reaction to September 11, that that paradigm will ever change.

Della:

I've never been sure of the distinction between the First and Second Worlds. I've been expecting the war (and things such as september 11) since I was in High School (a long time). I can remember that one of the final missions our late Prime Minister Trudeau set for himself while he was in office was something he called the "North-South Dialogue" I'm pretty sure that was an attempt to defuse what he saw (and we see) coming. That was in the early 80's.

I can't believe so many people have such blinders on.

New Zealand is suffering its own divide between haves and have-nots, not always divided along the racial lines *some* would expect either! But of course *no one* in NZ is ever as badly off as any 3rd world poor person.

cl zoomer: Which codified rules of war were those? The ones governing plunder and rape of the conquered? The only thing that changed, compared to pre-WWI, was that combat moved out of fields and into the cities, where more people could be directly hurt.

I think you're making a mountain of a molehill. Our current media coverage ensures that we hear about such incidents more often. It doesn't mean it happens more often... just that we learn about it more often.

anhaga: The First World was the US and all the democratic, industrialized nations represented by NATO and those others who shared similar ideals, like NZ. The Second World was the USSR, and all the communist regimes under the influence of the iron curtain. The Third-World was all the undeveloped nations who didn't fall under the influence of either. As you can probably see, this is a Cold War-era metaphor that no longer applies.

Who purposely bombed civilian targets in WWI and the first few years of WWII? No one. And our current *precision bombing* should make incidences of that less common, not comparatively more. Our current media coverage is as slanted as ever I suppose, except we are less willing to believe coverage from anywhere but where we are from.