Emotionally charged photo of woman being evicted from private property in Brazilian Amazon
A striking photo from Brazil by Luiz Vasconcelos. Click for bigger.
“An indigenous woman holds her child while trying to resist the advance of Amazonas state policemen who were expelling the woman and some 200 other members of the Landless Movement from a privately-owned tract of land on the outskirts of Manaus, in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon March 11, 2008. The landless peasants tried in vain to resist the eviction with bows and arrows against police using tear gas and trained dogs. REUTERS/Luiz Vasconcelos-A Critica/AE (BRAZIL)”.Link (Thanks, Enochrewt!)
the latest
latest episodes
While admittedly stating that I do not know the backstory of this image beyond what is stated here, are we supposed to pity someone who is being removed from someone else's property?
"are we supposed to pity someone who is being removed from someone else's property?"
You are supposed to think for yourself.
None of us can know, based on the information given, who is in the right here.
But a dozen riot police versus one woman holding an infant child? There's no way to justify what we're seeing in the moment that this photo was taken.
"mtnlly chrgd." gss t wld b "mtnlly chrgd" f gv sht. Bt dn't, s t's mr lk "mtnlly whtvs."
Its very striking.
BUT: she was not caught by suprise. So she decided to stand them down.
I'm guessing she wanted to make a political point. So she puts herself and child at risk.
"The landless peasants tried in vain to resist the eviction with bows and arrows against police using tear gas and trained dogs. "
Ok, so they used violence against lawful authority. What do they expect? So the cops had tear gas, and used it to win a battle. Lopsided battles are oppressive now? I'm glad the Taliban was oppressed by the US.
@4; Johnson, I've you've nothing to say.... say nothing
@4:
IDCSESU.
DRINK!!
Being a Brazilian . I just have to say. what the landless moviment to after getting a piece o land Selling it. An then go on and invade another properties.
So i extremely hate them. for this.
But only this kind of picture( a mother holding her baby, agains a wal of special force cops)
You will never saw, the burning of crops, the killing of the animal, or even the destruction they caused on a invade property on the intenational media.
I just ask why???
I just think before we take any sides. you have to look at the both sides of the coin.
Portland had thing called "Dignity Village" for a while, which was just a homeless camp.
I guess they figured that if there was enough of them, then they couldn't be moved. They claimed they had rights to live there and whatnot.
But guess what? They were wrong.
Maybe a bunch of us from PDX should just start living in some of those West Hills homes, and then when the police come to forcibly kick us out, we can resist and have photographs taken nd pstd n Bngbng!
#3: "But a dozen riot police versus one woman holding an infant child? There's no way to justify what we're seeing in the moment that this photo was taken."
Police: Lady: get out. We told you to leave.
Lady: No
Police: Ok, we're going to march forward lockstep and if you value your dignity, you will get out of the way.
Lady: F you, pigs.
Police: march march...
http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/images/vietnam_napalm.jpg
What's sadder then the picture? Some of the comments here. Yeah shamelessly doctored propaganda photos exist, but from time to time, read up on what's going on in the world. When have you ever known a line of riot cops to be in the right?
And you know what else? Screw people that own property. Go out, get real jobs, and stop living off of other people working your land for you.
I feel dirty for trying to keep my language acceptable.
If you search google images for Manaus Landless Eviction
you get some additional viewpoints on the event, and other pictures as well.
Informative.
Wy t s yr bby s shld, ldy. Clssy.
perhaps most North Americans should keep in mind that the genocides that cleared the land they live on now is a work in progress in South America.
It's a very powerful photo, but from everything I've read, the soldiers/police are in the right on this one. It's not even government property like a park or a public tract of land, it's private property that a citizen has bought.
Also, there's an interesting comment from a Brazilian citizen below the picture that bears reading:
First, MST is not semi-terrorist organizacion, second this is not in context, this woman is not from a Landless movement, third this is not the state Police force. This picture is probably in the amazon, where the “Força Nacional de segurança” (Nacional Security Force, a special federal Police Unit) is assigned against the illegal wood extraction called “Operação Arco de Fogo” (Arc of Fire Operation) in an attempt to reduce the destruction of the forest. This woman is probably from a family of those whom works in the wood extraction, a workmanship whose has been manipulated by local politicians and their employer to protest against the police force presence.
I cleaned it up a little for readability. So who's really at fault here? As good as the picture is, there's a whole bunch of layers and shades of gray to this situation.
people who have lived for more generations than they can remember on the same river, the same forest suddenly have a survey crew troops through.
Then a man appears. He tells the tribe: "The government has sold me this land. Get out."
The photo is powerful, no doubt. But my first thought, after the initial reaction, was, "Why did that woman take her baby to a planned protest that could turn violent? Why is she carrying it in the vicinity of these big nasty violent guys? And if she's really as afraid as her face seems to indicate, why isn't she running? The cops aren't running, they're standing there braced. And she's leaning back against them, and holding onto a shield. Hmmm... could it be STAGED?"
I once attended an Earth First! recruiting meeting. They explicitly encouraged us to provoke the loggers and cops so they could stage photographs like the one shown, with some poor waif-like young woman being menaced by giant evil authority figures. (I opted out of being recruited.)
Yes, I'd still happily chain myself to a tree if the protest were honest and genuinely non-violent. But I look at photos like this very carefully. In modern era, all kinds of groups are very sophisticated about manipulating the media to create powerful, dishonest images.
By the ghost of Drunken Ira Hayes, I see little ambiguity with this one.
Is this Boingboing or friggin Fox news?!?!?
Uh, Fox News is right wing and has little respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.
#17 nailed it.
and I would add, that even if you try to search for the "objectivity" of the story, the back story of the image, it comes down to one thing:
YOU DO NOT TREAT PEOPLE LIKE THAT. WHO ARE YOU TO PUSH A MOTHER CARRYING A CHILD. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
There's civility, talking, conversing , diplomacy, agreements, you name it.
and even if you are still not convinced, try to imagine you're that child and that's your mother carrying you.
So? See any big changes in China thanks to the "tank photo"? Did the images of Monks being shot in Burma change anything there?
10,000 words are still words.
@21
How are the majority of the posts differ from Fox, pray do tell.
Yes the picture looks bad, and yes very little information same thing happened here in the U.S. look up Trail of Tears.
Yes the natives for all intensive purposes quote un quote owned the land they were being evicted from but that did not stop the new landlords from marching them to their deaths (if they were lucky).
T ll y smrmy lttl 'trds wh thnk tht "wnrshp" n bckwds Brzl s ny bttr thn srpng/lbrtng th lnd frm ths wh hv lvd thr tm snc mmmrl sy t y "stck yr hd n pg!"
1. Photoshopped.
2. This photo was framed to make The State look like the bad guy. Another journalist could easily have taken pictures of a lone policeman being attacked by the member of the Landless Movement.
3. Um, still Photoshopped.
@24
I don't think either is different. Hence my earlier Ira Hayes reference.
And Takuan seems to consider them the same as well (#15 & #17).
These issues aren't dead in the US - just read Fox News if you don't believe me.
There's two common themes here I want to respond to.
1) "What was she thinking, taking a child to a demonstration that could turn violent?"
This was not a demonstration. These people didn't show up to wave signs, chant rhyming slogans, and then go home to wash the teargas from their eyes and eat vegan muffins with their solidarity group.
They are indiginous peasants who have been evicted from their land. They have no way of obtaining food. They occupied the land in order to have something to farm.
The alternate choice for this woman was not to stay at home and housewive, or go in to work like a good cubicle potato. Her alternatives probably included acquiring diseases by scavenging in rubbish dumps or prostitution, or just becoming so undernourished that she stopped lactating and her baby died of starvation.
2) "They were trespassing on private property. That automatically puts them in the wrong."
How do you suppose that land came to be "private property"? It wasn't always "owned" by someone with a Portuguese name.
As others have pointed out, the genocidal land grabs that are a fait accompli in North America, are a work in progress in Brazil. These are people who have had their land stolen, or at most their parents' land stolen, coming to reclaim it.
If you buy stolen property, even in all good faith, it can be confiscated and retuned to its rightful owner, and you're just SOL - your only recourse is to go the the person who sold it to you. The problem arises when the thief is also the state that's supposed to enforce the law. Here we see the state preventing the rightful owner from reclaiming their property, because if they didn't, the sucker who bought the stolen property would come back after the state.
...intensive purposes...
...quote un quote...
(sigh)
@23
yes, the tank at Tianammen and the Burma massacre photos did make a difference. As did the newsreels of the liberation of Auschwitz and napalmed child I posted above did.
If you wish to withdraw from the human race, that is your privilege. Do not presume to pull others with you.
Implicit Assumption #1.
-The indigenous woman is a member of a group who has held the contested piece of land since a time immemorial.
There is no proof that the woman in the picture has any connection to the land which she was occupying. Brazil is big and Brazil is deeply ethnically diverse. There are over 500 000 people people who classify themselves as indigenous, with many millions more who to the outsider, are lumped in to that category.
The landless tag makes it more probable that this woman had no connection to the region she was evicted from and only came there recently.
Implicit Assumption #2
-Some white guy with money is doing the evicting.
Again there is no evidence presented as to the race owner of the land. We are transposing our own assumptions onto the image.
The majority of the indigenous people of Brazil live in the Amazon where they have been fighting a long struggle against these landless migrants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7398342.stm
"But for Damaio, the chief of the nearby Xavante Indian settlement, everyone else in the region, from ranchers to politicians, are enemies of the forest.
"They got here and finished with it all," he said.
The Xavante need government help to keep their 166,000 hectare reservation safe from land invaders, Damiao says."
@ #9
Maybe not but I would sure love to see the sit/lie rules enforced on the douche bags that are camping on the street for spots for the Rose Festival Parade this weekend.
Which is in 100% clear violation of the Sit/Lie Ordinance.
oasisob1 @25: 1) Can give us your analysis of how this is photoshopped? Comparison of specular reflections in the eyes, perhaps?
2) Is this a bizarre application of the erroneus principle of balance in media? Can't find a balancing viewpoint, so you make one up? Honestly, comparison to a non-existent photo is supposed to prove what, exactly?
oasisob1,
1. Tedious
2. Pusillanimous
3. Um, still tedious
The debate on the Amazon rainforest is warming up; the Brazilian government has been using all the common propaganda to assert its supposed right on exploration which, at the end, is an exploitation by a few rich private supporters of a handful of deputies and senators.
Besides the quite old shenanigan of the SIVAM, the selling of land to rich industrials for the extense agricultural ends of the ethanol is being the guide of the current government. The few serious people left, such as former minister Marina da Silva, seem to accept the fact that, in a few decades, the biodiversity of Amazon will be as unexplainable as the "terra negra de índio".
DISCLAIMER: I am Brazilian.
When did "private property" become the only sacred value? And why is it being worshipped here by people who belong to classes that don't have all that much of it? I swear, it's like watching a bunch of 18th C. tenant farmers tugging their forelocks to the local gentry.
The truly rich and powerful never talk about it like that. They don't think private property is sacred. They know -- as many people in this thread evidently do not -- that property is a matter of what you can get, what you can hold, and what you can get away with doing to it. You wouldn't catch them asserting that the owners of private property can make whatever rules they want and do whatever they want on it. They know better, very likely because they know what it's like to own some. It's the wanna-bes from the middle-middle on down that fetishize property ownership.
And for all those guys who like imagine they're hard, hard men because they hang out in online forums and Talk Tough about The Way The World Works, I have only one reply.
Kyle, we'd already collected "for all intensive purposes," but "quote un quote" has now been added to the list, credited to you.
hey! I like "Malice of forethought"!
Brazil Indians, activists protest over Amazon dam
Wed May 21, 2008 1:02pm EDT
By Raymond Colitt
BRASILIA, May 21 (Reuters) - The construction of a proposed dam on Brazil's Xingu river will flood homes of 16,000 people, dry rivers and fuel logging, activists and tribal Indians warned on Wednesday as concern over Amazon destruction rises.
The resignation last week of Environment Minister Marina Silva, widely seen as a guardian of the world's largest rain forest, has spurred concerns that Brazil's government will accelerate roads, pipelines and power plants in the region to fuel its fast-growing economy.
It's the wanna-bes from the middle-middle on down that fetishize property ownership.
The most preyed-upon have been the political base for the most predatory since Rome expelled the Tarquins.
OasisOb1 @25, you sure love you some state, mmmboy.
It's bad enough that people here are making up their own dialogue, then mistaking it for objective reporting. You've invented a photoshopping job, a photoshopper, and a motive: "to make the state look bad." There aren't many ways to arrive at that conclusion that don't start from the assumption that fraudulent misrepresentation is behind "the state" looking bad.
One generally finds that kind of reasoning only in hardcore dictatorships.
remember Ludwig?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DE1F3FF93AA1575BC0A964958260
If the ruling classes believed property was sacred, they wouldn't have amassed so much of it that previously belonged to other people.
Acquiris Quodcumque Rapis
@36
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's some Johnny Cash for ya:
"As long as the grass shall grow"
(by Peter La Farge)
As long as the moon shall rise as long as the rivers flow
As long as the sun will shine as long as the grass shall grow
The Senecas are an Indian tribe of the Iroquios nation
Down on the New York Pennsylvania Line you'll find their reservation
After the US revolution cornplanter was a chief
He told the tribe these men they could trust that was his true belief
He went down to Independence Hall and there was a treaty signed
That promised peace with the USA and Indian rights combined
George Washington gave his signature the Government gave its hand
They said that now and forever more that this was Indian land
(As long as the moon shall rise...)
On the Seneca reservation there is much sadness now
Washington's treaty has been broken and there is no hope no how
Across the Allegheny River they're throwing up a dam
It will flood the Indian country a proud day for Uncle Sam
It has broke the ancient treaty with a politician's grin
It will drown the Indians graveyards, cornplanter can you swim
The earth is mother to the the Senecas they're trampling sacred ground
Change the mint green earth to black mud flats as honor hobbles down
(As long as the moon shall rise...)
The Iroquios Indians used to rule from Canada way south
But no one fears the Indians now and smiles the liar's mouth
The Senecas hired an expert to figure another site
But the great good army engineers said that he had no right
Although he showed them another plan and showed them another way
They laughed in his face and said no deal Kinuza dam is here to stay
Congress turned the Indians down brushed off the Indians plea
So the Senecas have renamed the dam they call it Lake Perfidy
As long as the moon shall rise...
Washington Adams and Kennedy now hear their pledges ring
The treaties are safe we'll keep our word but what is that gurgling
It's the back water from Perfidy Lake it's rising all the time
Over the homes and over the fields and over the promises fine
No boats will sail on Lake Perfidy in winter it will fill
In summer it will be a swamp and all the fish will kill
But the Government of the USA has corrected George's vow
The father of our country must be wrong what's an Indian anyhow
As long as the moon shall rise (look up) as long as the rivers flow (are you thirsty)
As long as the sun will shine (my brother are you warm) as long as the grass shall grow
This is the future for all of us, eventually.
"The scoops are coming. Clear the area. I repeat: the scoops are coming!" (Soylent Green)
There are too many things wrong in this world. I wish these indigenous people luck.
but I don't WANT to be a pie!
If you think the comments on this thread are bad, you should read them on the linked site. Wow. A large number of the posters there are heartless and not overly sophisticated in their assessment of the situation. A number of people raged against the mother in the photograph, said she should be arrested, said her child should be taken from her.
/me shudders
Remember that Baby M case some years back? A woman signed a contract to be a surrogate mother, though her actual eggs were used, so she was also the actual biological mother. She changed her mind and the court wouldn't even allow her visiting rights. The vast response of the great unwashed was "Well serves her right, she signed a contract."
And that was as far as they were willing to consider the ethics of the situation. I remember arguing with some thick-skulled individual about this, about how contracts were not sacred paper, that it would not only be wrong, but also illegal, for example to sign yourself into slavery. It is against the law.
I'm always amazed at how many people will simplify a situation and take a stand, then refuse to examine it, even when it is against their own best interests. And I'm saddened when hearts are so closed.
We don't know what's going on there. Maybe she's in the right. Maybe she means well, but has gotten hold of an unworkable idea. Maybe twenty other things.
Maybe Mark put the photo up to see how many interpretations people would imagine.
The vast response of the great unwashed was "Well serves her right, she signed a contract."
When I hear people say things like that, I always think of the Lawful Evil alignment from D&D. Understanding their attitude in that context (they really do see the law as the sole and absolute arbiter of all interaction) helps me avoid being blinded by rage and sadness. Also, designating D&D alignments in RL is funny and sometimes surprisingly insightful.
I'm surprised someone hasn't shown up talking about how she deserved to be tasered and that its really hard job to be cop....after all if she had just respected their authoritayh then she would have been fine..blah blah.
The authoritarian memes that the neo-cons/republicans/conservatives/nu-labour/etc. have brought into 24 hour media circulation have begun to seriously degrade the humanity of many I think. All the little Hitlers have come out to play (and I don't think this triggers Godwin's law).
Witness all of the hastling going on over camera use and the excessive use of Tasers for any disobedience or just because...
What I find scary to contemplate is how children growing up in this kind of environment will be affected. I would think that books like "Little Brother" would help to offset some of this..but I suppose only time will tell.
@ #35 Teresa
I'm confused. I mean the small dick thing has always been there as an easy quip, but a BB moderator to use it for categorising those who hold opposing views?
It's pretty cheap, really, and sort of lowers the standard.
are you referring to the playing of the tiny, tiny violin?
Wealthy landowners should not have to put up with a human being infestation, any more that you would tolerate a roach infestation in your own home. It is the wealthy who suffer when lawbreakers like this woman are glorified. Respect capitalism.
The above was full of shit, in case you liked it.
The power of this photo is that it does not permit the viewer the luxury of analysis. "Why?" is utterly subjugated by "Look!" The viewer must look, and will either see or not see.
"Why" is rendered irrelevant by this photo. In asking why, the intellectual mind's eye is squirming beneath a focused laser, searching for a means to justify the unjustifiable, to redirect the truth in this image far from his own vision.
I don't know the context. What I do know is that a photograph is emotional first, rational a distant second. You see an image, and it evokes a feeling. And it's interesting to listen to all the poeple here who don't know what is really going on, ramble on about what they feel is going on, and mistaking that for knowing.
Which isn't to say that photos and the emotional outrage they cause don't change history. They do. It's just that not all of its right. And I have no idea if this photo shows justice or grave injustice or even a difficult problem with no easy solution.
I do know that one could easily find a similar photo of state force being used to evict illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. I'm sure there are plenty of photos of Israeli troops pushing men with babies. And the question is, is it justice, injustice, or a difficult problem with no easy solution?
Images are sort of like guns. Guns can be used for good or bad purposes. And anytime you use a gun, it has a powerful (good or bad) effect. There aren't any guns that are non-lethal. Even tasers and other "non lethal" weapons occaisionally kill people.
And it seems to me that, like guns, some folks are infatuated with the power of images, and don't really care if their use is good or bad. And some people don't realize that waving a photo around with no context is akin to a waving a gun around in public amidst a bunch of strangers: it may be misinterpreted.
So, I'm sort of of the mind that this image, by itself, with no context of what is going on, is irresponsible use. It will neccessarily invoke powerful emotions, but it gives absolutely no context to what is going on.
And as "art", that's fine. Art is supposed to make you feel. Waving around a picture of a woman being evicted by armed police will make everyone feel something, and probably feel it very strongly. But making people "feel" and making people "think" are two very different things.
The Bush administration has spent the last few years making people feel afraid of their own shadow. And I've about had enough of the "trust my gut" approach to international politics. The photo, by itself, will make people feel, but it will make people think about as much as it would if you played a tape of a plane crashing into the world trade center over and over again. i.e. not a lot.
She was breaking the law, no matter what. Here are a few questions: Was she the only one evicted? If not how many more where there? These squatters are lucky that the Brazilian Police only used tear gas and not real bullets, this to me shows that the Brazilian Government cares about their people, even the law breakers. It says in the article that the Landless Movement tried to defend themselves with bow and arrow, a bow and arrow is still a weapon, and it can still kill, very easily if built and used properly.
Land is one of the most important commodities, especially now with the economic down turn that everybody is forecasting, you can clear the land and build a house plant crops even a small garden to support your family and when you die you can pass it on to your children. Now I'm not sure how many of you in the boing boing community own land, but if you do just imagine if a lazy shiftless bum planted his ass on your land and planted some crops of his own, ruining your own garden. I think that maybe you might call the police to have the bum removed from your land as well.
I do feel bad for those in the Landless Movement, they do deserve proper pay for the work that they do, their children do deserve an education. Here's the thing Brazil is a big country, if there was more than just that woman and her child, why not pool the money that these people make, working for other farmers, and buy their own land, and build their own school, nobody is stopping them from doing that.
Economic reality is stopping them from doing that. That, and the fact that as soon as they collectivise, they'll be shut down by loggers and the government. Bootstraps much?
"Now I'm not sure how many of you in the boing boing community own land, but if you do just imagine if a lazy shiftless bum planted his ass on your land and planted some crops of his own, ruining your own garden. I think that maybe you might call the police to have the bum removed from your land as well."
I might cut 'em some slack if I decided I owned the Amazon rainforest and had the force to make that decision stick. On second thought, any good student of politics since Machiavelli knows it's better to be feared than loved, so give 'em an inch and they might start thinking they were equal to me, and that must not be allowed to happen.
This isn't about someone's suburban back yard being invaded by a bunch of illegal aliens, you know. That woman was probably not very far from wherever she was born when the picture was taken, no matter the context.
I almost got a kick out of how all the lockstep lemmings in the comment thread at the original link were tripping all over themselves trying to be the most hard-line supporter of the excessive rights of property that have left so much of the Amazon (and large parts of the rest of the world) a barren wasteland. But why mess with success?
So go on and build your fences and man your machine gun towers and string your barbed wire right up until the moment when the line representing human population growth (the one going up exponentially) crosses the line representing the required resources to sustain that number (the one going down, hopefully not exponentially). It might be worth considering that property owners (of which I am one; 1 acre!) are vastly outnumbered by the landless and that these lines will likely cross within the lifetime of most people reading this. Then these ownership disputes are gonna get really interesting.
Also consider that most of the rank-and-file riot police and regular troops of most countries are also landless, so whose side would we expect them to be on once the economic situation prevents their being resupplied or paid?
Sad to hear what folks think is important and right.
Looking at this I hear the ghost of Tom Joad:
"Then it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too."
What we are discussing her is a group that uses other peoples land to prove a point. The Government of Brazil has tried to help them yet they still use the tactics that get the police called.
Here is a link that is pro MST: http://www.mstbrazil.org/?q=about
As you can see they do exactly what I thought they do, buying land and building farms, schools and communities.
Another pro MST link: http://www.progress.org/land20.htm
Here is the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landless_Workers'_Movement
If you believe Wiki, the MST is a rather large leftist organization, that believes in blocking roadways and railroad tracks, vandalize other peoples property, and break into the farms of the Presidents sons, not the best way to get your message across to the people to change the laws that you think are unjust.
from your last link
"In Brazil, 1.6% of the landowners control roughly half (46.8%) of the land on which crops could be grown. Just 3% of the population owns two-thirds of all arable lands. [1]
The MST claims land occupations are rooted in the most recent Constitution of Brazil (1988), by interpreting a passage which states that land should serve a "larger social function".
In other words,you support a communistic government constitution. How does that jibe at the John Birch Society meetings?
June 5 2008 The Economist (excerpt)
"Yet high commodity prices are only part of the story. Illegal deforestation happens when ranchers and loggers conspire to clear swathes of land. A rancher typically claims a part of forest and then sells the timber rights to a logger. This helps to finance the next stage of the rancher's operation. The logger then takes what he wants and afterwards clears the area. The rancher tidies it up with the help of a bulldozer, burns what is left, sows grass and raises cattle. When the land is exhausted, as it quickly is, the ranchers move on.
That is the most common way to stake a claim to ownership of land in the Amazon. Of the 36% of the forest that is supposedly privately owned, only 4% is covered by a solid title deed, according to Imazon, an NGO. Since the government does not know who owns what, enforcing any rules is impossible."
> are we supposed to pity someone who is being removed from someone else's property?
I think the disproportionate use of force is what's troubling here. Surely riot gear and a phalanx grouping wasn't needed to move a woman and a child.
@ #51 Takuan
Obviously. If I misinterpreted the symbolism, I'll be happy to be enlightened.
As for the comparisons of this image to the Vietnam one...I think there could be worlds between the two, but I don't know.
The original post reads like a frikkin' Flickr one, though.
"The symbols are reinforced by the strong composition. The woman and her child appear all the more vulnerable as the only elements of humanity and colour against the advancing wall of shields and boots."
I don't know who's more cynical, the guys in boots or the photo critic...
read "why I became a news photographer"
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/author/davidviggers/
@ 27. couldn't say it any better myself.
@ 55 Some of my friends in Brasil say of the police - well at least some of the criminals where uniforms. So yeah. The lady was breaking the law, but when a law is unjust and designed to oppress people it should be broken. Laws are just made by people - who are easily wrong.
This image makes me think and feel. I think it is very worthy. I am going to read more details about it now. Art has no point if it doesn't elicit an emotional response. It's just dry and unimportant. You have to get a reaction and then people will care enough to learn. Why would you think about anything if you don't care?
Takuan - You have a great intellectual and emotional read on this issue, and I salute you.
Zikzak - Your lawful evil idea is something I'm going to hold in my head for the next few days. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Teresa the Moderator -- That's a gold mind -- neigh, a verifiable treasure drove -- you have collected there.
Mr. Asswipe Johnson (#4) caused me utter hilarity, in that he was one of the first to express that he did not "give a shit." Manly man. Then I looked at his previous comments. Apparently, third-world poverty and ruthless evictions of nude children and their mothers can't get him worked up. But ... when it comes to a U.S. police officer illegally parking, he's up in arms:
Citizen issues parking ticket to cop
April 23, 2008 8:19pm
"That this represents an overreaction is irrelevant. Anything a citizen does to make life miserable for the pigs without himself violating the law is totally righteous." -- Mr. Asswipe Johnson.
Some more notes, now that I finished reading all the comments:
1- There are people talking about growing crops in these lands and such.. wait.. we are NOT talking about rural areas or the middle of the forest. We are talking about the close suburbs of a 2 million people city. They are NOT invading this land to plant crops, but to build houses. This invasion has nothing to do with MST or other rural land invasions. Its an URBAN invasion, for building houses. (sources: http://portalamazonia.globo.com/noticias.php?idN=65085&idLingua=1 )
2- People are talking about land being taken from the indigenous and stuff. This does NOT apply here. These people are outsiders as much as the land owners. This is URBAN area, and has been taken from the indigenous people decades from now. These people are outsiders, even the indigenous that are present there are from far away.
outsiders? from where exactly?
@68
From all around Brazil, but usually from the poorer and more populous states of North-eastern Brazil. The Indians are mostly from further up the amazon river (Amazonas, Rondônia and Acre states), and probably came to Manaus (the city where this happened) in search for jobs.
map to the approximate place of the invasion:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=-3.010927,-59.93557&spn=0.172796,0.353279&t=h&z=12&msid=116995645446175597251.00044f2df592bfbeecddd
My point is: this has nothing to do with rural land disputes, illegal lumbering or indigenous reserves. It's URBAN land dispute. It's poor people from other parts of Brazil coming to a big city in search for work and having no place to stay. This is common in every part of Brazil, not only in the amazon region.
The "Landless Movement" (MST in Brasil) is well known for using these kinds of media attention as a political instrument.
I wouldn´t be surprised (in fact I´m pretty sure) they put this poor woman there in purpose for all the bad media this image generates.
Manipulating the masses to get your second agenda...that´s politics!
The sad thing is that the MST was born as a legitimate movement caring for the rights of the poor rural worker. Too bad the power has rotten all the ideals.
how can a Brazilian be an outsider in Brazil?
@71
Dakial, this invasion IS NOT related to MST. Is an invasion in URBAN area of Manaus, from homeless workers and unemployed seeking to build homes. A "Favela", as we call it.
@72
Either you are just trolling or you have no idea of the size of Brazil.
I thought at first that I had made a poor choice of words, but: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outsider says:
1: a person who does not belong to a particular group.
So I did use the word outsider correctly and that is exactly what I meant. They ARE outsiders in Manaus, they ARE NOT from the city.
Girino, I think Takuan's point (and I could be wrong) is that regardless of where in Brazil they are from, they are still Brazillian. Regardless of what city they come from, they have entitlements in the county of Brazil, no matter how big it is..
Also, if the displaced are outsiders as much as the landowners, who is entitled (in your "outsider" model)?
@74
Well, this is a tricky question. The ones entitled to the land should be the descendants of the natives that originally inhabited the region. But those descendants are not involved in the conflict (and may have been extinct long ago, since the city was built in the mid 19th century).
If you consider that "regardless of where in Brazil they are from, they are still Brazillian", then no one is an outsider, even the original land owner that called the police to dislodge these people. The land is private property of Brazilian citizens, invaded by other Brazilian citizens. So? Which side should the law go?
The point is, several people were talking about natives having right to the land because they were dislodged from there first. Maybe some natives were, but not the ones involved in this conflict.
Should they be entitled to claim land that did not belong to their ancestors, just because they are of the same ethnic background? If so I will claim huge pieces of land all around Africa and Europe, since my ancestors came from these regions.
If they are citizens of Brazil, they should have the same rights under the Brazilian constitution as any other citizen. Does it matter if you live in the heart of the greatest city or smallest jungle hamlet if your ancestral land is stolen and you are dispossessed? How did the title to the land now recognized as "property" of some Brazilians come to be? Were the original inhabitants ever compensated, ever paid anything as I am sure Brazilian law must demand for property transfers today? Is there any intent in Brazil to do right by the Indians? Or is it just quietly hoped they will all die or be assimilated before any land claims must be answered in a court room?
@76
Let's say that the discussion is no longer about the picture in question then. Since, as I tried do make clear, the picture in question does not involve landless movement or indian rights. If this is clear to you, I can continue the discussion about indian rights in Brazil.
First of all, not all of the ancestral lands were taken. In the amazon rain forest, what happens is exactly the oposite: most of the ancestral lands are now made into reservations.
This however does not apply to the rest of Brazil (only 25% of Brazil is in the amazon region) where indigenous people where slaughtered by the Spanish and Portuguese since the early 1500's.
Today, the government has special policies and laws regarding the indigenous questions. There are still great disputes of lands and there are invasions into indigenous lands and reservations, but these are punished by the government as much as any other land invasion. There is a recent case of the rice growers that were using indian reserves to grow they crops and where expelled by the police and the army as violently as these people in the picture.
> If they are citizens of Brazil, they should have the same rights under the Brazilian constitution as any other citizen.
An they do! Whenever indigenous reserves are invaded by other people (as recently happened with the rice growers that were planting inside indigenous reserves) the government sends the police to dislodge them.
> Were the original inhabitants ever compensated, ever paid anything as I am sure Brazilian law must demand for property transfers today? Is there any intent in Brazil to do right by the Indians?
Well there is intent. And much effort and money is being spent in the area of protecting indigenous nations. BUT, you should remember that brazil is a very, very, very poor country compared to european or north american countries. The intent cannot always bet met in simple things as not having people starving or dying of tropical diseases. The law and the government guarantee only what they can afford. Sending policemen to stop invasions is cheap, guaranteeing that the reserves will not be invaded is expensive. Can a poor country afford it? Not always. Should this be a priority over the education of children or the health of the poor?
Also, there's no easy way to compensate for the property "stolen" by the portuguese and spanish several centuries ago. These lands were sold over and over again to people that has no relationship to the original invaders. Should I take the land your family grow crops on for 20 generations so that I can compensate for what the spanish government did in the 1500's? Hard to say.
The riches and wealth taken from the possession of this land is long gone into the hands of people all around the world. Should the spanish government and the portuguese government be equally responsible? Most of the wealth has gone to those countries... And the catholic church, who also took possession of much of the land? Should it be held responsible? Should be the Brazilian people be held responsible for what other countries governments have done in the past? How should we compensate the 500 hundred years of exploitation of this land?
@76
Let's say that the discussion is no longer about the picture in question then. Since, as I tried do make clear, the picture in question does not involve landless movement or indian rights. If this is clear to you, I can continue the discussion about indian rights in Brazil.
First of all, not all of the ancestral lands were taken. In the amazon rain forest, what happens is exactly the oposite: most of the ancestral lands are now made into reservations.
This however does not apply to the rest of Brazil (only 25% of Brazil is in the amazon region) where indigenous people where slaughtered by the Spanish and Portuguese since the early 1500's.
Today, the government has special policies and laws regarding the indigenous questions. There are still great disputes of lands and there are invasions into indigenous lands and reservations, but these are punished by the government as much as any other land invasion. There is a recent case of the rice growers that were using indian reserves to grow they crops and where expelled by the police and the army as violently as these people in the picture.
> If they are citizens of Brazil, they should have the same rights under the Brazilian constitution as any other citizen.
An they do! Whenever indigenous reserves are invaded by other people (as recently happened with the rice growers that were planting inside indigenous reserves) the government sends the police to dislodge them.
> Were the original inhabitants ever compensated, ever paid anything as I am sure Brazilian law must demand for property transfers today? Is there any intent in Brazil to do right by the Indians?
Well there is intent. And much effort and money is being spent in the area of protecting indigenous nations. BUT, you should remember that brazil is a very, very, very poor country compared to european or north american countries. The intent cannot always bet met in simple things as not having people starving or dying of tropical diseases. The law and the government guarantee only what they can afford. Sending policemen to stop invasions is cheap, guaranteeing that the reserves will not be invaded is expensive. Can a poor country afford it? Not always. Should this be a priority over the education of children or the health of the poor?
Also, there's no easy way to compensate for the property "stolen" by the portuguese and spanish several centuries ago. These lands were sold over and over again to people that has no relationship to the original invaders. Should I take the land your family grow crops on for 20 generations so that I can compensate for what the spanish government did in the 1500's? Hard to say.
The riches and wealth taken from the possession of this land is long gone into the hands of people all around the world. Should the spanish government and the portuguese government be equally responsible? Most of the wealth has gone to those countries... And the catholic church, who also took possession of much of the land? Should it be held responsible? Should be the Brazilian people be held responsible for what other countries governments have done in the past? How should we compensate the 500 hundred years of exploitation of this land?
Quote: Should I take the land your family grow crops on for 20 generations so that I can compensate for what the spanish government did in the 1500's? Hard to say.
If you have the weapons and manpower to succeed, it's much easier to say. Power is the ability to make it stick, "it" being whatever it is you want to do. Nevertheless, every "King of the Hill" gets toppled eventually, every acre is eventually overrun, every nation eventually falls. Getting compensated for a past atrocity just means the victimized group has achieved sufficient political power to make it stick, which is really about the present, not the past.
Should the spanish government and the portuguese government be equally responsible? Most of the wealth has gone to those countries... And the catholic church, who also took possession of much of the land? Should it be held responsible? Should be the Brazilian people be held responsible for what other countries governments have done in the past? How should we compensate the 500 hundred years of exploitation of this land?
The important thing is to look toward the future, not to worry about compensating for the past. All this squabbling about ownership and compensation and rights in this context may well be rendered moot in the very near future due to ecological and economic collapse. Most if not all existing nations began with similar crimes against the people who were already there (and the land itself for that matter), and everyone on Earth can stake a claim for compensation for historical wrongs committed against their ancestors.
The real trick is going to be coming together to solve the emerging issues that threaten us all soon enough to make a difference. Otherwise, we may well see everything go up in flames while we're preoccupied with pointing fingers at each other.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080609.wcoapology09/BNStory/specialComment/home
@80
So, Takuan how does that apply to the present discussion? All this is so distant from what is depicted in the photo of the article, or even from what we have been discussing that it's really hard to follow. You seem to wish to defend natives and indigenous people at all costs, but not really aware of their specific situation in Brazilian amazon.
Why apologize for something that has not happened yet? Does it make any sense to you?
Not happened yet? What about all the already dispossessed? Brazil might save herself much future pain by doing the right thing today. As for "all costs", how about just a just price?
@82
So what do you suggest? What is your point? How do your suggestion apply to the specific case of the Brazilian amazon? Do you have any concrete suggestions or just random uninformed opinions as it seams?
What is the right thing for Brazil to do? How can the Brazilian people and the Brazilian government achieve this "right thing" in a practical way? Show to us what is in your "right thing" that Brazil is not doing.
Nah. You're just trolling about things you have no idea about. All you did was suggest that Brazil is not doing the right thing, even if you don't know what Brazil is doing.
Please, stop ranting and read a little about what is being done and what is not. Find the right culprits instead of randomly accusing.
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/2077/
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/995D087C-3CA6-4B41-9694-91D49D2ED038.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602188.html
http://www.survival-international.org/news/3330
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/69
http://steelguru.com/news/index/2008/05/28/NDc0ODc%3D/Brazilian_Indians_block_MMX_iron_ore_mine_entrance_-_Globo.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN28444816
http://www.survival-international.org/tribes/brazilian
Girino,
You have used the word 'trolling' to refer to several commenters, including one of our moderators. Yet, you seem to be the one who is ranting and raving and ending every sentence with a question mark. You're a little confused about what constitutes a troll. Let me help you. Go into the bathroom, stand in front of the sink and look straight ahead.
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0073.cfm
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080611TDY04302.htm
heh heh!
Girino
De GirinoWiki
Ir para: navegação, pesquisa
Foto oficial do girino, que assim como todo blogger tira uma foto com poses sensuais, sem camisa ou fazendo caras e bocas para poder usar como foto "oficial" nos blogs e matérias que ele escreve
Foto oficial do girino, que assim como todo blogger tira uma foto com poses sensuais, sem camisa ou fazendo caras e bocas para poder usar como foto "oficial" nos blogs e matérias que ele escreve
girino Vey é considerado um semi-deus por diversas religiões politeístas. Nascido logo antes do Deus judaico - muçulmano - cristão, acredita-se que ele O tenha criado a sua imagem e semelhança. E vice-versa. Ele também se refere a si mesmo em terceira pessoa por puro pedantismo!
Detalhe importante
Apesar do que possa parecer, girino deve ser escrito com letras minúsculas... Sempre...
Biografia
Depois da criação do universo e de Deus, girino descansou na sexta noite. Não acostumado ainda com o tamanho das noites, porque acabara de criá-las, descansou por tempo demais e acordou somente para ver sua criação tomada por Deus. Inconformado, entrou para um mosteiro budista onde viveu até 1995 quando suas peregrinações o levaram ao Brasil. Desde então vem se comportando como entidade virtual na internet, pregando a transcendência da matéria e evolução das inteligências artificiais.
Hoje ele se limita a escrever um ou outro artigo na wikipedia, responder emails e cuidar da sua cachorra.
Controvérsias
As opiniões sobre o girino são controversas, como em U GIRINU por exemplo.
go on, if yer Portugee's rusty, Babelfish it.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/aboriginal-apology.html
Sounds a lot like what is going on in Zimbabwe at the moment. Following persuasion from the government, black Africans are squatting illegally on white African farmers' land claiming it as their own. When the farmers refuse to give up the land then it is taken by force, it is thought that more than 1000 white farmers have been killed in the last 10 years in Zimbabwe and South Africa due to problems incited by racist governments and years of oppression.
5. The least known method of slavery is the most widely used.
Bonded Labor occurs when labor is demanded in order to repay a debt or loan and the cyclical nature of debt and work can enslave the person for the rest of their life. Some conditions are so controlled that slaves are surrounded by armed guards while they work, many of whom are slaves themselves. This has been found in Brazil. It is estimated that there are 20 million bonded labourers in the world."