Uncle Sam has been calling to young Americans for decades. He calls to Americans much like ourselves, boldly declaring that he WANTS YOU. He wants US. Many Americans answer his call. They believe it is right to protect those you love and the country you live in. Dulce et Decorum est. But is it right to die for one's country? Should this call to war be answered? Uncle Sam is asking US to fight for his war....well...why can't he fight his own war? Furthermore, who is Uncle Sam?
Today, we focused mostly on the meaning behind propaganda and if it is ethical to use it. Now, I would like to ask you if it is right for someone to die for their country. I believe the level of patriotism found in the phrase "Dulce et Decorum est" can be compared to the heroism of the Thanes in Grendel. The Thanes lived to be heroic. For example, when Unferth attempted to kill Grendel, he knew he was dying a hero, even if no one else knew it. Grendel refused to end Unferth's life and he was forced to live on knowing that he had failed, and his idea of heroism was ruined. In Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est," Owen attempts to fight this idea that it is right and just to die for one's country with gruesome imagery and the brutal reality of war. Is the death we witness in war justifiable if we are fighting for the "right" purposes? Do the ends justify the means? Or does the reality of war break this illusion of Dulce et Decorum est? I would love to know what everyone thinks about this.
Also, I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on Jessica. Jessica is constantly being pushed to the background in Dirty Hands, and yet she is a pivotal character when it comes to Hoederer's death. Would Hugo have been able to accomplish his mission without the "incentive" from Jessica? I also believe it is important to look at the insidious sexism within the play. We see Hugo trying very hard to prove himself as a "man," which leads him to take on the task of being Hoederer's assassin. However, later on in the play we see Hugo professing his love for Hoederer to Olga. How is this insidious sexism seen throughout the play and do you think it plays an important role in the outcome?
I hope everyone enjoyed my class today and I look forward to your responses!
16 comments:
Probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda. G.W. Bush may be Uncle Sam:))) However, does he own the ideology that pushes many American Soldiers to Iraq? I guess the much bigger question here is who owns ideology that is being promoted through propaganda. In my view, the origin of propaganda itself is the idea; the target of propaganda are people.
Ideas in themselves are timeless. They are not tied to individuals, much less to a people. They rest in a people, and affect their attitudes.
I remember my early college years in Russia, when philosophy professor asked me "what makes you think that think pen is blue?" I answered: "because I can prove that it is blue by writing." He asked me: "What makes you think that it is blue??? Why you did not call this color yellow or pink?" Someone call it blue and then everybody take the ownership of this idea. "Someone taught you that it is blue." Someone named this color blue million years ago.
The same example is with propaganda. It does not necessarily one person staying up there who is trying to persuade us to move further towards the common good. When someone comes along who can put in words what everyone feels in their hearts, each feels: “Yes! That is what I have always wanted and hoped for.”
Actually, Sartre's plays were used as a propaganda against communism regime. It is highly biased. It does not portrays both sides equally.
Again, we should really define what propaganda is and finds a consensus prior discussing it.
Basically, every opinion if supported by a solid amount of people is propaganda. Take the Bible as an example. I am totally sure that the world developed through the process of evolution. My mother strongly believes that God created everything in 6 days. Is not that propaganda?
As for Jessica, I do believe that author brought her to the scene to help us to see this world with irony. Additionally, she demonstrates that Hugo and other characters were very sensitive in some way (killing). Author probably wanted to demonstrate that there is another side of War. She may sound silly to demonstrate the irony. Her position is between people who are tempted by the speeches. Jessica actually has an opinion but she is not trying to convince anyone.
I would like to focus my post more on Jessica since we discussed propaganda so thorough in class. For me, she was extremely annoying, never minding her own business, and messing everything up for everyone else, but there are so many components to discuss around her character. For example, the extreme sexism at the time insinuating that women were unable to think politically and only focus on domestic chores. Olga, on the other hand, is portrayed as politically involved, smart, clever, but also incredibly masculine—almost as if in order for a woman to hold any of these traits, she must act like a man. We see this even today in the media and the cliché slogan “Act like a lady, think like a man”. Women, in order to be taken seriously, must hold “masculine” traits demonstrating power, control, and no vulnerability. We have glorified “masculine” ideals and demonized domestic work, feelings, and love. Hugo, for example, has to constantly prove his manhood. When Hoederer spoke to Jessica, he told her he did not want to hurt or embarrass Hugo as he tried to convince him not to shoot while Hugo felt like not shooting would prove he was incapable of being a man. His fear was based on not being “feminine” and being masculine enough to kill another person, to be as masculine and effective as Louis and even Olga.
Additionally, Jessica’s character like Marina points out brings irony to the play. While no one takes her seriously, she is Hugo’s voice of reason, challenges him in his ideas, and points out his delusional “radicalism”. Because of Jessica, we can see that Hugo really has nothing figured out, he merely knows how to follow the “hype” of the party without thinking logically about individual freedom. She points out the doubts that he already had and makes sense of them even when he wanted to deny that they were there by shrugging her off and telling her she did not understand politics. Jessica was in the end the voice of reason for Hoederer and for Hugo’s reconciliation even if at the end she was portrayed as Eve from the Garden of Eden, the traitor. She gave into her temptation to have Horderer and as a result damned him and ruined Hugo’s well being by pushing him to shoot.
As usual, the woman messes things up for the men around her.
Hi Lauren, thanks for a great class and the many thought-provoking questions you raise!
There is scene from Fahrenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore stands outside Congress to ask our leaders if they had sent their sons off to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, they hadn’t. It seems that the burden of death during war time is conveniently shifted to the masses ( the “us” in your question), who perhaps don’t know what the war is exactly like and are more easily swayed by ideas of patriotism and heroism. I think it’s quite a shameful thing when the leaders who sound the clarion call for war are the first to cower for safety, and worse, posture about their participation in the war (as recent events in the news suggest: see Brian Williams).
With regards to whether it is ever right to die for one’s country, I believe there’s something inherently different when one dies in a war that’s, hypothetically speaking, based on a shared vision conceived on facts, and a war that is essentially a farce, one that’s serving the interests of political and economic elites instead of the greater good of the people. The latter is most often never presented as such and a lie is instead sold to the people. Sacrificing on the basis of a lie is never sweet and fitting.
As an example of propaganda, what comes to mind is the movie American Sniper. Below is an excerpt that raises important points.
“In a macro sense, however, our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not a “kill them or they will kill us” scenario. History has borne that fact out, and that lack of context makes “American Sniper” a dangerous film. Dangerous because kids will sign up for the military because of this movie. Dangerous because our leaders have plans for those kids. Some will kill. Some will be killed. Or worse. There is no narrative existing outside the strict confines of “American Sniper’s” iron sights that allows for the war on terror to be over. It’s like a broken record looping over and over: attack, blowback and attack. Repeat.”
The last line of course is strikingly reminiscent of Grendel’s comment about the mechanical regularity with which the cycle of carnage continues.
Hello Verons!
Lauren, thank you for leading such a great and well-organized class. I am sure we all felt those two hours were not enough. Thanks that we have the blog to keep the conversation.
I want to start with the “Uncle Sam” term. Uncle Sam is one of the many propaganda the US Government uses to promote the idea of patriotism. I feel that there are two problems with this idea. First, how do we know whether there is an imminent threat to the nation? who should we trust? I don’t believe that it was the best idea to send troops to Iraq to find and secure the alleged weapons of mass destruction. If following the leadership of the Government if not always the best idea, maybe we should try something else. How about the News? Theoretically, Newspapers and reporters should be objective when informing the country. However, it is obvious that sometimes they have their own agenda they have to follow( just as politicians do). Marina brought an interesting idea when she questioned “who owns the ideology that is being promoted through propaganda.” To combine what Marina said, and to answer Lauren’s question, I believe Uncle Sam is not a person (i.e. the President), but a group of organizations that takes advantage of wars, resources(obtained after a war), or any other situation that a conflict can cause.
Great job Lauren in kicking of the student led seminars! I loved the discussion of propaganda and even the role playing.
Propaganda plays a major element in "uniting" the country and its citizens for a "cause" (war, advocating for civil/social rights). When I was in Chile we visiting El Museo de la Memoria (Museum of Memory) focusing on the human rights violations that occurred during the dictatorship. Propaganda was strategically used to promote Pinochet and his cause, similarly used with Hitler and the Nazis. Propaganda is used as a tool to persuade the general population for a cause/action. To address Uncle Sam, I believe the idea of who/what he is has shifted. During WWII and even Vietnam could have been the government but with the present "war" it is to promote the ideals and interest of major corporation.
Is it right for one's country? I would never be brave enough to fight in a war. Unfortunately, I have a lot of friends who served in Iraq and have died. To describe them it goes as the saying from 1984 "Ignorance is strength". They all are SO proud to be 'fighting' for their country but are not even sure what the country is fighting for. I agree with Gina and how she described justified to die in war. Maybe in WWI or WWII I could justify fighting and dying for my country but not with this war on terror.
I think it's up to each individual to decide whether its okay to die for your country. The problem the the Uncle Sam propaganda is that is forces people into one mindset. By saying it is bad to die for your country, you are doing the same thing, forcing an opinion on the masses.
I am not sure if I like Jessica as a character, but I do like what she adds to the story. She unlike all the ther characters questioned the information given to her. She did not just blindly believe everything told to her. Yes her playful attitude seemed annoying because it underminded the seriousness of the situation, but it also reminded the reader that not everything in life should be serious. I think the creation of her character also brought the sexist ideology of the time period into question. She was treated like she was stupid and unable to understand, but in reality she understood a lot and really did want to help. Her character was a driving force for the story.
Lauren- AWESOME JOB!
I love the point Marina made about religion and I very much agree that it might be the case that much of the work done with religion is a sales pitch where you sell someone the specific religion/belief system and in return want them to come back join the community.
In regards to Jessica- I agree with a lot of what Danyeli is saying. She was very annoying, very obnoxious, arrogant, and demeaning. It is clear that I didn't like her. But she also breaks and bends a lot of the stereotypes. She is a woman in politics. She is feminine and still thinks (shocking rights?
), She does what she wants and gets her way. She puts men in their place and has no problem calling out ridiculousness. She's pretty 'badass' while still maintaining her femininity and her very daisy (from Gatsby) like swiftness and playfulness.
Of course that a woman with these characteristics is demonized. Some one who's feminine and playful should not be in power. She should not be in politics. She should not take initiative or leadership positions. Of course that she's also to blame when things go wrong...
I am more concerned on the question of “is it right for someone to die for his country?”
I think this question could be answered in so many ways. One approach might be by examining the region in which one being called to serve or the culture. Looking at the history of how nations came to exist, there is this principle of self-determination, the belief that a state has the power to determine its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government. Under these principles, also nation-state draw boundaries and set regulations on what is to be expected from its citizens. Usually, this is done in the constitution. In regards to the expectations of citizens, some countries, through conscription are able to draft young men in the armed service.
Presently in the U.S, selective service is one way that the government guarantees that it has the necessary force ready to defend its objective in case war hits home.
As I mentioned in class during the scenes, it is not about right or wrong. Most countries have been through difficult experience and one way to prevent it from happening again is through the armed forces. For instance, the French national anthem is a perfect example that answers the question of our discussion.
Let's go children of the fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody flag is raised! (repeat)
In the countryside, do you hear
The roaring of these fierce soldiers?
They come right to our arms
To slit the throats of our sons, our friends
My question will be, if a country decides to go to war and the majority of the population agrees with the idea. Is that also a case of propaganda?
This can also be seen through the perspective of genders. In some cultures, young men are expected to provide some types of services to the community in which they live in. for instance, in traditional African societies, young men were raised to be warriors who were to continue the legacy of their tribe or kingdom.
Wow. Jessica. Sartre. Like very much team.
Jessica is Eve, she is the embodiment of the "obnoxious" woman. She is also not afraid to speak her mind, to use whatever power society has given her, and she pursues what she wants. Although many of her characteristics reflect the socialization of women and gender roles, she is still quite comfortable not only voicing the social restrictions placed on her but rejecting them. There is so much in this Sartre piece, and so I will move away from my personal favorite and explore my thoughts on war.
I have found myself in all too many conversations about war and the like that end in someone telling my guns=safety/justice/freedom. I would identify myself as a pacifist and an isolationist. I would also say that I would go to many lengths to defend another persons right to chose to go to war in defense of their country as a martyr or as a fighter. There are people who follow the mantra inseparable from the legendary Malcolm X "[defense] by whatever means necessary", and their thoughts and reasons for that ideology is 100% as legitimate and deserving of respect as my pacifism.
So many intellectuals and philosophers of past and present have written and studied extensively this idea of "free will". I think these dialogues are so pertinent to the conversation we are having about propaganda and whether or not one should die for his country. In my created perfect world, a person is free from another persons persuasions and so is able to experience free will and therefore uninhibited thought definition. this is impossible in today's world with media and advertisements and oppressive capitalism and the socialized greed we are told we need to have.
in my mind, uncle sam is capitalism.
Great comments, all. And I want to echo everyone's thank you to Lauren for a class well led!!
Some of the things I'd love to probe more fully, if we had the time:
1) Marina writes, "....someone comes along who can put in words what everyone feels in their hearts, each feels: 'Yes! That is what I have always wanted and hoped for.'” I'm not sure what this actually means or what Marina is actually suggesting. In my view, when it comes to propaganda, it seems that the "someone" (who seems to remain so invisible---mayne the mask behind the icons and images?) shapes people's minds, leading people in a direction to "want" or "hope for" whatever "that" may be. In my reading of Marina's words, the direction goes in the opposite way. Our minds get pointed (but not entirely--we do have some agency) in particular directions. The Shaper.
2) On Jessica. I didn't find her annoying, actually. I found her clever, and wondered: did she, in fact, "take the power" and lead the story towards its actual outcome? She seemed key to the actions. Her actions did not seem accidental but intentional. Nobody needed to "empower" (as in "give her") power. She took it!! Olga seemed much more fawning over the guy than Jessica did, despite their superficial "appearances." I don't know if that was Sartre's intent, but it seemed to play out like that, at least for me. Fascinating stuff.
3) I agree with Bekah: Uncle Sam=political and economic interests, dressed up in patriotism
In short, I really wanted to point out the propaganda has an emotional context. That is why people tend to follow the ideas promoted in propaganda.
Anyhow, people choose sides all the time. Not choosing sides is also a choice. :)
I don't know if you will be coming back to check out the blog again, but I hope you do and hope you will check this out (Jon Stewart calling out the guys on Crossfire):
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/02/crossfire-jon-stewart-best-moment
Great discussion everyone! The blog is an awesome opportunity to encourage and challenge each other to find our voices as advocates for social justice. We get to practice making solid claims. Kevin you seem to be making some really interesting points about nation state, culture and whether one should die for their country. I'm still not clear about your claim. I would love to hear your reaction to Gina's points that could lead to a call for a restorative justice model, not just the "eye for an eye" cycle of violence. Your experience at Common Justice is invaluable here!
In regards to Jessica in Dirty Hands, how fascinatiing that Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir author of the seminal feminist text, The Second Sex http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Second_Sex.html?id=OgMbKqJMzxcC, had a very long and complicated love affair: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/09/26/stand-by-your-man?currentPage=all.
CHECK IT OUT. Fascinating to see how Sartre's real life is reflected in his work. I'd love to hear what you think about this. It begs the question: is the personal always political?
First, I would like to thank everyone for participating in the blog this week! I love hearing everyone's ideas on propaganda and position on Dulce et Decorum est. One comment that caught my attention in particular was Gina's comment on dying for one's country.
Gina, you state that "[you] believe there’s something inherently different when one dies in a war that’s, hypothetically speaking, based on a shared vision conceived on facts, and a war that is essentially a farce, one that’s serving the interests of political and economic elites instead of the greater good of the people." My question for everyone here is: where are we getting these "supposed" facts?
I believe in many situations, as I think Professor Waterston mentioned in class, propaganda is an elaboration and manipulation of "facts." How do we ensure that our "facts" have not been tainted by propaganda? Is there a way in which we can safeguard ourselves against this misleading information?
Kevin, I also love your mention of the French national anthem. To me, I feel Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est" is like an anthem against participation in the war. Owen is fighting the traditional view of dying for one's country through artistic means. Do you think Owen's use of brutal imagery is more effective in bringing "reality" to the people than Sartre's satirical play? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!
Post a Comment