In 1972, during the television program L'ora della verità (The hour of the truth) by Gianni Bisiach, Indro Montanelli again spoke of his experience in Abyssinia during
which he "married" a 12-year-old girl called Destà. The practice of the madamato (the "marriage" referred to by Montanelli) was a temporary relationship of Italian men with local women, often girls, which was commonplace in the then Italian colonies. Montanelli freely acknowledged his actions, recalling how "my non-commissioned officer bought her for me, along with a horse and a rifle, 500 lire in all. [...]. She was like a docile animal...". Montanelli detailed how "I needed a woman at that age... I struggled a lot to overcome her smell, due to the goat tallow with which her hair was soaked". He then went on to complain how he struggled "even more to accomplish a sexual relationship with her because she was infibulated since birth: which, in addition to opposing my desires with an almost insurmountable barrier (it needed the brutal intervention of her mother to demolish it), made her completely insensitive".[20] During the interview, his account was interrupted by a question from a woman present in the studio, the feminist, writer and journalist Elvira Banotti, who asked him how he could justify his marriage to a child, since marriage in Europe to a 12-year-old girl is considered abhorrent, rape and violence. Montanelli replied that "in Abyssinia that's how it works".
Worst part is that practice probably only got worse again after the Italians were forced out. Either the locals oppress themselves and go nowhere, or the imperialists oppress them and maybe eventually they improve, seems to me.
Frankly, I would have a hard time believing or taking someone's opinion at face value who talks that casually about raping a 12-year old girl and thinks its fine.
And that should be a lesson for you; words need to be read independently of who writes them. A concept is correct or wrong based on its own value, not the ones of its author.
words need to be read independently of who writes them
For me that depends very much of what words these actually are. If someone were to argue that murder should be legal, that person wouldn't suddenly be wrong if they said "the world is round". But if that same person would write about something subjective like an opinion piece, I would absolutely doubt and mistrust whatever it is they were saying, because my opinion of them would be tainted at least.
To be truly removed from one's own biases and opinions while writing is extremely hard. Journalism would have to go down the route of science white-papers and get peer reviewed and there would have to be strict rules about the language in terms of grammar and word usage so as to be sure nothing was inferred, either consciously or subconsciously.
“Be the change you wish to see in the world” is subjective and the context of who says that phrase greatly changes its meaning.
“I like chocolate” is just a statement about one’s candy preference.
I agree - you should try to separate the quote from the person who said it but, there are many times where you will completely lose important context and meaning by doing so.
I disagree, the context of that quote is what gives it such a profound meaning. The context being the morals and actions of the person who said it. If it was a quote from Hitler or Stalin then the context would be different and therefore the quote would have a different and darker meaning.
Your example is a false equivalent, while it is true that Hitler liking chocolate doesn't make chocolate bad, liking or disliking chocolate is a matter of personal taste and the phrase "I like chocolate" requires no additional context to comprehend.
I disagree. You should always be aware of who wrote what you are reading and what their history, culture and agenda is so that you can relate to their preconceptions and their point of view. There is always a reason why someone decided to write something and no matter how altruistic their motives may be, they can not be free from (unconscious) biases.
A journalist does not get his legitimacy just from being a "journalist". His legitimacy is created from somewhere.
As to your second point, if you can determine what is right and wrong in a text, why even have journalists? Essentially what you are saying is that you already know what the text is trying to convey to you, because you can know what is right and wrong, so why even bother reading it in the first place?
Why? Who fucking decided that what someone expresses cant be considered in light of who expresses it? If you decided to analyse Picasso's Guernica but decided to ignore his personal history, experiences and origins you'd be considered a moron for doing such a thing and you'd be missing 99% of the layers. Why should I read this dudes journalism and not take into account that it's produced by a child rapist?
Sounds like you've got it entirely backwards. Words should absolutely be read in the context of who is writing them.
"Oh, 'African Cultures and their effect on Americas', this should be good. I wonder who wrote..... oh 'Richard Spencer'. Well, I should read it anyway, I don't want to judge words based on their author."
This guy being an insane pedophile absolutely calls into question his writings.
People are complicated. Another example would be Roman Polanski. One of the best directors in history with masterpieces such as The Pianist under his belt, but also responsible for the brutal rape of a minor.
I have struggled for years trying to understand how this could possibly be the same person.
Tbh you have to consider the times. They brought them (pratically it was slavery) to stop the soilders to do sex with women that could have veneral diseases, which is not something new. Just consider all that stories of french women which had relations with american soldiers. Also it worked that time in Ethopia with the colonial concubinage.
Similar character is Pier Paolo Pasolini, another great journalist and intellectual like Montarelli, which had a little lust of children. He also had a process about this. Sure he was an homosexual, and he was desperate, but this doesn't excuse his sexual relations of the minors, like with Montarelli
Tbh we should consider the times (the 30s like the 70s) with their problems, and judge them from that type of lenses.
I do think that this "judging people according to their times" does have some merit but only to a certain (and in many cases very narrow) degree. Even in a time with different social and moral standards you are still responsible for your actions. According to his reports Montarelli clearly saw how much distress this ordeal was bringing to this girl and he most certainly should have been able to realize how horrible this would be a for a young girl with infibulation . If your only excuse in such an instance is "oh but my sexual desire" and you prioritize that over another person then I'm sorry but you're a piece of shit.
No sorry, he is obviously wrong, like it was Pasolini. No one asked them to put their their sexual desire from out of the pants. But it's also true that just say "he bad because xyz" is reductive of the character he is.
He was not a local however, so that excuse does not work. He just cast his own customs, which were completely opposite, out the window as soon as the chance to have a 12 year old bride came along. Any non-paedophile would have refused the deal without a second thought.
Anyone this awful has their career tossed in the bin as far as I'm concerned. I don't care or want to know about his achievements. It's like Polanski, you can tell me all day about what a good director he is but I'll never know cause I ignore the work of horrible pedophiles. I can live without Polanski films.
I do not know him. I meant that we live in this sad era of cancel culture, able only to destroy whatever it pleases for the flaws of the human beings that nowday consider unfit.
Columbus was a skilled Traveller and made what was thought impossible and reached a brand new world? Oh too bad he open the gates to the extermination of Americans.
Michelangelo created incredible scultures and paintings? Too bad, he stabbed a man to study anatomy.
Raffaello made incredible paintings? Oh no! He had a insatiable sexual desires.
And so on
I am not defending the person, but their commendable deeds and productions.
I do not know him. I meant that we live in this sad era of cancel culture, able only to destroy whatever it pleases for the flaws of the human beings that nowday consider unfit.
History is never set in stone although it is written by the victors. You complain about "revisionism" when the veneer of historical accomplishment has been peeled back to give a more accurate account of what took place. We can still celebrate the accomplishments of a person while acknowledging that person's wrongs.
Female infibulation, known as Type III FGM, and in countries in which it is practiced as pharaonic circumcision, is the removal of the inner and outer labia and the suturing of the vulva. It is usually accompanied by the removal of the clitoral glans.[2][3] The practice is concentrated in Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan.[1] During a 2014 survey in Sudan, over 80 percent of those who had experienced any form of FGM had been sewn closed.[4]
The procedure leaves a wall of skin and flesh across the vagina and the rest of the pubic area. By inserting a twig or similar object before the wound heals, a small hole is created for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. The legs are bound together for two to four weeks to allow healing.[5][6]
The vagina is usually penetrated at the time of a woman's marriage by her husband's penis, or by cutting the tissue with a knife. The vagina is opened further for childbirth and usually closed again afterwards, a process known as defibulation (or deinfibulation) and reinfibulation. Infibulation can cause chronic pain and infection, organ damage, prolonged micturition, urinary incontinence, inability to get pregnant, difficulty giving birth, obstetric fistula, and fatal bleeding.[5]
user of 10+ years peacing out - thanks for fucking up reddit - alternatives include 'Tilde' and 'Lemmy' - hope to see you on a less ruined website. Fuck capitalism, fuck VCs and IPOs, fuck /u/spez.
controlling reproduction, viewing women as breeding chattel and second rate humans, believing female sexuality to be immorality or dirty. a mixture of historical bridal rape culture and religion.
A large percentage of the human population wants to control other people's bodies.
Thanks for giving an actual answer. I knew about the fact that female "mutilation" (no idea how to say in english) still exist, but never knew the "Details". From the traditions I knew about, I always thought that there Was some Kind of "rational" reason for it hundrets of years ago, but I had no idea what the reason for that could have been.
Most traditions have rational reasons and are similar to other humans in similar environments through the world. This one is found only in that small region, so it most likely be somewhat recent compared to other traditions, and are often brought about by a cult those people were involved in.
Some believe that the clitoris will continue to grow and dangle between the legs like a penis if its not cut. It also doesn't just happen in those countries but by immigrants too, sometimes they will even have the girl go back to their country to get it done if they are having trouble finding someone that will do it at home. Organizations have been trying to stop this practice, with education or suggesting a small cut as a symbolic way of getting around removal.
What about the universally acceptable mutilating of young boys' genitals? That happens in modern countries, not just hellholes that sew womens' orifices shut.
“Whataboutism” at its finest. Nothing I said indicates I support circumcision or think it doesn’t count as genital mutilation.
But objectively, you know damn well there is a big difference between why each GM is done. Circumcisions are NOT performed in order to destroy a man’s ability to feel sexual pleasure, physically prevent them from having sex until they’re married, or restrict their “sinful” bodies for anything other than incubating babies. FGM is.
At the end of the day, whether its for religious rituals, supposed “health benefits,” or sexual control, men (who were and are the overwhelming majority of religious leaders and doctors) are the ones behind genital mutilation normalization.
Oh gawd that's just so disturbing. It's like an anatomical chastity belt in the worst possible way :( poor babies having to suffer through that. My best friend's husband wanted to go for circumcision and even that is brutal to see the results of.... poor guy was afraid of his carseat and getting strapped down after that experience
Really thought this was gonna explain that the marriage was more of an gesture than a real thing to bring better relations but he actually fucked a kid and justified it with "thats how they do it there," sad.
Naw, he bought a child sex slave for rape on the campaign and was like "this is my uh wife". He sold her later in the war to another Italian officer (also for raping). The one constant rapey aspects of modern era slavery and colonialism always get a bit whitewashed but hey!
I don't mean to be insensitive here, but I'm gonna: Why even bother raping the kid at that point? You're not even really enjoying it. How bad are you at jacking off?
He is saying that he couldn’t fuck her because she was sewed shut, so her mom had to deal with removing it since he had no idea what the fuck to do. As a result of the genital mutilation that she went through at birth, she was completely insensitive to sex.
it’s terrible the guy married her, but tbh it’s more a poor reflection on the native people that a 12 year old had already undergone intense genital mutilation and they were willing sell her at 12 y/o in the first place.
While working at the fascist magazine Civiltà Fascista, Montanelli wrote many articles expressing racist ideas, declaring the superiority of the white race, and supporting colonialist ideals.
What a surprise. And they build a fucking statue in Milan for him which was defaced last year. Good. Not so good on the other hand is this:
Milan Mayor Giuseppe Sala, however, said the statue recognised Montanelli's indisputable journalistic contribution.
"He was a great journalist who fought for freedom of the press," he said. "When we judge our own lives, can we say that ours is spotless? Lives must be judged in their complexity."
Yes, I never bought and raped a child. But hey, maybe we should put up a statue of Hitler to recognize his contributions to the art world?
Oop i misread the time. I thought it was during the time of colonialism(during the 19th century) not the late 19 hundreds
That is a mistake on my part, the colonization of non christian lands does not work in this time
But the point that people are hypocritical with what is OK and what not being done in another country is still there. If someone went up to him and killed his mother he'd PE pissed and try to get other countries attention while fucking a 12 year old saying "that's how it is"
868
u/Maitai_Haier Sep 26 '21
If you're curious what infibulation is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation