Edward Snowden voted Guardian person of the year 2013
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I'm recalling a conversation I had with someone born and raised in South Africa, who said Mandela was in jail for a reason as he was a terrorist who broke the law, (which of course has been much discussed recently). Someone else chimed in something like "it's different when you break laws to right an injustice..."
It's a complex issue, and I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already made the connection.
Edit: clarity
When oppressive and divisive regimes fall, it often happens violently and they end up being replaced by regimes that are just as bad if not worse (see: Tsarist Russia, White-majority Rhodesia, many other postcolonial states). That didn't happen in SA, and Mandela is credited with that.
If the world ends up looking way more dystopian scifi than it does at the moment, there's maybe a scenario where Snowden ends up being today's Nelson Mandela, but I wouldn't bet on it.
He can be respected for both. Many of us do respect him for the totality of what he was, not just what he was later in life.
But I don't think he'd be thought about the same way if it wasn't for the second act. A lot of people are unfairly imprisoned by despotic governments. Not many become unifying figures in the way that Mandela did. So I don't think the comparison to Snowden is a good one.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/dec/09/jerry-dammers-f...
Probably not, because it's a very poor comparison.
Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by authorities in power at the time, and was accused of treason, as is Snowden I believe. History judges Mandela otherwise, and deems him a hero. Will the same be true for Snowden? I guess it really is the same old debate that has been going on - is Snowden a hero or a traitor guilty of treason, and how will the answer to that question differ, if at all, in 25 to 30 years? Nothing new here besides the context in which the question is posed, which may or may not be valid.
However, at least Tymoshenko is a political leader who is imprisoned by her home state for her continuing expression of and leadership in opposition to unjust policy; Snowden is none of these things, and I cannot imagine him taking that role in the future.
>"Traveling there in secret, Mandela ..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Umkhonto_we_Sizw...
He was arrested after sneaking back into S. Africa, after sneaking out of S. Africa, when someone tipped off the government about his location (he went dark to avoid capture, he was in hiding when they arrested him). He attempted to evade the S. African government and clearly would have avoided arrest by fleeing the country if possible. Note that one of the things he was charged with was "leaving the country without permission".
And just for the record Loki was captured. The imprisonment of Loki is an extremely important aspect of the mythology of Loki which should not be ignored in attempting to find modern analogues.
>The narrative continues that Loki was bound with the entrails of his son Nari, and his son Narfi changed into a wolf. Skaði fastened a venomous snake over Loki's face, and from it poison dripped. Sigyn, Loki's wife, sat with him holding a basin beneath the dripping venom, yet when the basin became full, she carried the poison away; and during this time the poison dripped on to Loki, causing him to writhe with such violence that all of the earth shook from the force, resulting in what are now known as earthquakes. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki
Snowden leaked particular information for a clear purpose. That material has changed political discourse and public perception.
The vocal majority in the US are racist, xenophobic nationalists, and are disgusted by the idea that any conceivable US initiatives would be even slightly compromised for the sake of any number of foreigners, anywhere. The gender-change was a nail in the coffin - because to a lot of the public, that others him into a foreigner too.
Snowden is very middle-class professional, dates a (female) model, races to Moscow through Hong Kong like a movie spy, and the President of Bolivia was pulled out of a plane just to find him (unsuccessfully.)
(American) people generally understand their world in terms of shallow stereotypes and movie narratives; they hate both subtitles and protagonists that aren't white middle-class heterosexuals.
Manning is a lot more of an underdog than Snowden.
You don't get to decide that ;)
I think you'll find transgenders, et al, having to live the lives they do, have developed a far more nuanced take on public perception than fits with the role most of their self-styled allies have assumed on their behalf.
One of my first patients was an HIV positive stripper who presented with shingles. During the history, I noted the off-label estrogen and the B cup and asked "Darren, what pronoun would prefer?" "He is fine, but whatever makes you comfortable" he said.
'The military', rather than 'the NSA' (both DoD, yes, but still rather distinct in the eyes of the public), is something that the American public has become convinced absolutely must be supported no matter their political stance or position on war. Support for the military must be unwavering, even if you support nothing that the military actually does. Anything short of that is un-American, therefore Manning is un-American.
A newspaper should be judged on quality. If this leads to more income, all the better.
1) Is it better to vet the documents, and remove personal information etc. where appropriate? If yes, then I'd rather they were released as they were prepared.
2) Would we still be discussing this if they had been dumped in one lot? This is maybe much more clever than you think. More importantly; I expect it's more likely these events will eventually seep into broader public consciousness if they don't come and go in a single news cycle.
These stories have been popular with the Guardian's standard readership, but inside the UK at least, I doubt it has increased its market.
The NSA coverage has probably helped them in that mission, in fact it is probably motivating a lot of their NSA coverage, the UK "switched off" over the issue almost day one.
It's not the most advertiser-friendly story either.
the whole situation stinks tbh. despite the damage to NSA and GCHQ a number of other unsavoury elements in government are really benefiting from this...
Dripping it out better highlights the incompetence of those who were tasked to keep it all in check (including journalism as a whole) and the extravagance of what has been going on by matching the scale of the surveilance to the scale of reporting.
It also highlights hypocrisy, such as the initial Merkel reaction "how dare they! Oh, well carry on" with the reaction after the revelations that Merkel was spied on "How dare they! We can't let this go on".
Not acting because "unsavoury elements will benefit" would just lead to a paralysis, unsavoury elements always find a way to benefit, it's part of what makes them so unsavoury.
The Guardian is not your average newspaper. Take a read:
Remember that the Graun is still a UK-based paper, and we don't idolise business-folk the way the US does.
People talk about Musk and his electric cars and space ships, Zuckerberg for Facebook, Bill Gates for Microsoft, Steve Jobs for Apple, etc. Here in the UK no one knows what any of the Dragons really do, except that they are all wealthy and we should admire them mostly for that.
I'm not surprised no one idolises them. Especially Meaden.
Then you should know that your experience isn't very representative, because the ratings for the show can be objectively confirmed.
Well, only if they are on television shows.
I have seen some of the Drgons den types do a live session at a business start up show and my god if there was anything at all technical in the pitch you could see the poor dears eyes glaze over and how out of their depth they where.
If we can sustain the anger long enough to get durable change, Edward will be able to rightfully take some credit for that.
maybe they could dump out all the revelations in one go instead of drip feeding us? or just make the information public?
although to be fair - he has certainly shaped the year's news stories for a good reason. he has enlightened many who were previously naive.
To me it makes sense to do it slowly, apart from other considerations, to judge the effect, impact, ensure your actions aren't hurting people you don't intend, give opportunty for consultation with authorities if they want to come to the party and if it's appropriate.
How would you propose it be done?
I don't feel awards are right unless they are full of evil wrong doers spiced up with a few populist entries. Hopefully Time magazine will have Feinstein win their Person of the Year award. Then order in the universe will be restored.
How does it help? Yesterday, we had a whistle blower in here. He helped by revealing the illegal activities of his government committed against their own people. How does racing a Formula One car ... help?
given the choice between being Ed Snowden and being Lewis Hamilton, I would choose the latter hands down, every time.
If we want to get all F1 about it, look no further than Adrian Newey.