digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

This One is Worth a Thousand Words

blogs.reuters.com — This is a relatively old pic but I thought it's really powerful.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cybernetiks, on 06/05/2008, -54/+3hey,
    u r rite............ah lillll like the chineeeese student in front of the tank only multiple by power of [ u fill it in]
    hueyD
    • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -2/+31what?

      the syntax and general delivery of your comment make it unintelligible and very difficult to understand. Are you on drugs?

      I glimpse into the fact you are comparing this image with the Tiananmen square "Tank man" which is a very valid and lucid observation.

      You should take the time to express that thought more clearly.
    • OutThisLife, on 06/06/2008, -7/+3wat
      • blackdeath88012, on 06/06/2008, -3/+3Dugg down because I hate ignorant people.
    • sarixe, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1maybe you shouldn't drink so much...
  • Surferess, on 06/05/2008, -28/+5Run girl, run!
  • alapoet, on 06/06/2008, -12/+20Great photo... Heartbreaking and very powerful, indeed.
    • FK0123, on 06/06/2008, -1/+11where's the heartbreaking part again?

      It's private land. I do not see anyone doing anything violent to this woman. When people refuse to leave land that's not theirs, you have to remove them by force, and they appear to be doing so in the appropriate manner. No one's beating her or her child, they're just pushing her off the land.
    • MatthewDuke, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Don't you mean, "great propaganda"?
    • BlackJackJester, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1Don't think this can't happen in the US. It's called eminent domain. Look it up.
    • schrankage, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The men are wearing boots, and the baby is only wearing sandals, damn.
  • dolby, on 06/06/2008, -21/+3The Kid looks more concerned that he is naked instead of being killed.
  • thenonhacker, on 06/06/2008, -13/+18"Images of heavy-handed oppression really don’t come much better than this - defenceless, screaming woman clutching naked child is shoved and beaten by faceless, armoured authority."
  • DivePhotoGuide, on 06/06/2008, -10/+8wow that really is powerful indeed
  • skewl, on 06/06/2008, -18/+46I'm gonna get blame for this but I think the mother shouldn't have brought her child to the protest (if it is a protest)
    • GalacticRerun, on 06/06/2008, -3/+19I think it was probably less a protest that people turned up to and more the authorities bombarding people's homes. She was probably right outside her house.
      • EdwardsNH, on 06/06/2008, -5/+1Wrong. RTFA
        • burketo, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6no you RTFA

          “An indigenous woman holds her child while trying to resist the advance of Amazonas state policemen who were expelling the woman and some 200 other members of the Landless Movement from a privately-owned tract of land ... The landless peasants tried in vain to resist the eviction with bows and arrows against police using tear gas and trained dogs."

          it wasn't a protest, they were being evicted. she was probably just outside of her shanty hut.
    • anarchyinthekr, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1yes i blame you for that
    • TBBucs, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Agreed. Seriously, if you're going to run out in front of a dozen armed and charging soldiers, don't bring your child. Or at least hand him off to someone you trust first.
    • Jonjonr6, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. But they're all out of context.
      We have no idea what is truly going on just by looking at the picture.
      And yes, she should run, because she's not in any position to go toe-to-toe single-handedly with a baby on her hip against an armed riot squad.
    • Bodhinature, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2I don't think she was part of a protest as much as she lived there. These are landless peasants being further oppressed by government on the side of the propertied class.
  • sungoddess808, on 06/06/2008, -6/+28That does not look like a protest when you are holding a naked baby.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -9/+7Sure it can be. Palestinian Islamic terrorists routinely protest U.S. "aggression" by hiding behind human shields of women and children. This doesn't have to be any different.

      Maybe this woman is just an insensitive idiot who brought a naked child into a conflict with armed soldiers instead of staying well out of harm's wa.
      • ooblez, on 06/06/2008, -1/+7and maybe apple and Microsoft fanboys will all get along in a world made from candy and love.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Somebody's Israeli...
  • ChthonicMiasma, on 06/06/2008, -6/+12these are the pictures of our times, almost hurts sometimes.
  • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -20/+16At the current rate, in two decades the Amazon Rainforest will be reduced by 40%. You were appaled by bystanders not helping a run over man?

    Well here's just another case of social apathy.
    • Hrodrik, on 06/06/2008, -0/+10I do not understand why you are being dugg down.
      • directedition, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Because it has nothing to do with anything. The Amazon Rainforest is being destroyed by poor people creating farmland for a growing population. The trees are chopped down and burned to be used as fertile soil. It's call "Slash and Burn Agriculture". The trees are NOT being cut down by giant heartless corporations as many environmentalist will have you believe.

        This is an image of a woman being oppressed by powers far greater than herself.

        Social apathy is how we've pushed corn based ethanol, which has negligible environmental benefits, to the point of driving up the cost of corn and corn based foods. What this results in is relief organizations having fewer resources to feed growing populations. People are dying of hunger so that other people can sleep snuggly, pretending to be doing something good for the environment.
        • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/env_facts/e ...

          http://www.ghostwatershed.ca/images/Gallery/Loggin ...

          Sure, the amazon forest is being cut down by natives in need of homes.... what the hell have you been smoking?? Forbes?

          And oh what, these natives go around in big cattapilar machines?

          The agents of deforestation are many, and you can't blame it all on slash and burn for agriculture, or wholesale felling..

          But yes I do believe it is down to social apathy. We need to tackle these problems. Whether it is a "giant heartless corporation" or slash and burn, we need to tackle these issues, and their causes.
        • directedition, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1True, there is an amount of commercial deforestation in the amazon, but it is a drop in the bucket. The natives don't have caterpillars, they have axes and torches, which is really all you need. It is more than worth the effort for them, as ash makes for extremely nutrient rich soil and is fantastic for agriculture.

          And no, I didn't learn this from Forbes. I learned this from my environmental studies professor. A man who actually was the first to learn the language of a native Amazonian tribe who regularly made war with farmers encroaching on their rainforest land. They used to just kill the men, but slash and burn has taken so much of their forest, that they've taken to killing the wives and children as well.
        • reisrocks, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
    • FREETHINKER2008, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Neither do I.
      • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6maybe they don't understand the meaning of social apathy :p
        • Wakkyweed, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7Maybe they were too apathetic to digg it up?
  • coffee200am, on 06/06/2008, -19/+4Those Brazilian bastards!

    Impeach Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva! NOW!
  • moikai, on 06/06/2008, -3/+6damn.
  • ccelo, on 06/06/2008, -17/+22I'm from Brazil, and these Landless Movements (MST) are very honorable in some kind of way. Actually they have a great philosophy behind it all, the media shows to all brazilians the other way around, showing them destroying fields and etc, poor guys fighting for justice.

    and as coffe200am said above, i'd love to see Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva out of power.

    oh, by the way, about the first comment of coffe200am, go f*** yourself somewhere you square american, the world doesn't need your kind.
    • Hrodrik, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I do not understand why you are being dugg down, either.

      Paz para os Sem Terra.
      • ccelo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5I do not understand too. People from all around the world think about these groups just as riot scum.
        But actually they are fighting for their rights. In these states where the agriculture pravails, the owners of those plating fields are the real bad guys. Almost slavering locals and the worst thing, the govern is on their side, supporting those men just because of money.

        open up the eyes people.

        i'm with you hrodrik. paz para os sem terra
      • sassafras1232, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1He is being dugg down because he is directly responding to someone else's comments without actually using the "reply" feature. That and he is being offensive.
    • GuitaristTom, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2ccelo-

      was it really that important that you mention he was american?
      • ccelo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3really no... but i was emphasizing his especific comment about brazilians, in other words, just to be direct about nationality.
        if he was frech i would say, if he was spanish i would say, and so on...

        it pisses me off seeing that we are in a world full of information and we still see a lot of conservative people, full of preconceptions.
  • JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -18/+8Honestly...this photo looks fake. It's not like Reuters has never faked a photo before.
    • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -3/+7strange you would think that.

      I mean the amazon forest is being torn down, vast vast areas, each and every year. People live in the forest. So it seems highly plausible that they get evicted by force.

      I can hardly see how you can pick holes in that.
  • bstory, on 06/06/2008, -8/+4nice world we live in at times!
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/06/2008, -6/+7I lived in Manaus for years, thanks for pointing this one out.
    • bullcutter, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I bet you're disappointed the picture wasn't taken in America or Israel. After all, the entire rest of the world is incapable of doing bad and are victims of our imperial aggression, right?
  • Husac, on 06/06/2008, -7/+3Uuh...this is photojournalism!
  • SpaceDreamer, on 06/06/2008, -1/+43"do we need to know the details of the dispute to have any doubts that what we are witnessing is wrong?"

    Yes.
    Knowing the details certainly wouldn't hurt.
    • bpoteat, on 06/06/2008, -4/+3There are no details that could possibly be given, or even imagined, to prove that beating a woman holding a child is anything but wrong.
      • CrackyJSquirrel, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9Sure wrong, but is she provoking them? Most likely not, but if these people are squatters and being asked to leave, they should leave. If she is resisting, they need to do what the need to do. If she is bringing her child into harms way, then she would be to blame and not the soldiers. Of course whatever amount of provoking she may be doing, if that is the case, a soldier should take a different approach and remove her child peacefully, then crack her in the skull when the kid is safe.

        I am sure this isn't the case, but without explanation that situation is open to interpretation. You cant condemn either side of the dispute if you don't know the whole story. More likely then not our first reaction is correct in that the soldiers are being assholes, but who really knows just by looking at the photo.
        • bpoteat, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Wow, I didn't think I'd have to further elaborate on such an obvious statement, but I guess so.
          You actually agreed with me in your first paragraph. I never said that the woman was innocent and any way, but beating an unarmed woman holding a child is NEVER a viable solution no matter what she is doing. As I said, that is NEVER not wrong.

          I don't care if she was spitting in their faces - putting that child in further danger is wrong. I don't see how anyone could possibly argue otherwise and, really, I'm amazed that I would be dug down for saying so.
      • IdevInull, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4Even more wrong -- A woman bringing her child into a situation like that.
        • bpoteat, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1That I would agree with (if the situation happens to be that), but that still doesn't make beating her NOT wrong.
    • Sulzer, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3yea, it could have been a realistic looking baby-bomb
  • thespanielator, on 06/06/2008, -3/+10They aren't going to sell much Ice-cream acting like that.
  • brickwalkway, on 06/06/2008, -9/+30More incredible images: http://randomish4.blogspot.com/2008/06/powerful-pi ...
    • munawarali2, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7I can't even look at these...it's too tragic.

      Anyone who has a roof, a family, and food, has so much to be thankful for. It's tragic what most humans live through.
    • MattFid, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Those were equally incredible and terrible. Thanks for the link.
    • colin8651, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Thank you for sharing.
  • dave122, on 06/06/2008, -7/+13 will do the trick.

    That's ***** up.
  • mattmartinez, on 06/06/2008, -12/+72Knowing Reuters, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faked.

    http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
    • airmann90, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Wow, thanks for that link...
    • EatChex89, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5that's crazy.

      just another reason why we can't take everything for its face value.
      • SuperWinner, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Unless its on digg and open to the community scrutiny of the forums...
    • simg, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Anyone interested in "truth" should read the above page.
      I have no idea what to believe but it seems fairly clear that Hezbollah are using actors to fake photographs of casualties for propaganda purposes and major news publishers such as Reuters, The Guardian and The Times are publishing them.
      Shocking !
    • Wakkyweed, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Keep in mind that it's not just Reuters using this tactic. With photoshopping so easy to do and so hard to pick up on for the non-expert, pictures from all sorts of different media outlets are being twisted to suit the agenda of the people publishing them. An obvious example of this was when Time made O. J. Simpson's face much darker for one of their magazine covers during his trial.

      Anything written, filmed or photographed today has to be taken with a grain of salt. Including this post!
  • rsek, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6site down
  • Overture1928, on 06/06/2008, -1/+103Took me a while for this to load, mirror if wanted: http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9634/beltertz4. ...
  • billyboi, on 06/06/2008, -41/+2
  • chanop, on 06/06/2008, -5/+112It's really only worth 5 words:
    The page cannot be displayed
  • krete, on 06/06/2008, -6/+15lame title
  • lead2thehead, on 06/06/2008, -3/+10"Connection has timed out" is only worth about four words.
  • lumpking69, on 06/06/2008, -6/+13Where can I get boots like that? Those are nice...
    • Puffles, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Why are you guys digging him down? Look at those boots! They're sweet!
  • OutThisLife, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Is that a bat?
  • iburydupes, on 06/06/2008, -7/+2we human beings love to hurt each other, or do we hate to hurt each other? if we really loved, pain and hurt would not be the byproduct of that love...but who is accountable?
  • Zippo, on 06/06/2008, -7/+2connection's timing out... anyone have a mirror?
  • pumpkinfish, on 06/06/2008, -6/+1http://gizmodo.com/352266/peruvian-anti+riot-polic ...
  • Dopeness, on 06/06/2008, -10/+5Every picture is worth a thousand words... but what if it's a picture of the word "WORD" ?
  • petervenkman, on 06/06/2008, -5/+3shouldn't she be on the other side?
  • BryanG412, on 06/06/2008, -5/+16This is exactly why we as Americans have the right to bear arms.
    • littleodie914, on 06/06/2008, -3/+8I don't see how a pair of bear arms on her wall would have helped this woman in the least.
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Thats because you have never seen his killer wolverine style!
      • username7D8, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1thanks for the laugh!
    • innovati, on 06/06/2008, -9/+5I think the reason Americans feel the importance to have guns in their homes instead of in a town armoury is because shortly after your terrorist war against britain to steal the land you live on, the common fear was that the british would return with a surprise attack.

      By keeping your guns in your homes, you drastically cut down the response time to a surprise attack, and by de-centralizing the weapons the british couldn't just capture/destroy one building and regain control of the (now defenseless) people.

      Nice try though.
      • JointVenture, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Every home in Switzerland is required to have a gun.

        Nice try.
      • BlackJackJester, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure it's more along the lines of, "when it's revolution time, you don't want the government you're fighting against to have all the guns"
      • bagelmaster, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Still mad after 200+ years? It's sad really...
      • alarchy, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1You're just another Canadian jealous of our sovereignty. I know it took you a few hundred years more, but it's okay.

        Go cry to your Queen
      • Roniniku, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Interesting that people are getting pissy over this statement of fact. Time to study history again folks.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6A gave back my bear arms, they were too itchy and cumbersome. I kept crushing my coke can when I tried to drink it..
    • Aadain, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2You really think a bunch of civilians with guns stand much chance against a well equipped, trained, career army bent on repressing the people? If so, I have some beach front property in Colorado for sale, just for you!
      • logandurand, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2That's how the colonies achieved independence from Britain, they faced the most powerful empire in the world at the time and still managed to win.
    • tomtuts, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1In the case of the US, which has a population of around 300 million, 80% of which is comprised of people over age 15 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ... and a total military of less than 3 million, including active and reserve, yeah, I think a bunch of civilians with guns (given that they all have guns) who outnumber that army by almost 100:1 has a very significant chance, without even taking account for probable large numbers of defectors from said army in the case of a citizens' uprising.
      • Aadain, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Just a few faulty assumptions with your argument.
        1) Not everyone in the US over the age of 15 owns a guy or could even fire a gun if one was given to them (think old people, blind people, people with crap for aim, etc). So that reduces the number of people standing against the army right there.
        2) The military have FAR more weapons than just guns (tanks, missiles, bombs, etc) that even large groups of citizens could not fight against. This means 1 tank is worth 10+ regular citizens, easily.
        3) The soldiers in the army are TRAINED. They actually know how to fight, unlike the vast majority of citizens. If they were marching through the streets, most people wouldn't know what to do or would die in the initial resistance to a much stronger force.
        3) I said in my original post "...army bent on repressing the people". That means armies you find in dictatorships, not the US, and thus are not made up of a significant number of defectors. Of course, ours could become an army such as that given the right reasons/pre-planning by any would-be dictator.

        If this was the time of revolutionary war, where the guns used by the army weren't much different from the guns found in everyone's home and the only extra weapon they really had were cannons, then you would have a point. But these days the army, while outnumbered by the average population, is significantly more lethal than what we could put up in resistance.
  • Kikkoman, on 06/06/2008, -2/+7This One is Reposted a Thousand Times
  • chrissku, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I think Reuters fakes some of their photo's. I don't necessarily trust stuff they put out.
    • wTheOnew, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1No need to think that they do, because they do.
  • moletimer, on 06/06/2008, -4/+22Dupe. http://digg.com/arts_culture/This_Picture_is_Worth ...

    According to the article (and comments) the woman is a homeless Brazilian, squatting on private land.
  • Tannus, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5buried for being reposted too many years in a row.
    They couldnt find a recent picture?
  • kernel, on 06/06/2008, -2/+5Wasn't this already posted and brought to the front page?
  • NCSUspoon, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2seems fair
  • Zoltair, on 06/06/2008, -2/+7Actually one word..... DOWN.......
  • vwilsonuk, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3A strong image that has provoked discussion and debate - top work.
  • AutoTom, on 06/06/2008, -3/+17i dont get it... maybe that woman should get out of the way..
  • IdevInull, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5What kind of mother brings her child into a situation like that?
    • ianweir, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Maybe she hoped they wouldn't attack her if she was holding her child.
    • laserdog, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Maybe the men brought the shields and bats to the mother and child rather than vice-versa.
  • aladrin, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9Jeez, maybe if you don't want to be beaten with a stick, you should get out of the way of the military/police with the riot gear. Doesn't take a college education to figure that one out.

    And if you don't like how your government treats you, you should do something about it instead of standing there and letting them beat you. It doesn't help at all, even if someone gets a great picture of it.
    • h0ly, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I see you have all figured out. "Jeez"...
      Maybe, just maybe, they took extreme measures because the f*cking government wouldn't hear their side of the story.
  • phantom_mullet, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8I think this was on Digg awhile back and it was determined that the woman was one of a group of squatters on property they did not own. Make what you will of that; I'm just saying that context for the picture is everything.
  • avsa, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4That's what you get when you attack a peaceful brazilian airplane with bows and arrows! Ignore that women, go direct for those two painted in red!
  • jaydoj, on 06/06/2008, -4/+8GTFO of the way
    • TheSnuffster, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Said the baby
    • Wormfather, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2They dugg you down because the correct pun is "Move bitch, get out the way"
    • jaydoj, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2sorry guys, my bad, my hip hop isn't what it used to be. Nice icon by the way, on of my favorite shows.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.