Seminar on the truth of war
This gave us an oppurtunity to share our ideas with our classmates and hear perspectives that we might not have thought of yet.
Seminar reflection
During the seminar I heard one person mention the idea that they thought this was an anti war novel. They said that they thought it was an anti war novel because it didn’t glorify war and it talked about how horrible the front lines really are. I disagree because I think this book was just a realistic depiction of what war is really like. I think this book discussed how horrible the front lines really are because in reality the front lines are that horrible. This book is very different then a lot of the movies and books that we usually see and read. In a lot of the war movies that I have been surrounded with growing up its seems that these movies really glorify the notion of going to war and fighting for your country. They make it seem easy and heroic when really it is a terrible place full of death and destruction. Another thing that I heard someone say during the seminar is that you can’t ever appreciate how terrible war is until you’ve been there. When this was said I think that they meant that no matter how many books or movies you watch about war you will never really know what its like until you're fighting the war yourself. I agree with this and I wonder how it affects those who have experienced the horrible things that go on when someone who thinks they understand tries to converse with them about it.
The question that we kicked the seminar off with is “What do you think the truth of war is?” When I heard this question I realized that the truth of war is that no matter how much we try to trick ourselves into thinking that war creates progress it really does not. In the book it said, “One thing has become clear to me: you can cope with all the horror as long as you simply duck thinking about it – but it will kill you if you try to come to terms with it.” This quote means that anyone who tried to come to terms with all the death around them during war time will not ever be able to recover from what they witness at war. The way that I interpret this is that even if you survive the war you are either ruined because you lose your emotional connection to the world or you go crazy trying to come to terms with what is going on around you. When a generation of men is ruined by something then we can only trick ourselves into thinking that anything positive will come out of it. When you compare the convenience of the microwave or a jeep (two pieces of “progress” made during war) to the millions of men sent into disrepair. How can something that's only worth is to make something more convenient be considered progress when millions of men were killed or destroyed emotionally in order to make this so called progress. The truth of war for me is that no matter what revolutionary ideas come along due to war can they really be considered advances if even a single life was spent in order to make this idea.
When we discussed the idea that people can never recover from war it reminded me of a book that I once read with my mom. The book was called Unbroken which was about a young man who goes to war and his life is changed by what he sees. At the end of this book it talked about the PTSD that he ended up having because of what he went through during the war. At one point a plate of rice what put in front of him at a restaurant and this happened to trigger his PTSD. He flipped the table and started throwing things and searching for cover when he saw the rice. When I read about this episode that the character had it seemed odd to me that something as mundane as rice can incite such a large reaction. During the seminar we started talking about whether or not people can recover from these experiences. I think that although it would be hard to recover I do think it is possible. In this book the main character was slowly able to recover from. I think that this was the healthy thing to do. Even if his reactions was extreme at first the next time there was less of a reaction. This showed me that almost no matter how emotionally damaged someone is they can recover if they are surrounded by a healthy environment. So when the question was brought up, “Is it better to die at war or can you recover from what you’ve experienced?” I think that there is always a chance at recovery so no matter what life provides far better opportunities than death.
This book made me realize that no matter what kind of person you are if someone is shooting at you it won’t be that hard to justify shooting back. When people are shot outside of war the person shooting them is put in jail sometimes for life. What makes shooting someone at war any different. Does the fact that thousands are dying each day make one life worth any less. You would think that the fact that so many are dying would make people respect life a little more but instead people use it as a justification of more killing. This book really brought these thoughts a little more to the forefront of my head. When Paul says “Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony—Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?” This for me brought up questions about if someone does regret killing so much how can they do it so easily in the first place? When we get scared we tend to respond in violence. Paul fatally wounded this man then was stuck as the man slowly died in front of his very eyes. When he comes to the realization that maybe the people that he is trying to kill deserve to live just as much as he it made me realize that there is no way to justify a death no matter what. This book made me realize that killing at war is no different than killing in any other situation the only difference is that you won’t go to prison. This made me question about what gives the government the right to decide whether or not it fair to take a life. Why should anyone be able to justify such a thing?
The question that we kicked the seminar off with is “What do you think the truth of war is?” When I heard this question I realized that the truth of war is that no matter how much we try to trick ourselves into thinking that war creates progress it really does not. In the book it said, “One thing has become clear to me: you can cope with all the horror as long as you simply duck thinking about it – but it will kill you if you try to come to terms with it.” This quote means that anyone who tried to come to terms with all the death around them during war time will not ever be able to recover from what they witness at war. The way that I interpret this is that even if you survive the war you are either ruined because you lose your emotional connection to the world or you go crazy trying to come to terms with what is going on around you. When a generation of men is ruined by something then we can only trick ourselves into thinking that anything positive will come out of it. When you compare the convenience of the microwave or a jeep (two pieces of “progress” made during war) to the millions of men sent into disrepair. How can something that's only worth is to make something more convenient be considered progress when millions of men were killed or destroyed emotionally in order to make this so called progress. The truth of war for me is that no matter what revolutionary ideas come along due to war can they really be considered advances if even a single life was spent in order to make this idea.
When we discussed the idea that people can never recover from war it reminded me of a book that I once read with my mom. The book was called Unbroken which was about a young man who goes to war and his life is changed by what he sees. At the end of this book it talked about the PTSD that he ended up having because of what he went through during the war. At one point a plate of rice what put in front of him at a restaurant and this happened to trigger his PTSD. He flipped the table and started throwing things and searching for cover when he saw the rice. When I read about this episode that the character had it seemed odd to me that something as mundane as rice can incite such a large reaction. During the seminar we started talking about whether or not people can recover from these experiences. I think that although it would be hard to recover I do think it is possible. In this book the main character was slowly able to recover from. I think that this was the healthy thing to do. Even if his reactions was extreme at first the next time there was less of a reaction. This showed me that almost no matter how emotionally damaged someone is they can recover if they are surrounded by a healthy environment. So when the question was brought up, “Is it better to die at war or can you recover from what you’ve experienced?” I think that there is always a chance at recovery so no matter what life provides far better opportunities than death.
This book made me realize that no matter what kind of person you are if someone is shooting at you it won’t be that hard to justify shooting back. When people are shot outside of war the person shooting them is put in jail sometimes for life. What makes shooting someone at war any different. Does the fact that thousands are dying each day make one life worth any less. You would think that the fact that so many are dying would make people respect life a little more but instead people use it as a justification of more killing. This book really brought these thoughts a little more to the forefront of my head. When Paul says “Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony—Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?” This for me brought up questions about if someone does regret killing so much how can they do it so easily in the first place? When we get scared we tend to respond in violence. Paul fatally wounded this man then was stuck as the man slowly died in front of his very eyes. When he comes to the realization that maybe the people that he is trying to kill deserve to live just as much as he it made me realize that there is no way to justify a death no matter what. This book made me realize that killing at war is no different than killing in any other situation the only difference is that you won’t go to prison. This made me question about what gives the government the right to decide whether or not it fair to take a life. Why should anyone be able to justify such a thing?