Printable View
I thought the celebrations over Osama's death (murder? assassination?) were unseemly. It's reasonable to feel relief about his death, or a solemn pride at having succeeded in whacking him, but, as Rilke wrote, "Der tod ist gross" (death is huge). "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...."
Celebrating Thatcher's death is obnoxious, whatever one's political bent.
Well, the case of Bin Laden is a curious one - I know plenty of people who were overjoyed at his assassination. Whilst I'm minded to agree that the world is probably a better place without his presence, I would rather have seen him on trial in the Hague, answering for his crimes in a court of law.
I agree, Lokasenna. Would that have been possible? Those men were like cops (in the U.S.), shoot first, ask questions later.
As to Ms. Thatcher, Calidore and Volya have aptly expressed my sentiments. I think the anger though shows how powerless people feel/felt.
I'm sure changes did need to be made, but there, it seems, as here, the middle class and working class are disregarded, and a country does that only to it's own peril.
...freudian slip? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
If Bin Laden was indeed responsible for the WTC attack, the US had a duty to kill him. I don't think a European supra national court would have any right to try him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Osama. Obama. Who can tell the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
I think celebrating someone's death is unseemly - particularly someone who addressed the country's needs according to her, and the Tory party's beliefs.
I have to qualify this this though. I was studying for my A levels when Thatcher got in. When I left college - before I eventually went to Uni - I, like millions of others, was without a job in an economy that had very few to offer. I was lucky. Through someone I knew I got a job after 9 months on the dole. I can't tell you how depressing it was then. I had lived at home for the years previous, and we were pretty poor. The policies passed by the govt then made things worse.
I come from the industrial North and saw first hand how things went. Whatever the economic sense and need for change, many working class folk were left without jobs with families to support. It wasn't just the miners: manufacturing industry went down the pan too. Here in the Midlands was the same. I remember watching the news night after night when they reported how many jobs had been lost in this region and that region. Depressing doesn't begin to explain it. Descriptions of walking to the DSS as it was called in the snow to try to see if your money will come before everything closes for Christmas is no joke. When you suddenly become reliant upon social security and your family is plunged into poverty because of deliberate Government policy, arguments about economic sense become irrelevant. Add to that the very vivid perception that the government didn't care and employed very unsympathetic staff to administer the money you were entitled to, and you get a vey palpable sense of grievance.This wasn't just in a few places, but in all the industrial cities of the North, Scotland and Wales. Percieving this as a class war was logical at the time.
Then the miners strike occurred. This was a real war orchestrated by both sides. I found miners to be grasping and quite disissive of other working folk, but the govt at the time were out to break the unions. The miners union was unpleasant and grasping, but in breaking it, they also affected their families and the communities and businesses that relied upon the pit communities. In Yorkshire these tended to cluster in small villages with no other industries. I used to see vans of police gathering on the main road near my house when I was off to work. These were police shipped in from other places to provoke and deal with the strikers. It was ugly. At the time, conscious of the class war aspect of Govt policy, I supported the miners. I've changed my mind since, and I think the Miner's union embodied all that was wrong with unionism at the time. The damage of those communities persists today though, and I fully understand the hatred for Thatcher that has persisted. My cousin bought a house in one of the pit communities affected a few years later. In the years of Yuppiedom and soaring house prices in the south, he was able to buy a very reasonable house for £3,000. A few miles down the road and a similar terraced house went for £29,000. It wasn't just the jobs but the whole of the local economies suffered.
In the end, she was a figurehead representing a party, and I think that's what the PM is for - to take the flak so that the party can extricate itself from the mythology around the leader. Exactly the same thing happened with Blair. It's not only tasteless and bad for her remaining family for this celebration of her death, but it demonstrates a certain political naivety. Things have changed since her term in office, but having said that, I can still relate to those times, and I fully understand the feelings in those communities.
In answer to Cafolini about the Falklands - the war very conveniantly boosted Thatcher's Government's ratings and they won the next election. A cynic might comment upon the sacrifice of British and Argentinian lives for a second term in office. Also the war solved nothing. It merely postponed a problem that might have been negotiated into some kind of settlement with Argentina over a period of time whilst we were in a positon of power instead of exercising a misplaced triumphalism that delayed the problem until today. Are we going to send another task force to the South Atlantic with the emergent economies of South America in a much stronger position? Unlikely.
It seems to me (from a moral perspective, without getting too political) that we can’t have it both ways. WE want a “war on terror” (which allows us to whack our enemies without trial), but we refuse to confer on our enemies the rights and privileges of soldiers (like the right to surrender without being shot). The U.S. may have had a “duty” to bring Osama to trial, but not to assassinate him. The principle of “imminent danger” fails to apply to Bin Laden. He was hiding out in Pakistan, and presented no danger whatsoever. Reports are conflicting, but some seem to show that he tried to surrender, and was unarmed, in which case there is no legal or moral precedent for killing him, whether he is an “enemy combatant” or a “criminal”. To use a military metaphor, we have lost the moral high ground, and are now terrorists ourselves (especially with our drones and torture chambers).Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
To me, celebrating death looks something like this: :beatdeadhorse5:
I fail to see the point, especially if the person no longer holds direct power over you.
The celebration of another's shortcomings (IE., a politician losing an election or being removed from office) is to send a message to that individual about your opinion of them/ their work. Celebrating death is essentially the same thing, only the person in question isn't there to receive the message. Seems redundant, no?
How is anyone served by celebrating the death of another?
When folk don't go to the polling booth but have plenty to say about the hardships imposed on them by government, what else can you expect? Celebrating an ex leaders death only shows how they expect others to do the yard work for them.
Agreed - but it is a measure of the negative effects on the commuities that persists.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
The current political landscape has similaities to the 80s as well, so it is perhaps poignant at the moment.
Celebrating anyone's death is hideous. We make people into caricatures for us to mock, but a human being is a human being.
It's a question of perspective: does one look at it from the position of a distant observer, or that of someone who was forced to jump to their death from the blazing buildings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
In a way celebrating Thatchers death, is a celebration of her doctrine. It shows her ideas have prevailed.
If age old decency values, like care, community and compassion, are deemed to be worthless by a leader, That person can expect to reap the consequences.
Personally, I think celebrating a person's death is always wrong. HOWEVER, if a party seeks to gain political capital through it, the other side must be allowed to counter.
It's not as bad as - for instance - using the deaths of 6 children in a fire as a platform for welfare cuts.
This is true, Mrs Thatcher inherited a bankrupt country in 1979 as did the current administration in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem