I would perhaps say that Adam Curtis has a great knowledge of recent history, rather than understanding. His work portrays history as an unending sequence of conspiracies. While I greatly enjoy his work, I would in no way consider him an historian. More of a political artist than anything, in that his work relies primarily on implication, association and inspiration, rather than empirical evidence.
His book Propaganda starts with: "THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html)
So when Adam Curtis writes documentaries on people like him, he may sound to some like a conspiracy theorist, because that's how some of the profiled creeps themselves sound. (But of course, "conspiracy theorist" is often misused to throw muck at people who focus on structural analysis.)
maybe because there is quite a number of conspiracies in recent history and it is important to know about those because the conspirators are still in position of power or their ways are still used today.
Interesting that the Tim Cook piece garnered 3k+ points/1k comments while Curtis gets 68/17. A CEO's sexual preference pales in comparison to the problems and ideas that Curtis exposes, IMO.
Neither interesting, nor surprising really. Curtis requires people to pay attention and think before they comprehend what he is saying. The Cook piece merely required them to click "like".
For the record, PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, NATO, Canada, Japan, Australia, and at also at the state level by Germany, Spain, the UK, Netherlands etc. This organization is responsible for suicide bombings, roadside bombs, kidnappings & murder of both Turks and Kurds.
This doesn't justify repressive policies against any ethnic group, or minority - including the Kurds, of course. When people want Gay Marriage in the US, it's not like they form a terrorist organization and blow people up.
If gays were treated 1/100th as bad as any minority in turkey we would have the gay liberation army fighting an insurgency.
You are talking about the country that invented the true modern genocide, applied it to the Armenians, and still arrests anyone within its borders who dares say they did any of the above.
I love Adam Curtis' work, but I can't help but feel that this "peering behind the curtain" is all a bit passé. I think many (most?) people people are aware at some level of the media manipulation of populations using crude psychological ploys, the hegemony of the big banks and multinationals and the hidden agendas of so-called benevolent nation states and governments. More interesting is what we (can?, should?) do about it?
The Adam Curtis blog is the best thing on the BBC. When a new article comes out someone generally posts it to HN much to the delight of myself and plenty of others.
If you are totally stuck for what to do, 'raising awareness' is a good thing. Therefore, why don't you just use some social network gizmos to promote the fact that a new Adam Curtis article has arrived on the internets? Email/IM/Tweet to those that matter to you and share the good stuff with them.
What good will this do? Well, for people that would like to think differently and value some of the core themes of Adam Curtis' work, just reading his articles might help them to keep the faith and have a bit more confidence in their ideas.
In my experience, they're simply not. If you ask them specifically if this is happening, they nod and say they are aware, but not so much because they're aware as because the X-Files[1] told them it was true.
[1] By which I mean mass media itself is telling them what it's doing to them, as it does it.
Noam Chomsky says he's asked this all the time. And he points out there's no end of problems to help with. Educate yourself mutually with others, organize with them, then act. No magic formula beyond this.
You can find something which plays to your interests and strengths.
I think you're being a bit optimistic that "most?" people are on the same page and aware of media manipulation, hegemony, etc. Just because this kind of knowledge is passé to you doesn't make it passé for someone thinking about it for the first time, be they 15 or 40.
I agree that the more crucial questions are around what we (can? should?) do about it, but those questions are far more difficult to actually answer. In the meantime, I think work like Curtis' is helpful in inspiring people to at least begin to construct a framework with which to approach these big questions.
> I think many (most?) people people are aware at some
> level of the media manipulation of populations using
> crude psychological ploys, the hegemony of the big banks
> and multinationals and the hidden agendas of so-called
> benevolent nation states and governments.
I think everyone acts in their own self interest, and trying to gussy it up as a conspiracy is pretty counter-productive.
If you take any kind of historical perspective, then the ability of the rich and powerful to control the proletariat or bend the world to their will is at an all time low. I welcome any research or sensible citation that counters that, because to me it seems prima facie, and 2 minutes Googling suggests we live in a more democratic world than at any time in history.
US special interest groups are still worrying, as is their ability to influence the foreign policy of the world's biggest military force, but surely they're more worrying because we know more about how they work than ever, and there's considerably more transparency? Arguably the big let-down of the Obama presidency was his inability to work effectively within the system he was part of (as, say, a contrast to Bill Clinton). Labour organizations / Unions unambiguously count as special interest groups, which is sort of ironic.
Anywho, your real point was:
> More interesting is what we (can?, should?) do about it?
I think you can get involved with good faith technological and political movements that want to increase transparency. In no particular order, and with no particular claim to exhaustiveness, I am impressed by:
Are any of the above perfect? Of course not. Are they all focussed on making the world / their country a better place? I think the answer is unambiguously yes.
Absolutely agree one can get involved to change things. Just one nitpick. There are quite a few technology NGOs, not only Mozilla. I work for one, but there are many more.
Edit: It's not that I can't think of reasons why somebody might want to downvote my comment, but it's frustrating not getting to find out which reason it was.
He has a great understanding of recent history as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis
All of those articles are great.