trinityvixen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
trinityvixen) wrote2009-06-02 07:36 pm
trinityvixen) wrote2009-06-02 07:36 pm
Uhhh...
So, the first season of The Deadliest Warrior came to a close with the episode "The IRA vs The Taliban." (Thanks to edgehopper for the heads up that the episode had aired. I thought it wasn't on until tonight...)
Ah...yeah. I've made my objections known about the use firearms and how it should generally exclude ballistics-only soldiers from being "warriors." I renew those objections and the ones I made about weapons that aren't really culturally evolved. Again, a Samurai sword has a history amongst the Samurai warrior class. It evolved to the point where it was replaced by better weaponry. Guns, on the other hand, tend not to have come out of most of the cultures that now rely heavily on them. In this "IRA vs Taliban" match-up, both sides use at least one weapon designed by not just another nation but specifically Russia. That shows you how little effort on the part of the warriors in question went into perfecting those weapons. Again, my objection stems from the fact that anyone could use those guns to kill. It's not that one culture's warrior-ness that made it so effective.
So there's that. But did they really have to add to it by putting two terrorist groups against each other? I mean, arguing that they're effective killers just seems...wrong. Not that I don't think that respect shouldn't be paid to dangerous people with dangerous zeal. (The unfortunate murder of George Tiller has proved that.) Respect is different from reverence, though. This show has made an effort to bring in people with a healthy respect for their respective warrior cultures, but they also make their bones on heaps on testosterone-fueled excitement. Getting excited about how the IRA murder people with bombs or the Taliban slaughter people with RPGs is just disgusting. It's also a lot harder to get excited about the match-up period. And that makes for a less fun episode in general.
Part of my discomfort stems from the fact that both groups have, notoriously, been indifferent to the murder and intimidation of civilians. True, plenty of the other warriors could be so careless and callous about who they killed. (I doubt Pirates or Vikings were discriminating when it came to killing non-soldiers.) However, their main use was to attack or defend against other soldiers/warriors. I don't believe that the IRA or Taliban can really claim such focus. Let's face it: the show exists to get a thrill out of seeing people get killed. The only way it skates is if the people in question are a) fighting back and b) able to defend themselves. (A peasant can fight back. Doesn't mean that they will have any chance.) At least with Ninjas and Zulus and Maoris there's an idea of the opponents being soldiers--willing fighters ready to die if needs be. There isn't really much of that illusion with the IRA or the Taliban. They do fight soldiers, but they do so with more civilian casualties and other motivations going on besides.
There's also the fact that, being guerilla fighters, there's no way either the IRA or the Taliban would ever engage one another. Not one on one, not in a team. (The "Green Beret vs Spetznaz" fight made more sense in this respect since they were explicitly part of teams.) The IRA were hit-and-run types. Hell, they aren't even "hit" types most of the time; they were leave-and-explode at their most effective. The Taliban are better off as individuals or tiny groups. They are also much more successful because of the terrain in Afghanistan. It's not a fair sort of fight. (Kinda like forcing the Ninja to fight up close was stupid.)
While I did appreciate a kill counter at the bottom of the re-enactment to help keep track of the remaining forces (something "The Mafia vs The Yakuza" and the aforementioned "Green Beret vs Spetnaz" could have used), I could have done without the codified references. In the opening, the Taliban is referred to as "hard-lined religious extremists" and the IRA is referred to as "bloody urban guerillas who waged a savage war for independence." That's a creative re-imagining of the IRA's role in Northern Ireland if ever I heard one. That's far from the only example, too. The inference is fairly obvious: the IRA are less icky (not really) than the Taliban. While I agree that the Taliban's religious extremisms makes it nigh-impossible to bargain with them, a lack of religion wasn't exactly the IRA's problem, one; and two, they were pretty damned impossible and extremist regardless.
Ah...yeah. I've made my objections known about the use firearms and how it should generally exclude ballistics-only soldiers from being "warriors." I renew those objections and the ones I made about weapons that aren't really culturally evolved. Again, a Samurai sword has a history amongst the Samurai warrior class. It evolved to the point where it was replaced by better weaponry. Guns, on the other hand, tend not to have come out of most of the cultures that now rely heavily on them. In this "IRA vs Taliban" match-up, both sides use at least one weapon designed by not just another nation but specifically Russia. That shows you how little effort on the part of the warriors in question went into perfecting those weapons. Again, my objection stems from the fact that anyone could use those guns to kill. It's not that one culture's warrior-ness that made it so effective.
So there's that. But did they really have to add to it by putting two terrorist groups against each other? I mean, arguing that they're effective killers just seems...wrong. Not that I don't think that respect shouldn't be paid to dangerous people with dangerous zeal. (The unfortunate murder of George Tiller has proved that.) Respect is different from reverence, though. This show has made an effort to bring in people with a healthy respect for their respective warrior cultures, but they also make their bones on heaps on testosterone-fueled excitement. Getting excited about how the IRA murder people with bombs or the Taliban slaughter people with RPGs is just disgusting. It's also a lot harder to get excited about the match-up period. And that makes for a less fun episode in general.
Part of my discomfort stems from the fact that both groups have, notoriously, been indifferent to the murder and intimidation of civilians. True, plenty of the other warriors could be so careless and callous about who they killed. (I doubt Pirates or Vikings were discriminating when it came to killing non-soldiers.) However, their main use was to attack or defend against other soldiers/warriors. I don't believe that the IRA or Taliban can really claim such focus. Let's face it: the show exists to get a thrill out of seeing people get killed. The only way it skates is if the people in question are a) fighting back and b) able to defend themselves. (A peasant can fight back. Doesn't mean that they will have any chance.) At least with Ninjas and Zulus and Maoris there's an idea of the opponents being soldiers--willing fighters ready to die if needs be. There isn't really much of that illusion with the IRA or the Taliban. They do fight soldiers, but they do so with more civilian casualties and other motivations going on besides.
There's also the fact that, being guerilla fighters, there's no way either the IRA or the Taliban would ever engage one another. Not one on one, not in a team. (The "Green Beret vs Spetznaz" fight made more sense in this respect since they were explicitly part of teams.) The IRA were hit-and-run types. Hell, they aren't even "hit" types most of the time; they were leave-and-explode at their most effective. The Taliban are better off as individuals or tiny groups. They are also much more successful because of the terrain in Afghanistan. It's not a fair sort of fight. (Kinda like forcing the Ninja to fight up close was stupid.)
While I did appreciate a kill counter at the bottom of the re-enactment to help keep track of the remaining forces (something "The Mafia vs The Yakuza" and the aforementioned "Green Beret vs Spetnaz" could have used), I could have done without the codified references. In the opening, the Taliban is referred to as "hard-lined religious extremists" and the IRA is referred to as "bloody urban guerillas who waged a savage war for independence." That's a creative re-imagining of the IRA's role in Northern Ireland if ever I heard one. That's far from the only example, too. The inference is fairly obvious: the IRA are less icky (not really) than the Taliban. While I agree that the Taliban's religious extremisms makes it nigh-impossible to bargain with them, a lack of religion wasn't exactly the IRA's problem, one; and two, they were pretty damned impossible and extremist regardless.