Posts Tagged ‘Letter’
A letter to our daughter: Mark Zuckerberg
Posted by: adonis49 on: December 27, 2015
A letter to our daughter: Mark Zuckerberg
Dec. 1, 2015
Cultural boycott of Israel institutions: Those disseminating misleading propaganda positions
Posted by: adonis49 on: October 31, 2015
Cultural boycott of Israel institutions disseminating misleading propaganda positions
On Monday, CounterPunch ran an article by Omar Robert Hamilton that responded to JK Rowling’s joint letter to defend Israel.
This was one amongst many responses to her letter. JK Rowling responded, and Omar responded to her. We run both below.
JK Rowling Responds:
I’ve had a number of readers asking for more information about why I am not joining a cultural boycott of Israel, so here it is:
As the Guardian letter I co-signed states, the signatories hold different views on the actions of the current Israeli administration.
Speaking purely for myself, I have deplored most of Mr Netanyahu’s actions in office. However, I do not believe that a cultural boycott will force Mr Netanyahu from power, nor have I ever heard of a cultural boycott ending a bloody and prolonged conflict.
If any effects are felt from the proposed boycott, it will be by ordinary Israelis, many of whom did not vote for Mr Netanyahu.
Those Israelis will be right to ask why cultural boycotts are not also being proposed against – to take random examples – North Korea and Zimbabwe, whose leaders are not generally considered paragons by the international community.
The sharing of art and literature across borders constitutes an immense power for good in this world.
The true human cost of the Palestinian conflict was seared upon my consciousness, as upon many others’, by the heart-splitting poetry of Mahmoud Darwish.
In its highest incarnation, as exemplified by Darwish, art civilises, challenges and reminds us of our common humanity.
At a time when the stigmatisation of religions and ethnicities seems to be on the rise, I believe strongly that cultural dialogue and collaboration is more important than ever before and that cultural boycotts are divisive, discriminatory and counter-productive.
Omar Robert Hamilton Responds:
Dear Ms Rowling,
I don’t know if you read my response in Counterpunch to your signing the Cultures of CoExistence letter.
I hope you will take the two minutes it asks of you. You’ve since expanded on your position and so, although I may be speaking to an empty room here, I feel I should step in again.
Firstly, the cultural boycott is not designed to force Mr Netanyahu from power.
If it were not Mr Netanyahu in power it would have been Mr. Herzog and his track record leaves us no reason to hope he would be the kind of visionary leader needed to bring a just resolution to the great injustices that Zionism has wrought upon Palestine.
The cultural boycott is designed to isolate institutions that are directly collaborating with the Israeli government in the on-going occupation and colonization of Palestine.
The cultural, economic and political boycott is designed to bring justice for the Palestinian people.
It is misrepresentative to suggest that BDS is a blunt instrument that blindly targets people based on their ethnicity. That’s what Israel does.
BDS, on the other hand, is a carefully considered campaign based on ethical principles.
It does not target individuals, it does not target people for their beliefs; it targets institutions that profit from death and their brand ambassadors, it targets people who, by accepting money, make themselves complicit with the Israeli state.
Let’s take two examples.
Gal Gadot is an Israeli actress soon to be an international star for playing Wonder Woman.
She served in the Israeli Army and has no problem acting as a representative of her country. However, as no Israeli state institutions contributed to the financing of her films, she is not someone that would be targeted by BDS.
Idan Raichel, on the other hand, has hosted gala fundraisers for the Israeli Army and provided morale boosting entertainment for soldiers on active duty in the most recent assault on Gaza.
In his own words, Raichel said “I believe that our role as artists is to be engaged in the Israeli propaganda campaign [Hasbara].”
Mr Raichel is the kind of artist that BDS targets.
It is laid out very clearly on the website for the Palestinain Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
BDS targets artists, companies and institutions that are in the service of the state and its policy of ethnic cleansing.
You ask why we don’t boycott North Korea?
This is a question often asked by Israeli apologists and the answer is simple: North Korea has no international cultural propaganda programme to boycott. How many state-sponsored celebrations of North Korean culture are happening this year?
How many North Korean lobbyists are at work in Washington DC? How many popstars have had to rescind tweets against North Korea? The answer is zero.
BDS does not stop the sharing of art or of literature across borders.
BDS stops government-sponsored propaganda from masquerading unchallenged as art.
BDS demands that art be art and that artists speak for themselves and not be mouthpieces of an apartheid regime.
Real cultural dialogue between individuals or institutions not affiliated with the state is of no interest to this campaign.
What BDS targets is state-sponsored smokescreening designed to buy Israel more time to conquer more land.
As a signatory to BDS there would be no preventing you from talking and working with as many ‘ordinary Israelis’ as you like.
In fact, it would guarantee that this sector about whom you are so concerned is identified.
Israelis resistant to their state’s policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid are welcomed with open arms.
But those that profit from it: they are the ones that we are no longer interested in dialogue with.
I believe that if you consider this carefully you will find that it is actually BDS, and not the Cultures of Co-Existence Clan, that is in line with your stated principles.
Sinéad O’Connor: Open Letter to Miley Cyrus and Wrecking Ball’s video
Posted by: adonis49 on: October 8, 2013
Sinéad O’Connor’s open letter to Miley Cyrus
Posted this Oct. 3, 2013 in The Guardian
After the 20-year-old claimed that Wrecking Ball‘s controversial video was inspired by Nothing Compares 2 U, the Irish singer Sinéad O’Connor
was compelled to warn Cyrus that she is being ‘pimped’ by the pop industry.
This is the full text of O’Connor’s blogpost
Dear Miley,
I wasn’t going to write this letter, but today i’ve been dodging phone calls from various newspapers who wished me to remark upon your having said in Rolling Stone your Wrecking Ball video was designed to be similar to the one for Nothing Compares …
So this is what I need to say … And it is said in the spirit of motherliness and with love.
I am extremely concerned for you that those around you have led you to believe, or encouraged you in your own belief, that it is in any way ‘cool’ to be naked and licking sledgehammers in your videos. It is in fact the case that you will obscure your talent by allowing yourself to be pimped, whether its the music business or yourself doing the pimping.
Nothing but harm will come in the long run, from allowing yourself to be exploited, and it is absolutely NOT in ANY way an empowerment of yourself or any other young women, for you to send across the message that you are to be valued (even by you) more for your sexual appeal than your obvious talent.
I am happy to hear that I am somewhat of a role model for you and I hope that because of that you will pay close attention to what I am telling you.
The music business doesn’t give a shit about you, or any of us. They will prostitute you for all you are worth, and cleverly make you think its what YOU wanted …
And when you end up in rehab as a result of being prostituted, ‘they’ will be sunning themselves on their yachts in Antigua, which they bought by selling your body and you will find yourself very alone.
Do not be fooled: None of the men ogling you give a shit about you either. Many a woman mistook lust for love. If they want you sexually that doesn’t mean they give a fuck about you.
All the more true when you unwittingly give the impression you don’t give much of a fuck about yourself. And when you employ people who give the impression they don’t give much of a fuck about you either.
No one who cares about you could support your being pimped … and that includes you yourself.
Yes, I’m suggesting you don’t care for yourself. That has to change.
You ought be protected as a precious young lady by anyone in your employ and anyone around you, including you. This is a dangerous world.
We don’t encourage our daughters to walk around naked in this dangerous world: it makes them prey for animals and less than animals, a distressing majority of whom work in the music industry and it’s associated media.
You are worth more than your body or your sexual appeal. The world of showbiz doesn’t see things that way, they like things to be seen the other way, whether they are magazines who want you on their cover, or whatever …
Don’t be under any illusions … ALL of them want you because they’re making money off your youth and your beauty … which they could not do except for the fact your youth makes you blind to the evils of show business.
If you have an innocent heart you can’t recognize those who do not.
I repeat, you have enough talent that you don’t need to let the music business make a prostitute of you.
You shouldn’t let them make a fool of you either. Don’t think for a moment that any of them give a flying fuck about you.
They’re there for the money… we’re there for the music. It has always been that way and it will always be that way.
The sooner a young lady gets to know that, the sooner she can be REALLY in control.
You also said in Rolling Stone that your look is based on mine. The look I chose, I chose on purpose at a time when my record company were encouraging me to do what you have done.
I felt I would rather be judged on my talent and not my looks. I am happy that I made that choice, not least because I do not find myself on the proverbial rag heap now that I am almost 47 yrs of age … which unfortunately many female artists who have based their image around their sexuality, end up on when they reach middle age.
Real empowerment of yourself as a woman would be to refuse exploiting your body or your sexuality in order for men to make money from you. I needn’t even ask the question …
I’ve been in the business long enough to know that men are making more money than you are from you getting naked. Its really not at all cool.
And its sending dangerous signals to other young women. Please in the future say No when you are asked to prostitute yourself. Your body is for you and your boyfriend. It isn’t for every spunk-spewing dirt-bag on the net, or every greedy record company executive to buy his mistresses diamonds with.
As for the shedding of the Hannah Montana image … whoever is telling you getting naked is the way to do that does absolutely NOT respect your talent, or you as a young lady.
Your records are good enough for you not to need any shedding of Hannah Montana. She’s waaaaaaay gone by now … Not because you got naked but because you make great records.
Whether we like it or not, us females in the industry are role models and as such we have to be extremely careful what messages we send to other women. The message you keep sending is that its somehow cool to be prostituted … its so not cool Miley … its dangerous.
Women are to be valued for so much more than their sexuality. We aren’t merely objects of desire.
I would be encouraging you to send healthier messages to your peers … that they and you are worth more than what is currently going on in your career.
Kindly fire any motherfucker who hasn’t expressed alarm, because they don’t care about you.
As posted on www.sineadoconnor.com