Humanities Seminars

The Roots of War: Seminar Reflection
Q1.  What sentence or passage in this piece do you have the strongest reaction to? Copy it, explain it.
            “To indorse, one more time, in the metaphor of war as a kind of living thing, a parasite on human societies: The idea of a war to end war is one of its oldest, and cruelest, tricks.” This is the piece that I think impacted me the most because of the simple and true fact that she has found that as long as there is even one person out there that hates another person, it will elevate and become a war, and then the cycle will continue. I wish that was not the truth, but it is.  What she says, “it is the oldest and cruelest tricks,” is true to me because we say it is all over, but then another one comes up. I still personally hope that someday it will stop, but until we get it through our skulls, war won’t. So what most people hope for won’t happen. What I’m trying to say is that I think what she is saying is that the simple fact of this is that it won’t stop.

Q2. Why in the 2nd to last paragraph does she say of some traditional anti-war strategies, “they will make little contribution to the abolition of war”? Why does she think they won’t work?
I think it’s because some of the things that she listed; abjuring violent speeches, critiquing masculinist culture, and promoting respect for human diversity. Someone won’t agree with one of these and do it anyway and will get another to do the same thing. If we promoted respect for human diversity, one guy might think that he shouldn’t and rebel.  At that point, more people might agree with him and help rebel, starting another possible war again.  Well, that plan didn’t work, we can get one step forward, but then that one person will pull is two steps back.

Slaughterhouse 5 Reflection
1.       My reaction in this was really not that big on this seminar only because it took a while for me to get into the end. There was one thing where I agreed with something that was said by Bryan and Hannah and that was that time can go forward but in different directions. This told me that it can and that is one of the things that I got out of this seminar

2.       In the seminar I had no change in thinking during it because what my thinking is that time goes forward but in different directions, but still forward because though you can change things that might have happened in the past that can be changed in the future, like patching things up with a friend or with family. You can do that, but you can’t go back. It isn’t changed because nobody gave me a chance to actually believe them.


3.       A connection that I got from this seminar was many other projects and other papers that we have done and how we say that if we could, would we change what we did. This is because I know that we want to change things that have happened but we can’t. There are things I want to change about what has happened in my life and those simply were moving to Cascade Village and getting bad grades in my years of school. I wanted to change them all but it won’t happen because the past is the past and it has happened. One more was a time line in general, because on a time line you can see the things in the past, but you can’t go back to change it either. We can also see what we have done in the past which sometimes, could be a good thing.

4.       In all honesty, I think that this was by far the one seminar that I couldn’t complete, because when I talked I was too quiet and was come in on the worst possible parts of the seminar. This was not at all my best and was really bad. Always in the bad though, come some good things that I did and those were trying to bring people like Seth and Tyler in the conversation twice in a row. Another was that I think that I turned the conversation a little bit when I finally spoke aloud about saying that we all have a tiny bit of Billy in us, saying that we all had (or have) a little crazy and passive in us, how we all are. Though I didn’t do that well, I think that I did do some things that made up for my speaking than last times. I’m planning on raising my volume, and being more active all together in seminars from now on. This is a goal that I’ve needed to get down for a while, but am starting to do more frequently, so I’m getting back on track.




Deogratias




Being Peace:
1.) In this seminar many people had different ideas about the the
fourteen mind trainings  and each were interesting to hear about. One
of the things I heard was from from Kelsey, saying that on the idea of
us being not able to except us. I thought this was interesting because
we got on this topic before and it was one thing that I personally
thought that you learn how to except the older you get. So she made me
have to think about what I really thought. One of the connections I
made in this was when we talked about how in the Third Mindful
Training, it says that "suffering brought about when we impose our
views on other, we are to force others, even our children, by any
means whatsoever-such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or
indoctrination-to adopt our views." When we read this in the seminar
and had a huge discussion about it I thought of something in years
past about nobody imposing others and pushing them with force. In
school, I remember that when being bullied it all can be part of the
Third Mindful Training; what happens and how we must see it. I can
recognize what happens, and when this happens because it happened to
me many times from years past to now. Everyone has felt it and it has
gotten in the way with our judgment of what we want. What was really
enlightening in this seminar is that I found everyone was open about
the conversation we were having about the things we needed to work on,
it showed me that not everyone is as thoughtless of what they do and
should work on. An example of this is that when I spoke of the things
I needed to work on, I got other people to agree that I needed to and
that others needed to work on the same thing (the Seventh Mindful
Training.)
I think that the reason we don't really get in touch with ourselves is
because we don't want to see what we truly have in us, or see what we
have done. I think this way because when I talk to some people they
seem to know more about another person than themselves. Kelsey hit it
right on dot by saying that people do this a lot. People don't want to
see themselves and like other people better than they like themselves.
I personally see me as a person that doesn't want to see myself and
know others more than me because I don't want to see me and am afraid
to see myself for what I really might be on the inside, if it's
negative or positive.
As said in the paragraph above, when people don't want to see
themselves' they also don't want to see themselves because they don't
want to because they are scared to see themselves. Here is an example
of that; a man that has a good life, lead a good one, has a family and
a good job, in school he was the school bully and did bad things. This
type of person would not want to see in himself because he might see
himself as that still. Another example of this is really personal,
after I moved I went to school and got bullied, threatened, and
harassed a lot. Now when I talk to people they see me and think that i
am fine and I act it. Behind the certain though, I see myself as that
scared little kid. It was something in the seminar that showed me
this. Kelsey started to talk about how people are scared sometimes and
she looked right at me and it gave a subtle signal to me that I should
think about it and found I am one of those people. This question too
has shown me that people can still change from this because they have
time to let it go or just except who they are. This excepting can take
a lot of your stress and replace it with relief if you do.

Omalas:
    1.    This was the most interesting seminar that we had done this
year I think. Maybe it was because of the group or maybe it was the
people actually talking. I had seen and personally had a shocked
reaction all throughout the seminar because of two in particular
people through this and they were Kinjah and Cora. Kinjah constantly
told things like how he thought that they were and never backed down
with them, which everyone was surprised about. What shocked and made
me think a little was when he said that this is a metaphor of our
world with third world countries and the countries on top. I think
that this was the one that caught us off guard. I thought that was
interesting because l never thought about it that way. It was a new
way of seeing it. when I read this I thought that it was a story about
a place with a dark secret in a closet space. When I think of how
Kinjah said that it was a world thing I started to see it that way,
that is how I saw a connection after words. I made a connection to
this and it went well with it and that was that in a peaceful world
there will always be consequences to it. In this day and age what we
see is peace (where we live and how lucky we are) and everywhere else
if you open your eyes can see that there are places that are horrific
because there is nothing there. They live poorly while we live with
no strife it feels. This I think is what Kinjah was talking about when
he said this. I think that Kinjah was right when he said this because
when I read it I can see it unfolding to show this big picture of our
world.
2.    During this seminar I had a few connections to it and the
biggest one was to a personal thing and that was that in seventh grade
I had gone to DHS to go see the play, "Fiddler on the Roof". During
the end of the play the matchmaker, Yenta had said to the wife Golda
that she was going to the holy land. Nobody after that knew where she
went and disappears. In this story at the end she says that the people
just get up and leave. Nobody really knows where they go. When I
started to look back on both though, I thought I saw a connection to
seeing death and going with it to rest. That is how I saw that
connection. Kinjah had made me think of something else with this and
that was a when he said meet death, I thought of Harry Potter and how
the three brothers had died but one came to death as an old friend,
maybe that really was where they were going. Another connection that I
had during this reading that this is like a Brave New World almost
because it seems that it is peaceful but there is a cost to it. With
is came another story we read and that was Slaughter House 5. In this
book they had one simply fraise, "so it goes" and that was it, in this
story they do the same thing in the middle of the last few paragraphs.
She had a simple three worded fraise in the paper that simplified what
happened to the people: "They go on."
    3.    Why does the author think we can't describe happiness in our
society (line 37)?
            I think that she thinks this because the happiness in us
isn't a real happiness. The happiness that we have is through items
that we can obtain. Personally I know what true happiness is, I think
that it would take a lot of effort for me to get there though,
everyone gets some type of new type of technology and we feel happy
that we have it. If on the other hand that something better comes out
we don't feel happy with the one you have, you want a newer thing and
you won't feel happy till you get it, you'll feel content, but not
happy. I think that this is what our happiness is and it is hard to
see a happy man on the streets now because there is always something
that we want and that will take away from us. I thought of this in the
seminar and that is; "True happiness will never go away, bus monetary
happiness will eventually disappear. Your never truly satisfied with
monetary happiness, with true happiness you are." in line 37 she says:
"we can no longer describe a happy man nor make any celebration of
joy." This is true to me because i think that we can't anymore for the
same reason she does I think; we don't know what that looks like
anymore. We see things with out eyes and see what we want to see and
in that we don't see. What I mean when I say that is, don't see with
your eyes, see with your heart. Sometimes the eyes fool us so see with
your heart. I think that that is she was meaning, we can't see it
anymore because we don't know what it looks like and can't see it in
people anymore.
    4.    Another way of seeing this is that when trying to describe
something like that is really hard to do because we don't see much of
it anyway. When I walk down the streets, don't see many people without
something to distract them from everything. We can't see it because
the happiness that we see isn't the right kind that she is talking
about. We say that we are happy with what we have till it's gone and
that's true. When we lose it though we feel sad and want something
else. Teenagers are really susceptible to this because we want a lot
of things and when we get them we want something else that seems
better and better each time. We see things that we think that we will
want to be happy and it never really happens like you want it to.
    5.     Did she really make this to show the world we live in right now?
            Do you really think that a place like Omelas really exists?
            When she talks about how the people just leave and
disappear, why didn't she follow to find out where they really go?
            If there were a world where you lived in peace other than
one person who gets beat, who you leave like the others, save the
child so everyone can be at peace, or do nothing and why?
I'm answering the last question that I made because this child I think
is a vital part of this place and that everyone deserves a chance to
feel happiness in their lives. I would do the first two things in the
question because though it's the way that they live; basically killing
a child in a closet, it's not right to have to see him suffer. People
think that it might bring disorder if this happened because the flute
player couldn't play, but I don't think that if one is happy the other
is supposed to feel pain and anguish like what he was feeling. After
saving the poor child, I'd be leaving this place like the others
simply because it seems the right thing to do; since death most likely
is the thing that happens to a person when they leave I'd leave
because I could except death as a friend by then. The reason why I'd
die after words for that child is because when I'm young (younger than
I am now) I probably wouldn't care what happened to the child till I
was older and understood what was happening. I think that either way
all these things would lay a part to save this child because though it
seems cruel to sit and watch the fight happen, in the end the others
will come to their senses and stop what they are doing to the child
and leave. Someday a child might see what's going on and actually
take him say from this place, then leave the world in peace knowing he
is safe.

Dulce:
1.) In this seminar, many questions for me were answered and many
questions came up. I was surprised to hear what one person in
particular said about "Dulce" and that was Chad. We were talking about
how if this was a choice or not for it to be sweet and right to die
for your country. Chad said that it was your choice to say if it was
right to die for your country and for the right circumstances of
dying. We all agreed that it was OK to die for your country if it was
to protect your country from a threat, but if it was to take something
from them like resources we don't have or to get rid of something, it
was bad. I had never heard Chad talk this much during a seminar either
which was surprising too. It really made me think about what I thought
because I thought that it was only OK if you wanted to die for your
country. He also said that it was a thing where you see it and you
think that it is so cool to do it and you want to. Then, when you get
there, it is a whole new story. To really know what it is like to be
at war, you need to be there and experience it firsthand. I agreed
with this because we don't really know what it is like till we are
there and doing it ourselves.

2.) From reading this and this seminar, I had learn how to read and
interpret poetry. The way I learned to read this was going through it
and seeing it all play out and how you think about it. If you can do
that and read it, you can read it and it will be easy for you to do.
Another way that I learned how to read this is to be open minded.
Because if you read a poem closed up it doesn't wound right. In the
poem we read in the second stanza, line six, "as under a green sea I
saw him drowning." if you can read this open minded, you can read that
that moment was hard for the person to see his friend was dying.
Interpreting the poem to me is like reading it. To interpret something
you need to think of the poem openly. "Dulce et Decorum est Por Petria
Mori" in translation it all together means "It is sweet and right to
die for your country," I think that this is a quote from this that you
yourself have to answer because you can take this anyway you want. A
poem is not just something you read it is something that can bind
people together and is a way to tell people what you think. This poem
after understanding it and reading it I think is a beautiful poem
because it is memorable to us as readers.

3.) Personally I think that it is OK to die for your country if it is
for the right reasons. When I say the right reasons, I mean to protect
your family, friends, and people of your country from an enemy that
threatens their lives. If you are a child that thinks that war is cool
because you've seen it in games and you hear of it and you want to go
in a war think again. If you go and you think that everything will be
fine, your world will be turned upside down. It is a lie that
everything is sweet and right because it isn't sweet and it isn't
right all the time. I don't think it is right to die for your country
if it isn't for protection of your country and the people in it. If it
is for blowing up another country or to take over and get some land
for yourself then no, it's not right. It is a nightmare for me to even
have to think about having blood on my hands because I took a life.
Death is a thing that if you do it you can't get rid of it. The image
of death won't leave. Though you may feel sorry for the things that
you did while protection and serving, if it is for the good of the
nation so they won't get hurt, then I think it is fine to go off and
join. Just be prepared for the things that will happen and the things
that might happen while you’re young. Wilfred Owens said as the last two
lines in this poem "The old lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro Petria
Mori." I think that he is right when he says that because like I said,
not everything is good and right.

Jihad/McWorld
This was about how the world no matter what we do, will go to chaos if one of the two wins. Jihad is to separate the world through religion and that would separate family and friends and they would rebel and battles would start up and eventually a war would break out. Jihad is basically a technological world that we are close into turning to that side of the world. If this happens we will stay in the same way we are and still go to war like we are now.
Geopoliticus Child:
This was a painting that a man made about the world during war times. He showed how a horrific man was coming out of this and how man kind really was. It showed that man was coming from North America and was destroying Europe and Africa. South America started peeling off the world too. The people standing there watching this were watching a birth of a man. We made stories that went along with this and our interpretations on how we saw this painting and why they were there and what was really happened with all different elements of this painting.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)