I’ve just seen a photo in the album of my friend on Facebook. It’s a photo of her in Mc Donalds with a description: “we are in Mc Donalds, sorry Iraq and other countries that suffer by the interference of big multinationals”. Maybe she was just joking or just being sarcastic about Mc Donalds. I don’t know that. Nevertheless, I know that there are people who hate governments, big corporations etc I don’t agree. I think these people are narrow-minded and they don't see the broader perspective of certain issues. They see only negative sides and influences of in this case corporations.
I don’t want to list either negatives or positives here. I don’t think I have so much knowledge (and I believe neither do others but still they are very judgmental). The same with governments. Everyone that I know seems to hate George Bush and his decision about starting the war in Iraq. I know that the war in Iraq brought a lot of deaths and damages of innocent people. But I’m sure that there will be some positive effects of it as well and within a few years people in Iraq will have more peace.
People also like to demonstrate against what they don’t like. I will stick to the examples of corporations and governments. They like to show what they think about corporations or governments. E.g. Mc Donald produces junky, unhealthy food. In some countries, the corporation employs cheap work force and abuses the basic rights. I don’t say it’s a bullshit and I would stop such things from happening if I could. But why doesn’t anyone protest against small and middle-size entrepreneurs who also cheat their employees or evade paying taxes? Why doesn’t anyone protest against taxi drivers in Marrakesh who never turn on the meters and demand exorbitant prices for driving you a distance for which you would normally pay 3 times less? Why doesn’t anyone demonstrate against shop keepers who want to cheat me (and many others) seeing that I’m a tourist only because I don’t look like Moroccan. I guess that not only corporations want to make profits by stealing. People also like to demonstrate against governments. But why doesn’t anyone protest against the terrorist in Iraq who maybe killed more innocent people than the US Army? Why doesn’t anyone protest against Osama Bin Laden but only against George Bush?
To summarize: I don’t think that corporations are good or bad. They just exist. They bring us different products that we buy. They employ people but as well they abuse human dignity providing people with horrible working conditions and pay so little to them. I don’t think that war in Iraq was good or bad either. Many innocent people died but on the other hand a horrible dictator was overthrown. These are much more complicated issues and we can’t just put a label – good or bad. I prefer to see to both sides of an issue before I judge it.
The world is not only black or white. It has a lot of tones of gray.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
well, my friend, the world might not be black and while but you have just painted it so yourself. How? by talking about "you" and "others", "you" and what you called "narrow minded"... HUman beings tend to think in exclusive terms and so are you Kamil!
Now to go back to the subject of your post, i think you tried to tackle an issue (or many issues) of an extreme level of complexity. I should let you watch this film and judge by yourself :)
http://www.freedocumentaries.com/film.php?id=102
Peace
Amine
Dear Kamil, what i stand by what i said on my facebook with a sarcastic tone. I would like to comment 2 things and I hope you think about it.
First, by saying that people who find multinationals overpowering and too dominating in this world 'narrowminded' is already a statement that contradicts your title 'the world is not only black and white'. Real narrowmindedness comes from people that judge people immdiately by their opinion instead of trying to comprehend why they're thinking this way. U will get nothing done in life without understanding why things work as they work.
Secondly,u were talking about Iraq and that the invation of USA must have some positive effects but only can be seen few years from now. I never liked this kind of vagueness and the waiting modus as I like to call it. See the things as they are. At this moment USA has brought nothing good in Iraq besides suffering and explosion of day to day life. Every act at the end has some kind of positive effect but that does not mean that the right choice has been taken. Fe a teenager that gets pregnant and keeps the baby. If the baby grows up, at the end the mum will be more then glad that she got this child on a long turn. THAT does not mean that teenagers should get children though! the same with Iraq, if some positive effects can be find it still doenst outweigh all the misery it brought the last couple of years. to come back to your title, world is not black and white, but that does not say that we cannot judge an act of a person or state because there's always the other side of the story. Even a killer has another side of the story...this is the world
just a few words: you're asking what's the difference between small enterprises and big corporations stealing? well, there is, naturally. It's analogous to the relation of murder and mass genocide, like Holocaust. All the institutionally justified actions are much more difficult to be judged, I mean, there is no one to blame - you can just blame the system, the whole nation, human condition etc.(for which the proof is exactly what you say). Still, you must remember that dids which are discussed here do deserve condemnation and that people humiliated and exploited by multinationals deserve their dignity.One man can fight with the taxi driver but it is impossible for him to fight back an enourmous institution.
As to Bush - Bin Laden. Well, it is actually the same thing. Why people criticize Bush? Because he's a head of civilized country, of an institution and he use legal tools to commit crimes. Bin Laden IS a criminal, terrorist ARE crominals. On the contrary, Bush is not a criminal acting like a (legalized) criminal.
Kamil,
Ameryki nie odkrywasz mówiąc, że wszystko jest względne.
Są korporacje lepsze (ogólnie mówiąc prowadzące interesy w sposób bardziej etyczny) i gorsze (pomnażające majątek żerując na krzywdzie innych).
Są ludzie dla których korporacje są dobre (np. udziałowcy, wysoko opłacani specjaliści w krajach wysokorozwinięty) i są tacy dla których są one nieszczególnie dobre (np. dzieci pracujące w fabrykach przypominających obozy pracy w krajach trzeciego świata).
Jako lekturę nieakademicką, uzupełniającą, poszerzającą horyzonty polecam filmy: The Corporation, The Take, The Big One, i książkę No Logo. Oczywiście nie mówię, że zgadzam się z tezami prezentowanymi w tych filmach/książce, ale uważam, że prezentują one cenny punkt widzenia.
Unikałbym prowokacji (bo tak rozumiem ten post), moralizowania i stanowczego wypowiadania się na tematy, o których masz niewystarczającą wiedzę. No ale wszyscy się uczymy (zazwyczaj na błędach).
Pozdrawiam,
Szymon (pracownik korporacji)
does the end justify the means? it can be applied to everything, from the massive corporations to teenage pregnancy to the holocaust to iraq. But honestly, kamil's argument was related to mass corporations and how people lay all the criticism on them rather than on any individual business, or small business. look at the moroccan taxi drivers, the small shop keepers: they try and squeeze every dirham they can out of us non-moroccans. perhaps hayat doesn't quite understand this, she's half moroccan, eh? (that was meant to provoke). i dont seriously think the holocaust is analogous to corporations. if you think on a grander scale, gather all the murders every year since the holocaust and i bet you would have exponentially higher numbers. the hooplah with such a singularly timed genocide is that it was targeted at one particular arena, whereas the others are more personal (perhaps) or at least smaller in number at the moment. but then take every small shop keeper in the world who is looking out for number one and gather them up and they equal a corporation, the macrocosm of loads of microcosms. then kamil's argument about iraq: is bush's moronic war wholly detrimental? would iraq be better off the way it was 10 years ago? would fewer people be dead? well, fewer foreigners probably would be. not so sure about iraqis. the means of the war were stupid, pointless, partially lies, but the end may perhaps justify them. like kamil says, we shall wait and see. it's a detached attitude, which is definitely a major problem with concern to the war, but what else can we do? and lastly. the baby metaphor? i wouldn't particularly say that's the best metaphor, but fundamentally it works. ok i'm done. ciao, bacio, bisous, busa.
ok cool person (think the contrary but ok). What has being Moroccan (not half) to do with this discussion?? Could you answer this question plz before i ll continue to woop ur ass ;)
the parenthetical insertion was meant to provoke you, as previously stated. it was meant to remind you that perhaps you do not experience parallel discrimination because you are half moroccan and your appearance can be a bit deceiving to the cruel self-serving community of moroccan "mini-corporations." and the provocation evidently worked, though not to any real avail to the argument itself.
hayat, pls no wooping any asses!!:) it's a serious conversation and let's be constructive!!
let's leave unnecessary emotions at home
i will post my replies tout de suite:)
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Margaret Thatcher
to anonymous (3rd comment):
thank you for your comment.
here is my rep
there is a difference between holocaust and a murder? depends how you look at this.
if you count all the murders committed at a certain time (lets say a few months) in a certain place (let's say one country) isnt it a holocaust?? the only difference is that holocaust was an organized awful action of nazis in order to exterminate jews. but if u count all the murders u can also sum it up to a holocaust. the only difference is that this amount of all the murders is not committed in an organized way together as in the case of holocaust. which one is worse?? my personal opinion is that u can't compare it. a death is a death and u cannot sum it up as in mathematics.
stealing is obviously not as tough crime as killing. but for me it's not a difference if i'm cheated by a corporation or by a small shop keeper. if a small shopkeeper sells me and old piece of sausage (that already went off) and at the same time corporation is fair, i will be pissed off with the small shop keeper. if it;s the corporation that sells me an old sausage and the shop keeper is fair i will be pissed off with the corporation.
the thing is that you can be cheated in the SAME way by a corporation and by a small shop keeper and honestly i dont see a difference. after all, a corporation and a small shop is managed by people who often want just to make a profit no matter in which environemtn they are.
and also - you can fight (and maybe even win ) with a taxi driver. but can you fight (and win) with all of them?? i once managed not to be cheated by one taxi driver. i was so proud of myself. unfortunately the next day i was cheated by another one and i couldnt do anythign. u can be as powerless with the taxi drivers (i mean all of them) as with the enormous institutions.
the difference between bush and bin laden. bush also runs the country and takes care of its developemnt while bin laden only organizes terrorist attacks. bush is not perfect (that's sure) and neither are all of his actions but at least he takes some efforts to develop the country , the economy and the wealth of the people.
about narrow-mindness - a good input from my friend. maybe i didnt make it clear enough. sorry for that. i didnt want to insult anyone
i think that people who are extremely against corporations are as narrow minded as those who are strongly in favor of them. all kind of extreme opinions without taking into consideration the second side or the other dimensions are for me narrow-minded.
denying that nike abuses basic human rights or saying that coprorations should dissapear - both opinions are narrow-minded for me.
amine, thanks for your comment
my reply:
i didnt paint the world black and white! it's totally the opposite. i just tried to show that the world is not only black and white. this concept is everywhere in my post:)
"you" is not only me. i believe that there is a lot of people who can have a complex idea about the world and see it from different perspective. i love talking to such people and learn from them and make my perspectives about the world broader and broader. my experience in morocco and people i've met her have strongly contributed to that.
some people are narrow minded about certain issues and some people arent (there is nothing left in between). in this case i do agree - it's black or white - i put it in a very exclusive way as u said.
about the link. i wanted to open it last night but i had very slow connections and i didnt see it.today it didnt work for me so pls if u can resend it from different source it would be cool. i'll be grateful
dear hayat,
here is my reply:
thank you for clarifying that your comment was with sarcastic tone. i didnt want to judge you cause i was not sure whether your comment was sarcastic or not. now i know and thanks for clarifying.
i clearly stated that the narrow minded people are for me those who only see the one side of the issue. those who can judge the thing from both sides are obviously not narrow-minded as they can see different perspectives and they can comprehend the issue from varoius dimensions. maybe some people say only one point of view and they dont express the other (cause they dont want, they are afraid or whatever). in this case they arent narrow-minded either. they just dont express the both sides of the issue but only one.
but the most pathetic thing for me (and i regret having missed that in the main post) is when people fight against corporations or clearly state that the corporations are harmful nowadys but they do use the products of the corporations (food, cosmetics, internet software, computers, etc). that's what i would call a contradiction of the words vs. actions.
and i also dont understand why u say that calling them narrowminded contradicts with the title of the post.
for me real narrowmindness comes from people who only see the one side of the issue without going further into details.
you write: " U will get nothing done in life without understanding why things work as they work." -> i totally agree. it's just that some people are too lazy to try to understand certain things or investigate them and often they draw conclusion based on what they saw at the first sight and not what's inside.
i'm not an expert either in influence of the corporations or certain governments but i can give you examples of both good and bad actions of both of them which just proves that they arent either black or white.
"At this moment USA has brought nothing good in Iraq besides suffering and explosion of day to day life" - I totally disagree. especially with the word nothing which has a very black/white meaning
i do think that US invasion in Iraq had also positive effects. As I said and what I will repeat - a dictator was overthrown. He was responsible for the death of many people(Shyits, Kurdish, people in Kuwait, Iranians) and he's gone - please answer that. isnt it a positive sign of the invasion?
Once I also had the chance to speak with an ex british soldier who served a few months ago in Iraq and said the situation is gradually improving meaning life is better comparing to a few months/years ago (please, dont always believe that media what media shows is the whole truth. they usually show the truth but not all of it and a lot of facts remain unsaid)
besides suffering and explosion of day to day life - do you mean explosion in a literal meaning??cause it's not clear for me. if yes, then i would like to say that in my opinion these are terrorist who are responsible for the explosions and not the US.
the teenager case - look at this in a different way. the fact of getting pregnant at a very young age can have a positive effects not only in long term but also right away. the fact of being pregnant may change her lifestyle and make her more mature at the age of let's say 15 which wouldnt normally happen. this can be possible and i think it's a positive sign.
i dont say we cannot judge because there is always a second side of the story. i think we shoudl judge after thorough investigation of the case. of course that killer has his own side of the story. and before we judge we should consider why he did that. maybe after we investigate that we will find out that he's not a killer but it;s someone else.
that's why we should look at the both sides of the story and only then judge.
as the last part - the intervention example. i would like to look at the history of europe in XX century.
my country was attacked in 1939 by nazis led be a dictator called Hitler. from the first day of the invasion he started killing people. at that time poland was much weaker that german army and couldnt defend each other on its own. poland was waiting the support of england and france (this support was promised before the war started). neither england nor france did anything. why?? because in their mind the still had pictures of world war one and they wanted to avoid the second war. that's why the didnt help poland and didnt attack germany who aggresed my country. as we all know they didnt manage to avoid second world war. as some historician say - if england+france had intervened probably their forces would have stopped hitler (cause england+france was stronger than germany).
it doesnt necessarily have to be the case with iraq. what i want to say is that military intervention does not have to be always a bad solution. sometimes there is no better solution, sometimes tehre are not good solutions at all. in the world war 2 case - the people started dying after hitlers invasion. if hitler had been attacked by french+englihs armies there would have been a war. both cases - violence in both of them. sometimes there is just no good solution at all.
i will be short coz dont wanna make any long stories. On the cool person...thats not right. I actually dont look like a Moroccan so its not deceiving. Its all about your attitude towards the taxidriver. As i can tell from you, that must be the problem.
If your just trying to provoke me with work without any other goal, i find it quite pathetic. If u really wanna discuss then leave the foolings comments aside. End discussion. Kamil, i prefer oral discussions; we'll continue on this later! Hayat
anther comment, i dont base my opinion on media. I know a lot of Iraqi people that have family there and I can tell you that they would not be pleased with you right now...Talking with a soldier in Iraq shows another side of the story the real familis that knw the situation before and after invasion.
well, as for me. my attitude towards taxi driver is usually nice. it changes when they want to cheat me. it doesnt happen very often but still it does (i.e. 2 days ago)
i heard about some iraqis that were in favor of the invasion and were relieved about saddam being overthrown.
and i also remember pictures on TV when people were happy on the street when he was gone.
for me these are mostly terrorist who mess up there.
i'm looking forward to finishing the discussion later
bisous
One more movie to see: "Why Democracy? Taxi to the Dark Side". It is about a bad president, a bad war and a good taxi driver who dies. No corporations this time.
"i heard about some iraqis that were in favor of the invasion and were relieved about saddam being overthrown" - read about the Kurds, read about the PKK (terrorists?). They liberated the North of Iraq because they had their own "business" there. And it totally destabilized the political situation in the whole region. Now Kurdistan is becoming like a second Israel surrounded by hostile nations. What is the conclusion? None. Only that a 20 seconds long spot on TV is not always a sufficient source of knowledge on a topic.
Kamil, you are trying to speak about important issues, but you don't go into any of them deeply enough. And you are mixing things up. That's why I think we should not go into further discussions. I would suggest going into one topic at a time. When we speak about Iraq, ok, let's speak just about Iraq. When we speak about the Polish history, fine, let's talk about it. Or when we speak how hard it is to live in Maroco... well... I don't know much about this one. :-) This way we would not end up in such inconsistent comparisons as the one with a shopkeeper and a taxi driver and big corporations...
thanks for your comment, Szymon.
my reply:
well, my purpose is not to get into details. my purpose is to prove that every issue has its 2 sides and different dimensions which as i've noticed not everyone realizes.
and i just gave 2 examples: corporations and Iraq. hard life in morocco or Polish history are strictly connected with one of them.
my purpose was not to discuss any of the issue deeply but rather show different perspectives without going further into details.
and believe me that I do know that 20 sec spot is not sufficient. I confirmed that here.
and i don't understand why u find the comparisons inconsistent?
Post a Comment