Is it possible for us to celebrate and perpetuate someone’s achievements whilst condoning that person’s human failings? The world has become very condemnatory, lately. And viciously so. If we read more or less the same newspapers, watch more or less the same TV shows and use more or less the same social media, then we have been made more or less part of the burgeoning, universal inquisition.
It’s guiding tenet is simple: if evidence is found of past ethical misconduct on your part, no matter how long ago, then you must be ‘outed’ at the earliest opportunity, stripped of all your prestige, if any, and dumped into the dustbin of social opprobrium for onward transmission to a special place in hell.Wow! Tough, hey?
‘I will hunt you down ... I will find you ... and I will kill you’ - we are all familiar with muscular American men saying this in countless movies and other entertainment tropes. A typical scenario involves a hot-blooded white guy, in the prime of his life, who has been mugged, assaulted, beaten or otherwise physically harmed, or someone close to him – a wife, daughter, niece, friend – is raped, killed or seriously injured. This, then, is how he reacts, filled with an uncontrollable urge to inflict the bloodiest punishment on the perpetrator of the crime. But whoever that person may be, such anger is directed at that particular individual, not just anybody at random (the distinction is important, as we shall see), though sometimes it may spill over to others – say the police if they have failed to protect or come to the aid of the victim. All this is acted out on the screen in front of us. Let`s call it the Charles Bronson syndrome!
A critique (first of three) by Karim Hirji of articles published in AwaaZ Volume 15, Issue 2 2018.
Re: Trump’s New World Order
Focused on the issue of immigration, this article reflects the simplistic Trump-bashing style that has come to dominate current media coverage of Trump. It evades the central fact that the role of every American president since World War II has been to defend the global capitalist system and maintain and expand the US hegemony over the planet. Domestically and globally, all of them have served the interests of dominant US corporations and the billionaires. There were no major differences between them in terms of key economic, political, military and environmental practices and policies. They differed in style, not substance. What each emphasized reflected the changing global situation and how the US sought to deal with it at that point in time.