La originala artikolo estas el Stano
En 1945 Artjom Skaĵutin havis nur 21 jarojn. Krome li jam havis sep klasojn de vilaĝa lernejo, nefinitan militlernejon, tri medalojn kaj du vundojn. Sian vivon li rememoris sen bedaŭroj kaj plendoj.
A Jack of all trades, and Master of none.
La originala artikolo estas el Stano
En 1945 Artjom Skaĵutin havis nur 21 jarojn. Krome li jam havis sep klasojn de vilaĝa lernejo, nefinitan militlernejon, tri medalojn kaj du vundojn. Sian vivon li rememoris sen bedaŭroj kaj plendoj.
I've been working my way through lists of war and anti-war films, I stumbled upon this Argentine short film about the Falklands conflict and was intrigued, can't think of many films that tackle it outside of films about the UK in the 80s which use it as a sort of footnote.
Its 16 minutes including credits and can be viewed on the directors youtube channel Santanna Brothers Films,
The Falklands War, 1982. In the heat of battle, a young British soldier, Mark, deserts his post, only to be captured by an injured Argentinean, Jose Francisco. Gradually the two men form an understanding of friendship and trust, until the arrival of a unit of British Paras, who force Mark to choose between his patriotic duty and his conscience. BAFTA Nominated film starring Gael Garcia Bernal and Kevin Knapman
The few reviews and snippets I've seen are of a similar vein and talk about its bleak message for example this off IMDB
This film tells us that there is no sides that are all good and all bad in a war.
To put it bluntly its all nonsense. It doesn't tell us this at all, I don't even believe the Last Post qualifies as an anti-war or even war sceptical film. Its pretty blatant in showing who it thinks are the bad in that war.
In outline its quite similar to many other stories about conflict, including some that are openly opposing conflict as an endeavour, two soldiers from opposite sides find themselves in close contact with each other and both isolated from their sides. There's tension as they try and navigate this frightening environment and eventually try to reach some common ground with language barriers being just one of the obstacles. Its similar to the film about the break up of Yugoslavia No Man's Land (also from 2001) about two Bosniaks and a Serb in a trench in between the lines.
But the issue is in the framing, the ugliness of war is all put on one side, the British who are clearly shown as the aggressors, Knapman and his unit are introduced night marching towards Argentine positions, the post where the surviving Gael Garcia Bernal is sheltering has already been neutralised with the rest of the Argentines already dead. The brief shots of Argentina depict it as a perfectly nice and ordinary nation, not the turbulent, brutal and crumbling dictatorship it was. And there isn't really much tension at all, Bernal surrenders quickly the two don't really bond beyond sharing a cigarette so there's not much in the tragedy of Knapman's decision at the climax when Bernal is murdered and his body used as a cruel and pointless insult to his loved ones, and that's it. Brits attack, Brits torment, Brits murder, Brits desecrate a corpse.
My disquiet isn't that I don't find this believable, the really nasty Brit soldiers are Paras to make it even more believable that they would do such a thing. Its that this film seems to have been made to feed into Argentine myths of victimhood. Ever since losing the conflict many Argentine governments and cultural luminaries have put a lot of time and effort into constructing a myth of victimisation from British Imperialism, totally erasing the century or more of collaboration with the British government, the brutal military dictatorship that was in the middle of a bloody civil war against its own population and the invasion and occupation of the islands and the oppression of its civilian population. The only thing the Argentine government and military is shown to be at fault for is being out of its depth.
The Last Post, an Argentine film supposedly about the ill effects of war and uses this conflict as its platform fails to address or even acknowledge any of this and that's frankly cowardly if the intent wasn't deliberately made to appeal to this revanchist spirit.
Anarchist Tactic
for Palestine
Written on the 25th
of March 1939, by Albert Meltzer
The Arab revolution is centred on Palestine. The
re-awakening of the Arab nation and the consequent nationalist revolution has
brought the masses of Palestine in conflict with British Imperialism. Every
movement against British Imperialism must be welcomed as the rulers of this
country rule (or, synonymously, misrule) the larger part of the world’s
colonial peoples. The opposition of revolutionaries to British Imperialism and
its allies must be taken for granted.
The clashing of two nationalisms (Jewish and Arab in this
case) has inevitably given rise to controversy abroad. In the Houses of
Parliament sympathy is naturally pro-Zionist; as one MP is reputed to have
said, when asked why he supported the Jews in Palestine against the Arabs: “In
my constituency I have thousands of Jewish voters, I haven’t a single Arab”.
The Labour Party, free from responsibility in the Government of a bloody
suppression of all vestiges of Arab life, urges the Government to insist upon a
policy of a Jewish National State. The majority opinion here seems to be
pro-Zionist, perhaps because the Zionists are so definitely pro-Imperialist
while the Arabs are vaguely accused of being pro-Fascist. It would be a
surprise therefore, to read about the Government’s rejection of the Jewish side
in the Palestinian talks (up to the moment of writing) if the Government had
not to reckon with millions of other Arab and Moslem subjects in the Empire.
Chamberlain’s policy of `Appeasement` has up to now not been primarily in the
interests of the Democratic Imperialisms, and in the Palestine issue, again, he
is far less concerned with the maintenance of Imperialism than his `Left`
opponents!
What is the case for Zionism? Zionism represents the age-old
desire of the Rabbis to return to the `Holy Land`. The significance of the word
`Zion` (the Biblical and traditional name) will be noted. The Rabbis, whose
jobs depend on the keeping-up of the race-barriers and the consequent survival
of the religion, in the fear of assimilation, have fostered these artificial
laws in order to maintain, by tribal `totems and taboos` a separate race.
Naturally, they have failed, and Zionism is the way they are endeavouring to
succeed. There is to-day no pure race, despite the claims of Hitler and the
Rabbis. It will be noted that the revival of Judaism has only been a reaction
to pogroms and persecution. In times and countries where there has been
complete racial and religious toleration, assimilation has begun; intolerance
always defeating its own ends.
Herzl began the move for `Back to Zion`. Was his primary
concern for the refugees, then fleeing from the pogroms of the Tsar? On the
contrary, Herzl refused far more suitable land in Africa, insisting on the
`Holy` Land. Finally, the Balfour War Government promised Palestine to the
Jews, as well as to the Arabs, when Turkey was defeated. Since the Mandate, the
introduction of capitalist Western ideas has undoubtedly benefited the Arab
workers, as has the introduction of the proletarian organisations of Europe. But
this no excuse, whatever the Zionists may say. Capitalism introduced in
this fashion benefited everywhere the working class; the same thing happening
in Russia was hailed as a triumph of `communism`. It was nothing of the sort.
Despite the coming of capitalist benefits, the struggle against capitalist
malevolences must be fought.
Originally there was no agitation against Jewish
immigration; moreover there was never previously any anti-Semitism in the Arab
countries. Not until immigration became colonisation, and the aim of a Jewish
state, did the trouble commence. The Zionist leaders, keeping up a pretence
that they were struggling against Fascism, have been the motivators of Fascism
in Palestine and have the responsibility for the heavy toll of wasted lives.
Fascism? From the `Jewish Hitler`, Vladimir Jabotinsky, with his `Storm Troop`
Revisionists to the Rothschild and Imperialist Zionists in London (who take good
care to keep out of the `Holy` country), from the `Nuremberg` laws of the
synagogue to the basic ideology of Zionism (nationalism based on race and
not on country) the whole of the Jewish nationalist movement has been as
fascist as any other nationalist movement which has left its early liberal
phase. The labour leaders like Ben Gurion accuse the Arabs of being in the pay
of Hitler and Mussolini and under that pretence act the Hitlers and Mussolinis.
Meanwhile they dupe the masses of Jewish workers in the pogromist countries
that there is only one future – Palestine – and furnish the excuses for the
anti-Semitic governments.
Undoubtedly the Arab revolution must have the support of the
workers abroad. Let us not be duped as `Revolutionary Socialists` have been
duped, however. There is no hope for the future in a Palestine under the Grand
Mufti and Company. There is no reason to suppose that a bourgeois nationalist
government will do more for the working class than did the Imperialist
government. The lesson of Ireland alone affords proof. The struggle must be
against Imperialism first, against Zionism secondly, and lastly against the
bourgeois nationalist government when created.
There is no evidence that the present nationalist movement
is capable of such a task. The task is to forget the past and to build up a
revolutionary labour movement in Palestine, without consideration of
nationality. The only hope there for workers’ unity is a movement that will not
include within its ranks the religious leaders of Judaism or Mohammedism, and
exclusive of Jewish or Arab or British exploiters. From which side it will come
remains to be seen, there is little hope of a revolution in Palestine becoming
a social revolution. It may be necessary at the moment to struggle alongside
the petty bourgeoisie against Imperialism, but it must be borne in mind that
they can neither play a revolutionary role, and that neither the Nehrus in
India nor the Muftis in Palestine can be considered as friends, but only as
pawns, of the revolutionary-working class.
The programme of the new Palestinian labour movement must be
for the overthrow of the Mandate; for autonomy; for a struggle against the
autonomous government when created, for workers’ control and freedom. The
anarchist tactic for the situation in Palestine is the only road that will lead
away from the present debacle; the co-operation of the Arab revolutionaries
throughout the Near East, in co-operation with anti-Zionist Jewish minority and
all workers, of whatever race, will alone push forward the opportunity for a
complete revolution.
25th of March 1939)
ALBERT MELTZER