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.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, November 9, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Prompt #3: A Bronze Cast and a Wooden Stamp
When it comes to mediums, the material used is very important; not only because of how the piece will look in the end, but also because it will affect the meaning of the piece as a whole. I used to think that mediums were exclusive to art and art history, but reading the texts The Iliad and The Adventures of Simplicius Simplicissimus has made me realize that there is more to the medium of the work than just its aesthetic value. The shield of Achilles and Simplicius' tree could not be more different, yet similar in what they symbolize. The meaning of the works not only come from the text itself, but it also comes from the materials in which the pieces are made.
Achilles' shield, in the text, is made by the god, Hephaestus. Already, the shield could not be any more divine having been made by a god himself: "the god creates a world of gorgeous immortal work (The Iliad, 483)". Not only is the shield a functional piece of armor for Achilles, but it is also a symbol of Achilles' power and glory as a strong, charismatic, and forever honored member of society. The fact that the shield in real life is made out of metal reflects Achilles' immortal glory as metal is one of the most permanent mediums that something can be made out of. Metal often has a connotation of being labor-intensive, strong, long-lasting, and expensive; all of which are perfect for a demi god such as Achilles.
Simplicius' tree, in the text, is described to us by Simplicius himself from a dream that he has while thinking about each person's role in society and how they are affected by it. The fact that the vision of the tree was conceived in a dream rather than given to him by some higher being represents how Simplicius' glory as an antihero comes from himself and his own cleverness rather than being bestowed upon him like the shield to Achilles. The woodblock print as a medium has much more humble connotations than that of the metal shield as the work that goes into making a woodblock print is much less labor intensive and the print becomes more accessible to the general public as opposed to the shield which may be the only one in the world. This is important because it shows that the glory of Simplicius as an intelligent person can be obtained by anyone and everyone whereas Achilles' glory as a strong fighter and demigod can only be obtained by himself.
The mediums that each work is made from has importance in the connotations of the material as well as the work that went into it. Whereas Achilles is known for being an elite person of divine glory that no one else can achieve, like the shield, Simplicius had a mere dream and the vision was represented by something that can be achieved by anyone, the print.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Prompt #2: Engaging with the Iliad
A gun store in Kingston, Tennessee is offering a discount on new guns if you say you are a Christian. The owner, Bryant Williams, has said, "If Christians are going to be targeted we need to protect ourselves...The best way to protect yourself is with the best weapon available, and that happens to be a handgun." To summarize his reasoning in giving Christians a discount on guns in his store, Williams has said that he believes that people are being targeted for their beliefs and that he does not want to hide his faith.
Just as violence in the Iliad was the most effective and profound method of solving problems, some people in today's society tend to believe the same thing. In order to get what you want in the time period of Homer, you would display power and authority to convince others to fight for you as violence was seen as the solution to most problems. This can be seen in Book II, lines 522-524: "Agamemnon the lord of men did not resist. He commanded heralds to cry out loud and clear and summon the long-haired Achaean troops to battle. The cries rang out. The battalions gathered quickly." Agamemnon's overbearing and assertive personality was strong enough to have his army abandon thoughts of retreat and fight instead. Although today's society does not necessarily promote this kind of leadership that praises violence as the only means to the end, there are those who believe that preparing for a violent situation will be the safest method of solving problems, and maybe even preventing the problem from happening in the first place. Bryant Williams is similar to Agamemnon in that they both believe that violence is a very real occurrence and want to prepare for it.
The fact that religious people are being persecuted today is very real, controversial, and violent. However, does this justify the need to arm oneself if he or she is living in a society in which a majority of people share the same beliefs in the first place as Bryant Williams does? Is Bryant Williams justified in his beliefs to arm himself and other Christians for being "targeted" even though he lives in a majority Christian part of the country? If one were to ask Agamemnon in Homer's time, the answer would be yes. However, we do not live in the times of Homer.
Just as violence in the Iliad was the most effective and profound method of solving problems, some people in today's society tend to believe the same thing. In order to get what you want in the time period of Homer, you would display power and authority to convince others to fight for you as violence was seen as the solution to most problems. This can be seen in Book II, lines 522-524: "Agamemnon the lord of men did not resist. He commanded heralds to cry out loud and clear and summon the long-haired Achaean troops to battle. The cries rang out. The battalions gathered quickly." Agamemnon's overbearing and assertive personality was strong enough to have his army abandon thoughts of retreat and fight instead. Although today's society does not necessarily promote this kind of leadership that praises violence as the only means to the end, there are those who believe that preparing for a violent situation will be the safest method of solving problems, and maybe even preventing the problem from happening in the first place. Bryant Williams is similar to Agamemnon in that they both believe that violence is a very real occurrence and want to prepare for it.
The fact that religious people are being persecuted today is very real, controversial, and violent. However, does this justify the need to arm oneself if he or she is living in a society in which a majority of people share the same beliefs in the first place as Bryant Williams does? Is Bryant Williams justified in his beliefs to arm himself and other Christians for being "targeted" even though he lives in a majority Christian part of the country? If one were to ask Agamemnon in Homer's time, the answer would be yes. However, we do not live in the times of Homer.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Prompt #1: Viewing War through a Specific Lens
Image Link: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3529496832/tt0031381?ref_=ttmd_md_pv
The 1939 film, "Gone With the Wind", is known for being the highest grossing film in American history, with an array of awards and recognitions. The novel-turned-film tells the story of Scarlett O'Hara and her colleagues before, during, and after the Civil War in the Confederacy as proud, Southern, aristocrats. Although the film has an accurate timeline of the Civil War, it's depiction of the purpose and portrayal of the Civil War is not necessarily the most correct.
The poster (above) shows the Civil War in the South as a destructive, passionate, and romantic war. From the flaming color scheme to the steamy encounter between Rhett and Scarlett, everything about the poster serves to reflect the passionate emotions of Southerners regarding slavery and their right to a country representative of their beliefs. The depiction of the Atlanta Campaign as a fire-y ordeal of destruction (middle right of poster) shows that the Southerners believed the war to be incredibly devastating and victimizing. By making the main characters the central focus of the poster amongst a chaotic background, it humanizes Southerners as people who cared for each other in times of hardship. All in all, the poster wants to show viewers that the side of the Civil War that a majority of Americans do not focus on has its own importance, not just as a representation of Conservative, racist America, but as a humanized perception of the South.
Whereas some perceive the film as a romanticized justification for slavery and racism (akin to the justification for keeping the Confederate Flag), others view the film as a valuable resource for showing the other side of the Civil War that most Americans do not learn about. As the poster is romanticizing the Civil War as the plight of victimized Southerners, it shows the viewer that the Confederate justification for starting the war was a cover-up for the purely racist intention of keeping slavery. At the same time, however, by romanticizing the Civil War, the poster shows that the Civil War was a somber yet crucial part of their history. Therefore the poster has a dual purpose in showing how the Confederate's purpose in the Civil War was both a justification for slavery as well as a mechanism for imbuing sympathy for the Southerner's purposes.
The saturated colors and overly exaggerated acting of the actors in the poster serve to Although the portrayal of the Civil War in the poster is not the most accurate depiction of the historical reality, it is important to have the poster as a resource so that viewers may make their own interpretation of the Civil War, either as a newly discovered sympathy towards the Confederacy or a reflection of the false reality that some Southerners choose to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)