You don't think this is some kind of tongue in cheek point about the bankruptcy of international human rights policy since time immemorial? Just pointing out, Samantha Powers-style, that not only are we failing to oppose [genocide, Olympic abuse, etc.] today, but we never really have opposed them, ever?
That quote has it all wrong. We study history in order to know who to hate, who to enslave. Without history, Naopolean would never have tried to reconquer the Roman empire. Nor would Hitler. Nor would any of the host of would-be Roman emperors who conquered Europe before them.
Today Putin tries to rebuild the Soviet empire, as will every Russian president in the future. Today every Chinese president seeks to rebuild the empire of the Qin and after that they will try to rebuild the Mongol empire.
And one day India may dream of rebuilding the Raj that stretched from Jordan to Vietnam.
We know the Jihadi want to rebuild the Caliphate that stretched across northern Africa from Iran to Southern France.
All these irridentists have learned the same lesson from history - That they lost their empires because they were not cruel enough.
Without history Karl Marx would have had no basis for his thesis, no name for the proletariat, and half the world would be better off than it is today. Without history serb christians would not try to kill moslems. Without history moslem men would not beat up women. Without history Christians and Jews and Moslems could live peacefully together. (just to name one group made into enemies by teaching history).
We need history to know who did us wrong in the past, which grudges to cherish, which people are inferior, which Land is Our Land.
Historians and politicians are harmless by themselves but are extremely dangerous when mixed together.
My bet is photoshop. The sign is a lot clearer than the rest of the photo.
And think about the physics of that sign. In order to be that high above the crowd, it would need to be on something like a 12-foot stick. I have never seen a sign at a protest that was that high above the crowd. But it is easier to photoshop that way, you dont need to worry about it fitting in with the backgroud...
Both the height and the clearness could be explained if the sign were much closer to the camera than the rest of the background. And notice that the shadows from the little bits of paper taped to it are coming from the correct angle relative to the background; bad shadows are usually the giveaway for bad photoshopping.
Still, I grant that it looks a bit weird. It's kind of a pity that photoshop has made alteration so easy that we're always suspicious nowadays.
Physics, yes, but the physics of light and glass, not the sign.
Specifically, I would vote for a telephoto lens, which has the distorting effect of causing objects at multiple distances to converge onto one plane. The people who appear to be standing underneath an enormously tall sign are probably a substantial distance behind it. Also, the person taking the picture was probably a bit too close to the sign for a "normal" use of telephoto and had to adjust the focus in order to capture it clearly, which would explain why everthing both closer and farther is slightly blurred.
Everyone is doomed to repeat history, whether they learned it or not.
Nevertheless, please tell me that was photoshopped.
J,
I seriously doubt it, sadly.
The clear answer to the big sign -- Would we have allowed the Nazis to host the Olympics? -- is, of course: Yes -- but only until 1936.
You don't think this is some kind of tongue in cheek point about the bankruptcy of international human rights policy since time immemorial? Just pointing out, Samantha Powers-style, that not only are we failing to oppose [genocide, Olympic abuse, etc.] today, but we never really have opposed them, ever?
brooksfoe--
let's hope so, it would be a good crack at the IOC, though, given what passes for .edu, I might be, as MM likes to put it, sceptical..
That quote has it all wrong. We study history in order to know who to hate, who to enslave. Without history, Naopolean would never have tried to reconquer the Roman empire. Nor would Hitler. Nor would any of the host of would-be Roman emperors who conquered Europe before them.
Today Putin tries to rebuild the Soviet empire, as will every Russian president in the future. Today every Chinese president seeks to rebuild the empire of the Qin and after that they will try to rebuild the Mongol empire.
And one day India may dream of rebuilding the Raj that stretched from Jordan to Vietnam.
We know the Jihadi want to rebuild the Caliphate that stretched across northern Africa from Iran to Southern France.
All these irridentists have learned the same lesson from history - That they lost their empires because they were not cruel enough.
Without history Karl Marx would have had no basis for his thesis, no name for the proletariat, and half the world would be better off than it is today. Without history serb christians would not try to kill moslems. Without history moslem men would not beat up women. Without history Christians and Jews and Moslems could live peacefully together. (just to name one group made into enemies by teaching history).
We need history to know who did us wrong in the past, which grudges to cherish, which people are inferior, which Land is Our Land.
Historians and politicians are harmless by themselves but are extremely dangerous when mixed together.
"Was it over when the Germand bombed Pearl Harbor?" -- John Blutarski, and he became a senator!
My bet is photoshop. The sign is a lot clearer than the rest of the photo.
And think about the physics of that sign. In order to be that high above the crowd, it would need to be on something like a 12-foot stick. I have never seen a sign at a protest that was that high above the crowd. But it is easier to photoshop that way, you dont need to worry about it fitting in with the backgroud...
Both the height and the clearness could be explained if the sign were much closer to the camera than the rest of the background. And notice that the shadows from the little bits of paper taped to it are coming from the correct angle relative to the background; bad shadows are usually the giveaway for bad photoshopping.
Still, I grant that it looks a bit weird. It's kind of a pity that photoshop has made alteration so easy that we're always suspicious nowadays.
Physics, yes, but the physics of light and glass, not the sign.
Specifically, I would vote for a telephoto lens, which has the distorting effect of causing objects at multiple distances to converge onto one plane. The people who appear to be standing underneath an enormously tall sign are probably a substantial distance behind it. Also, the person taking the picture was probably a bit too close to the sign for a "normal" use of telephoto and had to adjust the focus in order to capture it clearly, which would explain why everthing both closer and farther is slightly blurred.