ISSN 1995-5928Ingesluit LitNet Akademies
Tuis > SêNet-briewe

Die mites wat die wêreldbeeld van die Westerse Mens vorm

Pieter Redelinghuys 2013-10-08
  • 14
Shares0Pin0Print0LinkedIn0

Die wêreldbeeld van die Westerse Mens word die afgelope twee millennium gevorm deur die Joodse-Christelike mite, Copernicus/Galileo Galilei, Marxisme en Freud, Darwin en Einstein, en in die Engelssprekende wêreld deur Anglo-Saksiese geskiedenisskrywers, en die massamedia van die VSA en Brittanje.

Die paradigma van boosheid (evil) in hierdie verhaal (narrative) in sy mees ongenaakbare vorm word voorgegee as die massa-uitwissing van die Jode deur die Nazis tydens die Tweede Wêreld Oorlog. Tydens die Nuremberg-tribunale het Goebels daarop gewys dat die Nazis eenvoudig die voorbeeld van die VSA gevolg het met lg se genocide van die Amerikaanse inboorlinge tydens die vestiging van Westerlinge in die land. Die Amerikaanse regter was onkant gevang en het geen antwoord op hierdie stelling gehad nie, en die finale rapport van die verhorings het ook geen melding hiervan gemaak nie. Dit was verwyder van die rekords.

Die grootse mite waaraan die Westerling blootgestel is na die Tweede Wêreld Oorlog is die beeld van ‘n goedgesinde, altruïstiese VSA wat die wêreld van kommunisme sou red. Hierdie gedagte was vir ons soos manna gewees maar min het ons geweet van die werklike redes vir hierdie "eerbare" houding: om hulle invloed te laat geld selfs duisende kilometers van hulle landsgrense, om hulle hande te kry op olie en strategiese materiale, en om die pad oop te blaas vir Amerikaanse korporasies en besighede. In die proses is honderdduisende gewone siviele vermoor in lande soos Vietnam, Indonesië, Brazil. Guatemale, Nicaragua,edm deur Amerikaanse ondersteunde diktators en wapens.

Eienaardig dat ‘n land met 250-miljoen inwoners, en Westerse opvoeding, voor die dag kan kom met presidente van sulke lae kwaliteit wat nie die mees elementêre kennis van aardrykskunde besit nie, en ook nie die vaagste benul het nie van die geskiedenis en kultuur van die lande wat hulle inval om "demokrasie, made in the USA" wil bring uit die geloop van ‘n geweer. Ook geen kapasiteit het om te leer uit vorige foute nie. Maar hier sien mens die invloed op beleid van n skiet-bedonderde militêr wat probleme graag wil oplos uit die loop van ‘n geweer. Goed dat Obama geen ondersteuning in Europa gekry het vir sy planne om Sirië binne te val nie, en nou kan daardie land liewer skoongemaak word van chemiese wapens onder internasionale beheer. 

Die ander afskuwelike tweegesig-hipokrasie van die VSA is om die besit en gebruik van chemise wapens as ‘n rede (causus belli) aan te voer vir sy beoogde aanval op Sirië. Het die VSA al vergeet van die chemiese stowwe wat hy gebruik het soos "agent orange", en fosfor, wat deur ‘n persoon se huid kon brand tot op die been toe, en  ‘n verskriklike pynlike dood veroorsaak? En wat van al die chemiese- en kernwapens wat oral in die VSA gestoor word vir moontlike gebruik in die toekoms?

Wat my opval in hierdie verhaal is die onvermoë van godsdiens per se, of die Christelike Kerk, om enige deurgewende of noemenswaardige rol te speel in die vorming van beleid volgens Christelike standaarde op die internasionale terrein nie. Aanvaar hulle dan letterlik die dictum dat jy maar Caesar sy pad moet laat gaan en ‘n blinde oog moet draai?  Die ironie van die hele saak is dat in die VSA die die regsgesinde Christene, veral van die "born-again tipe" juis dié mees aggressiewe en veglustig van die hele klomp is! Hulle preek die einde van die wêreld is om die draai, en hulle wag vir Armageddon. 

Beste groete,

Pieter Redelinghuys

Shares0Pin0Print0LinkedIn0
  • 14

Kommentaar

  • CorneliusHenn

    ... en hoe regverdig dieselfde kapitalistiese Protestante VSA en Protestante elders in die wêreld, veral na die verskriklike 911-torings, hul aliansie met Al-Queda - en dit tot die ergste nadeel van die katoliek Kerk in Sirië vandag?

     

     

    Reply
  • Chris Dippenaar

    Hello Pieter

    Daar is dalk 'n ander rede as die een wat jy gee hoekom Goebels se stelling tydens die Nuremburg-tribunale nie in die finale verslag is nie.

    🙂

    Reply
  • CorneliusHenn

    Waaargghhhhhhahahahaha ... Chris Dippenaar is te bang en geveinsd om Pieter as 'n "konspiritualis" te probeer raam ... hahahahahaha!!!!! ;-)))))))) ....

     

    Reply
  • Pieter Redelinghuys

    Hello Chris,

     

    Ag nee,  Chris! Dankie vir jou inset maar hoekom pynig jy my só? Wat is dan die rede wat jy suggereer/insinueer?

     

    Nou brand ek van nuuskierigheid.

     

    Beste groete,

     

    Pieter Redelinghuys

    Reply
  • Chris Dippenaar

    Hello Pieter

    Goebels was nie by die Nuremberg-tribunale nie. Hy het selfmoord gepleeg saam met Hitler in die bunker. Jy het dalk net die verkeerde naam beet. Dis moontlik dat Göring so iets kon gesê het, maar ek is nie seker nie.

    Chris

    Reply
  • Wouter

    Hello Pieter et al,

     
    IN I8I7 America's minister in London, John Quincy Adams, reported that"[t]he universal feeling of Europe in witnessing the gigantic growth of ourpopulation and power is that we shall, if united, become a very dangerousmember of the society of nations. They therefore hope what they confidently expect, that we shall not long remain united."
     
    In 1819 a congressmanreturning from a visit to Europe reported that everyone he spoke to"appeared to be profoundly impressed with the idea that we were an ambitiousand encroaching people."
     
    So open Dangerous Nation van Robert Kagan wat as oogmerk het die bespreking van die VSA in buitelandse sake. 
     
    In hierdie tyd, so pas na die geboorte van die VSA word die volgende voorspooksels oor die VSA gesien: 
     
    "This federal republic is born a pigmy but a day will come when it will be a giant, even a colossus. Liberty of conscience, the facility for establishing a new population on immense lands, as well as the advantages of the new government, will draw thither farmers and artisans from all nations. In a few years we shall watch with grief the tyrannical existence of this same colossus."
     
    Hiermee word 'n debat geopen wat nou nog woed en 'n vraag wat nog steeds opsoek is na 'n antwoord. 
     
    Dan kan daar na Cornelius Henn verwys word, soos David Bowie dit het in 'n strofe uit een van sy songs, 'see Emily go' of dan 'see Cornelius go'....
     
    Wat bring Cornelius dan na die tafel, behalwe vir die gewone manic antics? 
     
    Die vraag of Pieter dan ook 'n samesweringteoris is? 
     
    Wat sal die antwoord daarop wees, sal ek nie poog om nou te antwoord nie, maar kan daar verwys word na die volgende en is dit uit Jonathan Kay se 'Among the truthers' en dan hierdie volgende stukkie insig: 
     
    As I argue in Chapter 5—my field guide to the different breeds of conspiracy theorist—people come to their paranoias for all sorts ofcomplicated reasons. Some of the figures profiled within this book areMarxists. Others are anti-Semites, or radical libertarians, or religiousfantasists. Some defy ideological categorization. But they are allbound together by one increasingly common trait: They have spun outof rationality’s ever-weakening gravitational pull, and into mutuallyimpenetrable Manichean fantasy universes of their own construction.
     
    Daardie eenvoudige keuse van wit versus swart, boos versus goed. Nuanse en detail hier het nie 'n plek nie en net vooropgestelde idees van wie goed is en wie boos is. 
     
    Die doel van hierdie brief is egter nie om bogenoemde te ondersoek nie, maar met Pieter en ander belangstellendes die volgende te deel. 
     
    Pieter, dit is juis weens jou gesprek oor die onderwerpe dat ek deur my ITUNES gegaan het die naweek wat verby is en twee programme gevind het wat dalk waardevol vir ander deelnemers hier ook sal wees en plaas ek dit aangesien die skakels nog steeds beskikbaar is in die 'digitale bibloteek' van die interweb. 
     
    Vanaf die New York Public Library se bekende 'Live from the New York Public Library' die reeks onderhoude wat daar gevoer word onder die toesig van Paul Holdengräber wat sy oogmerk van die projek beskryf soos volg: 
     
    'to let the lions roar and to make the institute to levitate'.
     
    Die program in 2012 het geopen met Oliver Stone en Tariq Ali. 
     
    ON HISTORY
    Pakistani writer and filmmaker TARIQ ALI and film director OLIVER STONE will continue their ongoing discourse about "forgotten--or deliberately buried--episodes" from American history from the US intervention against the Russian Revolution to the ongoing interference of the United States in Pakistani political affairs. In their recent public dialogue, On History, Oliver Stone asks, according to Jon Wiener, "smart questions about the rise and fall of the United States and its empire in the 20th century." In this conversation, the tables are turned as we ask Tariq Ali to kick off with some questions for Oliver Stone, leading into a conversation between them on politics, film, and the untold history of the nation.  
     
    Baie van die argumente wat jy in jou brief verwoord sal uitkom in die onderhoud en bied dit ook 'n oorskou van Oliver Stone se filmwerk en besef 'n mens dan hoeveel van ons belangrikste films is deur hom gemaak is. 
     
    Die onderhoud kan hier gekyk word: 
     
     
    Die tweede program is vanaf Princeton se Institute for Advanced Study. 
     
    Die tuiste van mense soos Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel, Robert Oppenheimer, John von Neumann, George Kennan, Erwin Panofsky, Hetty Goldman et al. 
     
    Sekerlik een van die mees imposante versameling van denkers op een plek, nou en in die verlede.
     
    Die rede vir Oliver Stone se besoek aan hierdie instelling was vir die volgende rede: 
     
    Ancient History: The Director's Cut––Oliver Stone at the Institute for Advanced Study
    In his talk in Wolfensohn Hall, Stone focused on his film Alexander, a fourth version of which is in preparation. He shared with the audience his passion for the man who arguably and most radically changed the course of ancient history through his campaigns from his native Macedonia to India. Following a tradition that goes back to Johann Gustav Droysen’s History of Alexander the Great (1833)—the book that laid the foundation for the study of Alexander—Stone narrated the story of a man driven by passion and vision, inspired by mythical heroes, haunted by childhood memories, bereft of his greatest love, and surrounded by suspicion and betrayal. Listening to Stone speak, one could easily be seduced to believe that his is the narrative of an eyewitness, not a modern interpretation of ancient sources. This is where a cinematographic approach to history has a clear advantage over that of the scholarly historical narrative: it creates in the audience the illusion of “being there” and, in so doing, makes strong impressions, arouses empathy, provokes thoughts.
     
    Stone also ad­dressed one of the main objectives of the The Untold History of the United States: to discuss the role of the United States in the contemporary world and to problematize the concept of a world empire. 
     
    “We look at the history of the last hundred years, we look at the victims of this U.S. policy, and we try to make one understand that it did not need to be so,” said Stone. “We always argue that it needed to be so because we were fighting communism and we were fighting terrorism. We argue not. We go through an enormous amount of work to prove that. And I think we make the point about looking at the world through global eyes, through Chinese eyes, through Russian eyes, through small countries’ third-world eyes. We try to see that we are part of something that is bigger than just the American empire.” Stone concluded with an encouragement for young people to change the world. “Young people can change the world. Young people can dream. That’s the beauty of Alexander, because he is one of the last young people to achieve significant power and do some­thing about it. Can we do something like this in our country? Can someone change the course of where we are heading?”
     
    Daardie paneelbespreking kan hier gekyk word: 
     
     
    Apologie aan Oupa dat ek geen 'eie denke' oor die onderwerp het nie. 
     
    Baie dankie
     
    Wouter
    Reply
  • Chris Dippenaar

    Hello Pieter

    Daar is 'n baie belangrike waarheid in jou bydrae hierbo wat ons altyd in gedagte kan hou: Dit is so dat die wenners omtrent altyd die geskiedenis skryf; dat die wenners grootliks moreel opgetree het en die verloorders nie; dat die wenners selde verhoor word as oorlogsmisdadigers.

    Die uitdaging aan ons is om sin te maak uit die verlede en uit die foute wat gemaak is te leer, nie net uit wat werklik gebeur het nie, maar ook uit die manier hoe dit geïnterpreteer word. Ons gaan dalk baie verskil oor hoe ons dit gaan regkry, maar hierdie gesprek bly altyd die moeite werd.

    Ek het onlangs The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S McNamara gesien, 'n dokumentêre film wat gaan oor McNamara se betrokkenheid in die Tweede Wêreldoorlog en Vietnam. Ek dink dat van die vrae wat jy hier op LitNet vra direk aangespreek word in hierdie film, al word dit selde direk geantwoord. Daar is natuurlik altyd 'n subjektiewe aspek in enige bespreking van die verlede, maar ek dink tog dat hierdie film die verlede probeer verstaan sonder om dit heeltemal te herskryf. As jy ooit die kans kry om dit te sien, ek kan dit regtig sterk aanbeveel.

    Chris

    Reply
  • Pieter Redelinghuys

    Beste Chris,

     

    Baie dankie vir jou inset wat hoogs waardeer word. Ek sal The Fog War google en dit waarskynlik opspoor op Amazon. co.uk.

     

    Nogmaals baie dankie.

     

    Groete,

     

    Pieter Redelinghuys

    Reply
  • Wouter

    Hello Pieter et al, 

     
    Pieter jy sal dit seker nie besef nie maar hierdie briewe van jou het 'n veld van belangstelling oopgemaak in my waarvan ek niks geweet het voorheen nie, spesifiek kan daar verwys word na Japan, Korea en Vietnam. 
     
    Daarmee ook die gebeure by Nuremberg en apart daarvan vanuit my eie belangstelling die periode na 1945, die oorgangs periode na WOII en veral na aanleiding van 'n bespreking in die nuutste New York Review of Books van Year Zero: A History of 1945 deur Ian Buruma. 
     
    Die opstel open soos volg: 
     
    “How empty, how sickish, how senseless everything suddenly seems the moment the war is over!” 
     
    Edmund Wilson met sy besoek aan London in 1945. 
     
    Net so, Berlyn, Cologne, Warsaw, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Hiroshima, en vele meer stede en dorpe. 
     
    43000 dood in London gedurende die 'Blitz', 100 000 in Tokyo in 1945, en ongeveer 200 000 in Hiroshima en Nagasaki.
     
    Tussen 50 miljoen en 70 miljoen mense dood in totaal. 
     
    Die opstel lees soos 'n toneel uit Dante se Inferno. 
     
    'Five times more women were hospitalized in Paris for sexually transmitted diseases (aka VD) in 1945 than in 1939'. 
     
    'In Holland more than seven thousand illegitimate babies were born in 1946, three times the number in 1939'
     
    Gewone vrouens wend hul tot prostitusie om hulle gesinne aan die lewe te hou. 
     
    Hongersnood: 
     
    In Japan, where the population had already been starving well before the war ended, government authorities “were advising people how to prepare meals from acorns, grain husks, sawdust (for pancakes), snails, grasshoppers, and rats.” 
     
    Germany had to find a way not only to feed its citizens and returning soldiers, but to deal with ten million ethnic Germans who were expelled after the war from their native lands in Eastern Europe with the full approval of the Allied governments. 
     
    Weerwraak: 
     
    “At Dachau American soldiers stood by as SS guards were lynched, drowned, cut up, strangled, or battered to death with spades, and at least in one case beheaded with a bayonet lent by a GI to a former inmate for this purpose”.
     
    Die Russe se weerwraak: 
     
    “If you kill one German, kill another—there is nothing funnier for us than a pile of German corpses”. Komende van Maarskalk Zhukov in 1945.
     
    Doen enige iemand iets goeds? 
     
    The Allies, too, did some awful things. They expelled from Germany thousands of Russians and other citizens of the Soviet Union who were prisoners of war, or were brought there to be slave workers, or had fought in General Vlasov’s anti-Soviet army, none of whom wanted to return home. Lord Selborne, minister of economic warfare, cautioned Churchill that handing these people back to Russia would mean certain death for them. Nevertheless, it was done. If they couldn’t trust them to get into the cattle cars and trucks, battle-hardened British soldiers, often in tears themselves, had to prod, beat, and use their bayonets to make them comply. In a Cossack camp in Austria, after being ordered to board a train, thousands of men, women, and children came together in a massive huddle around their priests in full Orthodox regalia, carrying an altar, a large cross, and icons while praying and singing psalms. Their hope was that the soldiers would not assault their fellow Christians at prayer. They were wrong. Everyone was beaten, the weeping children, the screaming women, and even the priests who held their crosses over their heads. Without delay they were shipped to the Soviet Union along with the other Russians, where they were either summarily executed or sent to the Gulag, which only a few of them survived.
     
    A Japanese doctor named Shiro Ishii—whose biological warfare unit in Manchuria conducted experiments on Chinese, Russian, and American POWs by injecting bubonic plague, cholera, and other diseases into them, and then cutting them open without anesthetic and removing their organs for study, managed to convince his interrogators, led by an American general, that the data culled from his experiments would be of great interest to the US. He received immunity from prosecution and additional support when army microbiologists back in the States found his research invaluable.
     
    Is daar niemand wat onskuldig is nie, van die wat in mag was nie?
     
    Die opstel eindig soos volg: 
     
    How is it possible that out of all the winners and losers in 1945, the United States is the only country in all the years since that has not experienced lasting peace, but has grown more and more enamored of military solutions to world problems and has of late come to believe, at least in some high places, that it may have to fight a global war that will go on for decades, if not forever? If anyone needs a fresh reminder of where the illusion of omnipotence and its companion, folly, lead to, with savage and often unintended consequences, this book by Ian Buruma ought to provide plenty of corroboration. 
     
    Is hierdie inderdaad 'the good war?'. 
     
    Hierdie sluit aan by Chris se baie welkome verwysing na Errol Morris se 'The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara'. 
     
    Chris, baie dankie vir hierdie verwysing en is dit 'n welkome herinnering van iets wat ek al lankal wou gekyk het en met die verloop van tyd van vergeet het. Ek onthou Robert McNamara van wat ek voorheen oor hom gelees het, die oorspronklike 'whizzkid' en die 'template' vir David Halberstam se term, 'the best and the brightest', ook die titel van 'n boek deur hom oor Vietnam.
     
    Om my geheue te verfris het ek vir 'n bespreking van 'The Fog of War' in die argiewe van die NYT gaan soek. 
     
    'n Enkele volledige bespreking oor die film kry ek nie, aangesien ek 'n uitspel van die 11 lesse gesoek het.

    Wat sou die 11 lesse gewees het?. 

    Ek vind wel 'n bestekopname deur Errol Morris oor Robert McNamara geskryf met McNamara se afsterwe in 2009 en is die vraag hoe moet McNamara verstaan word? 

    A hawk who served as the chief architect of the war in Vietnam? 

    A technocrat who never fully understood the moral implications of his policies? 

    A hero who steadfastly worked to prevent the escalation of conventional war into thermonuclear conflict? 

    All of the above?

    Errol Morris lig 'n paar voorbeelde uit: 

    McNamara became defense secretary in 1961. The Joint Chiefs were hawks. This is clear in reading the transcripts of the Cuban missile crisis; the generals speak to John F. Kennedy with derision, contempt and anger. When Mr. McNamara took office he discovered secret Pentagon plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. He worried that the Joint Chiefs wanted nuclear war, and he was determined not to allow that to happen. After Kennedy’s death, he served that central role of keeping the Joint Chiefs in check. If true, he becomes not the villain of American history, but something quite different.

    And what about the escalation of the Vietnam War? 

    Recently, the taped conversations between President Lyndon Johnson and his advisers have been made public. Listening to the president and Mr. McNamara, it appears that the pressure for escalation did not come from Mr. McNamara, but from Johnson. Mr. McNamara was not an enthusiast for this war. But charged with the responsibility for carrying it out, he argued for it.

    Wat van Adolf Eichmann wat ook net opdragte uitgevoer het en bied ek verskoning aan indien dit 'n te eenvoudige vergelyking is. 

    Samantha Power het tog die volgende geskryf oor die film in 2003 met die veelseggende titel, 'War and Never Having To Say You're Sorry' 14 Desember 2003:

    Eerstens Errol Morris se motiverings vir die maak van die film: 

    Because of the endless fascination with the extent to which ''people who engage in evil believe in some real sense that they are doing good.If ''real Iagos'' permeated the planet, life would be simpler, and in the end, probably safer. But the story gets more complicated when a man like Robert McNamara -- who is not only debonair, but introspective and self-critical -- comes along. ''If evil is somewhat more ineluctable, it also becomes somewhat more problematic,'' Mr. Morris observes. ''What is it? Where is it? Is it in some of us? Is it in all of us?'' 

    Chris, hierdie het jy gesien en bevestig die argument ook verwoord deur jou oor wie is die oorlog misdadiger:

    Robert McNamara is aan die woord: 

    'In order to do good, recognize that at times you will have to engage in evil. We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo -- men, women and children.' Some 900,000 Japanese civilians were killed overall. I was part of a mechanism that in a sense recommended it.' Mr. McNamara tells Mr. Morris. 

    ''Lemay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' 

    And I think he's right. He -- and I'd say I -- were behaving as war criminals.'' He asks, ''What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?'' The answer, of course, is that war's winners write the history books, and, if they can help it, they avoid legal accountability. 

    Errol Morris says Mr. McNamara's failure to apologize used to trouble him. But after taping 23 hours of interviews with him, and sharing many more meals and phone calls, the discomfort subsided. In truth, Mr. Morris says, he has come to like Robert McNamara, and to understand why so many of the tirades against him find fault with a ''mea culpa'' that he never issued. ''An apology empowers us,'' Mr. Morris said, during our interview. ''The person says, 'I'm very, very, very sorry,' and we can say, 'I accept your apology,' or we can say, 'Sorry, but saying sorry is not enough.' People so strongly wanted to say, 'I do not forgive you for what you've done' that they imagined an apology that didn't exist.''

    Hierdie is nou die laaste. 

    Op soek na 'n goeie studie oor Mao Zedong gaan ek deur die NYRV se argiewe gedurende die week en vind ek wel een geskryf deur Jung Chang &  Jon Halliday getiteld Mao: The Unknown Story. Sal later daaroor besluit. 

    Maar weens die aard hoe argiewe werk het die volgende boek iets oor Mao Zedong in en word dit gelys in die soek resultate, Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History deur Margaret MacMillan. 

    'n Baie goeie bespreking en stof tot nadenke. 

    Van dit wat uitstaan is dat alhoewel die politieke leiers nie inherent boos is nie, veral in liberale en demokratiese samelewings was die gevolge van die besluite wel 'evil'. en dan word voorbeelde genoem soos, 'Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, and Iraq'. Heel gereeld so weens die feit dat die verkeerde aspekte van die geskiedenis gelees is. 

    MacMillan aangehaal deur Max Hastings, 'n historikus homself verwoord haar argument soos volg: 

    “History can help us to be wise. It can also suggest to us what the likely outcome of our actions might be. There are no clear blueprints…that can help us shape the future as we wish. Each historical event is a unique congeries of factors, people, or chronology. Yet by examining the past, we can get some useful lessons about how to proceed”.

    Waar is Jaco? 

    'History just one damn thing after another, Henry Ford via Rudge in History Boys, of was dit history is bunk?. 

    John Lewis Gaddis stel dit soos volg, en ook 'n historikus: Studying history is like looking in a rearview mirror en word soos volg deur MacMillan verwoord: “if you only look back, you will land in the ditch, but it helps to know where you have come from and who else is on the road.” 

    It must be right, she says, to acknowledge grievous sins by our forefathers. But it is folly to suppose that we can retrospectively impose the values of the twenty-first century on decisions and mistakes that were made in the very different circumstances of the past. The essence of studying and using history is to recognize the inescapable variability of each generation’s approach: 

    “History does not produce definitive answers for all time. It is a process.” 

    Bogenoemde dan verwysings na van dit wat die afgelope ruk oor 'n mens se pad gekom het. Ek kon ook in die natuur gaan sit het en dit ingeneem het, maar is ek met Oscar Wilde, wat graag natuur sal wil ervaar, maar dan moet dit in 'n skildery wees. 

    Net soos hierdie nie 'n poging is om 'slim' te wees nie, maar slegs 'n poging om sin te maak van 'n uiterse komplekse bestaan en is my eie denke nie genoegsaam nie. Die bestaan is soveel groter as die enkeling en die enkeling se kapasiteit om dit te probeer verwoord. Hulp is daarom dan van kardinale belang.  

    Baie dankie

    Wouter
    Reply
  • Pieter Redelinghuys

    Beste Wouter,

     

    Jou laaste bydrae bevat soveel stoffasie vir nadenke dat dit nie sommer hier onder die "has been" briewe mag kwyn nie. Dit kan die begin wees van 'n nuwe en aparte tema: McNamara kan as die vertrek dien, argitek van die Vietnam-oorlog. Die man wie verantwoordelik is vir die dood van miljoene mense. Die resultate van sy beleid verskil min van dié van Hitler hoewel die absolute getalle minder is. Ek sal geensins verbaas wees as hy 'n konserwatiewe katoliek is met wortels in Ierland.

     

    Omdat die VSA 'n magtige bully is op die wêreldtoneel sal sy leiers nooit voor 'n Neurenberg-hof verskyn nie.

     

    Beste groete,

     

    Pieter Redelinghuys  

    Reply
  • Pieter Redelinghuys

    Beste Wouter,

     

    Ek het vergeet om te vra oor daardie verwysing van jou op http://www.youtube.com

    Check asb. weer  die adres. My computor het nie die "gelykaan- merk" na die v nie.

     

    Beste groete,

     

    Pieter Redelinghuys

    Reply
  • Wouter

    Hello Pieter, 

     
    Die  Vietnam-oorlog is 'n groot onderwerp en het 'n toneel uit Oliver Stone se 'Platoon' my 'n idee gegee van die brutaliteit van daardie oorlog asof oorlog nie brutaal is alreeds nie. 
     
    Baie dankie
     
    Wouter
    Reply

    • Reageer

    Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Kommentaar is onderhewig aan moderering.


     

    Top