My Final Words on War

At the beginning of Humanities Core in fall quarter, my understanding of war was primarily centered around soldiers and how killing others permanently scarred them, often leading to post-traumatic stress disorder. As a Cognitive Sciences major, I am naturally interested in how extreme situations such as war affect people’s psychology. However, my focus drifted in an entirely new direction, towards civilians in wartime (See: Tags), as the year progressed and my view of war became more complex.

Meryl Streep in a production of Mother Courage and Her Children (Source: www.boston.com)

Early in fall quarter, I became particularly interested in the distinction between history from above and history from below. Whereas I did not care much for history from above (e.g. Homer’s Iliad) because I am already so used to seeing these kinds of violent, hyper-masculine portrayals of war in the media, I became very interested in history from below. Readings set from this perspective, such as Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children (1939), opened my eyes to the all-encompassing effects of war, which radiate beyond the structural ruins of war and soldiers who fought in it. This play, set during the Thirty Years’ War, explores the effects of war on commoners; however, Brecht denies the audience closure through Mother Courage’s lack of character development. As a result, the audience is able to critically analyze the aftermath of war without their judgment being clouded by joy from Mother Courage learning her lesson. I noticed that other plays, films, works of literature, and the like similarly deny the audience closure or a way to identify with characters in order to force them to think about—rather than feel for—what is portrayed. For instance, Ruth Kluger’s Still Alive: A Holocaust Girlhood Remembered (2003), an autobiographical account of Kluger’s experience in Auschwitz, rejects the idea of sentimentality so readers can critically think about the Holocaust. My Research Paper artifact, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979), similarly isolates viewers with its absurdity and lack of closure so they can consider the implications of the Vietnam War.

I also found propaganda very interesting. Unlike the aforementioned examples, propaganda exploits emotion and national pride in order to suspend thought and manipulate the masses. Before taking Humanities Core, I only thought of propaganda’s function in an oppressive regime, such as in Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany. However, as the year went on, I learned how widespread and insidious propaganda can be. For instance, it was used to increase anti-Communist sentiment during the Cold War and, more recently, to desensitize Americans to the use of torture. Although it is generally agreed that the media has a huge influence on people’s expectations and beliefs, Humanities Core cited concrete examples, which helped my understanding of the prevalence of propaganda. For example, in winter quarter, English Professor Rodrigo Lazo argued how “requisite torture scenes” in film and television—such as in the recent action-adventure film Deadpool (2016)—watered down people’s vehement disapproval of torture.

Although my primary interest became civilian life during wartime, I still remained curious about war’s effect on soldiers. I found out more about this when I interviewed Joseph, a veteran from the Vietnam War, for the Literary Journalism assignment. He recounted how strenuous training and the threat of fines molded him and his peers into disciplined, obedient soldiers who were ready to be deployed. Although he did not go to Vietnam himself, he witnessed many soldiers return home, irreparably damaged from the war. This raises the question of the morality of military training. Although this training makes soldiers more efficient, it also damages some of them so much that they are unable to readjust to society.

Soldiers’ training includes navigating through barbed wire obstacles (Source: www.commons.wikimedia.org)

The debate on the morality of military training was further complicated when English Professor Carol Burke discussed how the atmosphere of power in the military contributed to the development of a rape culture. As evident in The Invisible War (2012), there is a pattern of the military denying female soldiers who had been raped justice. Instead, the military refuses to take action and gives the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt, continuing this cycle of sexual assault. This injustice is particularly upsetting because the military enables this violence to continue solely to preserve their reputation. Not only are these abused soldiers scarred by their experience in war, but they are also traumatized by their comrades. Hopefully the awareness raised on this issue will cause more changes to be made, but as of now, this is one of the persisting flaws in the U.S. military.

By exploring war from a variety of academic disciplines, historical contexts, and perspectives, I have gained a more thorough understanding of war and its consequences. My current opinion of war is that it is more complex than I originally thought. Humanities Core has helped me recognize war’s direct and indirect effects on soldiers and civilians, the implications of the mediation of war to those on the home front, and corruption within the military itself. Although I still believe that war can never fully be justified because it is an inherently evil act, I think that a lot can be learned from studying humanity’s response to war.

Research Paper Updates: The Influence of the Media in the Vietnam War Era

After much thought, I decided to switch my artifact for the research paper from John Erick Dowdle’s No Escape (2015) to Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) because I think this film is more suitable for what I want to research, which is how and why the media actively shapes Americans’ perception of historical events. I am also especially interested in the role Orientalism plays in this process. Unlike No Escape, Apocalypse Now has a lot more historical significance because it was released shortly after the Vietnam War (1955-1975) and is considered one of the most famous films about the Vietnam War. In addition to that, there is more room for debate about the significance of the film and its portrayal of Southeastern Asians. While exploring this topic, I intend to consult Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), debates about “otherness,” scholarly interpretations of Apocalypse Now, historical evidence about Americans’ attitudes toward the Vietnam War, and biographical information about Francis Ford Coppola.

The photojournalist (left) accompanies Captain Willard (right) as he first encounters the Montagnards in Cambodia (Source: www.businessinsider.com)

Francis Ford Coppola is an accomplished director, producer, and screenwriter; his most famous works include The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Coppola’s Apocalypse Now—starring Marlon Brando and Martin Sheen–is an award-winning Vietnam War film that follows Captain Willard’s expedition along the Nung River to reach Colonel Kurtz, whom Captain Willard has been ordered to kill. The majority of the film focuses on the upstream journey, which represents the soldiers’ departure from civilization and descent into madness. Most of the movie was filmed in the Philippines, although some footage was shot in the Dominican Republic and the United States. Apocalypse Now was largely inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899), which explores the scope of man’s evil through its portrayal of Belgian imperialism in the Congo.

Since Apocalypse Now is one of the most famous Vietnam War films, I am interested in how its contemporary audience reacted to it, especially since it was released so shortly after the end of the Vietnam War. My working thesis is that Apocalypse Now reflects anti-Vietnam War sentiment its contemporary audience would have felt; however, it shifts the focus from soldiers’ physical injuries to their psychological trauma, at the expense of the Vietnamese. Although the combat scenes are portrayed spectacularly, the film undoubtedly highlights American soldiers’ psychological turmoil. In the film, Vietnamese characters are dehumanized and primarily used to advance the Western plot. For instance, as Captain Willard and the accompanying soldiers make their way up the Nung River, the soldiers kill Vietnamese passerbys because a woman protests while they are searching their boat. Although that woman survived, Captain Willard mercilessly kills her, presumably because it would be inconvenient to provide her with the medical attention she needs. Even when these soldiers kill Vietnamese civilians by mistake, evil triumphs when Captain Willard gives into his selfish desire to kill the Vietnamese woman merely to advance his mission. In addition to that, the fact that the soldiers become increasingly brutal as they travel up the Nung River implies that the Vietnamese are somewhat at fault for the soldiers’ transition into a more savage state of being. I am curious about the implications of this portrayal of war shortly after the Vietnam War, such as whether it influenced or changed the national attitude toward the war.

Research Paper Updates: Orientalism in the Media

For the final quarter of Humanities Core, we are free to explore our personal interests about war further in depth for the Research Project. We must choose an artifact from the time period we want to study and analyze its importance. I want to research whether portrayals of Orientalism in the media are used to retroactively justify decisions such as imperialism or the Vietnam War. I chose this topic because I found Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism very thought-provoking and wondered if it can apply to contemporary society. In addition to that, I have not seen a lot of contemporary analysis on Orientalism of Southeast Asia. My initial inspiration was when I watched the film No Escape, which seemed blatantly racist and problematic. I narrowed and refined my topic by further researching the concepts of Orientalism and otherness, and considered how they could be applied to this film. Sources that have been key in defining my research topic include scholarly articles on Orientalism and otherness and film reviews.

My artifact is director John Erick Dowdle‘s film No Escape, which was released in the U.S. on August 26, 2015. No Escape is about an American family, the Dwyers, who move to an unspecified Southeast Asian country because the father, Jack Dwyer, gets a job there. Shortly after their arrival, they find themselves amidst an insurgency and struggle to survive. The film largely focuses on how this rebellion impacts the Dwyers rather than Southeast Asians, whom this insurgency affects more. Dowdle’s most popular films have been horror films. In No Escape, he successfully terrifies the audience throughout the film in a way similar to horror movies. Director John Erick Dowdle works with his brother Drew Dowdle, who is the producer of the film. In 2007, John visited Thailand shortly after it experienced a peaceful insurgency; during his trip there, he began to wonder what would happen if he was stuck in a foreign country in a more violent insurrection, which inspired his idea for No Escape.

Alternate poster for No Escape (Source: www.avsforum.com)

No Escape was filmed in various Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia. I found it interesting that the film never specified the exact setting and only referred to it as a Southeast Asian country. I thought that that this conflated all Southeast Asian countries and classified them as “the other.” However, upon further research, I discovered that No Escape was inspired by an insurrection in Thailand. Dowdle chose not to identify the setting in order to honor the request of the Thai government. To comply with the Thai government, Dowdle also had to avoid using the Thai language, the color yellow because it is associated with the king, and depictions of the Buddha. In addition to that, Dowdle claimed that it was actually an anti-interventionist message because the rebellion arose from American exploitation of Southeast Asian resources, notably the water manufacturing company that Jack Dwyer works for. However, I think that this message falls short due to the portrayal of the Southeast Asian rebels as relentlessly violent, dehumanized killers. This particularly reminded me of Orientalism, which argues that the West reduces foreign countries—such as those in Southeast Asia—to primitive, broad stereotypes in order to establish the West as superior to them. In the past, this idea has been used to justify Western imperialism because it falsely framed imperialism as helping civilize a less advanced society. I think a similar dichotomy is present in No Escape because it characterizes the Dwyer family as innocent Americans who unfortunately got caught up in a Southeast Asian rebellion, while it characterizes the Southeast Asian rebels as one-dimensional characters who only care about terrorizing Southeast Asian civilians and foreigners.

I picked the film No Escape as my artifact because it really stood out to me as a problematic depiction of Southeast Asia in the media. Instead of picking a topic first and then finding an artifact, I did it the other way around. When I saw this film, I noted that I might want to consider it for my research paper (and previously blogged about it). No Escape really opened my eyes to the kind of harmful depictions of other cultures in the media and made me wonder about the function of these portrayals. My working thesis about No Escape is that it unintentionally contributes to American xenophobia, which makes it a contributor to Americans’ collective memory about events such as imperialism and the Vietnam War. I plan to find out more about my artifact by researching the film’s production through interviews with the cast and crew, film reviews that address whether or not the film is racist, and the events that transpired in Thailand that loosely inspired this movie.

Military Training: Tough Love or Unjustified Brutality?

English Professor Carol Burke’s interest in military culture led her to research the prevalence of superstitious charms in the military through a series of interviews; she published these findings in “The Things They Bring to War.” In Humanities Core lecture, she further analyzed military culture through the lens of Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987), which explores how military training psychologically wounds many soldiers. Our most recent Humanities Core project is the Literary Journalism assignment, in which we have to interview someone who has experienced war—such as a veteran or someone who was displaced due to war—and write a story that recreates their experience. Since I interviewed a veteran for this assignment, it was interesting comparing my interviewee’s experience during army training with the points Professor Burke brought up in lecture.

Representations of military training usually reveal superfluous verbal and physical abuse. Professor Burke claimed, “Basic training is a highly ritualized military rite of passage designed to transform identity, one that will allow its members to execute violence on command in the name of the state.” In Full Metal Jacket, this depersonalization of soldiers is epitomized in Private Pyle’s transformation from a joyful, goofy soldier who has a hard time performing tasks correctly into a sullen soldier who excels at following commands. The drill sergeant and soldiers’ harsh treatment of Private Pyle eventually drives him to abandon his individuality and concentrate on perfecting shooting, running the obstacle course, and the like. In my interview, Joseph admitted that during training, “There was so much yelling going on that sometimes it makes you crazy a little bit. You got people yelling at you and then you end up yelling like they do ’cause it makes an impression on you.” I thought it was interesting that in Joseph’s experience, “their power [is that] they [can] write you up and they fine you.” In addition to the verbal abuse, they added another powerful incentive to get soldiers to obey their commands: money. Based on all of these representations of army training, it does seem like the commanders and drill sergeants aimed to drive the soldiers to the brink, break them down, and reconstruct them as depersonalized killing machines, as Professor Carol Burke addressed in lecture.

The drill sergeant (right) rebukes Private Pyle (left) in Full Metal Jacket (Source: www.mentalfloss.com)

However, regardless of how unethical and mentally taxing military training is, it does create an efficient military. If soldiers go into battle with more lenient training, they would probably still retain their individuality and would not see themselves as part of a unit. In this case, it is likely that the soldiers will have an “every man for himself” mindset and will be reluctant to follow orders that endanger them. Soldiers in the military have to endure extremely rigorous training in order to be prepared for combat; compared to the risks of being unprepared on the battlefield, such as severe physical injury or death, depersonalization seems to be the lesser of two evils. In my interview, Joseph explained that a large chunk of his training included classes about safety. He stated, “They wanna get you ready for the real thing so you won’t make mistakes that are gonna cost you your life. They want you to be programmed like a robot, almost.”

Although military training seems more stressful and cruel than necessary, it has been proven to be effective. As my interviewee Joseph clarified, the commanders were very concerned about not letting the soldiers leave training unprepared for combat.

Types of War Stories: Civilians vs. Combatants

Although the effects of war permeate society as a whole, civilians and combatants have very different experiences of it. In general, the most common problems civilians can face in wartime are grappling with a loved one being deployed to war or being displaced from their homes due to the outcome of war; most civilians do not directly encounter the threat of death on a daily basis as soldiers do. However, my parents’ retelling of my grandparents’ experiences in World War II (1939-1945) revealed that they were part of the exception to this generalization. My mom’s parents lived in the Philippines when it was occupied by the Japanese (See “Piecing Together the Past” for a description of their wartime experience). My dad’s parents lived in Germany when it was being bombed by the Allies. Hearing about World War II from different perspectives marveled me about the countless subjective experiences of war.

In 1941, Nazi forces invaded Ukraine and implemented their “ethnic cleansing” policy by killing civilians who did not look Aryan (i.e. having blonde hair and blue eyes). Although Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust during Adolf Hitler’s reign, many non-Jews, such as Ukrainians, also died or were forced to become slave laborers. WWII finally ended in 1945 when the Axis powers surrendered to the Allied powers.

My dad talked about how his mother, who was originally from Ukraine, experienced life after WWII in Germany; he admits that he does not know a lot about her experiences during the war because she is so traumatized that she is still unable to talk about it. After WWII, the casualties in Ukraine were so devastating that my grandmother and her father fled to Germany. Eventually, she found a job milking cows for a wealthy farmer outside of Munich. During this time, the United States and Britain continued bombing Germany. The farmer my grandmother worked for generously offered his basement as a bomb shelter for war survivors. My grandmother and several others accepted his offer and lived in his basement for approximately a year. The farmer ensured that everyone had ample food and protection during their stay. Although my grandmother never witnessed any violence firsthand during this time, she heard the planes flying overhead and dropping bombs.

The opening of a typical air-raid shelter (Source: www.bbc.co.uk)

The stories my parents told me do not necessarily fit Tim O’Brien’s definition of a “true” war story in “How to Tell a True War Story.” O’Brien characterizes these stories as lacking a moral, failing to give the reader or listener a sense of closure, and seeming far-fetched. My parents’ stories seemed to have a moral and gave me a sense of closure. For instance, these stories illustrated how quick wits could save people’s lives during wartime and confirmed that there were altruistic individuals amidst war. In addition to that, these stories do not seem implausible in the context of war. In such dangerous times, people had to do whatever they possibly could to stay alive, even if it meant pretending to be dead amongst decomposing bodies or accepting an employer’s offer of shelter in his basement. Perhaps I only felt a sense of resolution from these stories because I know that things ended well. Or perhaps a “true” war story has a different definition for civilians who live through a war than it does for soldiers who fight on the battlefield; after all, although inhabitants of war-torn countries were undoubtedly traumatized by their experiences, they probably did not have to take another person’s life.

Hearing the stories of my grandparents helped me understand the complexity of war and how it truly affects the nation as a whole. Although my grandparents were noncombatants, they still experienced the terrors of war firsthand.

Shaping Meaning through Media

During the Cold War (1945-1991), the United States and the Soviet Union competed because they both wanted to emerge as the dominant world superpower. Rather than directly fighting each other, the countries demonstrated their rivalry in more roundabout ways. This tension between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. eventually affected society at large: American media spewed out anti-communist propaganda in order to create an unwavering bias against the Soviet Union and communism. By emphasizing the artificiality of media through various filming techniques and Mrs. Iselin’s publicity stunts, The Manchurian Candidate (1962) critiques how the media skewed people’s opinions during the Cold War.

This scene from The Manchurian Candidate demonstrates how anti-communist sentiment shaped individuals’ behavior during the Cold War. The scene begins with pan shot of the set and filming equipment, drawing attention to how media portrayals are unauthentic and highly polished. Rather than presenting the public with objective accounts of events, the media tends to be biased in what they represent and how they represent it. In addition to that, Senator John Iselin’s accusations about communists working in the United States government are always viewed from the television screen, as opposed to showing his rant head-on. This strongly parallels with how American media utilized anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War to convince citizens that communism was a tangible threat. The Senator claims:

I have here a list of the names of two hundred and seven persons who are known by the Secretary of Defense as being members of the Communist Party who are still nevertheless working in and shaping the policy of the Defense Department!

The threat of communists infiltrating the American government immediately piques everyone’s interest and incites their anger. The crowd does not dismiss Senator Iselin’s claims as preposterous because, through media, they have been conditioned to live in a constant state of anxiety over the communist threat. This depiction of how merely mentioning communism sparks the audience’s anger demonstrates just how much the media has distorted people’s perception of this foreign ideology.

The aforementioned details of the scene enable the viewer to draw a connection between the fallibility of media and Mrs. Iselin’s tendency to exploit publicity for personal gain; this strung-out situation criticizes how many powerful individuals have too much influence over individuals’ thoughts through the media. Senator Iselin is shown speaking on the television as his wife nods in approval. The juxtaposition of the Senator and his wife during the speech alludes to how Mrs. Iselin had explained the plan to her husband beforehand. Furthermore, in this shot, Mrs. Iselin is situated above the television screen the Senator is displayed on; this positioning likens Mrs. Iselin to a distant, omnipotent force watching from above as her plan unfolds. Although she does not hold any political power herself, she manipulates the media through the actions of her husband, which, in turn, affect public opinion. Ms. Iselin represents the sly masterminds who manipulated the media during the Cold War.

The Manchurian Candidate warns its contemporary Cold War audience of the extent to which the media impacts their view of communism. This is significant because the media often influence our thoughts subconsciously; as a result, without knowing what to look for, the media can potentially influence our thoughts without our full awareness. Being wary of the messages the media presents to us and the perspective from which they are told prevents us from adopting xenophobic ideas, such as the anti-communist attitude that was prevalent during the Cold War.

Political Agency as a Catalyst for Change

The pro-gun control video above shows well-known celebrities and actors naming the towns in which mass shootings have taken place. The seemingly endless slew of places affected by gun violence provides a tangible representation of how widespread this issue has become. It also appeals to national pride as a reason to demand gun control, implying that as Americans, we should all have a right to feel safe. This video was posted shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012; what strikes me is that it is still incredibly relevant today.

I still remember learning about the news clearly: as I was on my way home from my school’s Christmas program, I heard about the Sandy Hook shooting on the radio. I was nothing short of shocked and horrified; it seemed so surreal to me. Up until that point, I had believed that such arbitrary acts of violence only happened in movies. Unfortunately, due to the increasing frequency of gun violence in America, most of us—myself included—have become desensitized to it. Mass shootings have transformed from heart-stopping, tear-jerking events to just another mass shooting, and that is so devastating.

Fortunately, politicians such as President Barack Obama are working to resolve the issue of gun control. In a nutshell, Obama’s strategy to reduce gun violence in America involves: requiring all gun sellers to obtain a license and run background checks on customers who wish to purchase guns, making background checks more thorough and holistic, and investing more money into the mental health industry to help troubled individuals who have a propensity for violence. However, Obama’s attempt at modifying gun control laws has been futile because he is unable to obtain approval from the Republican-dominated Congress. One of the main issues with gun control is the government’s inability to keep up with the will of the people. According to a recent Gallup poll, the majority of Americans support stricter gun control laws; however, Congress continues to object to Obama’s propositions. I urge readers to vote in both congressional and presidential elections so that the ideologies of politicians in power will better reflect ideologies of the majority. It is common for citizens to simply not vote because they feel like their vote will not make a difference; however, that is simply not true. If everyone votes, the government will be composed of individuals who accurately represent citizens’ beliefs, and maybe gun control will be a more tangible possibility.

Another obstacle in the advancement of gun control laws includes American citizens who vehemently oppose gun restrictions. Many pro-gun rights people believe that gun control laws violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Personally, I think that there needs to be a compromise because the safety of the general population is more important than following a literal interpretation the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of American citizens, which includes their safety. Following this logic, the government should be able to make modifications if it will reduce the frequency of gun violence. In addition to that, many pro-gun rights people accuse President Obama of wanting to take away their arms; however, as explicitly stated in his gun control plan, Obama merely wants to impose restrictions on the circulation of guns in America. I support whatever measures we can take to reduce gun violence because I do not want to see more innocent lives lost and continue becoming desensitized to gun violence.

Although gun violence is not completely preventable, America can still take preventive measures to decrease its likelihood. Something had to be done after the Sandy Hook shooting, and something has to be done now. We cannot ignore the importance of this issue, as so many Americans have already been affected by it. Instead, we should exercise our political agency by voting in elections to make sure that political officials in power represent the needs of the people.

An Extensive Look At Torture

The general public can never fully comprehend the extent of torture, as it is a mostly underground occurrence that we are only exposed to in brief glimpses of news—such as the release of prisoners being tortured in the Abu Ghraib prison—and through distorted depictions in the media. I think that torture should be avoided unless in extreme cases, such as the time bomb case presented by Dershowitz.

Before the debate, I was against torture as a means of extracting information from suspects because it is easy for soldiers to get overwhelmed with the amount of power they have over those they are torturing. For instance, American soldiers extensively tortured and humiliated prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The controversial images that were released from Abu Ghraib demonstrated that these soldiers derived some kind of pleasure from degrading these prisoners.

During the debate, I had to defend a side that I did not necessarily agree with. Dershowitz made a good point about the ticking time bomb in which torture is presented as a necessary evil. The ticking bomb situation is one in which government workers capture an individual involved in a terrorist attack and torture him in order to obtain information about future terrorist attacks. This appeals to one’s sense of morality by presenting the audience with two extreme options: either treating this terrorist prisoner with dignity or by torturing him in order to save others’ lives. In this scenario, the cost of depriving an individual of his basic human rights by torturing him is less than the cost of letting many individuals die. I would agree with Dershowitz’s interpretation of this scenario. However, this situation is very rare and this method can be problematic. Even if this situation does happen, then there is a possibility that government officials can be torturing an individual who has no knowledge of the event at all, or even an individual who is not involved with the attack in the first place. For this reason, I am still mainly against torture because it is morally wrong and should be avoided as much as possible. Individuals should not be authorized to inflict pain on others because it gives them too much power. As demonstrated in Abu Ghraib, there is a risk of the torturers getting carried away with their job and continuing to torture individuals even after they have gathered all of the information they need.

“Dershowitz: Torture could be justified” was informative because it presented two opposing views of torture; while Alan Dershowitz advocates for the use of torture in extreme situations, Ken Roth contends that torture should never be allowed, regardless of the situation. Dershowitz attempts to justify torture by mentioning that through certain methods of torture, “countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords . . . secretly and hypothetically.” This attempts to put America’s use of torture into perspective: although it is morally wrong, other countries utilize torture too, so it might not be that bad after all. However, the fact that other countries engage in torture does not negate the fact that it is morally wrong. Dershowitz continues his line of thinking by stating, “If we ever came close to [using torture . . . ] I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.” Although I do not agree with his implication that the use of torture is inevitable and there are no better alternatives, I agree that the public should be aware of the methods of torture that are being employed. This way, the use of torture will not completely be in the dark and there will be more of a discussion about its immorality.

Ken Roth challenges Dershowitz’s argument by stating, “the fact that sometimes laws are violated does not mean you want to start legitimizing the violation by getting some judge to authorize it.” This accusatory wording makes it seem like Dershowitz wants to promote the use of torture by making it legal. However, Dershowitz makes it clear that that is not his intention because torture will happen regardless of whether or not there are warrants; however, these warrants will impose some regulations on the type of torture that can be used, who can use it, and when they can use it. Ken Roth further elaborates his point by saying, “Once you open the door to torture, once you start legitimizing it in any way, you have broken the absolute taboo.” I agree with this point; however, removing the taboo associated with torture will most likely result in people no longer brushing the issue under the table and actually having a conversation about it. Roth appeals to the audience’s sense of American nationality by stating, “We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, ‘Well, the U.S. is doing it, we’re going to start doing it as well.’” Roth then draws an extreme connection between torture and terrorism: “If you start opening the door [to torture . . .] you’ve basically sent the signal that the ends justify the means, and that’s exactly what Osama bin Laden thinks. He has some vision of a just society. His ends justify the means of attacking the World Trade Center.” This was very striking because terrorism is a taboo that no one wants to be associated with. By saying that torture is essentially a gateway to more atrocious acts, he implies that it can lead to events such as 9/11. Although the logic of this claim is not that sound, it makes a very emotional case.

Ultimately, I agree with Dershowitz’s claim that in the time bomb case, it causes less long-term harm torturing the individual involved in terrorist attacks in order to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. However, I do not think that Dershowitz’s argument could be applied to torture situations in general because these time bomb scenarios are rare. Rather than utilizing torture, the government can use other, less harmful technology in order to keep its citizens safe.

Grief Is Timeless

The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was a struggle of power between the Republican government and Nationalist insurgents. On April 26, 1937, German forces—allies of the Republicans—bombed the Spanish city of Guernica. Pablo Picasso’s Guernica artifactualizes the devastation of this bombing through its extensive portrayal of senseless violence and women seeking to grapple with the pervasiveness of death; since this depiction of suffering is applicable to any war or war crime, Guernica is a universal, timeless anti-war piece.

Through its striking, incoherent portrayals of violence and suffering, Picasso’s Guernica encapsulates the tragedy and chaos of the bombing of the city of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The distorted, overlapping shapes characteristic of Cubist paintings contribute to the artwork’s overwhelming sense of wartime anguish. Although the painting is not true to life, it successfully captures the raw pain relatives of the bombing’s victims experienced. On the left side of the painting, a mother mourns the loss of her son due to the attack. This poignant representation of loss evokes sympathy for all of the disaster’s casualties and mirrors what a devastating blow it was to the citizens of Guernica. In the center of the painting, a horse—representing strength—squeals in agony as it is pierced with a sword. This symbolizes how the unwarranted bombing of Guernica shook the solidarity of an otherwise strong nation. Picasso also utilizes wordplay to contextualize the painting: the light bulb above the horse alludes to the Spanish word for light bulb (bombilla), which sounds like the Spanish word for bomb (bomba). The painting’s overall lack of coherence references the fact that war is completely devoid of meaning; all of this chaos, suffering, and violence ultimately amounts to nothing. Picasso’s painting is so potent because it expresses the senseless destruction of war so perfectly.

Guernica portrays the tragedies of war that are most familiar to noncombatants—most notably women—on the homefront in order to garner more support against war. In “Picasso’s Guernica: A Matter of Metaphor,” art historian Rachel Wischnitzer cites Reinhold Hohl’s claim that “The women are the real victims of Guernica”; I agree with this claim. The woman on the left mourning her dead child quotes Michelangelo’s Pieta, a sculpture of the Virgin Mary holding Jesus in her arms as he dies. Michelangelo’s sculpture represents the most extreme symbol of sacrifice—Jesus giving up his life to save humanity. The juxtaposition of this religiously charged piece with the meaningless violence in the rest of the scene highlights how there was meaning in the story of Jesus’s death to Christians but there is no meaning in the deaths from the bombing. Key differences in the two artworks further reinforce this point. In Pieta, Mary solemnly holds Jesus, sad but accepting of his death; in contrast, the mother in Guernica uncontrollably weeps over her deceased son. Unlike the Virgin Mary, this mother does not have closure because the death of her child was arbitrary and meaningless. Picasso utilizes religious references to contrast how war is not meaningful in the way some deaths are.

The depiction of the ruins of war in Pablo Picasso’s Guernica serves as an emotional plea to end war. Since most of the population was not exposed to the horrors of war firsthand, they relied on depictions in the media in order to get a better sense of these unspeakable atrocities. In addition to causing many soldiers to die, war also afflicts those at home. These afflictions are the easiest for noncombatant citizens to relate to.

Exposing the Slaveholders’ Deceptive Ways

Fig. 1. Hale Woodruff. “The Mutiny on the Amistad.” Amistad Murals. 1939. Oil on canvas. Talladega College. Talladega, Alabama.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, slavery was prevalent in America. Many abolitionists, such as freedman Frederick Douglass, spoke out against the use of slavery, gradually shifting the national majority in favor of the abolitionist cause; abolitionists’ influence persisted past the Civil War Era, as evident in modern representations of slavery, such as those by African-American artist Hale Woodruff.

In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Frederick Douglass examines how slave masters maintained control of their slaves by granting them a brief vacation from work; this holiday overindulged slaves with the freedom they so desperately desired in order to discreetly present freedom as a cause that is not worth fighting for. Douglass introduces the winter holiday as “time [the slaves] regarded as [their] own, by the grace of [their] masters” (114). On the surface level, this break from work seems to be a voluntary act of kindness from the slaveholders. However, Douglass recognizes that these days off actually functioned as a tool to convince slaves that they are not missing anything because they lack freedom. During the holidays, the masters overindulged slaves with alcohol and leisurely activities, eventually “disgust[ing] the slave[s] with freedom, by allowing [them] to see only the abuse of it” (116). These holidays distorted slaves’ expectations of being free men by exposing them to the polar opposite of slavery—reckless, excessive freedom. By the time the holidays were over, the slaves felt sick of freedom; as a result, their masters would not have to worry about the threat of rebellion. Douglass exposes the slaveholders as ruthless manipulators in order to provide more reasons to rise up against slavery.

The method Douglass describes has striking parallels to Sun Tzu’s theory of war as the art of deception. Sun Tzu states, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” In essence, that is exactly what the slaveholders have done. They set aside this holiday to provide slaves with exactly what they want—freedom—but present it to them in a way that is entirely different from what it actually is. As a result, slaves developed the misguided impression that freedom is somewhat of a burden. In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Douglass states:

So, when the holidays ended, we staggered up from the filth of our wallowing, took a long breath, and marched to the field,—feeling upon the whole, rather glad to go, from what our master had deceived us into a belief was freedom, back to the arms of slavery. (116)

The brief period of overindulgence riddled with “filth” functioned exactly as the slaveholders intended: it acted as a buffer that delayed slave revolt. Rather than merely being obligated to return to work, the slaves were somewhat relieved to. Douglass dissected the slaveholders’ method to keeping their slaves under control in order to warn slaves of their masters’ disingenuous intentions.

“The Mutiny on the Amistad” (Fig. 1) by Hale Woodruff depicts a violent slave uprising; this is what slaveholders feared and tried to prevent through tactics such as those outlined by Frederick Douglass. This mural is part of a series that celebrates the abolishment of slavery. It depicts a noteworthy event in the Spanish slave trade: African slaves physically revolt against their captors, who show no signs of resistance. The slaves are portrayed as fearless and strong, fighting for their freedom; in contrast, their captors are seen surrendering or running away, with no true resolve. In addition to implying that slaves are more valiant than their masters, this illustration commemorates the bravery of slaves who recognized the urgency of the abolitionist cause. The mural’s vibrant colors and cartoonish style detract from the violence of the situation and instead romanticize the insurgency. By emphasizing the historical significance of the slave revolt, Woodruff urges slaves to fight against their masters, who—as suggested by this mural—do not have any real power over them. Hale Woodruff’s “The Mutiny on the Amistad” illustrates what can happen when slaves seek justice against their deceptive masters.

Abolitionists were largely responsible for spreading anti-slavery sentiment, encouraging slaves to fight or run away from their masters and the majority of Americans to disapprove of slavery. Their influence was so powerful that it extended beyond the post-Civil War Era, inspiring works of fairly modern artists such as Hale Woodruff.