Tuesday, August 20th, 2019

“Captain America: Civil War” and the Role of the U.N.

Published on May 15, 2016 by   ·   No Comments

8-questions-captain-america-civil-war-needs-to-answer-893088

Maalikah Hartley

Captain America: Civil War is the reason why going to the movies is one of my favorite pastimes. Certain movies, when done correctly, invoke a sense of inspiration when you leave the theater that make you contemplate morality, characters, philosophy, politics and the parallels of art imitating life. And the fact that this is an epic comic book movie with crazy battle scenes, eye-candy superheroes and bad-ass female roles, work in its favor to make you want to watch it a second time.

The story begins after telekinetic superhero Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), causes collateral damage in Lagos, Nigeria after trying to stop HYDRA villain, Brock Rumlow (Frank Grillo), from blowing up a populated area, ironically. This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and in turn makes the United Nations bring forth the Sokovia Accords—ratified by 117 countries—which will place The Avengers under their control and will no longer let them operate independently. The accords create a rift between Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as Stark, who once enjoyed his independent vigilantism, is hit with a deep sense of guilt when a mother confronts him for being responsible for her son’s death in Sokovia. Stark believes the heroes should now act with oversight while Rogers believes the U.N. will always have their own agenda and that he must do what he feels right—taking lessons learned from when HYDRA took over S.H.I.E.L.D in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

There are many angles to consider when watching the movie, but one that stood out is the questioning of the moral authority of well, authority. In real life, we are made to believe that the U.N. has the moral high ground as it is a “democratic” entity comprised of countries around the globe that want to do good like end world wars, combat global warming and recognize human rights worldwide. And while it does create a venue for change and good, it cannot always be blindly followed because history shows that vertical control from a far-away entity with little oversight will eventually lead to overreach.

Regarding war, presently we can look to a country like Libya where NATO bombed the country while supporting radical opposition networks, which in turn created a civil war, which in turn led to the U.N. putting in the undemocratically elected Unity Government, which is said to possibly obtainbillions of frozen Libyan assets. And let’s not forget about the U.N.’s tarnished involvement in other countries like Haiti or the Congo. Regarding environmentalism, instead of promoting alternative energies, a carbon tax was pushed that would have not only hurt the Third World but put money in the creators of said tax, Goldman Sachs’ David Blood and Al Gore. And finally regarding human rights, well, Saudi Arabia sat as chair to the Human Rights Council of the U.N. last year. And while the U.N. can legitimately be a venue for positive change, historians and writers such as G. Edward Griffin and H.G. Wells have marked it as a collectivist takeover with disregard to individual rights. Democrats like Rosa Koire—author of Behind The Green Mask—have also warned of the agency’s use of eminent domain and the overthrow of land usage rights.

Read  More HERE

Share the Truth:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Global Grind
  • MySpace
  • Ping.fm
  • Tumblr
  • email

Readers Comments (0)




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Daily News and Blogs

Listen to the TIS Network on blogtalkradio.com

Check Out Pop Culture Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with TIS Network on BlogTalkRadio

Like us on Facebook

Advertise Here

Advertise Here