Dulce Et Decorum Est Seminar
I.
Something interesting that was said in this seminar was said by Hannah Quick which regarded the different sexes having different views on war. She took a somewhat rhetorical poll that went along the lines of “What are all the guys/girls opinions in here?” We then came to a consensus in the near future from that that men may be more obligated to die for their country because of being a lot more territorial than women in most cases. I believe this is a fairly accurate point but there is always is exception as there are men that don’t feel this obligation and there are women that fight for our country. This statement did help me to better fathom how much sex affects someone’s opinion on war.
II.
I have learned how useful seminars are in understanding a text, painting, poem, and any other piece of work over the course of the last two weeks. More specifically, discussing our thoughts through a seminar on a poem has helped me to understand specific lines or notice certain parts of the poem that may or may not greatly affect the meaning of the poem. In the Dulce et Decorum est seminar, The author describes the ir posture as looking like they were “Bent double, like old beggars under sacks…”. One of my peers helped me understand this by explaining it through actions and I grasped the first stanza a lot better after that because I couldn’t understand the imagery being used. At the end of Dulce et Decorum est the last two lines take a while to sink in due to the fact that they are in another language and I mostly focused on that part not noticing the preceding text and didn’t reach the full potential of understanding the poem. I had missed the words before the latin phrasing, “The old lie” and a student in my seminar referenced the line and I finally had a true, or at least more true, meaning to the poem.
III.
I believe that it is neither sweet nor right to die for your country in a war that is not directly causing harm to or killing the people of your country. Joining a war to “Protect” our citizens will inevitably just kill most of our youth, for they are the majority in the military. In the poem, Wilfred Owen describes a frantic war scene in which he uses words like “An ecstasy of fumbling” to create this heroic picture in the reader’s mind and set up his message. This shows both the side of war that everyone sees, the heroic “Fight for your country” side, and the real side, the side that no one sees until they’re in the war. He believes that the war should not be heroized or glorified for it is wrong for innocent soldiers to die. He calls the latin saying, Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori, an old lie with good reason for he was in a treatment facility for shell-shock when he wrote this poem. This first hand perspective from Wilfred Owen only verifies my perspective for he has felt the very thing that makes war “Bad” or “Good” and his standpoint is that is is never sweet and right to die for your country.
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of a New Man Seminar
Youth
Submerged in darkness
Gestating
Restless
Confinement of movement
I will become more
Using strength to overcome
Sensing the Audience
Waiting for me
Parent and child
I see light
Temporarily blinding
It has begun
I struggle
Straining my naturally toned muscles
Blurs of figures are appalled by the moment
Now I wait
For my view of the world is crisp and clear now
I no longer need to fully emerge
I am born
_____________________________________________________
Reaction
I believe this painting represents many aspects of the world in the 1940’s that could be interpreted in many way. Symbols like the drop of saturated, crisp lined, protrudent drop of blood could represent bloodshed in this renewal of America or it could be telling us we need to notice the pain to improve with its high saturation and noticeability. This is interpreted in other ways from any person and I believe the freedom of interpretation is what makes this painting truly beautiful yet piercing.
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Seminar
Reaction
A comment that I would like to react to is one made by Zach Marqua which regarded the morality of the people of Omelas. Leaving Omelas, in Zach’s perspective, seemed to be equally moral to staying in Omelas because no difference is made. When one sees the little child in agony and malnutrition and decides to leave the city, they make no difference and in no way affects the morale of the society in whole. The group later came to a consensus that leaving the town only improves the state of mental well being for the one who leaves and does not actually do anything to save the child inside the closet. While digesting this thought, I thought of the idea of the possibility of many leaving at one time and staging some sort of boycott that may cause the society to collapse and at that point leaving would be effective. These circumstance do not seem very likely for the citizens of Omelas due to the people’s conformity to the city.
Detailed Response
What role does Happiness Play in this society?
I believe that happiness is seen as unneeded and more of a luxury rather that a necessity as it may be seen in other cultures. Happiness does not benefit Omelas and is not needed to have a functional society and there is nothing interesting in happiness. The society is much m,ore interested in suffering and some who walk away from Omelas repulse the thought of another’s suffering for their well being.
In America happiness is seen as a necessity in culture and benefits everyone within the society. Many American believe they are truly happy at times but I think they may be mistaken with some material things that may bring some sense of pleasure to them. I believe that happiness can benefit a society greatly if economics are left out of the picture and the town is only worried about the well being of its locals.
Connection
A connection that I would like to make is between Omelas and a dystopian novel, Brave New World. In Omelas there is a non habit forming drug called Drooz. This drug is a hallucinogenic the locals take to relieve stress and not all people take this drug. This drug could be compared to a drug in Brave New World called Soma which is also a hallucinogenic which when described, seems exactly like Drooz. Both these drugs also serve the purpose of controlling the citizens and keeping them abiding the city.
Questions
1.) Is there crime in Omelas?Does this society represent ours?
2.) How old is Omelas?
3.)Does this society represent ours?
I believe Omelas represents our society in some aspects and in others not at all. An aspect that is alike to our society is interest in pain and suffering. In America, we don’t have as much pain and suffering as happiness so when we do see this agony we cannot look away and choose to look on because of how rare this seems to us. A way that it is not at all like America is they do not try to say they have happiness but really only have material things and in America we tend to do just this. The people of Omelas do not try to hid their non interest in happiness. Omelas may or may not represent the one we are living within but it certainly carries traits of our society.
Being Peace Seminar
Reflection
Many comments were expressed in the seminar regarding finding yourself, meaning finding who you are as a person, and it was interesting to hear what people defined it as and defined what it wasn’t. A specific comment made upon this topic was made by Ashley Nelson. She Said that finding yourself can never be done because with any amount of time you are not still self discovered. Working toward an empty goal, many people are trying to discover themselves at a certain time rather than as a person in whole throughout time. Another intriguing comment made was by Elliott Saslow and he questioned why we would even want to do this. Explaining himself, he believes that in America the only valuable pastime is making money, and finding yourself does not help you to make money, therefore it is useless in American society. I believe these are both truly valid opinions and they have caused me to ponder why self discovery may or may not be important or even possible.
Why would it be so hard to get in touch with yourself?
I believe that it is mostly hard to get in touch with yourself in American culture because Americans stereotypically tend to not see spiritual health of importance compared to money. Becoming intimate with one’s spiritual self takes time in which they could make more money or attempt to detach themselves from their own lives. Getting in touch with yourself, spiritually defined, takes a lot more time that an American would not be accustomed to. I think this is true for the majority of Americans but there is always a minority amongst the majority of a group that contrasts it.
Another reason applicable to every society is that its too easy to escape their lives with modern technologies. According to A.C. Nielson co., the average American will watch a total of 9.7 years watching TV in a 65 Year life time. This means 2 hours a day or 28 hours a week. This immense amount of wasted time trying to connect with false truth within a television could be spent getting in touch with one’s self spiritually. In Sweden and Norway the people watch 10 hours less than Americans per week. It is obviously still surprisingly prevalent within societies all over the world that feel like they need to detach from their own lives. Yet another question arises. In the text, the Author states; “…suffering in the west can be solved when we see the suffering of other people.” How can Americans manage to not catch this suffering while watching television for 2 hours a day. There may be certain likely hypotheses but I do not see discussing them being relevant to the initial question.
A topic I can connect this reading to is my own life and how much self discovery I accomplish personally. In an average day I have a lot of homework to complete before the night is done and I usually do watch TV to try to detach from my own life for a moment. I just believe I am not patient enough of a person to see self discovery as a relevant accomplishment or even a possible one. I truly do not believe it applies to my life but it probably should and I may or may not choose to look into it for personal benefit.
What was Thich Nhat Hanh’s occupation prior to becoming a monk?
-Simple research could discover the answer to this.
How many chapters are in the book this is out of?
-Ask Lowri to find out
Could this possibly apply to the entirety of America?
-Ask for opinions from different people
Jihad Vs. Mcworld Seminar
*Absent For Seminar*
Roots of War Seminar Make-up
This seminar was about an article called "Roots of War" by Barbara Ehrenreich
1.) "In recent centuries, men have gone to great lengths to avoid war--fleeing their homelands, shooting off their index fingers, feigning insanity.”
This impacted me the most because as I was reading it, I was very interested yet appalled at these lengths people would go to to get away from a war. I wanted to hear a story, or even read a book that describes a story of a refugee fleeing the country of which he was born. I would thoroughly enjoy a mini project with this sort of subject.What disgusted me was the size a war could get to to draft innocent victims into the fighting and violence. It is also very appalling that people could get conditioned enough for drafts could seem like a very normal, prevalent thing in society.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2.) The author believes it helps the cause but these methods are not a good way to abolish war from being a part of our society. She also thinks that battle is inevitable to happen in this society today. She also thinks they wont work because of war being such a conditioned thing in human culture.
__________________________________________________________________________________
3.) Yes, I believe it is possible to end a war by fighting a war because if a war comes to an end, there is always a victor. This being either a war when the country that kills most wins, or a war when a country is conquered and sucked of its resources; there is always a winner and a loser any way you look at it. If one country tries to create peace between them they may accept but that country who treatied with the enemy is considered somewhat of a forfeiter or loser still. But back to the initial question, yes it is possible but not necessary.
__________________________________________________________________________________
4.) This article relates to “Germany and the Next War” in the sense that both the authors believe that war and the the effects of war are inevitable and unstoppable by most traditional anti war strategies. The author of "Germany and the Next war” seemed much more extreme in that mindset that war is healthy for growth of a society yet the other author was much more optimistic on the stopping of war.
