TonkelDarwin'sNightmare

1. Darwin’s Nightmare, directed by Hubert Sauper in 2004. 2. The central argument in this film is that Tanzania’s entire livelihood comes from Lake Victoria and its fish and yet the people there are still impoverished. 3. The sustainability problems that this film addresses include overfishing, the introduction of non-natural species into an environment, the sustainability of the people because of the weapons brought in and lastly, in order for the locals to live, they must fall victim to the system and all of its horrors. 4. I thought that the most compelling parts of the film were when the camera fallowed the child that only had one leg around and the guard of the fish research institute. Following the boy showed how the situation continues to perpetuate itself through the generations. Kids lose their parents and have no choice but to scavenge the streets until they are old enough to get a job fishing. Then the reason I thought the guard was so compelling was because of his situation. He fished all day, probably from dusk till dawn and still didn’t have enough money to support himself so he spent all night guarding a research center. He did this after knowing the last guard was murdered on the job and for about a dollar a night. It was a great way to show how hard these people work and the severity of their conditions, with such a personal touch. 5. I found it hard to not be compelled by any particular part in the film. When each person’s life and situation was shown, not any part of me found reason to deny that issues like prostitution, hunger and extreme poverty did not exist in Tanzania. Many similar films that I have seen show the same scenarios and evoke sadness and sympathy. I do however have one suggestion that I believe would have made the film even more compelling. If the film had portrayed a greater gap between the poor who were being taken advantage of and the government. Even though the perch was considered a cash crop for the people of Tanzania, no one was shown to have the money that it must have brought in. 6. The fact that the film doesn’t show where all the money goes does lead me into this next question. The first thing I feel that is necessary to understanding this film is finding out what part of the fish cash is given to government officials and who is really making the money off of these poor fisherman, pilots, and factory workers. Then the next important issue would be to find out more information on the weapon trafficking going on. Why do some people not believe that the planes come in with weapons, who is suppose to be patrolling for weapons in the area and to what country, war, and side are most of these guns going to. The main issue I would have to say this brings up other than problems with sustainability is the problems of government control, greed and corruption. When those who are supposed to be protecting those around them become corrupt it’s always the poorest who suffer the most. I also think ignorance is a major factor here. Like almost any other person on the planet, people don’t like to hear or know what is wrong with their world. Whether that world is your small community, state or country, people like to ignore all the bad things in life that don’t visible affect them. The pilots where the perfect example; they didn’t care what they were bringing over because all that caring would do is make their lives more complicated. Then since the guns they brought were not being used on their families, friends or even in their country, it was easy to care less about what they were being used for. 7. I think the film was created to address the developed nations and their people. Showing this film to the people in Tanzania would do some good, but they have so much to deal with already that there is not much they would be able to do in order to try to fix the problems. People in America or the European Union have the lifestyles that allow them the time and recourses in order to make a difference. Especially those in the government that can create campaigns that support those suffering in Tanzania. 8. The difficult part about this film was that it addresses so many smaller problems that have been caused by a few larger problems and didn’t offer suggestions as to what someone could do in order to help. It implied that foreign governments need to intervene and put pressure on the Tanzanian government to regulate and help its people. The film doesn’t however give any ways an individual could help. There is no place to send money and no organized movement designed to stop the problem. The two areas that I believe deserve the most attention would be getting rid of the incoming weapons and then I believe that wages among fishers at least need to be enough for them to afford one of the fish they catch. I don’t see how the fish population and diversity problem could be solved any time soon. 9. In order to enhance the environmental education that the film has I think that there could have been more time spent discussion the introduction of the perch and how it took over the lake even while being fished so heavily. We need to be able to understand how the problem occurred in order to develop a plan for reversing it.