The Soviet union, Ukraine and NCIS:LA

This post will be political. I have been following closely the political situation in the beautiful country of Ukraine over the past few days and I've discusses both with friends and family. It has given me much to think about, especially in terms of European politics and what the political situation in Ukraine means for Europe in general. And as I've thought this through, my mind inevitably passed to NCIS:LA and their treatment of the USSR.

I'll attempt to provide some background for those that read this blog but have not followed the political situation in the news. Ukraine is a European country situated in Eastern-Europe. Geographically it belongs to Europe but culturally and politically the situation is more complicated. Ukraine has been through a lot as a country over the centuries but the 20th century was exceptionally bad.  It was a part of the USSR during the 20th century and was during that time like other Eastern-European countries in terrible circumstances. The USSR did not treat anyone kindly.It has only been truly independent since 1991, ever since the USSR dissolved. Due to the close proximity to Russia and having been a part of it for a long time, Ukraine shares a lot of political, historical and cultural ties with it and more so than with Western-Europe. As a country, Russia has always been in many ways the antithesis to Western-Europe, both in terms of culture, politics and history, and it continuous to be so to an extent today. And it seems it that even if the USSR has dissolved, Russia still tries to exert control over it's former countries. And that is what has happened in Ukraine.

In Ukraine, many people are now looking towards Western-Europe and in particular the European Union for collaboration. The Soviet Union exists no longer and they want to move from it and establish a different Ukraine. And a part of that is moving away from Russia and its influences. One German official said that (paraphrased): 'The hearts of the demonstrators beat with a European beat' - what he is referencing is that many Ukrainians now want to move away from the Russian influence and belong to Europe not only geographically but also gain more proximity culturally and economically. That does not mean cutting all ties with Russia but it means a change and the right for Ukraine to carve out its own niche in Europe as a country. Ukraine was going to sign a collaboration agreement with the EU that would benefit them economically. However, the president backed out at the last moment, many believe due to influence from the Russian government. Russia was not keen on Ukraine signing the agreement and was encouraging them to sign an agreement with Russia and Kazakhstan instead. 

This rightfully angered many people and they have been protesting ever since. They protest that Ukraine is no longer a part of the USSR and they should not be coerced by Russia and kept away from making their own decisions on what would best benefit their country. They want to become a part Europe. I want to make it clear that Ukraine has always been a part of Europe geographically but the cultural and historical factors at play have in many ways isolated it from Western-Europe and the European Union. There are plenty of countries in Western and Northern Europe that do not belong to the EU but they still enjoy the benefits of the collaborations it offers and take advantage of it. Belonging to the EU is not a prerequisite of belonging to Europe in more ways than geographically in Western-Europe. But it seems to be in Eastern-Europe. I know people want this to change. I as well as everyone I know want this to change for Ukraine and we support them in their protests. We want them to have the chance to decide what is best for themselves on their own and we want them to be able to participate in the many things Europe and the EU offers. As I follow the protests, I truly hope they can get what they want and rightfully deserve.

And how does this tie all in wit NCIS:LA?

I have covered here so many times how strangely NCIS:LA deals with the USSR and Russia and how the wrong the image they present is. One would think from their coverage that the only thing the USSR ever did was to produce nuclear weapons and threaten America. But what history shows and the political events that are taking place right now is that the reality is so much more complicated than that. The USSR first and foremost affected and hurt countries within Europe. What happened after it dissolved and how the situation has played out has happened strictly within Eastern-Europe. It are Eastern-European countries that suffered the most and have had the most to deal with and work out. I encourage all readers to look into the fight for independence in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and read about how the USSR changed their countries and how they shape their identity and culture now. It is fascinating and sobering to learn about.

My point is this: I am well aware of that TV is not meant to be a political commentary and that the way in which it presents reality is skewed. NCIS:LA is a prime example of a show that changes and plays around with reality. I am well aware of the fact that what NCIS:LA presents is not meant to be an accurate view of reality and that they expect their viewers and allude to them the sense of knowing so. But that does not change the fact that history, reality, culture, politics are always so much more complicated than TV makes them out to be and it is important that people know that. I encourage all that read this blog to look beyond the simple, superficial way in which things are presented  on TV and instead look into reality. Granted, it is challenging and it may change the way you think but I find it to be more than worth the while. It makes you view media in a different way and value things differently.

(And never to trust NCIS:LA's opinion of Russia/Eastern-Europe)

Measuring everything with Hiroshima-Nagasaki

Today's topic is on the heavy side but it has been weighing on my mind lately and I felt I needed to share my thoughts on it.

Everyone is aware of the tragic events of Hiroshima-Nagasaki at the end of WWII in August 1945. When America hit the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons that devastated the area permanently and killed over 300.000 people. It is one of the most tragic events of the 20th century and is the only known instant of nuclear weapons having been used in warfare in the world. It is an extremely complicated, controversial and difficult event to explain and come to terms with and it's my feeling that it can never be explained properly. But that does not mean we shouldn't try.

Earlier this year, my local library held an exhibition about the events which featured stories of the events, real items from it like singed shirts, shoes and books, pictures and an explanation of the effects this has had upon the area, the Japanese nation and how it is being dealt with today. It was a very well received exhibition and it affected everyone that went there. I know that for me personally, it was devastating to see it. Devastating but necessary. I know many teachers brought high-school students to the exhibition and it affected them a lot, many parents took their children as well to teach them about this difficult history and raise awareness of the issue.

And how does this relate to the TV world?

It seems to me that every single time my favorite TV shows deal with nuclear weapons and distribution of them (or just bombs in general) they always reference Hiroshima-Nagasaki. But not to acknowledge these events or attempt to deal with them. No, it is used as a measuring device. I cannot count how many times I've hear something along the lines of: "The nuclear device is so big it can kill up to 3 million people, that is ten times as much as Hiroshima-Nagasaki". And then all the characters nod seriously. Am I the only one that feels that people are trying to upstage the death toll of Hiroshima-Nagasaki when they do this? It's like: "Yeah sure, those bombs killed 300.000 people but our fictional bombs, they are much deadlier. Take that Hiroshima-Nagasaki!"

NCIS has had this, Castle and NCIS:LA. And for the life of me I cannot understand why. Hiroshima-Nagasaki is what it is - a devastating and terrorizing event with immense political controversy attached to it. It should never be used as a measuring stick for fictional death toll on television. 

It crossed my mind that when measuring death toll I have never heard certain things. I have never heard people comparing death tolls to the lives lost in the Holocaust, the tsunami in 2005, the earthquake in Haiti, The Armenian genocide, the Boznian and Serbian civil war in the early 90's, the civil war in America in the 1860's, the number of people killed by Stalin and so many other events. And it is obvious why, to use those events as a measuring stick for fictional death toll would be highly disrespectful and ignorant. 

So why then is it fair-game to use Hiroshima-Nagasaki as a measuring stick? Devastating events when masses of people die, be it due to war or natural causes should never be used flippantly on TV and never ever as measuring sticks. They should and can be dealt with deftly and with respect. But never ever for the sake of pure entertainment.

I have sometimes written about here my worries on how TV shows approach reality and how it can shift our perception of it. TV represents heightened and freaky reality and should always be taken at a surface level. But when TV reality starts treating the real reality flippantly and without caution and respect, we are on a dangerous path. It seems to me that the TV world is partly on that path already but it can be changed and it should. Otherwise, we are in dangers of starting to approach historical events as if they do not matter, as if history and it's effect isn't real. And that is something we cannot allow to happen. 

(And in case people need a measuring stick instead of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Iceland has a population of roughly 320.000 people, similar to the death toll of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. So just reference the Icelandic population instead. Much easier, inoffensive and will make a lot of Icelanders happy)

Eurovision - Part 4 - American vs. European: The way cultural influences go

One of the unexpected delights I had recently was reading an interesting piece at the Huffington Post from the castle actor Seamus Dever. He is a Eurovision fan and I thought is insight into the contest was interesting. It was fun to read about the contest from the perspective of someone that was introduced to the competition only a few years ago and views it from an American perspective. I am a European and grew up with the competition so Mr. Dever's insight was particularly interesting to me and I have spent some time mulling it over and thinking about it. And I have some thoughts.

Here in Europe (broadly sweeping obviously, but this attitude is prevalent in my own area of Europe) we consider popular culture in a very simple manner when it comes to American culture. We divide popular culture into two categories; American and European. We view European culture as being better and more cultivated than American culture and make fun of American culture all the time. European popular culture is a strange animal and has certain features which make you want to shiver. Such as telenovelas and soap operas, our phenomenally bad pop music (boy band galore) and just all around craziness. It makes one sigh and shake one's head and feel very embarrassed. We make fun of our own culture all the time. But enter someone American making fun of our culture and it all goes south. We get defensive and state that while European culture is strange, it is way better than American.

I gladly acknowledge this attitude is entirely wrong and diminishing but it does exist.

So when I read the line from the article that stated that in the songs of the competition one could clearly hear the influence of American pop music, I bristled a bit. My first thought was sarcastic: "Well yes, quite obviously Europe cannot have it's own, unique pop music culture but is always trying to copy American". And then I shook my head and thought with myself that we have our own specific and unique pop musc culture that has done just fine without American influence. How could that not be obvious? This is a classic case of the Eurocentric idiot I sometimes am and it is not something I am proud of.

Then the article came with the interesting point that while American pop music influence was certainly present  each nation brought their own specific traditions to it and made it their own. And that it very true. I pondered this in work today and the more I thought about it, I realized how true it was. American pop music has definitely influenced Eurovision songs but at the same time, European cultural influences also have a strong presence so onw ends up with an eclectic and exciting mix of two very different things
American and European cultures and influences come together and it is rather fascinating to witness it. I also find it very interesting to see the cultural influence that Eurovision is. The songs from Eurovision have been playing on the radio here endlessly since the competition and it never crossed my mind it wasn't the same in America, Then it hit me, why should it be? Eurovision is a European phenomenon not American so naturally its cultural influence is felt more here. But Eurovision did introduce the incredible awesomeness that is ABBA.

This interplay between two different cultures or rather one versus like 40 different one's is absolutely fascinating to follow and says a lot about today's world and how globalization is affecting us. All in all I thought the article by Mr. Dever was very interesting and it gave me a lot to think about and ponder. And I am happy that other people are discovering the cultural oddity that is Eurovision and I hope it leads to people discovering more of our music because some of the Eurovision music is spetacular.
But I will say, I do no think American pop music will ever be able to reach some of the awesomeness that goes on in Eurovision. There are certain things only Europeans can think of ;)

Examples
The raising of the singer and a 'vampire' singing

Or having a turkey represent the country

Or performing in monster costumes

Or the crazy Germans singing

Or having having weird gymnastics performed on stage

Or having it "all" during a performance

Or this 'gem'

I could go on and on. Like the Danish song "Fly on the wings of love" actually has really sensual Danish lyrics but they were made more modest for Eurovision :)

The point is.that American pop music certainly influences a lot but when it comes to crazyness. you can depend on Eurovision and the European nations to deliver :)

And here is the lovely article on Huffington Post

Having an active role in what I watch and how I respond to it

When I watch my favorite television shows I respond and react to them. I laugh, curse, tense up ever so slightly, relax, shake my head, smile and  sometimes get teary eyed. Afterwards I ponder what it is that I saw and make sense of it. Sometimes it does not take long but other times it goes through my mind again and again. I find myself analyzing and gathering my thoughts on what it is I see and observe and then I write it here or discuss it with people.

I find it both important and fun to be active in what I choose to watch and how I respond to it. Of course there are times when I am glad to watch TV shows in order to shut off my brain after a long day but generally my mind is always on a roll when I am watching and I am observing, analyzing and thinking. That is why I maintain this blog. It helps me not only view media from a new angle but also challenges me to think about things and the many intricacies of television shows and how they are. I still enjoy them a whole lot but I  find that I gain greater enjoyment from then when I not only watch them to relax but also take in and analyze what it is that I watch from various angles. That is why I tackle a big range of subjects on this blog because I like viewing things from many perspectives and seeing their many facets.

I also criticize regularly on here. If there is one thing I firmly believe in it is the right and duty to criticize in a  constructive, clear and coherent manner what it is that I see on television shows. I like my favorite television shows for many reasons but they also all have things about them which I do not like. Some are small things but other are bigger matters (in my opinion) which I find the need to address and share my opinion about. I always try my best to do it in a respectful and civilized manner but I feel it is something I must do. Not only to share my thoughts but also to show that I care about what it is I watch. I am active in the process of watching it and being a fan of the show. And to show people that media can be viewed as an active consumer of it that does not accept everything at its face value.

Because media gets really boring if it is never analyzed, challenged or criticized.