One thing about violence that I learned from Peter van Uhm, Anwar Congo and his friends is that in war, you never get over the things you do or see. Anwar Congo was part of a death squad that tortured and executed Chinese people who were thought to be communists. In the video that we watched Anwar talks about the methods that he and his friends would use to kill people, and you can see that Anwar is trying to forget about what he did to those people. One thing that Peter van Uhm taught me is that when he is telling the story about his fathere being a soldier and trying to shoot down Nazi’s but not being able to because he was given a bad gun, and he was so upset about it that when he died, he still had not gotten over it. So in conclusion one
thing that we can learn from Peter van Uhm and Anwar Congo is that in war, there are always images that stay stuck in the back of your brain. One thing that definetly surprised me about Anwar Congo is that when he was explaining the methods that he used to kill people, he talked about it so calmly, as if it was something that he was used to. Another thing that surprised me about him is that in the video there is a scene where he is making his grandchild apologize to a duck that his grandchild accidentally hurt, and this guy killed millions and he never apologized to any of their families. One thing that surprised me about Peter van Uhm was the fact that he said that he didn’t like guns, even though he is a soldier and he works with guns. Another thing that surprised me about Peter van Uhm is that he talks about the gun as if it is an instrument, not a weapon. In my opinion, Anwar Congos view of violence is absoulutley awful, he has killed millions of innocent people and he talks about it as if it was nothing, sure he tries to forget about it, but it is still horrific, the way he was talking about it in the video showed that he had no sentiments for the people that he was torturing. Peter van Uhms view of violence in my opinion is sort of complicated, he is for it and he is not for it, atleast that is how I understood it.
G.K.Chesterton once quoted, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” The novel Three Day Road by Joseph Boyden, recounts the struggles of a Canadian soldier through his tedious and terrible experiences fighting for his country against the Germans. Throughout the novel, the protagonist was disgusted by the blood and trauma war brings, however, he knew that it was imperative to kill, or else he would not have survived. In war, it is kill or be killed, someone who is wise will kill to survive and protect his country, as well as avenge his family or comrades.
Combat requires a certain emotional inertness. I am unable to kill something I empathize with as a human being. I need a reason to hate the enemy I am at war with; I need to be able to dehumanize the target. At first, as Caputo did, I would be unable to ignore the fact that the Vietcong are human beings with every right to live as I have. Following the brutal attempts to kill me, I will easily lose my own humanity as well as that of the enemy. It is the ethical wilderness that facilitates this dehumanizing transition. Once it is recognized that the enemy has dehumanized you, it is commonplace to return the favor.
My Cousin Vinny is a classic comedy movie involving mostly underrated actors, but somewhat more surprising is the accuracy of which it depicts the court proceedings. The movie portrays all of the significant aspects of an actual criminal trial, however it leaves out less “entertaining” portions of the court process. This being said, I would recommend this movie to anyone who does not have a basic knowledge of courtroom proceedings, as it hits on all of the major aspects of a trial in an exciting and comical manner, keeping the viewer entertained throughout the entire film, which one would not receive from any other piece.
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
Wieviorka, M (2009) Chapter 1, “violence and conflict” Violence: a New Approach. Pp 9-26. SAGE: London
By and large war is the enemy itself as it causes men to rearrange their mindset and tests their mental capacity. A traumatic event at the very least war takes men and molds them into beings with more animal instinct than human inclination. Remarque's novel All quiet on the western front perfectly demonstrates how war can affect a man's psyche when tested give a kill or be killed ultimatum. Without the help of carnage imagery and unique symbols the themes
Though violence shouldn’t always be your “go-to” solution, in harsh times of oppression it can be morally justified. When pushed to a breaking point, an outburst can be viewed as a turning point that can either make or break your cause. Though there have been instances throughout history where violence led us down a dark road, there have also been instances where it has held a candle up in a dark room so that the path to a better future can be viewed in its full glory.
War is the worst thing in the world because it ruins people’s life. One example is from the text “Armed & Underage” by Jeffrey Gettleman it says, “Their growth has been stunted by conflict-induced famines, their psyches damaged by all the killings they have witnessed. ‘What do I enjoy?’ Awil asks. ‘I enjoy the gun.’” This is actually saying how a young boy’s young life was
In the second lecture, the orator devotes careful attention to why it is essential to comprehend in what manner human beings resist and respond to violence, but also what differences it can make. He also articulates that it is important with the details in all contexts as in that way everybody acquires a clearer noticeable depiction of how individuals reply to ferocity.
An apostle is an messenger. Simon Peter, Andrew, James son of Zebedee, John, Philip, and Bartholomew were key Apostles that had dedication to serve Jesus and carry out Jesus’ mission. Jesus selected them because he thought they were able to disciple to his followers and be an example of Him. The Apostles were important foundation stones of the Church and their faithfulness to the Church was shown throughout their lifetime. Some of Jesus’ Apostles denied and betrayed him, hurting Jesus, not his true followers but some didn’t and stayed with Jesus through all the hardship.
Life and death, kill or be killed, both are phrases used to describe war. Soldiers in war are pressured to think these phrases in active duty. In the many ways soldiers think of these results, they begin to reflect on the alternate situational outcomes. In “The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed,” the characters ponder what could have been if their actions had ended differently. These works illustrate how the soldiers cope with the idea of someone dying and how things could have been different if the individual had survived.
I never realised how much this impacted civilians as well as soldiers. To take them out of their comfort zone like that and make them point guns at each other is disgusting. Thinking about Chien’s brother made me think of my own brother, who I care so much about. I can never imagine losing him, or anyone in my family. Chien was all alone there, he didn’t have his wife to comfort him and he hadn’t contacted his brother in such a long time! I stuck my hand in the box and pulled out another letter which was dated June 1968. The paper smelt foul and felt as if it would crumble in my hands. I could barely make out the
I choose to watch “The surprising decline of violence” by Steve Pinker. In this particular video, Pinker compares the twentieth century with the twenty-first century, by showing the viewers statistical facts, and references from the bible. Throughout the lecture, Pinker shows the audience that we live in a much more peaceful world than our ancestors did. Although Pinker knows this is just the beginning of the twenty-first century he is able to prove that the current human race is headed towards a peaceful destination. Pinker really emphasizes the physical aspect of violence and was able to prove his claims with research. Pinker then gives the audience some possibilities on why there has been a decline in violence, the first one being “Hobbes got it right”, the second explanation, “Life is cheap”, the third explanation, “Nonzero-sum games “and the fourth explanation, “Expanding Circle”. Pinker then hits the audience with a hard but a truthful question why it's there peace and war in this world and what are we doing not only right but also
While some events justify and legitimize the use of violence, too many acts are overshadowed and overthrowing the idea that violence is legitimate.
“Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital.”[1]