November 20.

November 20th, 2015

#6.

This past week I attended a very interesting Friday Forum (one that I actually understood and enjoyed) by the name of “Just War?” presented by Professor Daniel Brunstetter. To be very honest, at first I thought I would simply join the lecture and leave after a few minutes as a couple friends were waiting for me to meet them; oddly enough, instead, I was captivated instantaneously in the first five minutes when Professor Brunstetter began his lecture with “I’m a Pacifist — except when it’s just not for me.”

At first, I found the statement to be quite humorous as it seemed contradictory, but after a few seconds of deliberation, I understood exactly what Professor Brunstetter’s point was.

As I listened to his lecture, I subconsciously aligned myself with more passive ideals, however, just like I stated in my previous post, the perspective of war includes two sides — two separate stories — and it is our job to not only listen but to understand both sides. With that being said, Professor Brunstetter began his lecture revolving around the question: “what makes a war just or unjust?”

If you haven’t already deduced, war is a complicated subject and the criteria to decide whether or not a country should go to war is decided through “Jus Ad Bellum” (Justice of War). The six criteria are as listed: just cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort, probability of success, and legitimate authority. In order for a country to declare itself in war, the country itself must have a primary just cause for the declaration, no matter what — whether it be reasonable or not is grounds for an open debate but that’s a discussion for another time.

Once a criteria has been met, “Jus in Bello” (Justice in War) is the second set of questions we must ask ourselves when deciding our answer to the Professor’s primary question. The three main points — proportionality, necessity, and distinction (non-combat immunity) — grant countries, in my understanding, a chance to retain their humanity. Questions like: “is this drone strike really necessary? Is it absolutely necessary to destroy that building, with civilians so close to the area? Is there another solution?“

Another definition for perspective in war can be the different time periods it holds; in other words, war has a past, a present, and a future. We have already discussed a hypothetical war in terms of the past (“Jus Ad Bellum”) and a hypothetical war in terms of the present (“Jus in Bello”), what remains to be discussed is what will happen in the future, after the war has ended. “Jus Post Bellum” (Justice After War), depending on the “point-of-view” perspective, can be seen through both the eyes of the victor and the eyes of the defeated. Those who have won have three options: retribution, retaliation, or reconciliation. Should the victor seek retribution for the loss of it’s comrades? Should the victor seek retaliation? Or should the victor take, in other words, “the high road” and seek reconciliation? Shall peace be finally made? Or shall revenge play its part? So many questions, so many answers.

Towards the end of the lecture, Professor Brunstetter brought in his comparison of “just” vs. “unjust” wars. Though the differences are quite easily seen, in the Professor’s words, the one similarity in both is that “war, when [pursued] is going to affect millions of millions of lives (ranging from the families and friends of soldiers who have died on both sides).” In addition, “running to war is dangerous and we forget, due to the dichotomy of ‘good vs. evil,’ that there are other solutions to the problem than just warfare.”

The Professor made exceptional arguments in favor of pacifism, many of which I found myself aligning with; however, in relation to his opening statement, when taking the lives of my loved ones and other innocent bystanders into account, I too will remain a pacifist until the lives in danger include more than just my life.

Though it may not be directly related to this post, this past weekend I watched Part 2 of the Hunger Games final movie and an interesting quote at the end stood out to me that reminded me so much of this course (look at the irony there).

“We are fickle, stupid human beings with a penchant for self-destruction.”

November 18.

November 18^th, 2015

#5.

            At the beginning of this course, I struggled a little bit in understanding the techniques needed to hopefully succeed in this class and though the first few weeks were quite a struggle, I feel as if I can say that one of my goals when entering this class is half-way met. My perspective has definitely broadened in viewing and understanding the different causes and effects that may come of war – very much so as I stated earlier on how “secluded” many of us are to the realities of the world in terms of war and depravity.

As we venture into Week 8 of Fall Quarter, our topics of discussion have shifted from narratives and has taken more of a philosophical standpoint. Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War are particularly interesting reads – especially The Art of War, in my opinion.

As my final blog post for the quarter, I would like to bring attention to the recent attacks that have transpired around the world, specifically in Beirut and Paris. Though I am truly devastated by the attacks themselves and the innocent lives lost, there are many people who have shown their displeasure of the amount of media coverage Paris received versus the limited amount of Beirut’s.

When my TA discussed this topic with our class, I realized, just like “virtue” and “fortune” have a different meaning in Machiavelli’s The Prince, so does the term “perspective” when applied to this situation.

In regards to the two attacks, the perspective towards the events were drastically different. The Attack in Paris garnered a lot of media attention with FaceBook allowing users to temporarily create the effect of the Parisian flag on their profile picture as a symbol of solidarity and unification and Tumblr included the Parisian flag in their “t” logo. Just hours before, an attack in Beirut had occurred killing many as well –  however, there were no outbursts of horror in the media, much less from any of the western countries; there was no temporary effect on FaceBook for users to show their unity with Beirut.

To be honest, I myself didn’t even hear about the attack in Beirut until the attack on Paris and until I saw many others comparing the two events on various social media platforms.

When my TA asked our class why they think this was, a fellow peer answered stating that the differences in perspective or “views” towards each country played a major role in such inequality. The majority of the world viewed the ongoing war in the Middle East more of a “normalcy” and as such, people deemed such events and attacks as something that “comes with the territory;” in comparison, Paris is considered to be a part of the more western culture and an attack there is not normal, therefore generating a lot of support.

Though this perspective is understandable, it does not mean that it can be taken as an excuse to focus on those who are considered to be more westernized and forget those who are still developing.

Another heated topic occurring in social media as of late is the persecution of Syrian Refugees. It is so sad to hear that many in France and other countries – including the US – are fighting the governmental bills of accepting more Syrian refugees simply because “they are Muslims.” A few days ago there was a political cartoon circling around the internet showing France and other Western Countries refusing Syrian Refugees asylum and “shoving” them away with one hand. This is considered to be one form of perspective, most popular with western society. What many others don’t realize is that there are always two sides to one story.

In this political cartoon, as the refugees are being denied asylum by the “shoving” hand, the tip of a sword is digging into their backs symbolizing ISIS – the reason they left their homeland.

My point is that just as Machiavelli defined the terms “virtue” and “fortune” to be completely different from their normal meanings found in a common dictionary, the same can be said here with the term “perspective.”

There are always two sides to one story, because just as there is one person physically telling a story, there is always a second person physically listening to the story as well.

In my opinion, one of the main goals of Humanities Core is to provide an intellectual environment in which students are able to broaden their perspective to see not just one side of a story – the side that is narrating – rather to also see and understand the other side – the side that is listening.

Before creating your own judgments towards a particular group, gather all the perspectives related to that topic.

As this will be my last post for fall quarter, I’d just like to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this blog. I hope you all have a fantastic Thanksgiving and Christmas break this year!

 

P.S. Someone once told me that Hum. Core might not change my life; I’d like to say that they’re wrong. It’s changed my life because it has simply broadened my mind.

November 2.

November 2nd, 2015.

#4.

    Wow! The past week has been an exciting turn of events as we switched from Grimmelshausen’s The Adventures of Simplicius Simplicissimus towards Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and her Children in our Humanities Core class. To be quite honest, Mother Courage and her Children is by-far my favorite text we have read up to date (with Simplicius coming in a close second, and The Iliad in third place).

As we enter Week Six in our first quarter of Humanities Core here at UCI, I feel as if our knowledge on the different forms of perspective as broadened immensely. Starting from The Iliad‘s use of “a view from above” followed by Simplicius‘s use of “a view from below,” we continue to see the effects of war in Brecht’s Mother Courage as he too, continues the trend portraying history through the eyes of the common versus the eyes of the heroes.

Just like Professor Smith noted in lecture, “the humanities shows the importance of time,” — meaning, many in the present look back on the past to compare the events of the past to the present as a way to understand the “now” and possibly comprehend the future. (That’s very complex.) In the case of The Memorial, Oswald turned to The Iliad to reference her present times and the same can be said for Brecht as he too turned to Grimmelshausen’s works as a means to decipher the events unfolding in Germany before and after World War II.

As we venture from the positive aspects of war leading to eternal glorification in The Iliad and enter Grimmelshausen’s negative view of war in Simplicius, we can literally see a trail of time forming between the changing perspectives once we enter Brecht’s Mother Courage as his play focuses more on the socio-economic part of the war in relation to morals and values — which is an even more deeper perspective.

The funny thing about perspective is that we all have a different range of point of views, a quality that makes us all very unique as human beings. Some of us are very open-minded people who are willing to not only listen and possibly agree with the thoughts of others; however, some of us can be very close-minded as well, choosing to focus on traditionalism and familiarity rather than being more outgoing and trying different prospects. In my experience, I seem to fall somewhat in between the new mediums — taking this class as certainly proved that.

As I said last week, my perspective towards war has been quite limited in terms of exposure and understanding surrounding the bleak topic, however, just like I said last week, I’d like to see how far and to what degree my mentality will change by the end of my first year.

In the past week, my views have developed to include the socio-economic culture in which Mother Courage earns her pay by literally profiting from the war — otherwise known as the “military-industry complex.” As a complex character, I view her as this courageous woman (though, with multiple flaws) who has battled the sexist views of those times to be an economically-independent, self-sufficient lady with no male figure dictating her moves; anything she does, it’s for her own personal gain.

However, her business thrives on the continuation of War; she views it as a means to an end furthering Brecht’s thesis in which he states “that war is a continuation of business by other means . . .” As far as my understanding goes, Brecht chooses to focus on the values and morals that are corrupted for the sake of economical gain in Mother Courage which transpires from war.

With this concept in mind, it brings me to ask, just how can people “drop” so far to truly “want” war? Is it because it has become the norm? If I can recall correct, over this weekend our homework assignment was to watch John Walter’s Theater of War (an “essayistic film” which revolved around the 2006 production of Mother Courage) and one of the speakers in the opening act addressed the question: “[Does] Mother Courage [ask] us to question what are the behaviors that attract us to that which destroys us?”

Well . . . does it?