Wednesday, December 17, 2008
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.
Monday, December 8, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 24, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
