Why Vietnam?

The more we talk about Vietnam, the more I notice how futile it was to attack in the first place. The US decided to try fighting an ideal, contain it so as to "protect" democracy and fought against an enemy it with tactics that failed to suit the environment. Perhaps the US was still riding off of its victory in WWII and felt the need to police the world. Of course it didn't help to have the war so open to the US public by broadcasting it, making it very unpopular. Perhaps any war would be unpopular if broadcasted to the general public, but when there are so many casualties and so many instances in which the Vietnamese villagers are being terrorized it helps start the cry for an end to a war which seems so unnecessary. Even though the US went in to help the South Vietnam government stop the spread of Communism, our presence turned Vietnamese villagers to the Vietcong. The bigger our presence became, the more confrontations there were resulting in more deaths resulting in more men being drafted for duty. Although the men who were being drafted were simple soldiers following orders, the public became hostile towards them as well, often insulting and spitting upon returning soldiers; regarding them as lackeys for the unpopular war rather than seeing them as men who were called upon by their country to fight. The US government continued to fight a war that was extremely unpopular to even its own citizens for reasons that didn't seem worth it.

Media Bias

One of the most recent questions we've observed pertained to media bias. Has media coverage changed drastically over time? A while back we watched as Will and Jack showed us a presentation on the media coverage during the civil war, mainly on two newspapers. We compared the two and looked at the bias that each one carried being part of the Union and the other part of the Confederacy. As we laughed at how ridiculous the bias were, such as claiming victory in a battle when they had clearly lost, Mr. Crotty asked us as to whether or not the bias in media coverage had changed at all. At first one would think no, the media doesn't all out lie to the public. But maybe the media has changed in a different way; rather than drop the bias, perhaps it's just gotten to be a little more subtle with the way it reports its bias, or at least the mainstream news outlets have. We've heard of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc, and how extreme they can be with their views. But with the access to world events that just about every person in the U.S has, mainstream news outlets need to be more subtle with the news the report since reporting obvious falsities is no longer an option. It would seem quite obvious that media has changed dramatically since the Civil War. While they can't exactly lie to the public, they still try to influence the public in favor of their bias.

Killer Angels

We recently talked about what makes man the killer angel in class. As we sat there and thought over the question I felt it necessary to see why man would be considered an angel to begin with. Why would man be considered an angel? We don't fly, we aren't perfect, no glittering halos, so what could possibly have us be considered divine? One of the few reasons I could come up with is our ability to reason. Although we're animals, our minds still set us apart from other animals. Is that what makes us "divine"? Our ability to reason, being able to think and talk situations out? What hit me next was the sad reality that although we have such amazing thought capabilities, we're still the most violent creature on this planet. Rather than talk out and reason with each other to solve our situations peacefully, we go to war, afraid of losing what's kept us comfortable.

Human After All?

After our class argument the other day regarding War and Human Nature I couldn't help but question myself as to what exactly human nature was. When I was sided with the Yes part of class dealing with the question as to whether or not war was a part of human nature I was content. I absolutely thought it was a part of human nature, but after Mr. Crotty's final statements I find myself wondering what it was that I was thinking. My idea about human nature and whether or not war is an inherent part of it is a little confusing, at least to myself (ignore that). First when I think about human nature I like to think in very simple ways to start off. I think tribal style groups fighting each other, why would they do this? Food, resource, land, survival, fear are there right off the bat and I feel like it's even easier to group them up into envy and fear. Now putting that aside for the moment, what does a war usually consist of? 2 large groups attacking each other is a simple way to put it. Now that we have those two for reference, this is what my thought process was. When humans envy something greatly or fear for their survival enough they will attack back, and if you can gather enough of these people together then you will have the group you're looking for. The thing I can't seem to piece together is what would constitute war being apart of our nature. I feel as though we're willing to fight something if it pushes us to a certain extent and if there are a number of these people then they will fight together against it. I know that those are situations where people are pushed to an extreme but couldn't their human nature just be to react in such a way to these circumstances? I could be wrong (oh so wrong) but I think about wars on drugs and how people feel that their lifestyles are being threatened so they "fight" on, how tribes feel threatened by one another so they wage war to protect their people. Perhaps war on a large scale isn't part of human nature but don't humans instinctively fight back against something they fear? Maybe I'm thinking about this in some weird way or I'm making this too complicated for myself (Or I might just be really tired) or just plain wrong.

Up Close and Personal

Last Friday we watched a really interesting video on the work of James Nachteway. James Nachteway presented photographs that he had taken over the many years. As we watched his photographs from the many conflicts I found myself somewhat disgusted. James was able to travel across the world to these warzones and capture the reality that we sometimes forget exists. Being a citizen of the U.S allows us to be sheltered for the most part from the horrors that others experience. We don't have to worry about famines or genocides. Being sheltered from these horrors is something we should be grateful for I know, but we forget that there are people who live with these issues everyday. Countries that are ravaged by wars usually fight for the betterment of their people right? It'd be ignorant of me to say this plainly because there are obviously times when war is justifiable, but are the reasons for which countries war over the most worth it? From the photographs we were able to see people revolting, civilians injured from as a side effect of these wars, people dying of hunger. Do they think these wars are worth it? I feel as though when we discuss war we seem to forget the people who are possibly affected the most.

What is a hero?

As we continue our discussions of The Iliad I'm constantly questioning why Achilles is considered a hero at all. For the majority of the poem Achilles hinders the Achaens by refusing to fight side by side with the rest of them. It makes me wonder how we can call a warrior who refuses to fight for selfish reasons can be called a hero. By my standards a hero, on a battlefield, is a warrior who is willing to put aside his own selfish reasons to fight for what he believes to be the greater good, but perhaps that's the issue; the Greeks had different ideals than we have today, maybe that's why I can't seem to make the connection. While I might not see these qualities that Achilles carries as important as those that I feel he should have maybe the Greeks do.
First off we know that Achilles is son to Thetis, a nymph, and Peleus, king of the Myrmidons. Seeing as how Greek mythology includes many gods and goddesses that absolutely love to meddle around in the lives on mortals and can/do mate with them giving them offspring with awesome strengths then it doesn't seem that far off that they would automatically give these beings a better and more admirable position in society. It certainly sets Achilles apart from the rest of these low class soldiers when he comes from a group of peoples who are known for their bravery and strength. Although today we might not see this as a reason for why he is a hero, perhaps the Greeks believed glory and honor should reach through the generations.
Another reason Achilles might be seen as a hero might be because of the armor he carries. Time and time again we see how much importance armor carries to these soldiers. Patroclus, closest to Achilles, begged and begged him to be able to use it in battle and only when Achilles felt it was absolutely necessary, he allowed him to wear the armor. Armor seems to be an extension of themselves, a second skin that allows them to wield their bodies as weapons of death so that they might achieve the honor they fight for. Only after Hector took Achilles armor from Patroclus's corpse did he realize that he couldn't use the armor. It seems as though the armor itself refuses to be used by those who aren't worthy. After Thetis convinced Hephaestus to create new armor for Achilles, Homer described the Shield of Achilles in great detail, adding to the idea that armor is only an extension of the warrior himself.
There is only one thing about Achilles that made me consider him a hero. Although he sat out for a large part of the poem for seemingly selfish reasons when he was the key to winning the war, he joined the fighting for what I believe to be an admirable reason. After Hector killed Patroclus he broke the agreement in which corpses were to be handed over to their respective sides. After Achilles heard that his closest comrade was killed and was disrespected he joined the war despite knowing that he would die. Achilles entered the conflict to avenge his dead friend, constantly seeking out Hector.
While I realize that Achilles is considered a hero by Greek standards, I still feel as though his actions stop him really being considered a hero, or at least a great one. His inaction leaves him looking selfish yet his actions leave him looking loyal to those he cares about. Maybe he is a different type of hero than I'm used to thinking of, perhaps he's a hero with too much pride that sometimes gets in the way of allowing himself to be a greater hero.

Knowing our past

As we begin our Meanings and Myths of War class, we almost immediately begin to wonder why we start them in the first place. What encourages a group of people to initiate a conflict that ends in bloodshed? A good way of understanding is by observing past conflicts and the motives behind them.
One of the many conflicts we can look at is the First Crusade. The First Crusade was a war that began to halt the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks and to recapture Jerusalem. To help rally an army, Pope Urban II assured Christians that any who died fighting for such a noble cause would be forgiven for their sins. In this case religious belief is what seemed to be the driving motive for this conflict and the eight other ones that occurred afterward. But is it really surprising that men would voluntarily go to war time and time again and commit such heinous crimes after being promised a paradise after death? It's fairly obvious that if a person can be completely absolved of their guilt that they really wouldn't worry to much about the morality of their actions.
War isn't always waged on the foundation of a Religious belief. Other times they're waged on a moral disagreement. Take the American Civil War for example. One motive for the war, although not the only one, was the issue of slavery. The Confederacy, made up of Southern states that supported slavery, fought against the Union, Northern states which sought to halt the expansion of slavery. One side was trying to abolish a crime against mankind while the other sought to keep a comfortable way of life. Of course now we feel that it was definitely necessary to abolish slavery and begin paving the path to true equality, but is it wrong to question how different life would be if the Confederacy had won? After all, history is written by the victor.
Other times the motive for conflict can be out of a sense of competition. During the mid 1880's the European countries squabbled over African territory for the rich resources that could be found there. Although not a war, the Race for Africa turned out to be a competitive mess, leaving the Africans in a worse shape. While the countries were definitely out to get resources for themselves they also did it to deny other countries of the same resource.
The causes for wars are many. Regardless of whether or not we see them as justifiable or not, they always end up leaving someone in ruin and in discontent. Perhaps further on in our discussions we can begin to dig deeper into why humans are so susceptible to conflict as a whole.