This film is a good anthropological film. Maybe some fundamentalists of ethnographic films may jump out to refute, but this film does use an anthropological vision to show how to "detail", describe events as a whole and in depth, and tell them well without value judgments a story. If you don't reach a certain depth, you will only be fooled. For example, those Russian pilots will say at first that the plane is empty when they fly to Tanzania, just to bring the fish back; then they will say, some "big boxes" Or "equipment", but I don't know what it is; in the end, it was said that it was actually smuggled arms from Europe and the United States, and in exchange, the very profitable fish was shipped back. Where did the weapons of the Sudan Rwanda genocide around Tanzania come from? Just here. Nowadays, many people are eager to criticize and "deconstruct" a theme, and as a result, they are not even able to tell a story completely. Even if we want to be post-modern, I think this basic skill still needs to be mastered.
The film is well-titled, because what happened in Lake Victoria was a blow to both the ecological species and the once-believed theory of social progress (now far more complex than neo-Darwinism). Today's ecological disasters are often humanitarian disasters as well. The owner of the fish processing factory said that this is just a business. But the business has brought about the disappearance of other species in the lake, the loss of peasants' land, and the over-reliance on fishing. Eating fish bones, smoked ammonia corrodes the eyes, women are forced to sell themselves to pilots, HIV spread, street child problems... Why can one fish cause so many social problems? Because this is business. All social problems today are really inseparable from political economy. When "human rights" is simply regarded as a discourse - and often a moral discourse - it can easily be framed as one Abstract concept, used against human rights. Many human rights activists would advertise depoliticization. But I said that no human rights issue can be solved without politicization. In fact, most human rights issues are really resolved within the national framework. Think about it, the International Declaration of Human Rights can be said to have been created for the Jews in the first place, but wise Jews know that compared with the state, it is the main channel for the protection of human rights. Tanzania, on the other hand, is basically a failed country. It is unable to maintain social order and regulate the market, let alone prevent arms smuggled from Europe and the United States from landing on its territory. Globalization has penetrated into every branch, closed small societies only exist in the rose-colored fantasy of anthropologists, and no one can be alone. The main body of international affairs, in addition to various NGOs, is the country. Without the state as the main body, you don't even have the capital to negotiate. The EU's meeting in Tanzania said that the core requirement is "we want clean fish", and Tanzania's representatives only have the share of applause. And the EU may also say that the food and medicines they occasionally ship over are humanitarian relief. Of course, this is by no means the same as "Sacrificing individual rights for national stability".
So this kind of hell on earth has reached the point of hell, is there no way to solve it, we can only wipe two tears? Look at the example of Rwanda, from the endless genocide to the basically successful establishment of a democratic government, change can happen, of course, some countries have to take responsibility. Did Europe and the United States not know that their arms were smuggled? You know exactly where your company's goods go, and that's arms. International intervention is also required, and changes in Rwanda will not be possible without the assistance of the United Nations.
In general, human rights issues still need to be resolved through political channels. As for how to achieve a balance with national sovereignty and where the degree of intervention is, it is a specific political technique. Politics can quickly change social perceptions, and what is called "culture." After France gave women the right to vote and open a bank account in the 1940s, in just a few decades, French women have become the most open women in the world from having to be virgins before they get married. So when you use "culture" to defend human rights and oppose intervention, think clearly about what culture you mean by "culture". Women in Islamic society are fighting for their rights. That's Islamic culture. My nonsense at this moment is also culture.
I really like Christoph's sentence: "Politics is complicated. Don`t be niave."
PS Most of the abalone I love to eat come from the east coast of Africa, and the local conditions are similar to those in Tanzania in the film. From now on, I can only say goodbye to abalone with tears~
View more about Darwin's Nightmare reviews
