(I've got to warn you of two things. One, I read ahead, so read at risk of spoilers. Two, I'm basically rambling, but it is rambling concerning AP Comp, so here we go. Enjoy if you can, haha.)
I'm really not sure on my thoughts, so let's make one thing clear, shall we? I hate war stories. I hate blood and bone breaking through skin; I hate bombs going off forty years after the battle; I hate seeing broken families pray for dead brothers; I hate boy soldiers shooting other boys soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam, the snows of Stalingrad, the hills of a divided America. Watching old men cry over bullet holes and Dear John letters breaks my heart. Rage and terror and pure, unbridled sadness rap at my ribcage just acknowledging what war is.
But what and why and how are war and the stories it leaves behind? It was chapter seven of The Things They Carried that took my string of reasons and pulled it apart. Wars stories are so many things, hate included, and O'Brien's prose pulled me along, breathing the words in and out and breaking down and building up what war stories are. Throughout the reading I realized, in the words of Rat Kiley, that I was a dumb cooze. I abhorred war from the get go, sometimes ignoring the very human, very real side of it, thinking it nearly pretty when printed on paper. I may not appreciate people killing each other for reasons they don't understand in a war that's so tangled up in hidden agendas that it's nearly a blessing that the media is doling out news and not the truth, but I can't just turn my nose up at it either.
"A true war story is never about war." I'm figuring that out as I devour O'Brien's words. I've never watched my best friend die or had a leech latch onto my tongue, I've never been drafted, ordered to fire, charge, bomb, kill, rinse and repeat. I hope I never do. I hate the pain that war presents us, but, for the first time, I'm starting to see that there's more there than negativity. I haven't figured it out yet, and I doubt I ever will, but maybe The Things They Carried will leave me less of a cooze than I was during chapter one.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Student Protesters and Change
This article certainly got me thinking. I was amazed by the Madison protests that we watched in class, but this article saddened me. Before 2008 I felt any number of emotions towards our government, our way of living, our country's stand in the world--but velleity was at the forefront. When I felt the spark of change I dosed it myself, believing I had no right to try and change the world when I couldn’t even ace a math test. It was the campaigns and my personal connection to them, for all their ridiculousness, that chucked that way of thinking out of my mind.
In a time when messages can appear in our hands instantly, I was confused by the writer's stance on technology. In a recent Time magazine, there was an article on how people rallied in D.C. for gay rights. They used Facebook to get the word out. The difference, I think, between Smith's students and these gay rights advocates was only that the latter actually cared. You can fill a person's head with whatever war info you want. You can shove newspapers under their nose, keep the TV on the news, or whatever. They still won't care in most cases. A personal connection can inspire far more concern than death tolls and war stories that don’t relate to the average teenager.
I was somewhat irked when “Lampert Smith: Times have changed for students protesters” pointed out that people preferred to gaze longingly at a screen than address the giant gorillas in the room. I can understand, I can empathize, but I can’t defend that kind of apathy. But as Buhle mentioned, times have changed—society, humanity, feelings—and it’s evident everywhere. A simple change in the American mindset could do wonders. Don't expect people to do things for you. If you want something, don't just sit on your butt and pray; don't complain about a president who's not working fast enough, hard enough. Get up and do something. Turn your thought into words into action into change. Thinking can be tough, doing something can be painful, but when you change the world for the better you'll be glad you miss that Grey's Anatomy episode.
In a time when messages can appear in our hands instantly, I was confused by the writer's stance on technology. In a recent Time magazine, there was an article on how people rallied in D.C. for gay rights. They used Facebook to get the word out. The difference, I think, between Smith's students and these gay rights advocates was only that the latter actually cared. You can fill a person's head with whatever war info you want. You can shove newspapers under their nose, keep the TV on the news, or whatever. They still won't care in most cases. A personal connection can inspire far more concern than death tolls and war stories that don’t relate to the average teenager.
I was somewhat irked when “Lampert Smith: Times have changed for students protesters” pointed out that people preferred to gaze longingly at a screen than address the giant gorillas in the room. I can understand, I can empathize, but I can’t defend that kind of apathy. But as Buhle mentioned, times have changed—society, humanity, feelings—and it’s evident everywhere. A simple change in the American mindset could do wonders. Don't expect people to do things for you. If you want something, don't just sit on your butt and pray; don't complain about a president who's not working fast enough, hard enough. Get up and do something. Turn your thought into words into action into change. Thinking can be tough, doing something can be painful, but when you change the world for the better you'll be glad you miss that Grey's Anatomy episode.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Animal Cruelty
(For those of you not in 3rd block AP Comp, we read a very one-sided article on animal testing and how it’s wrong, cruel, etc. This is a rather delayed response to the conversation held in class.)
First off, I’ll admit that I may be biased, that my mind is often swayed by both personal experiences and a trait where my logos fall to my pathos and ethos. However, my opinion is just as valuable as any. I wouldn’t be alive today if it weren’t for animal testing. I’m diabetic. When I was seven, my family rushed me to the hospital where I, phobia of needles and all, could only survive if I was injected with insulin. I won’t go into the details of diabetes, but insulin was made available to people through animal testing (pigs, if I recall correctly). So, yeah, I get the point for animal testing—it saved my life.
Needless cruelty is, however, needless. While this article was not the most eloquent that I have ever read and lacked in citations, it struck a cord. There are people today that do NOT give animals the compassion they deserve. Waffle with me if you like, call me a slave to PETA, tell me to go hug a tree, or what have you, but I’ve been exposed to enough injustices. We as a race often see ourselves as the creation almighty, ruler of the earth, and Darwin’s grand contender. Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t, but we don’t need to disregard other living beings just because we wrote ourselves some books, constructed concrete cities, wasted earth's natural resources, and use a whole 2% of our brains.
We set the standard for what is or isn't worth something, what does or doesn't qualify as knowledgeable. Throughout history, certain human beings were treated as—to put it nicely—utter crap. We've had discussions on the holocaust (which, mind you, incited anger when disregarded, but eyes rolled at animal cruelty) and the mistreatment of blacks in America and the general disregard for women. In the Holocaust, humans were experimented on by ‘Doctor’ Mengele. It wasn’t for beauty products, sure, but it was painful all the same. But, then again, it was done in the name of science—therefore it must be okay. The experiments were done on lesser beings, therefore it's fine. Those Jews and Roma were people though, with feelings and the ability to feel pain. I'm not trying to personify animals like Gopnik's daughter, but if you slap your dog upside the head, you cannot deny they'll feel it.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not saying we should cease all animal experimentation, just that humanity could cut back on the needless cruelty. It'll be hard, considering our species, but not impossible.
First off, I’ll admit that I may be biased, that my mind is often swayed by both personal experiences and a trait where my logos fall to my pathos and ethos. However, my opinion is just as valuable as any. I wouldn’t be alive today if it weren’t for animal testing. I’m diabetic. When I was seven, my family rushed me to the hospital where I, phobia of needles and all, could only survive if I was injected with insulin. I won’t go into the details of diabetes, but insulin was made available to people through animal testing (pigs, if I recall correctly). So, yeah, I get the point for animal testing—it saved my life.
Needless cruelty is, however, needless. While this article was not the most eloquent that I have ever read and lacked in citations, it struck a cord. There are people today that do NOT give animals the compassion they deserve. Waffle with me if you like, call me a slave to PETA, tell me to go hug a tree, or what have you, but I’ve been exposed to enough injustices. We as a race often see ourselves as the creation almighty, ruler of the earth, and Darwin’s grand contender. Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t, but we don’t need to disregard other living beings just because we wrote ourselves some books, constructed concrete cities, wasted earth's natural resources, and use a whole 2% of our brains.
We set the standard for what is or isn't worth something, what does or doesn't qualify as knowledgeable. Throughout history, certain human beings were treated as—to put it nicely—utter crap. We've had discussions on the holocaust (which, mind you, incited anger when disregarded, but eyes rolled at animal cruelty) and the mistreatment of blacks in America and the general disregard for women. In the Holocaust, humans were experimented on by ‘Doctor’ Mengele. It wasn’t for beauty products, sure, but it was painful all the same. But, then again, it was done in the name of science—therefore it must be okay. The experiments were done on lesser beings, therefore it's fine. Those Jews and Roma were people though, with feelings and the ability to feel pain. I'm not trying to personify animals like Gopnik's daughter, but if you slap your dog upside the head, you cannot deny they'll feel it.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not saying we should cease all animal experimentation, just that humanity could cut back on the needless cruelty. It'll be hard, considering our species, but not impossible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)