"This is a civil war. This is our war, not yours."
Our war is so clear-cut, as if something has been added to ours, and it instantly becomes a reason for your non-interference. There is nothing wrong with this logic. The emphasis on national autonomy and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is indeed an international rule. Extending this, it is natural to think of China's previous handling method - "non-interference in each other's internal affairs" in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Non-interference naturally has its reasons, but is there no justification for interference at all?
Imagine the first helicopter patrol scene, where militias shoot civilians for exclusive food at the site where UN food is distributed. If you were in a helicopter, would you stand by because of orders from superiors, or would you pull the trigger in vain to stop it? Of course, the problem does not seem to be so simple. Pulling the trigger may not help, but will take the life of a helicopter, or even go to a military court for violating military orders. Good people will also write about the shooting behavior, make headlines in the United States, and be labeled as meddling in other countries' internal affairs in other countries. Decades later, with the disclosure of intelligence, it was suddenly discovered that the reason for the shooting did not even stand.
How to choose?
In the video, the commander calmly conveyed the following instructions: "I have received it, but we cannot interfere. This is the jurisdiction of the United Nations, and we cannot interfere." As the matter further fermented, food was robbed by militiamen, and civilians were killed and injured.
At the same time as all this happened, it also raised the following questions to us - should we intervene? Is there any justification for interference or non-intervention?
This is the conflict between humanism and the principle of non-intervention, and it is the evaluation of this war from the perspective of the West or the aggressor.
In the next scene, the local dignitaries offer their perspective, a conflict between aggression and being invaded.
After pretending to be a passing businessman, the big gun provider bluntly pointed out to the audience that what we wanted was "a world without white boys."
A very nationalistic expression, but also a very marketable expression in contemporary times.
It seems to be a deconstruction of the legitimacy of this war, a conflict between aggression and non-aggression.
The entanglement of humanism and nationalism, the different identities of the savior and the liberator, the thinking about war in the film, did not stop there.
After capturing the captives, English-speaking Somalis have a new dialogue with the U.S. military.
"In Somalia, killing is negotiating. Do you really think that if you catch General Aidid, we will lay down our weapons, accept American-style democracy, or stop killing?" This sentence is a bit of an adaptation to local conditions, as the Westernization Movement cannot save the Qing government. . Different regions have their own development, their own evolution history, and their own moral and legal systems. If they are hurriedly judged and transformed by other moral systems, they will naturally be a piece of chicken feathers in the end.
In this way, it seems that the U.S. military does nothing, ignores the influence of culture and local society, and does nothing in the end.
It's not the same, at least they tried, and many times it doesn't matter.
ps The first draft was on 21.3.6, and it took an anti-American position according to local conditions; however, after the Afghanistan incident, the position changed sharply, and the second draft was on 21.9.3
The following is part of the content of the draft
"—Back to the reasons for the failure of the Westernization Movement in high school and the failure of the Hundred Days Restoration. For a region with its own culture, using another culture to judge is itself a preconceived idea. Of course, globalization will promote these things to a certain extent. Happened, whether it was the Black Ship Time in Japan, or the Opium War in China, these things happened after all in the exchange of different cultures. In today's society, in the known history, one is the obvious variety of post-globalization Western culture. It has become the mainstream of the society.
Because of its particularity, history has no assumptions and no verification. So this problem and its solution, it seems that there will be a new example or an old method only after the contact between human and aliens in the future. unknown.
In the end, people who do not know if they support legitimacy, when faced with the contact between aliens and human beings, are they willing to choose human values to understand, or will they try the thinking of aliens? "
View more about Black Hawk Down reviews
