Project Petaling Street Blog

Yes the picture was powerful, but why. Is it just because she was the "face of war", or partly because those green eyes makes the viewer consider what a pretty woman she would later become. The western media thrives on sexuality, so why should it be any different in this case. I would say the photographer knew this and actually sexualised this child at the time by way of the photo taken.

It is now the picture has significance, as 20 years later she did not become a beautifial sexy attractive woman, but instead a tired and haggered woman looking much older than her years. A woman who has lost her youth, beauty and potential due to being a victim of circumstance. This is the face of War!

The image of the girl haunted me as a kid. I was, and still am, an avid fan of National Geographic. And of all the beautiful pictures that graced the covers of the illustrious magazine, that particular one intrigued me the most.

In her eyes I saw the uncertainty of life. The fear of whether she would live another day was emminent and strong in her irises.

The picture is powerful because it's a young girl staring out with cynical and ancient eyes. While other teenagers her age were developing crushes on boys and discovering their talents, she was forced to live through an inferno. She was forced to grow up too fast.

This is what McCurry saw. The eyes never lie.

Indeed, I agree with John Ling, the picture is impactful for the basic reason that it shows the diffence in the way they look at humanity compares to us.

Look at the person around you, no one would be able to glare at another with a similar gaze. This kind of rock hard gaze can only be from a lifetime of hardship and suffering through wars and inhumanity.

True, the media's use of a female to portray it could be interpreted as the use of sexuality, but it is also a fact that we, from the more safe side of the world, would not react with the same reaction when the picture portrays a male figure. We might even misinterpret it.

And it is true, eyes never lie, it really does show the soul

I think this is hypocrisy taken to the limit.

That is not about the face of war. That is about the haunting gaze of a woman, second in visual impact only to the smile of Mona Lisa.

Almost everybody who has read any article on the woman, or seen the documentary in National Geographic, is NOT interested in the plight of Afghanis caught up in the turmoil of war. They are interested in what happened to the woman. It is basically busy-body interest.

So, they have found her. Big deal. So what? Does anybody really care? Has any additional help been forthcoming? Does anyone really want to do anything apart from talking about how terrible it must all be.

Let's face it. Be honest. Who really cared when the Hutus and Tutsis were slaughtering each other? Who really cares about the current murder which is now happening in Dafour, even as we blog?

Does anybody now really care what has become of her?

There is this verse from Isaiah 6:8 that has become the unofficial creed of humanitarian workers and peacekeepers everywhere:

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

When the Rwandan Genocide raged, the world didn't care. But men like Romeo Dallaire, Paul Rusesabagina and others did care.

Sharbat Gula's picture has made a difference. It has inspired many men and women to take up the call of relief work in the world's most dangerous places.

Even now, many non-profit agencies are slogging in Afghanistan to make improvements in healthcare, education and so on. Progress is slow and the situation is dire, but they still push on.

Yes, the world doesn't care. But a small minority does care. There is hope, because of such noble and selfless people.

The face of war, is not the haunting picture of a woman which makes an indeligible impression on the on-looker.

The face of war, are not represented by images of the death, destruction, and carnage wreaked by and on, both the aggressors, perpertrators and victims.

The face of war, is the face of the millions of indifferent on-lookers and unwilling witnesses who would rather not know what is happening, just so long as it does not affect them directly.

Indeed, as asians we are hardened to this kind of scenes, scenes of starvation, scenes of poverty, scenes of pain and suffering. This is a sad but true fact as we walk daily on streets, seeing the poor, the cripple and the unfortunate beg for money yet we do not even give them a fleeting glance. We are indeed hardened to the hardships of the world as we view it daily in our everyday lives.

Yet, Freddie, not all of us is like that, it is true that the large majority of humanity can look and feel the urge to help but not take action, maybe even some who can look at scenes of helplessness and not even feel a twinge of pity but there are people who do feel empathy and actually help those in need. Some portion of people donate money, some portion donate time and some portion donates their very lives to helping them.

You cannot judge the impact of the picture on how you and your fellow portion of humanity judges it. The impact has indeed been made, though to some at a less extent than others. Scenes such as these does impact the western world more than the eastern as in the eastern world, all we worry about is getting to the top and getting the cash. This is indeed a truly sad thing in my view as we cast away humanity to get to the cream.

Though you might not think that anybody cares about the situation, but you cannot deny the facts that there has been action taken towards this situation. Though the effects may not be seen short term, or might not even be seen by the public as scenes of war and terror sells better than scenes of humanity and thus not shown, you surely cannot believe that no one cares about the situation.

Sh@dow, From a literal sense, you are of course correct in saying that despite the large majority of humanity that does not care about the rest, there are those who do. The evidence for this is very clear and evident, in the form of the various UN Organizations, Private trusts, Charities, and numerous individuals who have done more than their fair share of caring for the rest of the world.

And it is indeed true that not some some, but a considerable quantum of action has been taken towards alleviating such distressful situations, some of which has yielded remarkable results.

But by far and wide however, the general attitude of the rest of the world has been one of apathy and indifference. Much of the so-called "help" that has been extended to various target suffering communities have been done so because there were other underlying strategic military or economic imperatives.

What I am saying is that, we cannot expect too much free help from the rest of humanity. There is always some hidden price to pay for it. If you are sitting on top of a zillion barrels of oil or gold or whatever, then you can be sure some "help" will be forthcoming (at some obscure price, which you can only know much later). Otherwise, you are pretty much on your own, except for bits and pieces from truly sincere organizations and individuals, which unfortunately, does not change the equation very much.

That is the stark reality of human existence.

Hmm... that is basically human perception of giving help. We all believe that help is given at a price, that nothing is given freely. That is the way we are brought up to behave and believe.

Indeed, that is true at this current moment of time, this is because of various reasons, one of them is the Somalian case. Somalia had no strategic nor resource that could be of interest, yet the world helped them out of the goodness of their heart, and in the end, got burnt. Also another factor is the Mogadishu Factor, introduced after the battle of Mogadishu which comes in play in peacekeeping. This factor means that powerful countries will no longer risk their own people to intervene unless there's a clear benefit.

It is not really because of what the country can benefit from helping is help extended, as I have stated, it is really because the country that extends help do not want to lose too much in extending help due to unexpected factors. Especially at times like this, where everyone is worried of terrorisms, war and even disease outbreak, a small media coverage on dying peacekeepers or danger to a countryman might cause a big outcry for and maybe even a cause for a bigger war.

True, help is more freely given to those who actually have the resource, but statistically, more money is placed in helping those who cannot provide for themselves by private institutes that cannot possibly gain from the country than there is money placed aside to help countries that have resources but is in a ditch.

Another angle on this is to look at the actual impact of all the help that is being given. Is "helping" really making things better, or making things worse?

Take Ethiopia as an example. Despite massive charities and private efforts like Band Aid, Ethiopia has become a nation of beggars with twice the number of people.

As awful and horrific as this may sound, but perhaps the best thing to do is not to interfere, and let natural human and social forces take its course (and toll), and in its own time. Nature always has a way of solving problems.

All I know is, when I saw her picture last time, it gave me goosebumps and now, when I look at her again, it still made my goosebump rise.

And btw, the best thing is not NOT to interfere but interfere knowing that there's a limit for every interference as when you interfere too much, that is when the "helping" would make things worse.

So, how much interference is ok and how much interference is too much? Who decides what this limit of interference is?

How would you like it if somebody decided that they needed to interfere "a little" into your affairs of your country? Eg. the UN security council decides that a little interference is needed to overthrow and replace your government, and while they are at it, might as well change your flag and national anthem as well.

It is all so artbitrary. The moment you say that some interference is ok, that opens the flood gates for the barbarians.

Btw, Osama and Co believes that they have the right to interfere with every government in the world, and that a few bombings here and there is good.

then, it's good that no one interfered in sudan and rwanda :)