Take a look at these wonderful photos of people in Africa:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1081410

Technically and artistically the images are very appealing. Even so from a journalistic standpoint. But saying an image of a child holding a Kalashnikov is wonderful... not so much for me.

Mark

So, he should be stuck back in the stone age with a spear to hunt the eland/guard the village, etc?

The AK is the world's most widely available and one of the cheapest of all weapons, not to mention that it's extremely reliable, accurate enough and powerful enough for normal ranges of hunting and protection. It's NOT a really powerful weapon, media hype aside, but it's powerful enough to get the job done in most instances, and quite a bit of an improvement on a spear.

In many cultures, children grow up faster than we in the western world think they should, but that's a recent phenomenon even in the West. Only 150 - 200 years ago, our forefathers were getting married at 14 - 16, and striking out on their own to settle the land and raise a family. Today's 14- 16 year old, while often having babies, couldn't survive the frontier for a week on their own.

I just see a young man with his weapon waiting for the need to use it to feed or protect his family, and make no judgement on why he's doing it.

Dusty

+1

Didn't hear me say that, did you? Pleased to know I may have an opinion too.

I don't care how we did things 200 years ago, I don't live in that era and neither do you. We all know that in many countries in Africa, children aren't using Kalashnikovs for hunting, but for war as a soldier. Because the particular image I'm reffering too doesn't reveal the context, I'm as inclined to think they are using it for war as for hunting.



And I don't, but don't make any judgement either, only sharing my opinion. So we can conclude that, because we don't know the context of the situation, both our views are as valuable as they are worthless.

Mark

OK, Dusty, you asked for that...

Do you really think that a small boy holding an AK is OK to consider him a human being? I'm asking because declaring someone a human being presupposes such 'AK boy someone' to be a person who is allowed to some extent in the same community with the one who declares that.

So I ask you - are you ready to have your family and friends living in a community with 'AK boys' around?

That was a good find Henry exceptional captures.
Regarding the primitive with the machine gun I prefer to call like it is, I’ve never really understood how it can be that a region or country can be as poor as church mice have food shortages even famine with most of the population illiterate and have almost zero functioning infrastructure and manufacturing capacity but some of the population can still obtain guns somehow. Not in my view a good thing as the African wildlife dwindles away in the face of endless encroaching/expanding human (and cow) population…I know which I’d rather have. The Antelope, Gazelle and Wildebeest are encouraged to move somewhere else (they eat the same grass cows do) but the natural control (predators) that were designed to prevent overgrazing by/from herbivores and turning the place into a desert can’t move ‘somewhere else’ as they are locked into territories, but that’s ok initially as cows are a lot easier to catch than Wildebeest. Sooner or later though the assault rifle addresses the issue of the predator problem…exit African ecosystem and enter uncontrolled overgrazing as well as unsustainable human overpopulation. (Enter stage left the do-gooders with food aid to save them for an even larger famine/disaster later on)
In my view if they ever deserved to have an AK47 they would have invented one of their own already. Same thing here, if the indigenous population deserved to have modern boats and outboard motors with which to hunt and kill (with extreme cruelty) protected endangered Dugong and Sea Turtles they would have invented such things themselves sometime in the last thirty thousand years. The practice has so far conveniently gone unnoticed by the bleeding hearts and do-gooder brigade who claim it’s so called ‘cultural’ and ‘traditional rights’ Since when were modern boats and outboard motors ‘cultural’ and ‘traditional’?
How long will the Rhino last? Despite the best efforts they are under constant extreme threat from poachers who want to cash in on the brain dead ‘medicinal’ horn trade. If they had any common sense at all they would use a stun gun and cut the horn off while the animal is/was disabled, then the Rhino could at least grow a new one eventually, but no they blast them with an assault rifle and leave the carcass to rot. I guess there is an incentive for them to do their work hastily because if they are caught in the act they don’t get arrested they get terminated, and good riddance.
Now does anyone think the Gods aren’t crazy? Or is it just humans who are terminally crazy, even many of the ‘sane’ ones. Then again I suppose it depends on ones viewpoint, ‘viewed from within’ quite a few aberrations seem almost reasonable in light of various influences and pressures many of which are self inflicted, but if one were to approach planet earth without any knowledge or preconceptions and view most activities conducted by humanity one would be forced to conclude it’s basically a large insane asylum. (Combined with greed and stupidity)
Greg

You hit the nail right on the head there, Greg. Humans are ravaging the earth and it's original inhabitants not to survive, but out of pure greed.

A big, fat +1.

Mark

Mark,

Absolutely, most definitely, you are not alone despite the initial knee-jerk reaction we've seen here.

We the sane people are still the majority, no matter what.

So good is Good, bad is Evil. Which is what is your heart's telling.

So just keep on - you owe that much to your very self.

Cheers...

Sometimes when you look at how mankind is portraited by the media, one would doubt your statement. Fortunately, I can switch of my tv or computer, look outside and see the world is different and sanity does have the upperhand.

Thanks.

Mark

I agree on arguments from both "sides".
So if we take the gun alone, we see it as a tool for defense as well as a tool for aggression, and yet aggression sometimes is a way of defense (e.g. counterattack).
Centuries ago, the spear was the kalashnikov (kalashnikoff) of that era...
Those tools cannot be put in use if the rulers do not want it to (not leaders, but rulers, cause as I see it there are no leaders on this planet, unfortunately, but a bunch of rulers who decide for their own benefit... but that's another story).
And remember that it is not the just person/people/nation (fair, condign, guiltless, clean-handed, reverend...) but the strong one that wins and is justified (unfortunately). History shows it: "they" come by force, ransack, annihilate, torture, kill, massacre, genocide and yet how do other people look at it?
And now this little guy with an AK-47 in his hand against a bunch of rulers (i.e. politicians of superpower countries) who will come someday blaming him to be a terrorist, a killer on the loose, a rapist, an al-qaeda member (this is fashion now) and I don't know what more things, will "evaporate" him... because there is oil under his lands. And they will prove everyone else that they did it because they were defending their country...

That the winner is the one that gets to write history is an old argument Doc and is still true, it probably always will be and it does not always guarantee that absolute facts and truth will be dispensed, I guess there is no guarantee that if the looser wrote history it would be any better either.
One could have endless discussions about whether ‘might’ is ‘right’ because there are classic examples where ‘might’ most certainly was not ‘right’ and also ‘right’ does not necessarily mean ‘righteous’ either, it could mean any number of things depending on ones viewpoint, but one thing is reasonably certain in Mother Nature, the old is replaced by the new ‘deserving or not’ on a fairly regular basis over long time spans.
Greg

Doc,

You are really reading too much into those fine images. What you really see there is nothing like real Africa, it's mere tourist attraction much of the same kind they have there very profitably organised in Masai Mara.

The Kalashnikov kids of the real Africa look very different... and they are a very real problem because they sign a total decomposition of the already heavily degraded traditional human societies there. There's no good about that, it's all hopelessly bad...

Oh yes, I do know that.
I guess the best thing would be like: Il faut cultiver notre jardin (Voltaire).

Dusty