If you’ve read my previous blogs, especially those from this quarter, then it’s pretty apparent that I have a very different kind of media exposure than the “typical” young American adult. I don’t keep up with primetime TV shows, I don’t particularly care for most top 40s songs, and I only really go out to watch movies when Disney releases something new. Rather, I digest a regular (and rather abundant) diet of anime that changes from season to season, and while studying, I have my endless iTunes library of foreign music on loop. However, just because I don’t have much exposure to contemporary Western pop culture doesn’t mean that I don’t see its the same recurring themes in the things that I enjoy. Even in the anime I watch, the comics I read, and the songs I listen to, probably the two most prominent themes in any medium are ever-present… love and hate. It’s explained quite simply, really - we enjoy that which stirs our strongest emotions, that which moves us. But what has always baffled and confused me is our seemingly universal fascination with the most common manifestation of hate, which would be war and battle. Why do we obsesses and oogle over watching our own kind destroy each other? Is it because we empathize with wanting to of “beat” or reign supreme over our enemies or over that with which we disagree? Is it the thrill of the action and explosions? An admiration of heroes? Or perhaps we have been conditioned as a species, through various representations of war, to actually like it? Let me start off by talking about just how widespread the usage of war and violence is in different mediums. “War” is pretty much an entire genre on its own, with video games, movies, shows, and even songs centered around it. Though somehow, it even manages to penetrate other genres such as romance, musicals, and even comedy. There’s the heart-wrenching romance drama “Dear John,” musicals like “Miss Saigon” and “South Pacific,” and the parody “The Dictator” just to name a few. War and violence’s integration in nearly every form of entertainment is inevitable, as they are deeply woven into our own lives. But there is a clear distinction between experiencing war and viewing war, as we learned this quarter. Our fascination, rather than horrification, with war is because of a distancing between the general public and war, because they view war as more of a spectacle than a reality. The same applies to torture and violence; it is so commonplace in our entertainment that it does not faze us, and we oftentimes find ourselves cheering for the “righteous” or “justified” torturer. To me, this is horrible, but it is, unfortunately, the reality of us on the homefront. Even though I am aware of this distancing between the realities of war and violence and our superficial view of them, in this media-heavy, entertainment-heavy society, it seems nearly impossible to close this gap. Personally, I don’t think that I will ever truly understand the horrors of war unless it comes knocking on my door. The most we can do is educate ourselves and try our best to open our eyes to reality and not be consumed by what we are fed on screen.
0 Comments
“Torture’s still a thing? It’s actually a thing?” I’m a little embarrassed by my ignorance and naivety, but I’m going to admit here that these were the thoughts going through my mind when we started the Humcore 1B torture unit. I honestly had no idea that torture was still used today. Though I suppose that until recently, I really wasn’t aware of anything going on outside the little bubble that was my world. I didn’t keep up with world or even local events, and on top of that, I was pretty ignorant of pop culture in my own country. Unlike other young adults my age (and even compared to many teens and kids in my generation), I don’t watch many popular TV shows like Breaking Bad, Supernatural, American Horror Story, and such, and most of the American movies I’m interested in watching are either directed towards children (i.e. Disney and Pixar movies) or are musicals (i.e. Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, Into the Woods). And even though I’ve watched days upon days worth of anime and played many video games, to be honest, I haven’t seen very much torture in entertainment at all. I can recall maybe two or three torture scenes that I’ve seen before (I’ve probably seen a few more but they slip my mind), and in those scenes, it was the protagonist or the “good guys” being tortured. So in those few cases in which I have been “exposed” to torture, it was not as if the act was being justified at all. Thus, as we went around the room one day in class sharing our experiences of watching torture in shows, movies, and games, I was surprised to hear just how often torture was depicted in entertainment today. I was even more shocked as we read articles and watched clips on torture being used (in the 21st century too!) by the U.S. government on prisoners in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. “What is this, the Middle Ages?” I thought in disgust. And so I will admit - only very recently did I become aware that torture was still implemented to this day, often times in secret, often times unjustly, and that it is used as a rather commonplace plot element in entertainment culture today. Without taking this course, I probably would have stayed ignorant. So now that I’ve established myself as a completely unreliable author- just kidding! Perhaps I’m not completely unreliable as an author for an op-ed on torture. I believe that my ignorance on the subject of torture and on torture in entertainment up until this point can make a very interesting argument about the effect of torture in entertainment on people. From my experiences and my own degree of “exposure” to torture, I strongly believe that although torture is portrayed repeatedly in entertainment and is often “justified” through the eyes of the protagonist, people do not truly enjoy watching torture and they will not so easily be influenced to accept it. Before I go into that argument, however, I will agree with the mass of people that argue against the integration of torture in entertainment when they say that torture is often portrayed in a biased or inaccurate manner. On television nowadays, torture seems to be portrayed nearly every time in the same way, as a justified means of extracting information from or even getting revenge on a “bad guy” by the “good guy.” Wait a minute. Since when did the the hero save the day by subjecting their enemy to prolonged mental and physical torment? Since when was that “justice”? According to Dame Magazine writer Robin Kirk, “Prior to 2001 [the events of 9/11], most of the torturers on television and in movies were bad guys who physically abused the good or the innocent. But by 2006, when Human Rights First launched its ‘Primetime Torture’ project, the torturers were ‘good guys.’ In shows like 24, Alias, and Lost, heroes tortured dark-skinned suspects in brutal—and always effective—ways.” In entertainment, torture is portrayed as a justified act and it always works. But in reality, torture is an ineffective means of extracting information. As Elaine Scarry argues in "IV. Three Simultaneous Phenomena in the Structure of Torture,” one of the many dimensions of physical pain is “its ability to destroy language.” Scarry explains, “The derisive connotations of ‘betrayal’ surrounding confession also reveal in heightened form the process by which in nonpolitical contexts a person’s complaint-filled, deteriorating, or absent language obscures and discredits his needs at the very moment when they are most acute.” That is, that through torture, the victim is put into a state in which they cannot speak or convey their thoughts properly, either because they are in such pain that all that comes out of their mouth are screams or groans, or because they will say anything that it takes and confess false information if it means that the torment will stop. Again, as Kirk argues, “On TV, torture always works. Not so in real life. In the CIA’s own words to Senate investigators, torture ‘failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence.’” These common and rather inaccurate portrayals of torture are the reason why people like Patheos writer Roger E. Olson say that “torture in movies (and some TV shows) has become a new form of pornography” and why OPFOR writer DAVEO argues that “Americans [are] regularly fed a diet of torture, dismemberment, death and a dance to rationalize every action as good and right.” If something as gruesome and inhumane as torture can be shown again and again on television in this media-oriented society and pass as something heroic or commonly effective, then it must be breeding a nation of monsters that are numb to torture, right? I want to say wrong. I may not have seen much torture in entertainment, but I have witnessed a good deal of violence. I’ve watched anime where people are pitted against each other in a game of death and where nearly every character you get attached to dies. I’ve played a fair share of fighting games, shooters, and simulators where violence is a key component of gameplay or plot. I’ve seen people blown up, watched people get stabbed, seen people murder others, and even seen a few pretty barbaric torture scenes. However, it hasn’t made me a more violent person, nor has it made me more accepting of violence. In fact, I’m rather turned off by violence. For example, when I’m watching or playing something with a lot brutality or gore, I more often avert or cover my eyes than watch the whole thing. If anything, I feel as though being exposed to violence or torture makes me more against it than accepting of it. My lack of “exposure” to torture can also go to show that people are overestimating the influence of its portrayal in the media and entertainment. I’m almost constantly on the internet, the holy vault of information and media, yet I was not even aware of real-life incidents of torture, or even of fictional incidents such as those in TV shows or movies. This goes to show that there are still parts of society completely ignorant to torture, and that maybe it would do them some good to be exposed to it and made aware of it, even if it is through its inaccurate portrayals in entertainment. Again, it’s not as though I feel compelled to be involved in violent acts similar to those that I see in games or shows; I’m not any more accepting of them, either. In the case of video games, for example, The Guardian writer John Morris says, “You don't become a prostitute-killing criminal through playing Grand Theft Auto any more than you become a plumber with a vendetta against turtles by playing Mario.” I think that anyone who believes that humans will really be that easily compelled or swayed by what they see in fiction (emphasis on “fiction” - which creates a defined distance between reality and the show or movie) either has no faith in the humanity of people or believes them to be truly stupid. You’ve got to believe in your fellow human beings a little more, you know? To sum it up, yes, there is an issue in torture being portrayed so often in entertainment. But no, it is not the fact that it is shown at all. Rather, the issue lies in the way it is inaccurately portrayed, as a heroic and effective practice. Even so, this issue isn’t too big of a deal. As The Guardian writer John Morris says in the case of torture and violence in games, “[...]video games don't make people violent. It's just an easy scapegoat, a placeholder for the lack of a better reason behind the constant violence we see in real life.” The real issue lies in the fact that violence surrounds us everywhere in the real world, whether we are aware of it or not. Rather than attacking entertainment, which merely portrays a real phenomenon, we should attack the source of violence itself, which is much closer to us than what we see through a lit-up screen.
“Torture” - is it a means of obtaining information or is it a means of dehumanizing both the tortured and the torturer? Is it a rare practice or is it common? There are many questions surrounding the word that can send chills down one’s spine with a single mutter. One of the main issues surrounding the rather touchy subject of torture is whether or not its portrayal and usage in media and entertainment has numbed us to its horrors and made us accept it or even encouraged the practice. In particular, there is a plethora of controversy and opinions surrounding the portrayal of torture in video games, especially when the player themselves are participating in the act. In recent years, there was much dispute regarding a rather gruesome torture scene in the fifth installment in the Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series. GTA is infamous for revolving around various crimes in an urban setting such as theft, murder, and prostitution as if they are nothing and, consequently, critics enjoy bashing on it as much as its fans enjoy playing it. However, the addition of an unavoidable torture scene in which the player is made to electrocute a man and pull out his teeth in order to extract information made way for an even larger storm of dissention surrounding the fifth game. In the infamous scene, the torture victim is perfectly willing to talk before he’s tortured, but you are ordered to do it anyway and your character happily obliges. You end up torturing your victim for no reason at all, in spite of the fact that he would gladly tell you anything without being tortured to begin with. He ends up spilling information, but you come to the realization that he would probably have given better information and talked sooner if you hadn’t tortured him. Finally, your boss tells you to kill him. Instead, you set him free, but not before telling him to go spread his “message” as a “torture advocate.” Washington Post writer Hayley Tsukayama addresses the controversy in her article “Here’s what makes torture in video games worse than on TV” and touches on why torture in video games are given more of a bad rap than in movies and television, though it appears much more frequently in the latter. “The key may lie in what Freedom from Torture chief executive Keith Best told the British paper: ‘Rockstar North has crossed a line by effectively forcing people to take on the role of a torturer and perform a series of unspeakable acts if they want to achieve success in the game,’” Tsukayama starts. “The word to focus on there is ‘forcing.’ Because the scene is playable -- and a necessary plot point in the game -- some think it puts a different spin on the whole issue.” Yes, there is a difference between watching torture and participating in torture. But unlike in movies and shows where the viewer is often made to cheer on the torturer, justifying his actions with his motives (like saving his family or giving a serial killer a taste of his own medicine), GTA V’s torture scene is not in any way justified at all. And that’s the point. The scene is satire. Pay close attention to this bit of dialogue from the game: “The media and the government would have us believe that torture is some necessary thing. We need it to get information, to assert ourselves,” your character says. “Did we get any information out of you?” “I would have told you everything!” the man replies. “Exactly!” says Trevor. “Torture’s for the torturer. Or the guy giving the order to the torturer. You torture for the good times! We should all admit that. It’s useless as a means of getting information.” It is true - the entire scene is rather repugnant and most definitely inhumane. But, it drives home a point. It becomes apparent through the dialogue and the digression from the normal, chaotic style of gameplay involving quick, painless, deaths of NPCs on the streets that this scene is more of a social commentary on the U.S. government’s implementation of torture practices than “torture porn.” The fact that one of the torture options is waterboarding drives this point home even more. The scene is satire in terms of both game mechanics and narrative, and that is something that critics like Tsukayama would have to play the game to realize. But what about in other games? Not every torture scene involving the main character is satire. Do scenes like that have the power to make people indifferent to the horrors of torture or even like it, perhaps? I want to say “no.” Video games have the power to teach people, to pull on their heartstrings, to make them feel a whole spectrum of emotions. They can even bring out people’s humanity more. From my own personal experience having loved video games my entire life, games do not make me feel as if I can transcend the normal boundaries and rules of the human experience (including moral and ethical boundaries) but rather, they make me more aware of them. Torture and other graphic displays in video games still make me uncomfortable, and if anything, they make me more sensitive to them, seeing characters that I had grown attached to subjected to terrible fates. I don’t believe that games, media, and the like (at least, generally) encourage torture or make people numb to them. Of course, the issue is easier to face in something that we are aware of as being fictional compared to watching the actual act. But if anything, our awareness has been piqued. Without torture in entertainment, many people (especially young people who tend not to keep up with the news) may not even be aware that torture is still used today.
It really intrigues me, how strokes of a pencil or a brush or words on a page can capture not only the facts of history, but send you back in time through the eyes of those that actually lived those events. The contingency of the Civil War and the evolving perspectives and unfolding changes that occurred can be seen through the close observation of these "artifacts," pieces of art and literature from long ago. In the preparation for and writing of my upcoming essay, I hope to be able to observe even more fascinating works and the historical nuances that they represent.
As I enter this fresh, promising new year and quarter full of hope and excitement, I also am returning to the same stuffy humanities lecture hall, the same cozy discussion with Dr. Fogli, and the same big topic of war. Unlike last quarter, in which we focused more on the conclusions that we could draw about agency, morality, and the dehumanizing effects of war, this quarter, we are focusing more on the perceptions of war in the eyes of the conflict’s contemporary audiences. Recently in lecture and discussion, we have been focusing in on the Civil War in the context of “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass.” We have also been learning about the metaphorical war (as opposed to the physical war that comes to our mind as soon as the word “war” is muttered), which is a conflict that occurs without physical battle and whose significance is derived from its purpose and meaning. The antebellum period preceding the Civil War housed an interminable, metaphorical war against slavery, which can be said to have escalated into the bloody conflict that was the actual war years later. Douglass’s struggles as young mulatto boy born into slavery, illustrated in his narrative are, to this day, an excellent representation of this metaphorical war from the perspective of a slave. It can be considered one of the contingent factors that opened the eyes of the white North to the injustices of slavery and eventually led to the institution’s abolition. A highly emotional work, one of the most significant literary elements of the narrative is Douglass’s poignant usage of pathos to tug on the heartstrings and instill a sense of disgust and sympathy in its readers. For example, in Chapter 6, Douglass suddenly makes a huge shift from a hellish and rather lugubrious depiction of slave life and white slave owners to a surprisingly tender and comforting description of his new mistress, only to disappointingly shift back into more morose, brutal language. The chapter opens on a happy and blissful note, using more positive language that had not yet been seen in the book, praising his mistress as “a woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings,” describing how “her face was made of heavenly smiles, and her voice of tranquil music,” and even going so far as to say that “the meanest slave was put fully at ease in her presence, and none left without feeling better for having her.” The entire first paragraph is dedicated to this lofty, flowery, romantic illustration of one of the first positive white figures in his life and puts the reader at ease momentarily. However, this moment is fleeting, as transient as a dream, and it may as well have been one, because immediately following this paragraph, Douglass shifts back into a more gloomy lexicon, dramatically writing of the sad brutalization of his mistress, and how “that cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage” and “that angelic face gave place to that of a demon.” The pages of Douglass’s novel are practically overflowing with pathos and extremely emotional language and tonal shifts. It may be without a doubt that such a poignant work was a major catalyst behind change in the general perception of slavery and a shift towards change in the metaphorical war against the institution. On a related note, recently in lecture, Professor Fahs has been emphasizing the contingent aspect of war, its ever-changing meaning and perception to people depending on various factors. The Civil War can be used as a significant example of the contingency of war as people’s opinions and perceptions of the war and the issues pertaining to it shifted over time. Works such as the “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass” capture and were contributing elements to this contingency. Similarly, my own definition of war and its significance in human culture has been evolving and developing throughout last quarter and this quarter as well. As we analyze it from a more personal, up-close, and in-the-moment perspective, my understanding of war will surely change, shift, and morph.
At the start of the course, I practically dreaded the idea of having war as our theme. Prior to starting college, I was never really fascinated by war. It did not interest me; I did not view it as anything but a catalyst for death and suffering. However, as time progressed, I began to see that war is much more than just violence - it is also an instrument for the destruction and deprivation of one’s humanity, a measurement of free will versus fate, a means for furthering one’s well-being (even at the expense of others), and unfortunately, a necessity of human existence. My first blog entry introduced my definition of war at the beginning of the course, that it is an inevitable, perfect cycle of aggression. I believed war to be a manifestation of man's tendency to cause disorder or raise conflict and that though it is supposed to be a means of protecting one's loved ones and beliefs, it brings destruction and discord and involves even those not directly fighting. I also believed that there is no true right and wrong in war, that each side will believe that they are doing the right thing, and that the labels of “good guy” and “bad guy” all depend on one’s point of view. I still hold my definition of war as an unending cycle and that there has always been war and there will always be war as true. After reading a very wide spectrum of literary works throughout the course that span from the times of Ancient Greece all the way until the modern era, I have realized that these works that have remained so time-honored up until today have stood the tests of time for a reason. War is universal and timeless. It is an integral part of our nature as self-determining, intelligent, feeling beings. It has always existed. I no longer believe that war manifests completely because of man’s tendencies towards conflict. Rather, conflict itself arises because of people’s self-interest and because of their free will and ability to act as they choose. This is apparent in the issue of agency and free will versus fate and the uncontrollable that arises in several texts (particularly in the Iliad), in the corruption and savagery of men in war (especially in Mother Courage and Simplicius Simplicissimus), and even in the instructions in more didactic texts such as The Prince or The Art of War. Also, I still believe that there is no true “good” and “bad” in war, and this idea has been further validated through my reading. In many of our texts, the conflicting parties are not subject to such labels, and are often very vague or are not even identified. Even in the Iliad where the conflicting armies are clearly distinguished, both sides are shown to have great warriors and not-so-great warriors, good men and bad men, heroes and villains. And sometimes, when it comes down to it, the line between right and wrong is blurred so much to the point where it does not even matter, and people will only care about their own self-interest, such as in Mother Courage when economic factors seemed to be the true reason for the Thirty Years’ War, and the religious motivation that started the war seemed to have been brushed aside. This class has deeply broadened my view of war. My initial definition and thoughts on war have not changed much, but rather, they have been further developed and validated through my learning and introspection. I see war not only from a historical perspective now, but also through a ethical, economic, philosophical lenses. Though the first quarter is coming to an end, I have only begun delving into the nature of war, and am only now beginning to crack through the shell of human conflict. I both hope and know that my understanding of war will only further solidify and broaden on multiple spectra in my next two quarters of Humanities Core.
The true motivation and nature of war are enigmas that cannot be fully understood. However, many historians and philosophers often argue that a strong contributing factor behind the initiation and longevity of wars is economic gain. The German Marxist, theater director, playwright, and poet Bertolt Brecht, during the early twentieth century, argued that war revolved around economic exploitation, especially of the lower class proletariat. Therefore, war both dehumanizes people and brings their inhumanity and corruption more to light. In his epic play on the Thirty Years’ War titled "Mother Courage and her Children," Brecht's argument is conveyed through the outrageous and unbelievable actions of the characters, illustrating the harsh realities of war from below. Brecht’s genre of epic theater especially helps to communicate Brecht’s polemic and admonition against the economic exploitation that characterizes war. This genre, also known as pedagogical theater, aims not to engage the audience in catharsis or some empathetic experience, but to spur them to action against some flaw in society. Thus, the theater would limit the emotional aspect and relatability that is characteristic of dramatic theater, creating a distinct separation of the characters and the audience and using limited props and low lighting. Brecht’s epic theater depicts purposefully ridiculous characters and events in order to draw out the ridiculousness of actual realities, much like satire but relying more on anger and disbelief drawn from the absurdity, rather than humor. This detached and unbelievable sequence of events (rather than narrative) set recited (rather than acted out) in front of the audience is meant to have a pedantic effect, raising awareness about human flaws and catalyzing action. One scene in the play that especially develops Brecht’s argument utilizing aspects of his epic theater is Scene Five, which, though it is short, shows the unquenchable hunger for wealth and the inhumanity of several characters in the play. As soon as the scene opens, the greed of these pigs in human clothing is thrown blatantly into the audiences’ faces. Mother Courage starts out arguing with a soldier who recently returned from pillaging a town, insisting that she receive proper pay before giving the soldier a drink. “The general only allowed one hour of looting,” the soldier complains, “one hour for the whole city!” The man whines, speaking of looting as if it is the sole purpose behind his being in the army, as if it is his true job, speaking of it lightly as if it is the norm, and even reasoning that the general must have been bribed to only allow such a “short” amount of time for looting. This punctuates how ironically, money and material wealth appears to be the driving force behind a war that apparently is being fought for religious and ethical purposes. This bickering is then interrupted by an actual problem where human lives are at stake - an injured farmer and his wife are dragged out of a burning house and require medical attention. Adamantly, Mother Courage refuses to hand over the soldiers’ shirts that she has in stock and that are the only available bandaging in the vicinity because that would be a loss of profit for her and she could care less for the injured farmers. To her, her profit is even more important than actual human lives. “I’m giving nothing,” she insists. “They’ll never pay, and here’s why, because they’ve got nothing.” But even the farmers themselves have economic drive behind their actions; the reason why they got into trouble in the first place was because they were trying to protect their farm, their only source of income. “The farm’s everything to farmers,” Mother Courage says, just as her cart and her money is everything to her. It is not until the Chaplain forcibly takes the linens from her that the farmers receive any treatment. And when Mother Courage’s daughter Kattrin, the only compassionate and selfless character in the play, rescues the couple’s infant from the collapsing house, Mother Courage only sees it as a burden. “Oh what luck,” she sarcastically remarks, “who’s found herself another suckling to haul around?” And immediately after, she insists payment from the soldier who has been stealing drinks. The scene abruptly ends with “Someone’s still inside.” The value of human lives in this scene is belittled and monetary value is more prominent. The absurdity of this entire scene, through the mechanics of Brecht’s epic theater, was constructed to astonish the audience and to drive them to action against greed. The pigs in human clothing that are the characters in this play thus serve as exaggerated versions of humanity and display our flaws and the economic exploitation in war more explicitly, reflecting some of Brecht’s Marxist anti-capitalist philosophy. Or perhaps the characters are not completely exaggerated versions of us?
Other than being incredibly long, the conflict known as the "Thirty Years' War" is best known for the incredible destruction, terror, and sorrow that followed in its wake. Though its genesis is primarily rooted in religious turmoil, people’s motivations and the true reasons behind the war became blurred over time, as people plunged into a world of pillaging, suffering, rape, extortion, and torture as villages and nations alike went up in flames. A long-lasting war marked by such devastation was bound to have a myriad of political, social, and religious consequences and effects, shaping the workings of the western world. Throughout and after the,war, the political tides began to turn. Firstly, a number of important geographical consequences occurred; Germany was sectioned, the powerful Hapsburgs began to decline, and as a result, the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation were declared as autonomous nations. Most importantly, however the Holy Roman Empire, one the political center of Europe, lost power and began to decline starting with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, up until modernity. Another significant development that arose from the signing of the treaty is that Sweden and France rose to the forefront of European commerce, surpassing Spain and changing the course of European history. The later divisions that occurred made Europe more like how it is in the modern age with Lutherans in the north and Catholic in the south (Smith). The war also had a large impact on society as it decimated a large portion of the population, aided in the spread of disease, ruined crops, and obliterated economies. Germany alone lost a third of its urban population and two-fifths of its rural people (Smitha). The proletariat living in Europe during this time were perhaps the most affected by the war. In order to fund the huge armies that were raised during the war, states also had to raise taxes. Those same mercenaries that commoners were drained of their money to hire then went through already destitute villages and towns, raping, pillaging, and taking all they could. This, kindled a flame of anger toward governments that would later fuel rebellious movements such as the Enlightenment (Smith). Most importantly, in correspondence to the origins of the war, there was a outspread shift in the religion throughout all of Europe. At Westphalia, nations were made to compromise for the end of the war and choose order over chaos, and nationalism ultimately trumped the universalism that had been such an integral part of Roman Catholicism. The terms of the treaty entitled a "Christian and universal peace, and a perpetual, true and sincere amity." The built up frustration, rage, and sorrow of the war had awakened in people the need for at least a modicum of tolerance. (Smitha) Though the Thirty Year’s War constituted the worst catastrophe to afflict Germany until World War II, it also helped to end the age of religious wars, which was, perhaps, its greatest achievement, as it eliminated a major destabilizing influence in European politics (History). Smith, Nicole. "The Consequences and Effects of the Thirty Years War." Article Myriad. 7 Dec. 2011. Web. 2 Nov. 2014. <http://www.articlemyriad.com/consequences-effects-thirty-years-war/>. Smitha, Frank. "Thirty Years' War." Macrohistory and World Timeline. 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 2 Nov. 2014. <http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h25-war.html> "Thirty Years’ War." History.com. A&E Television Networks. Web. 2 Nov. 2014. <http://www.history.com/topics/thirty-years-war>. Though it is remembered in a wide multitude of ways that helped shaped the modern Western world, the Thirty Years’ War is attributed to most as a religious conflict. This is due to its religious roots and its marking of the end of religious wars. However, when it comes down to it, as many modern historians believe, the war was more of an economic extortion of the common man, as evident in lecture and in our reading. Perhaps the war can even be considered an extortion of life and of humanity that turned men into beasts. Maybe this can be connected back to my first post and my definition that war is an unbreakable and inevitable cycle of aggression, something that dehumanizes both the oppressed and the oppressor alike.
This week in lecture, we have been discussing the concept of honor and shame as a driving force behind agency. There is always the question of whether or not humans truly possess agency or complete freedom of will. Often times, it seems that our choices are not completely our own, that they have been influenced by various external forces such as societal expectations, our friends and family, cultural values, and other aspects of our milieu. I personally feel that I have also been strongly influenced and shaped by others. For one, my parents have always put an emphasis on the importance of education and academic success. As a result, I never settled for anything less than what I knew was my best, sometimes working for hours on an assignment that should have taken only half an hour. It got to the point where more than working to meet my parents’ expectations, I was striving towards a bar that I had set for myself and refused to lower. If I didn’t reach that bar, I’d be overcome with a feeling of failure and shame, not in the eyes of others necessarily, but in my own eyes. Therefore, I do possess my own agency and will to do well in school, but it was highly influenced by my parents’ values. My parents also influenced my moral beliefs and, in turn, my personality and behavior. From a very young age, I was told to be considerate of others and to never forget my manners. And though they wanted me to be kind and open-minded, they also wanted me to be firm and confident. Aside from the lessons and morals they were determined to instill in me, I was also influenced by their own personalities. For example, my mother and I both tend to be overly sensitive and worrisome, and my father and I have similar senses of humor. I picked up on much of what they conditioned me to know and the examples that they set for me, but I also was able to develop my own personality separate from theirs and found a way to apply what they taught me in my own decision-making. Now that I am more independent, rather than making the decisions that I think my parents would want me to make, I’ve begun to develop my own sense of direction and my own definition of honor and shame, and make choices on my own. The heavy influence that my parents have had on me exemplifies the idea that agency comes not completely from one’s free will but also is shaped by and can be derived from the will of others around them. But this raises the question of whether or not agency can exist in its purest form, the form by which we define it. Do the characters in the Iliad truly lack agency, or are they merely displaying the limits imposed on human agency even to this day? Perhaps we are more similar to them than we initially thought.
I believe war to be something inevitable, something that is a perfect cycle of aggression. It comes down to conflict - our thoughts, actions, feelings, motives, and the like will almost always be in conflict with another's or even within our own minds. One example of a nation that displayed this cycle in history is Japan. In the mid-19th century, Western countries forced their way into Japan "not asking for trade, but demanding it" (Smethurst). During this period of time, Japan was a non-aggressor. Nearly a century later during WWII, there was a massive influx of nationalism and militarism, fueling the rise of Japan as a prominent military power. But come the end of World War II, Japan once more found itself in a weakened state at the hands of the U.S., suffering the physical, economic, and emotional blows brought on by the bombings.
Countries and individuals both respond to the actions of others, sometimes being provoked and taunted and other times being crippled by them. The lessons learned from defeat are forgotten in the tides of time and eventually repeated again. This is why war is inevitable. Teaching and learning history in order to prevent these mistakes from being made is vital to mankind, yet it is only effective up to a certain extent. Generations pass and memories are only passed down as stories; as memories fade, the cycle begins anew. Works Cited Smethurst, Richard J. "Japan, the United States, and the Road to World War II in the Pacific." The Asia-Pacific Journal. Vol 10, Issue 37, No. 4, September 10, 2012. |