Wes' insight in the war helped me understand a lot more about war than I thought I could without actually being in a war first-hand. When he talked about how war changes you, I realized, at least as much as a civilian could, how much war affects you mentally and personally.
I think the biggest thing was how he was talking about people expect you to be who you were before the war, but you aren't that person anymore. They assume you are what you aren't anymore, and can't ever be because of your experiences.
And when he talked about how he never knew his fellow soldiers' real names, and he regrets not learning them, it helps to show how much of a bond they actually formed, even though they didn't even know each other all that well at first.
I think the fact that they had to create those "alternate identities" shows how devastating war can be on one's psyche. Their new identities acted as a shield from the atrocities of war, and the things they were forced to do. But while it was a created identity, I think it also showed part of who they really were. It showed how they acted when they were presented with a monumentally difficult task.
~
Similarly, Mary Anne was a normal woman, who was introduced to the war. At first, she was ignorant, like everyone who hadn't experienced the war, but she slowly became another soldier, like any other man would have, and did. She was a symbol of innocence, and how war destroys that innocence.
I think O'Brien was trying to say that it doesn't matter what gender you are, war will change you the same way. It's a hard thing to endure for anyone, not just women. Personally, I think women should be allowed to fight if they want, just like men, and I think O'Brien agreed with that.
~
The truth factor of his story was very vague throughout his story. He hinted many times that some of what he said could have been a lie, but at the same time, it could have been the truth.
I think the point he was trying to get across was simply that things happen during war, and we can't always help what happens. And sometimes, no matter how bad they are, we have to live with them.
In all honesty, I don't think it matter whether or not his stories were completely true. They revealed how bad war could be, and I think that was his main point. War can be a terrible thing, and the Vietnam War definitely was a terrible thing.
I think the lying aspect also helped him to tell his stories, because sometimes veterans are so scarred by their experiences, they can't share them with anyone. If he felt like he needed to get something out, but was afraid of it, because of how scarring it was, then he could have changed what he didn't like. Obviously, he'd have to be careful not to change it too much, so as not to take away from the point of that specific story, or maybe change it a little so the point becomes more clear; like the previous example with Mary Anne. It's very possible not everything he said about her happened, or maybe none of it happened at all, but the story definitely has a message, which was made very clearly.
~
I'd like to know why Tim O'Brien changed the story of "Speaking of Courage" in the first place? Why did he leave out the things Norman Bowker asked him to put in it?
~
Monday, May 16, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
'The Things They Carried'
I found the beginning of the book The Things They Carried rather dull and repetitive, because it was too literal at first. But, now that that part is over, I think it is a fairly good book so far. It's kept my interest at least, even though that isn't too hard.
Being soldiers, there are burdens they have to carry beyond guns, ammunition, and diseases. Most, if not all men, suffered through the memories, and that alone was a heavy burden. They had to live with memories of people they killed, people they knew who had been killed, and they often grew remorseful for not preventing something that could have been prevented. For example, they might blame themselves for a fellow soldier's death, even if it was out of their reach, and it would have been impossible to prevent aside from staying out of the war. It's a tough burden, and I'm thankful we have men who sacrificed that much for the sake of our country and such.
~
Jimmy Cross, being the first character introduced, seems like an important part of the story. He seems to hold on to memories of his old crush, named Martha. She didn't actually love him, but he loved her, and used her as inspiration, and motivation to survive. Though, after the death of Ted Lavender, he burns the pictures and letters from her that he cherished so much. He sees this as a metaphor, that he has let go of Martha, and he will try to focus on the present, and the reality, rather than dreaming of being with Martha again. Shortly into the story, however, the narrator is having a chat with Jimmy, in what seems like a post-war situation, and it's clear he isn't over Martha. This also shows it's safe to say he survives through the story. I think from what we've seen so far, and the fact that he's the First Lieutenant, he'll lead his fellow soldiers through the war, and possibly serve as a hero to the others.
~
Other than the obvious fact that they've all been about theVietnam war, I don't see how they're connected. The documentary The Most Dangerous Man In America was about Daniel Ellsberg, and the government hiding the truth about the progress in the war, while the book The Things They Carried focuses on one person's experiences in the war. Or at least, that's what I'm getting from the book.
~
Being soldiers, there are burdens they have to carry beyond guns, ammunition, and diseases. Most, if not all men, suffered through the memories, and that alone was a heavy burden. They had to live with memories of people they killed, people they knew who had been killed, and they often grew remorseful for not preventing something that could have been prevented. For example, they might blame themselves for a fellow soldier's death, even if it was out of their reach, and it would have been impossible to prevent aside from staying out of the war. It's a tough burden, and I'm thankful we have men who sacrificed that much for the sake of our country and such.
~
Jimmy Cross, being the first character introduced, seems like an important part of the story. He seems to hold on to memories of his old crush, named Martha. She didn't actually love him, but he loved her, and used her as inspiration, and motivation to survive. Though, after the death of Ted Lavender, he burns the pictures and letters from her that he cherished so much. He sees this as a metaphor, that he has let go of Martha, and he will try to focus on the present, and the reality, rather than dreaming of being with Martha again. Shortly into the story, however, the narrator is having a chat with Jimmy, in what seems like a post-war situation, and it's clear he isn't over Martha. This also shows it's safe to say he survives through the story. I think from what we've seen so far, and the fact that he's the First Lieutenant, he'll lead his fellow soldiers through the war, and possibly serve as a hero to the others.
~
Other than the obvious fact that they've all been about theVietnam war, I don't see how they're connected. The documentary The Most Dangerous Man In America was about Daniel Ellsberg, and the government hiding the truth about the progress in the war, while the book The Things They Carried focuses on one person's experiences in the war. Or at least, that's what I'm getting from the book.
~
Monday, April 11, 2011
America and War
Personally, I think war is a somewhat trivial, albeit necessary part of a nation's growth. It's impossible for everyone from all different nations and countries to agree, so there are bound to be disputes over those disagreements. I understand when a nation gets into wars that either affect us directly, or have a large impact on us as a nation, but when we jump into each and every war, it's a little unnecessary. I don't think the US gets into every war, and I'm glad we don't. We shouldn't send off our men to fight, and often die, just so some old guys can get what they want.
But like I said, it is often necessary for a nation to become involved. Take Japan, for example. They had the policy of isolation for a long time, but, because of this, they began falling behind technologically. They then became involved in trade and such with other nations, and very quickly caught up with the more modern nations.
~
As for getting involved in wars, it really depends on how much of an impact it will have on us, and a couple other factors, like why it should be ended, who is it harming, and is it really a reason to risk our troops, among other questions.
But the question is "should the US ever get involved in wars?" And that is obviously a yes, since there will most certainly be situations where we will have to get involved.
There will be times when people are threatening us as a nation, and, as a result, we have to stand up against them and fight. Some people will die; that's a given in situations like those. But it's sometimes what has to be done, as harsh as that may sound. I'm personally grateful to know there are great people who are willing to risk their lives for the sake of our country, and the lives of its people. Without them, I can honestly say we wouldn't be such a great and powerful country, like we are today.
~
To my highly limited knowledge of history, the Vietnam war was simply a war in Vietnam that was supposed to take a very short amount of time (at least compared to how long it actually took), but didn't due to guerilla warfare tactics, and supplies from Russia, I believe. I'm probably mistaken on that part, though.
I just know that it was a long and difficult war, which resulted in a lot more deaths than it should have.
And that's literally all I actually know, even though I'm probably wrong anyways.
~
All in all, I think war is another one of those tender, personal subjects, like religion and abortion. Though war has a larger weight upon us all, because a wrong move could have a lot more casualties.
~
But like I said, it is often necessary for a nation to become involved. Take Japan, for example. They had the policy of isolation for a long time, but, because of this, they began falling behind technologically. They then became involved in trade and such with other nations, and very quickly caught up with the more modern nations.
~
As for getting involved in wars, it really depends on how much of an impact it will have on us, and a couple other factors, like why it should be ended, who is it harming, and is it really a reason to risk our troops, among other questions.
But the question is "should the US ever get involved in wars?" And that is obviously a yes, since there will most certainly be situations where we will have to get involved.
There will be times when people are threatening us as a nation, and, as a result, we have to stand up against them and fight. Some people will die; that's a given in situations like those. But it's sometimes what has to be done, as harsh as that may sound. I'm personally grateful to know there are great people who are willing to risk their lives for the sake of our country, and the lives of its people. Without them, I can honestly say we wouldn't be such a great and powerful country, like we are today.
~
To my highly limited knowledge of history, the Vietnam war was simply a war in Vietnam that was supposed to take a very short amount of time (at least compared to how long it actually took), but didn't due to guerilla warfare tactics, and supplies from Russia, I believe. I'm probably mistaken on that part, though.
I just know that it was a long and difficult war, which resulted in a lot more deaths than it should have.
And that's literally all I actually know, even though I'm probably wrong anyways.
~
All in all, I think war is another one of those tender, personal subjects, like religion and abortion. Though war has a larger weight upon us all, because a wrong move could have a lot more casualties.
~
Monday, March 7, 2011
"Hey time, you're no friend of mine."
As the great songwriter Scott Stapp wrote; "Hey time, you're no friend of mine," it is something that many people resent. With time, memories fade, friendships die, opportunities cease, and eventually, all dies. It's a very dark and cruel thing, but it's just the way everything is.
But that doesn't mean it's all bad. There's always a good thing with it. While time brings death, it also brings life, new opportunities, and a chance to redeem yourself; a second chance.
Like in The Great Gatsby, it brings Gatsby another chance to reunite with his love, Daisy. Time separated them, and time drew them apart, but after time, it brought them back together for another chance. Gatsby tried his best to make take full advantage of this miraculous second chance, but he ultimately failed, resulting in his death, even though it wasn't completely his fault.
~
As with most books, it honestly didn't impact my life greatly. It's not often people really are affected that much. They'll think for a couple minutes "Oh hey, that's a great idea," or "I think that was inspirational! I'm going to change myself for the better!" but it's rare that people will actually change. But I guess, during those few minutes of thought, I thought about how second chances are possible; you just have to take them. Just in case, however, it's better to take your first chance, in case the second chance, if it happens at all, doesn't go as planned. Unless you really want to fail at completely grasping your chances, because it's more than likely a possibility if you let your chances pass you by. They will eventually stop coming by. Luck isn't forever.
~
But that doesn't mean it's all bad. There's always a good thing with it. While time brings death, it also brings life, new opportunities, and a chance to redeem yourself; a second chance.
Like in The Great Gatsby, it brings Gatsby another chance to reunite with his love, Daisy. Time separated them, and time drew them apart, but after time, it brought them back together for another chance. Gatsby tried his best to make take full advantage of this miraculous second chance, but he ultimately failed, resulting in his death, even though it wasn't completely his fault.
~
As with most books, it honestly didn't impact my life greatly. It's not often people really are affected that much. They'll think for a couple minutes "Oh hey, that's a great idea," or "I think that was inspirational! I'm going to change myself for the better!" but it's rare that people will actually change. But I guess, during those few minutes of thought, I thought about how second chances are possible; you just have to take them. Just in case, however, it's better to take your first chance, in case the second chance, if it happens at all, doesn't go as planned. Unless you really want to fail at completely grasping your chances, because it's more than likely a possibility if you let your chances pass you by. They will eventually stop coming by. Luck isn't forever.
~
I have regrets. I'm sure we all do. There's at least one thing in our lives that we regret, wish we could go back to change, or maybe even just wish had gone differently. It's human nature to want things to be as good as possible. But you have to make them so. You can't let these chances pass you by continually.
I think that's the main theme I was able to connect with from this book; second chances, redemption, and taking action in making the things you want to happen, happen.
~
Friday, January 7, 2011
The Great Gatsby
From what I read, The Great Gatsby is about a distopian society, where freedom and privacy is very nearly nonexistent. It sounds rather interesting, and it reminds me of the book Fahrenheit 451, which I also liked. Because of this, I would assume a large number of people will complain about it. It seemed like very few people in my class last year liked Fahrenheit 451, so if it really is similar, then I don't think it will be very popular with most of the class.
But that's just a guess. It could very well be a favorite of the class. I don't really know. Either way, we'll have to read it to find out.
~
I think the most interesting part of the research would be the Prohibition movement, mainly because it was an odd period of time. A time where crime and the like was running rampant; lawlessness was in control. It kind of saddens me to know that people would fall to that because of alcohol, especially such a majority of the population. I don't understand why people like alcohol that much; to go that far to retain something so destructive to one's life. It doesn't make sense to me at all. It never did, and it never will. Hopefully, it won't come to anything else like that ever.
I wonder what it would have been like to live during that time. I wonder how much pressure they got from peers to drink alcohol, even though the law forbade it. How did the police and government let it get so bad? So bad, in fact, that the police were corrupt themselves, often times. It really is a sad time to imagine. But we learn from our mistakes, so maybe it was good to make it back then, when the technology wasn't as advanced, and people couldn't have gone to more extreme measures to re-obtain their rights to alcohol.
~
But that's just a guess. It could very well be a favorite of the class. I don't really know. Either way, we'll have to read it to find out.
~
I think the most interesting part of the research would be the Prohibition movement, mainly because it was an odd period of time. A time where crime and the like was running rampant; lawlessness was in control. It kind of saddens me to know that people would fall to that because of alcohol, especially such a majority of the population. I don't understand why people like alcohol that much; to go that far to retain something so destructive to one's life. It doesn't make sense to me at all. It never did, and it never will. Hopefully, it won't come to anything else like that ever.
I wonder what it would have been like to live during that time. I wonder how much pressure they got from peers to drink alcohol, even though the law forbade it. How did the police and government let it get so bad? So bad, in fact, that the police were corrupt themselves, often times. It really is a sad time to imagine. But we learn from our mistakes, so maybe it was good to make it back then, when the technology wasn't as advanced, and people couldn't have gone to more extreme measures to re-obtain their rights to alcohol.
~
Friday, December 17, 2010
Winter Break
16 days of free time. There are plenty of ways of spending it. I have a general idea at the moment. Honestly, I rarely plan what I'm doing more than a week away, so most of this is going to be made up right now, though I may stick with it later anyways. Please note I'll probably use many generalizations, like 'probably' or 'more than likely.'
~
For the first weekend, I will be going to my dad's house over in Tacoma, partly because I accidentally left my student ID and phone charger there last week, and partly because I like hanging out with him, even if he's rarely actually there. I'll probably be there until Sunday, where I'll go home probably late at night. More than likely, I'll get on the computer and talk to my friend who will be in Vegas throughout the break. After some time, probably around 2 AM, I'll finally go to sleep. I'd probably sleep in until around noon, then get up and do nothing for the entire day. The rest of the week will be me doing nothing, except maybe playing guitar or talking to friends on the computer, unless I end up walking to my friend's house just down the street. If I do that, I'll probably play some Minecraft while listening to 30 Seconds to Mars really loudly and making jokes constantly. It's what we do everytime we hang out, and it gets hectic, but it's entertaining.
I guess that's how it'll go until Christmas, where me and my brother will open the one or two presents we got. I don't want anything, so I have no clue what they could be. I'd honestly prefer like 5 dollars and call it good. Other than that, though, there probably won't be anything different, except maybe a nice dinner. If my mom and sisters were here instead of back in Anchorage, we'd probably do a lot more. I'm not sure what, but it would be family time, and that's usually pretty cool, because my family is very fun to hang out with.
I guess after Christmas, it'll be just about the same thing; guitar, computer, and possibly a friend. It's not exciting, but I'm not exciting.
I don't mind, though. I like having a simple life. I don't have to worry all the time about stupid things that get everyone else stressed out. It's nice and easy.
~
~
For the first weekend, I will be going to my dad's house over in Tacoma, partly because I accidentally left my student ID and phone charger there last week, and partly because I like hanging out with him, even if he's rarely actually there. I'll probably be there until Sunday, where I'll go home probably late at night. More than likely, I'll get on the computer and talk to my friend who will be in Vegas throughout the break. After some time, probably around 2 AM, I'll finally go to sleep. I'd probably sleep in until around noon, then get up and do nothing for the entire day. The rest of the week will be me doing nothing, except maybe playing guitar or talking to friends on the computer, unless I end up walking to my friend's house just down the street. If I do that, I'll probably play some Minecraft while listening to 30 Seconds to Mars really loudly and making jokes constantly. It's what we do everytime we hang out, and it gets hectic, but it's entertaining.
I guess that's how it'll go until Christmas, where me and my brother will open the one or two presents we got. I don't want anything, so I have no clue what they could be. I'd honestly prefer like 5 dollars and call it good. Other than that, though, there probably won't be anything different, except maybe a nice dinner. If my mom and sisters were here instead of back in Anchorage, we'd probably do a lot more. I'm not sure what, but it would be family time, and that's usually pretty cool, because my family is very fun to hang out with.
I guess after Christmas, it'll be just about the same thing; guitar, computer, and possibly a friend. It's not exciting, but I'm not exciting.
I don't mind, though. I like having a simple life. I don't have to worry all the time about stupid things that get everyone else stressed out. It's nice and easy.
~
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Unfair Trial of Omar Khadr
In The Crucible, the children accuse many people of witchcraft. Danforth, however, never doubts the honesty of the accusers, until it's too late, and he's killed many people. It was unfair of Danforth to allow such loose, and easily faked, proof be used as solid evidence for giving people the death penalty.
This is why in America today, people are given the right to a fair trial. But even if that is one of our laws, it is not always held up. An example I found of this was with the case of Omar Khadr. Briefly, he was a prisoner of war, and the first person tried under Obama's new military commissions that made it possible for people proven innocent to be held indefinitely. Khadr had been held in prison for 8 years, since he was only 15 years old. With these new commissions, Obama is basically saying since we are at war with the al Qaeda, we are allowed to give people unfair trials.
This obviously violates different laws, like the ones that state people are allowed a fair trial, and are allowed to go free if they are proven innocent. Because of this, I disagree with this case, and believe this to be an unfair trial. If we are allowing people, ones who have been proven innocent even, to be locked up forever, like criminals, then why bother even having courts? Why not just throw everyone accused in prison forever? It would save us time and money.
In both cases, we have to take into account how honest the accusers are. After all, it is possible that people can lie. No matter what they've been taught growing up. It is human nature.
~
Sources:
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/tag/unfair-trials/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Ahmed_Khadr
This is why in America today, people are given the right to a fair trial. But even if that is one of our laws, it is not always held up. An example I found of this was with the case of Omar Khadr. Briefly, he was a prisoner of war, and the first person tried under Obama's new military commissions that made it possible for people proven innocent to be held indefinitely. Khadr had been held in prison for 8 years, since he was only 15 years old. With these new commissions, Obama is basically saying since we are at war with the al Qaeda, we are allowed to give people unfair trials.
This obviously violates different laws, like the ones that state people are allowed a fair trial, and are allowed to go free if they are proven innocent. Because of this, I disagree with this case, and believe this to be an unfair trial. If we are allowing people, ones who have been proven innocent even, to be locked up forever, like criminals, then why bother even having courts? Why not just throw everyone accused in prison forever? It would save us time and money.
In both cases, we have to take into account how honest the accusers are. After all, it is possible that people can lie. No matter what they've been taught growing up. It is human nature.
~
Sources:
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/tag/unfair-trials/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Ahmed_Khadr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)