Prompt #6: Reflection on the Quarter

This quarter, we have read and analyzed many books with a focus on the aspect of war. From The Iliad to The Art of War, we have been exposed to war from many perspectives. We have learned the importance of the point of view that a war is seen from, how the subtle nuances in literary devices can change the meaning of war, and how using intertextuality can help broaden one's viewpoint of war. The most important concept that I learned, however, is that war is not just a mechanism for killing people, affecting individual families, but that it can create a huge societal, historical, economic, and political impact on the world.

What I have learned may sound obvious, but it has never occurred to me the extent of the impact that war can have on humanity. I have learned about western wars in high school, such as the wars of the United States in AP US History or 20th Century wars of the western world in IB 20th Century History, but to me, the political, social, economic, military, and historical impact that the wars caused seemed to stay within the parameters of the countries involved. This quarter in Humanities Core, I have learned that one perspective of war, real or fake, can have a global and everlasting impact on how others can form an opinion. For example, The Iliad has shown that even an ancient war that may seem to not have anything in common with modern issues relates to the contemporary world more than what is seen at first sight.

War, to me, used to be just a singular event that only affected families and the overlay of the immediate country. However, being in Humanities Core has taught me that war is not a singular, ineffective event. Rather, war has a large impact in terms of area that has been effected, as well as the length of time that it still holds an impact.

Prompt #5: Machiavelli in the Modern World

In chapter 14 of The Prince, Machiavelli asserts that a Prince should never "lift his thought from the exercise of war (85)." For a prince to be successful, he must be fluent in the art of war, which will lead to acquiring a principality. Not only must the prince study the art of war, but he also must take initiative and be active in the principality by being in it directly and gaining knowledge and familiarity of the area.

This assertion, to me, sounds a lot like the basis for the United States foreign policy as almost every political debate regarding foreign affairs is lead by a discussion on military action. In the interview with Noam Chomsky on truth-out.org, Chomsky points out a cliché analogy of how the US uses its power: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." However, the actions of the US do no necessarily follow with the Machiavellian assertion as the US tends to use military power for everything as it has been the strongest military power in the world since the First World War. Machiavelli points out that a successful prince must not only have strong military knowledge, but also an understanding of his surroundings, of which the US has little to none.

The idea that a successful prince will arise from a strong grasp of military knowledge and practice has worked before in the past, as seen in Machiavelli's example of Francesco Sforza. However, it does not ring true anymore as the United States' military advances in the past ten years or so have proved to be more disastrous than successful due to an over-dependence on military power and a lack of familiarity with the other countries.

Prompt #4: Analyzing Genre and Medium

Mother Courage and her Children, by Bertolt Brecht, depicts a Mother trying to pave her way through a war-torn country to try and build her business in order to keep her family. The text itself depicts Mother Courage as an adamant, harsh, yet thoughtful person. On the other hand, we have Theater of War, directed by John Walter, which is a documentary that shows the making of the recreation of the play Mother Courage in New York wherein Mother Courage is played by Meryl Streep. A scene that is written out in the playbook and the acted out in the documentary is when Kattrin finds a baby and Mother Courage scorns her for taking the baby and tells her to put it back because she has to "spend hours pulling it away (Brecht, 60)." The same scene in the documentary and playbook are comprehended differently both because of the medium and the execution of the scene's delivery.
In the playbook the scene is moved along with stage directions in the text so that the reader will know how Kattrin got the baby as she "emerges from the rubble, carrying an infant (Brecht 60)." In Theater of War, the scene starts from Kattrin calming a baby down by making soothing facial expressions. The dramatic nature of the scene in the playbook as opposed to the beginning of the scene in the documentary shows how the stage directions change the mood of the scene as Brecht wanted Kattrin to emerge from a dead space, holding a new life whereas the director begins this scene in a relaxing manner wherein Kattrin is trying to soothe the baby.
The playbook does not do this scene justice as I believe the documentary portrays Mother Courage's dilemma in action much better than in text. When Meryl Streep delivers the line "You give it back to its mother one-two-three before you get attached and I have to spend hours pulling it away, you hear me?", I believe it is executed much better as you hear the distraught and frustration in her voice as she tries to deal with everything else that is also going on. To me, the text only shows the line as a foil to Kattrin's compassionate nature as opposed to the emotional weight that comes with hearing the line with an actor's interpretation of the voice.