It's all in who's getting fucked !!
Hey Folks -
How many times have I said that the way things are reported in our media depends on the perspective of those in control? Benedict Arnold is a traitor. Had we lost the war, it would have been George Washington (the rebel who was hanged for treason).
Here’s another example.
The man killed is described in the headline of the article below as an “Infamous bandit," but also undercuts that characterization by also describing him as Robin Hood. This disparity is somewhat decreased by placing Robin Hood in smaller type-face and within quotation marks (which usually indicates an unsubstantiated, not necessarily accurate, claim).
Infamous bandit appears in large print without quotation marks.
Read the article below and notice what is presented as a given and clearly true and what some might think, believe, or “romanticize.”
How much of the negative perspective presented is based on the following:
“There he established a reign of terror, killing those who opposed him, kidnapping rich landowners for ransom, and extorting and robbing money from businessmen in the area.
Rich landowners and businessmen didn’t like what he did to them.
On the other hand, how much did it count in his favor that:
“Kumar had a reputation for being fiercely loyal to the poor villagers in the region, particularly those from his Kurmi caste, a group on the lower rungs of India's complex social ladder and one of the most downtrodden in the area in which he operated.”
Well, Kumar killed people, and the “good” people protecting rich landowners and businessmen killed him and others. Kumar broke the law, I’m sure; but the Indian legal system outlaws discrimination on the basis of caste; and the “good” people don’t kill (or even arrest) the rich landowners and businessmen who perpetuate and benefit from the caste system.
Seems to me that who is notorious and a bandit and who should be “romanticized” by the press depends on whose side the press is on. In this case it looks like the press has sympathy for rich landowners and businessmen rather than for poor villagers “on the lower rungs of India's complex social ladder and one of the most downtrodden [groups] in the area.”
Surprise, surprise !!!
- Uke Man
INDIA'S 'ROBIN HOOD'
Infamous bandit killed by police
Monday, July 23, 2007 4:05 AM
By Gavin Rabnowitz
Associated Press
NEW DELHI -- Indian police killed one of the country's most notorious bandits yesterday -- a man who ruled the ravines and forests of central India through a mixture of fear and love for three decades, with many hailing him as a modern-day Robin Hood.
Shiv Kumar led one of the few remaining bands of outlaws that have roamed central India for centuries, their exploits romanticized in Bollywood movies.
Kumar, thought to be in his 60s, was wanted in more than 200 cases of kidnapping, extortion and murder and had a bounty on his head of more than $12,000, a small fortune in this region.
A.K. Jain, inspector general of the police special task force, said Kumar was slain after a battle between police and bandits. He was identified by villagers, Jain said.
Four of his accomplices were also killed in the battle about 400 miles southwest of New Delhi, Jain said.
Kumar had managed to evade police since escaping from custody in 1975 after being arrested for murder. Since then, he had built up a band of followers and carved out a 100-square-mile fiefdom on the border between the central Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
There he established a reign of terror, killing those who opposed him, kidnapping rich landowners for ransom, and extorting and robbing money from businessmen in the area.
He also monopolized the tendu leaf industry. The tendu is a tobaccolike leaf used in bidis, small Indian cigars.
Kumar had a reputation for being fiercely loyal to the poor villagers in the region, particularly those from his Kurmi caste, a group on the lower rungs of India's complex social ladder and one of the most downtrodden in the area in which he operated.
He would share some of his loot with them, paying for weddings and helping with medical bills in times of need. In return, they would provide him food and shelter and tip him off when police were coming, enabling him to slip away into the safety of the forests.
How many times have I said that the way things are reported in our media depends on the perspective of those in control? Benedict Arnold is a traitor. Had we lost the war, it would have been George Washington (the rebel who was hanged for treason).
Here’s another example.
The man killed is described in the headline of the article below as an “Infamous bandit," but also undercuts that characterization by also describing him as Robin Hood. This disparity is somewhat decreased by placing Robin Hood in smaller type-face and within quotation marks (which usually indicates an unsubstantiated, not necessarily accurate, claim).
Infamous bandit appears in large print without quotation marks.
Read the article below and notice what is presented as a given and clearly true and what some might think, believe, or “romanticize.”
How much of the negative perspective presented is based on the following:
“There he established a reign of terror, killing those who opposed him, kidnapping rich landowners for ransom, and extorting and robbing money from businessmen in the area.
Rich landowners and businessmen didn’t like what he did to them.
On the other hand, how much did it count in his favor that:
“Kumar had a reputation for being fiercely loyal to the poor villagers in the region, particularly those from his Kurmi caste, a group on the lower rungs of India's complex social ladder and one of the most downtrodden in the area in which he operated.”
Well, Kumar killed people, and the “good” people protecting rich landowners and businessmen killed him and others. Kumar broke the law, I’m sure; but the Indian legal system outlaws discrimination on the basis of caste; and the “good” people don’t kill (or even arrest) the rich landowners and businessmen who perpetuate and benefit from the caste system.
Seems to me that who is notorious and a bandit and who should be “romanticized” by the press depends on whose side the press is on. In this case it looks like the press has sympathy for rich landowners and businessmen rather than for poor villagers “on the lower rungs of India's complex social ladder and one of the most downtrodden [groups] in the area.”
Surprise, surprise !!!
- Uke Man
INDIA'S 'ROBIN HOOD'
Infamous bandit killed by police
Monday, July 23, 2007 4:05 AM
By Gavin Rabnowitz
Associated Press
NEW DELHI -- Indian police killed one of the country's most notorious bandits yesterday -- a man who ruled the ravines and forests of central India through a mixture of fear and love for three decades, with many hailing him as a modern-day Robin Hood.
Shiv Kumar led one of the few remaining bands of outlaws that have roamed central India for centuries, their exploits romanticized in Bollywood movies.
Kumar, thought to be in his 60s, was wanted in more than 200 cases of kidnapping, extortion and murder and had a bounty on his head of more than $12,000, a small fortune in this region.
A.K. Jain, inspector general of the police special task force, said Kumar was slain after a battle between police and bandits. He was identified by villagers, Jain said.
Four of his accomplices were also killed in the battle about 400 miles southwest of New Delhi, Jain said.
Kumar had managed to evade police since escaping from custody in 1975 after being arrested for murder. Since then, he had built up a band of followers and carved out a 100-square-mile fiefdom on the border between the central Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
There he established a reign of terror, killing those who opposed him, kidnapping rich landowners for ransom, and extorting and robbing money from businessmen in the area.
He also monopolized the tendu leaf industry. The tendu is a tobaccolike leaf used in bidis, small Indian cigars.
Kumar had a reputation for being fiercely loyal to the poor villagers in the region, particularly those from his Kurmi caste, a group on the lower rungs of India's complex social ladder and one of the most downtrodden in the area in which he operated.
He would share some of his loot with them, paying for weddings and helping with medical bills in times of need. In return, they would provide him food and shelter and tip him off when police were coming, enabling him to slip away into the safety of the forests.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home