So I stumbled upon this and I figured this would be a nice final post for all of you to enjoy as we approach spring break:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
V for Vendetta: Post-Class Reaction
Towards the end of class a concept struck me. Humans as individuals or in groups need to feel safe or in control, and often those two overlap. This came to me because in this novel and in other cases we have seen that when a disaster happens there is always someone who pulls everything together and tries to keep it together. In the case of Moore’s graphic novel the Leader pulled everything in too tight and the level of control he thought was necessary, was actually ultimately too much and detrimental. But think about it, even on a personal level, when things are going on that are distressing to you or feel bigger than you, don’t you wish that you were able to have full control of the situation or maybe that someone else took control of the situation? When things get overwhelming and there are tons of reading for school, tests, internships and whatever other things that tend to pile up become too much, then one becomes edgy, uncertain and stressed. The chance for a negative outcome is too distressing of a thought, one wants to know that it will all be alright in the end. Or maybe if some accident happens or things are a mess, like maybe you just suffered a bad car accident and you are panicking; some people would want for another person to handle the mess because it is too much for them in their state of panic. This is on the micro level of what happened to Britain due to the disaster of war and destruction around the world; some people wanted someone to fix it for them and others wanted to take control and do the fixing their way, which is what Leader must have done. And later V took control, and transformed Evey from a meek sheep that wanted someone to keep her safe (and control and make sure that everything in her life is ok) to someone who was able to assume that control. I just found that an interesting idea, because there seems to be need for that control on one level or another, and of course everyone wants different levels of control. But I can say that everyone (except maybe for a very small number) want to live in a controlled situation either by their own hand or by the hand they trust to keep things under control. Because very few people would say they want to live in chaos where nothing is certain, and the risks and dangers are high, because that’s like living your whole life with the ground ripped out from under your feet, always falling and twisting and not knowing what to do or what is coming at them next. People need a certain level of certainty in their life in order to stay sane, and control they accept (no matter who wields it) lets them live more at peace.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Class 3/4
England Prevails.
In what way, I do not know. One of the main things I took from class today was that we are really not sure what happens next. In most books you are given at least a hint as to what happens.
All we know is that Evey becomes the new V and takes on Dominic as her apprentice. One would assume that they are going to continue the original V's work but to what end. We agreed that he wanted an overthrow to at least the Fascist Regime but our analysis began to break down in determining whether he was just anti-fascist or anti-government in general.
I am very glad that pretty much everybody else, with the exception of he whom shall not be named, agreed that in comparison to the novel the movie is a complete piece of junk. The eliminated some of the best parts for the movie and turned the entire story into a criticism of Bush instead of the overarching criticism on fascist states that Moore was going for.
I am quite pleased with the discussion we had. Now it is off to prepare the Wikipage before Spring Break.
In what way, I do not know. One of the main things I took from class today was that we are really not sure what happens next. In most books you are given at least a hint as to what happens.
All we know is that Evey becomes the new V and takes on Dominic as her apprentice. One would assume that they are going to continue the original V's work but to what end. We agreed that he wanted an overthrow to at least the Fascist Regime but our analysis began to break down in determining whether he was just anti-fascist or anti-government in general.
I am very glad that pretty much everybody else, with the exception of he whom shall not be named, agreed that in comparison to the novel the movie is a complete piece of junk. The eliminated some of the best parts for the movie and turned the entire story into a criticism of Bush instead of the overarching criticism on fascist states that Moore was going for.
I am quite pleased with the discussion we had. Now it is off to prepare the Wikipage before Spring Break.
Reflection on Class 8
The part of today's discussion that made me think the most was the interplay between a math teacher and V's method of opening a person up to reality. In both situations, the teacher is explaining something that most of the students are certain they don't want to learn. In both cases as well, however, the student ends up valuing what they learned (if not through verbal acknowledgment, then through their constant use of it). I feel as though there are many people who could currently use a refresher course in freedom and liberty, albeit not as harsh as V's lessons. People seem to have this annoying trait called "fickleness" - it has this annoying side effect where they forget whats actually good and not so good for them soon after learning. Its getting kind of old - "never again shall we have war." Look how that turned out. "Never again shall there be genocide." Failure. "Never again shall there be slaves." In name, this is technically true - but what about sex slaves, and child laborers and so forth? I feel like Americans, comfortably clothed and well-off, have no need to consider what our state of life really means liberty-wise. "Yeah, so theres starving people and oppressed people - but since I am doing well, its probably their fault that they're in that situation." Not even all Americans realize the extent of the problems in the world, much less in their own communities. Ignorance is no excuse - in fact, it merely reflects poorly on our nation. Land of the brave, home of the free? I feel like we've lost the meaning behind that maxim some years ago. This is unacceptable to me - I for one am not willing to let this wonderful nation with its outstanding potential to do good in the world fail and lapse into hedonistic destruction - it happened to Rome, and I will not let it happen to us. Enough complaining, enough excuses - change spending around to feed and clothe everyone. Educate all people on how to be truly free, and then only let them graduate when they clearly demonstrate understanding of the necessity to be self-responsible as well as part of the community. I am certainly not yelling at anyone in class; I am merely frustrated with the way the world is, and specifically the way our nation is poised to continue in coming years. Vote Ron Paul - all joking aside, he brings a third dimension to the political scene, whereas Democrats and Republicans argue really loud but are actually pretty similar in most ways. If not vote for him, at least go look into what he has to say - consider what politicians do from day to day, and compare that to what the Constitution sets out as their powers. Its ridiculous.
America can Prevail Again, if people started trying again (that doesn't have the same ring to it, but I stand by it)
-Mike
America can Prevail Again, if people started trying again (that doesn't have the same ring to it, but I stand by it)
-Mike
Reflection, Class 8
I like our discussion today, especially how we focused on whether V was justified in what he did to Evey because it was something I wrestled with while reading. I'm still not sure if he was, just due to personal morals and the horror she went through but at the same time, she was stronger afterwards. As Lena said, she was kind of annoying at the beginning. There's the quote, "Ask not why the bell tolls, it tolls for thee" well, she did at lot of asking and protesting a bit too much. I think I'm more convinced now that he was in fact justified in doing what he did based on our discussion.
As for Rosemary, I hadn't before seen V as manipulating her actions just because I felt that the men in her life who died were "bad guys" anyway and she just had bad luck. But with V's access to Fate and his impressive planning skills, it's makes sense that he would have gently bumped her in the direction she took. She got fed up enough that she was able to find the strength to kill the Leader when V needed her to.
I also liked our discussion of whether everyone is guilty. A knee-jerk reaction would be that no, not everyone is guilty and should be punished but the party members and certainly the ones in charge would be guilty. I'd have to side with V's levels of guilt but then again, I'm not inclined to look favorably on those who stood by and did nothing during the Nazi regime so why should I in this case? For practicality's sake we can't punish everyone because then we become them, and it's sort of hard to do numbers-wise. It is a matter of responsibility, as V says. If they take responsibility, and sort of repent I guess, then maybe we can let them off. Those who see nothing wrong with all of it certainly should have their heads examined or something. The winners/majority enforcing their beliefs over the minority again, which of course never goes wrong. Interesting, perplexing questions, all of it.
As for Rosemary, I hadn't before seen V as manipulating her actions just because I felt that the men in her life who died were "bad guys" anyway and she just had bad luck. But with V's access to Fate and his impressive planning skills, it's makes sense that he would have gently bumped her in the direction she took. She got fed up enough that she was able to find the strength to kill the Leader when V needed her to.
I also liked our discussion of whether everyone is guilty. A knee-jerk reaction would be that no, not everyone is guilty and should be punished but the party members and certainly the ones in charge would be guilty. I'd have to side with V's levels of guilt but then again, I'm not inclined to look favorably on those who stood by and did nothing during the Nazi regime so why should I in this case? For practicality's sake we can't punish everyone because then we become them, and it's sort of hard to do numbers-wise. It is a matter of responsibility, as V says. If they take responsibility, and sort of repent I guess, then maybe we can let them off. Those who see nothing wrong with all of it certainly should have their heads examined or something. The winners/majority enforcing their beliefs over the minority again, which of course never goes wrong. Interesting, perplexing questions, all of it.
Monday, March 3, 2008
V For Vendetta
Let me begin by saying how much Alan Moore is a genius, not to mention he has an awesome last name. Just kidding, but I absolutely loved the novel and all of the subtle details he included.
This is the first time I have read the novel but I have seen the movie several times. When I saw the movie I thought it was excellent, now I know that the movie was good but it cannot even hold a candle to the original. The way they changed the characters and events in the movie do make for good screen time but it takes away some of the key factors in the original story.
For example, in the movie the Houses of Parliament are the last thing destroyed while V is receiving his Viking funeral. This, I believe, was done so that the most recognizable symbol of London was the finale. However, this completely changes the story. Since in the novel that is the thing he destroys on that first night, rather than building up to the finale of destroying the symbol of London at the end, it is destroyed at the beginning. Therefore, it is not some kind of progression to anarchy, but a clear pronouncement right from the start that institutions have failed England.
Another thing that was changed for the sake of movie audiences was Evey's backstory. In the movie she is out after curfew to try to meet up with her friend the TV personality and her crime is simply that she was out too late. In reality, she was prostituting herself when caught by the fingerman. Therefore she is not really the sweet innocent girl the movie makes her out to be.
The next part with the TV guy in the movie is also when Evey is captured by the fingermen that is actually V. Since the TV personality was a completely manufactured character it clearly does not line up with the fact that she was in fact captured by V again while in trouble on the streets.
In addition, the movie virtually ignored almost all of the other party characters. Their involvement seldom went beyond: here is an important person to the plotline, now their dead. Whereas in the book substantial development was done on them before they met their untimely ends, including entire stories of their wives which was not even mentioned in the movie.
I also believe that the movie did a very poor job at conveying the details of V's plans while at the same time leaving a marked sense of confusion throughout. The novel did this superbly but the movie failed miserably at it.
I realize the majority of this has been a rant against the movie but I have two reasons for doing this. Number One: I have seen the movie and was shocked at just how much they changed from the novel. Number Two: I know that whatever I write actually about the novel will by no means come close to being at the level that it should be talked about.
I the immortal words of the movie that I cannot remember: I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!
This is the first time I have read the novel but I have seen the movie several times. When I saw the movie I thought it was excellent, now I know that the movie was good but it cannot even hold a candle to the original. The way they changed the characters and events in the movie do make for good screen time but it takes away some of the key factors in the original story.
For example, in the movie the Houses of Parliament are the last thing destroyed while V is receiving his Viking funeral. This, I believe, was done so that the most recognizable symbol of London was the finale. However, this completely changes the story. Since in the novel that is the thing he destroys on that first night, rather than building up to the finale of destroying the symbol of London at the end, it is destroyed at the beginning. Therefore, it is not some kind of progression to anarchy, but a clear pronouncement right from the start that institutions have failed England.
Another thing that was changed for the sake of movie audiences was Evey's backstory. In the movie she is out after curfew to try to meet up with her friend the TV personality and her crime is simply that she was out too late. In reality, she was prostituting herself when caught by the fingerman. Therefore she is not really the sweet innocent girl the movie makes her out to be.
The next part with the TV guy in the movie is also when Evey is captured by the fingermen that is actually V. Since the TV personality was a completely manufactured character it clearly does not line up with the fact that she was in fact captured by V again while in trouble on the streets.
In addition, the movie virtually ignored almost all of the other party characters. Their involvement seldom went beyond: here is an important person to the plotline, now their dead. Whereas in the book substantial development was done on them before they met their untimely ends, including entire stories of their wives which was not even mentioned in the movie.
I also believe that the movie did a very poor job at conveying the details of V's plans while at the same time leaving a marked sense of confusion throughout. The novel did this superbly but the movie failed miserably at it.
I realize the majority of this has been a rant against the movie but I have two reasons for doing this. Number One: I have seen the movie and was shocked at just how much they changed from the novel. Number Two: I know that whatever I write actually about the novel will by no means come close to being at the level that it should be talked about.
I the immortal words of the movie that I cannot remember: I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!
V for Vendetta: Pre-Class Reaction
As Mike talked about this book really does make you think about the society you live in and how plausible it is that could happen in our world. There is something really creepy about the way these people have come to live. And personally the hypocrisy of the government is another thing that really irks me; hypocrisy in any case is a pet peeve of mine. In this book characters like the pedophile clergymen (as Jen mentioned) the other corrupt government officials who see the other citizens as a joke and beneath them (like Lewis Prothero, and the other men working with him, or Creedy who on page 198 hires basically a thug to do the violence for him and promises him power). All these things would repulse anyone with a sense of justice.
But I want to talk a little about the characters. In the beginning I really disliked Evey and became indifferent to her in the end. I understand the growth of her character was important to show what V did for her and she symbolizes the sheep the people have become, but I guess I just didn’t like what she stood for. V was of course an interesting character that also quiet controversial. First of I feel like he is meant to represent a Godlike figure: he is manipulating peoples’ lives, watches everyone and knows what they are doing and he passes judgment on people. His past and cryptic talk makes him a mysterious although sometimes frustrating character (much like Evey finds him). This raises the ever complex question: did he have a right to do what he did? Just like in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in Dune the main characters shape the world how they see it should be for others and their society (often resorting to violence). A concept that ties to this is where V discusses anarchy, chaos and fascism; he tells Evey on page 195 that anarchy is voluntary order, compared to fascism which he earlier calls falls forced order and a society that is on thin ice. I found this one of the key points in the book. Also when looking back on this page I noticed that he called her Eve not Evey. But this raises the question: what will happen to society? Will people who were used to strict control and who just now tasted chaos be able to settle down and live in voluntary order?
The last concept that I found interesting is the concept of 2 faces of anarchy…the creator and the destroyer. This once again goes back to the theme of balance (for examples Zorg’s speech on chaos in the 5th Element). It is interesting that the authors presented this balance in 2 people, V and Evey. He is ruthless and methodical in his goals while she more than once expresses the fact that she doesn’t want to kill (on page 177 she says let it grow). I found that a very nice way to tie the story together and hint as to what will happen with her, and her role in society past the point where the book ends.
But I want to talk a little about the characters. In the beginning I really disliked Evey and became indifferent to her in the end. I understand the growth of her character was important to show what V did for her and she symbolizes the sheep the people have become, but I guess I just didn’t like what she stood for. V was of course an interesting character that also quiet controversial. First of I feel like he is meant to represent a Godlike figure: he is manipulating peoples’ lives, watches everyone and knows what they are doing and he passes judgment on people. His past and cryptic talk makes him a mysterious although sometimes frustrating character (much like Evey finds him). This raises the ever complex question: did he have a right to do what he did? Just like in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in Dune the main characters shape the world how they see it should be for others and their society (often resorting to violence). A concept that ties to this is where V discusses anarchy, chaos and fascism; he tells Evey on page 195 that anarchy is voluntary order, compared to fascism which he earlier calls falls forced order and a society that is on thin ice. I found this one of the key points in the book. Also when looking back on this page I noticed that he called her Eve not Evey. But this raises the question: what will happen to society? Will people who were used to strict control and who just now tasted chaos be able to settle down and live in voluntary order?
The last concept that I found interesting is the concept of 2 faces of anarchy…the creator and the destroyer. This once again goes back to the theme of balance (for examples Zorg’s speech on chaos in the 5th Element). It is interesting that the authors presented this balance in 2 people, V and Evey. He is ruthless and methodical in his goals while she more than once expresses the fact that she doesn’t want to kill (on page 177 she says let it grow). I found that a very nice way to tie the story together and hint as to what will happen with her, and her role in society past the point where the book ends.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Moore and Lloyd
Well, I liked this one. And, frankly, I didn't find it as different from the movie version as Professor Jackson made it seem. Yes, of course the movie didn't do it justice, but at least they kept some things. People died the same, for instance. And the domino thing. :) Anyway, what can I talk about? I did the wiki this week, so I feel like it's coming out my ears. But I'll touch on some of the themes I found.
First, it's interesting to see how religion is used in the novel. The state motto is "Strength Through Purity. Purity Through Faith." so they obviously have faith as a core element. How much of this is the party and how much was influenced by Adam Susan is hard to tell, but his...interesting discussions with his "god" certainly played a role, I am sure. The clergymen support the state in homilies but behind closed doors, the one clergyman we see isn't very pure. He has a taste for the younger sort, but I suppose you can give him credit for keeping it heterosexual, at least doctrinally speaking. He uses a religious text as a seduction tool, hardly a man you'd want to be in the upper levels of church hierarchy. Religion has been corrupted the same way the state has, which is an interesting spin on it.
Second, protection for the citizenry by the state. Surveillance is the way of life in this alternate London. Cameras are on every street and in every home. Whole branches of government are dedicated to spying on the citizens, the Eye and the Ears. Invading the privacy of citizens has become a small price to pay for security and the retention of control. As I said on the wiki, and something Mike might have included in his own post, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin. Civil liberties have become essential these days and something we take for granted all too often.
Lastly, I'd like to touch on the dichotomy between insanity and sanity. The novel played around with the concept a lot. Was V insane? I'm not sure he was. I think he was coldly, extremely rationally sane. He planned everything out precisely and seemed to plan for everything. Can we call him insane just because we can't fathom the rationale behind his plan? Yes, V killed people. But that makes him a murderer and following the old "eye for an eye" moral code. He certainly was pushed to it. We don't know why he was at Larkhill, just that he was and ended up in room five. I think that anyone could be driven mad going through what he did. Maybe his plan for breaking out and revenge later was enough to hold him together and shake off whatever signs of mental breakdown the doctors saw. They also could have misdiagnosed. I thought it was interesting how the novel played around with sanity and freedom. Whatever freedom V seems to have achieved came after his bout of insanity. Evey reached it after being pushed to the breaking point. Finch seems to have gotten there with LSD. V finds all the normal people to be in prison, perhaps sanity is a prison then? It seems plausible considering reports of the effects of insanity and highs: losing inhibitions, feeling different, etc. And all of this is turning into one of those cyclical philosophical questions.
So I'll end for now and leave you with my own set of freedom quotes:
...everything can be taken from a man[or woman], but one thing: the last of the human freedom's--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to chooes one's own way. ~ from Man's Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl (much like Valerie's one inch)
I know but one freedom and that is the mind. ~ Antoine DeSaint Exupery
There is not liberation without labor, and there is no freedom which is free. ~ The Siri Singh Sahib
Freedom is not the right to do as you please, but the liberty to do as you ought.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~ Soren Kierkegaard
When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny. ~ Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826) (A bit like V's governments should be afraid of the people, yes?)
First, it's interesting to see how religion is used in the novel. The state motto is "Strength Through Purity. Purity Through Faith." so they obviously have faith as a core element. How much of this is the party and how much was influenced by Adam Susan is hard to tell, but his...interesting discussions with his "god" certainly played a role, I am sure. The clergymen support the state in homilies but behind closed doors, the one clergyman we see isn't very pure. He has a taste for the younger sort, but I suppose you can give him credit for keeping it heterosexual, at least doctrinally speaking. He uses a religious text as a seduction tool, hardly a man you'd want to be in the upper levels of church hierarchy. Religion has been corrupted the same way the state has, which is an interesting spin on it.
Second, protection for the citizenry by the state. Surveillance is the way of life in this alternate London. Cameras are on every street and in every home. Whole branches of government are dedicated to spying on the citizens, the Eye and the Ears. Invading the privacy of citizens has become a small price to pay for security and the retention of control. As I said on the wiki, and something Mike might have included in his own post, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin. Civil liberties have become essential these days and something we take for granted all too often.
Lastly, I'd like to touch on the dichotomy between insanity and sanity. The novel played around with the concept a lot. Was V insane? I'm not sure he was. I think he was coldly, extremely rationally sane. He planned everything out precisely and seemed to plan for everything. Can we call him insane just because we can't fathom the rationale behind his plan? Yes, V killed people. But that makes him a murderer and following the old "eye for an eye" moral code. He certainly was pushed to it. We don't know why he was at Larkhill, just that he was and ended up in room five. I think that anyone could be driven mad going through what he did. Maybe his plan for breaking out and revenge later was enough to hold him together and shake off whatever signs of mental breakdown the doctors saw. They also could have misdiagnosed. I thought it was interesting how the novel played around with sanity and freedom. Whatever freedom V seems to have achieved came after his bout of insanity. Evey reached it after being pushed to the breaking point. Finch seems to have gotten there with LSD. V finds all the normal people to be in prison, perhaps sanity is a prison then? It seems plausible considering reports of the effects of insanity and highs: losing inhibitions, feeling different, etc. And all of this is turning into one of those cyclical philosophical questions.
So I'll end for now and leave you with my own set of freedom quotes:
...everything can be taken from a man[or woman], but one thing: the last of the human freedom's--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to chooes one's own way. ~ from Man's Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl (much like Valerie's one inch)
I know but one freedom and that is the mind. ~ Antoine DeSaint Exupery
There is not liberation without labor, and there is no freedom which is free. ~ The Siri Singh Sahib
Freedom is not the right to do as you please, but the liberty to do as you ought.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~ Soren Kierkegaard
When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny. ~ Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826) (A bit like V's governments should be afraid of the people, yes?)
Liberty with a side of Insanity
Hello everyone:
Having read the whole novel, I wanted to write about my favorite part of the entire thing - the scene from page 39-41. This is the point in the book where V goes to the top of the old Bailey and is talking to the statue of Justice, and filling in both parts of the conversation. Here, he is speaking to her about how he used to love her from afar, but then she cheated on him with a uniformed man in jackboots [the new facist government], so he has found another: anarchy. He then proceeds to place the heart-shaped box at the feet of the statue, and walks away. The bomb then blows up and destroys the statue and the building.
The reason this resonates with me is partially the dark humor in the situation, but also the scary parallel to the real world of today. Specifically, I am thinking of post 9/11 America, one where the average citizen meekly submits to the various things the Federal government took as "necessary changes" after that fated day. For example, every time I go into an airport, I am forced to take off my shoes and all the metal out of my pockets. I then must make sure all of the fluids, gels, etc must be beneath a certain size and stored in a ziploc bag; if they aren't, I am required by law to throw them away. Then theres the odd dynamic of the TSA video they play on loop - the bit where once you begin the process, you must continue and by law are not allowed to leave. Thats really, REALLY scary - queuing up to use the private plane ticket we paid for, and then forced to submit to Federal security (that drains tax dollars substantially) because they have outlawed private security forces from working airports? This is not the same US government I have been taught about throughout the course of my education. I would argue that many people feel the same way that I do (listen to the grumbling in line next time you fly), but what confounds me is that people aren't motivated to fight for their freedoms, one of the things that IS worth fighting for in life.
Let me focus more narrowly on the topic at hand in the scene I presented: justice. The US has never been perfect; neither has any other country. I just find it very peculiar that the way our justice system works is changing the way it is. "Innocent until proven guilty" used to be a bastion of the American legal system: now it is "guilty until proven innocent if we think you might have thought the word 'terrorist' in your life, and we won't let you have legal counsel." I am not sure about anyone else in the course, but this REALLY CONCERNS ME. These sorts of reasonings are what were used in the novel, when the Leader convinces people that giving up freedoms in order to also be free from hunger and war is worthwhile. The problem with curtailing civil liberties in wartime (even though we aren't in a conventional war) is that they aren't so easily reclaimed from the Federal government after the fact.
The specifics of this War on Terror are what confound me - we are fighting against hungry, angry peoples who the US' foreign policy has not treated fairly or even consistently, yet we wonder why they hate us? Perhaps if we didn't supply both sides in almost every armed conflict since WWII, the issues at hand wouldn't be as bad. We supplied Iraq and Saddam against Iran. We trained bin Laden against the Soviets. We supply weapons to the Israelis, and money to the Palestinians, and then wonder why they don't get along and don't like us. Perhaps if we pursued an agenda of sustainable long term aid to all people, and stopped selling weapons as often as we can, maybe there would be less wars. This current schizophrenic series of foreign policy choices certainly isn't working. In fact, this exact sentiment was expressed (albeit in different words) by a certain diety in the American pantheon, a Mr. Washington: "The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations." What a great idea - too bad in this century of American policing of the world, we cannot quite fathom why this is a good idea. I want to defend myself from those who might call me isolationist - I love to travel, I enjoy other nations and cultures, and I am firmly in favor of free/fair trade (depending on the specific situation) - I just don't see why we need to get ourselves tangled into millenia-old conflicts. Thats pretty arrogant of us to assume that after the Arabs and Jews have been mutually of distrustful of each other (and sometimes outright hostile) for many, many years, that we could support both sides and then make peace.
I feel as though these quotes, plus the preceding quote from Washington, cover my feelings on this matter:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine
Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.
-9/11 Commission Report
"Justice is meaningless without Freedom"
-V, page 41
-Mike
Having read the whole novel, I wanted to write about my favorite part of the entire thing - the scene from page 39-41. This is the point in the book where V goes to the top of the old Bailey and is talking to the statue of Justice, and filling in both parts of the conversation. Here, he is speaking to her about how he used to love her from afar, but then she cheated on him with a uniformed man in jackboots [the new facist government], so he has found another: anarchy. He then proceeds to place the heart-shaped box at the feet of the statue, and walks away. The bomb then blows up and destroys the statue and the building.
The reason this resonates with me is partially the dark humor in the situation, but also the scary parallel to the real world of today. Specifically, I am thinking of post 9/11 America, one where the average citizen meekly submits to the various things the Federal government took as "necessary changes" after that fated day. For example, every time I go into an airport, I am forced to take off my shoes and all the metal out of my pockets. I then must make sure all of the fluids, gels, etc must be beneath a certain size and stored in a ziploc bag; if they aren't, I am required by law to throw them away. Then theres the odd dynamic of the TSA video they play on loop - the bit where once you begin the process, you must continue and by law are not allowed to leave. Thats really, REALLY scary - queuing up to use the private plane ticket we paid for, and then forced to submit to Federal security (that drains tax dollars substantially) because they have outlawed private security forces from working airports? This is not the same US government I have been taught about throughout the course of my education. I would argue that many people feel the same way that I do (listen to the grumbling in line next time you fly), but what confounds me is that people aren't motivated to fight for their freedoms, one of the things that IS worth fighting for in life.
Let me focus more narrowly on the topic at hand in the scene I presented: justice. The US has never been perfect; neither has any other country. I just find it very peculiar that the way our justice system works is changing the way it is. "Innocent until proven guilty" used to be a bastion of the American legal system: now it is "guilty until proven innocent if we think you might have thought the word 'terrorist' in your life, and we won't let you have legal counsel." I am not sure about anyone else in the course, but this REALLY CONCERNS ME. These sorts of reasonings are what were used in the novel, when the Leader convinces people that giving up freedoms in order to also be free from hunger and war is worthwhile. The problem with curtailing civil liberties in wartime (even though we aren't in a conventional war) is that they aren't so easily reclaimed from the Federal government after the fact.
The specifics of this War on Terror are what confound me - we are fighting against hungry, angry peoples who the US' foreign policy has not treated fairly or even consistently, yet we wonder why they hate us? Perhaps if we didn't supply both sides in almost every armed conflict since WWII, the issues at hand wouldn't be as bad. We supplied Iraq and Saddam against Iran. We trained bin Laden against the Soviets. We supply weapons to the Israelis, and money to the Palestinians, and then wonder why they don't get along and don't like us. Perhaps if we pursued an agenda of sustainable long term aid to all people, and stopped selling weapons as often as we can, maybe there would be less wars. This current schizophrenic series of foreign policy choices certainly isn't working. In fact, this exact sentiment was expressed (albeit in different words) by a certain diety in the American pantheon, a Mr. Washington: "The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations." What a great idea - too bad in this century of American policing of the world, we cannot quite fathom why this is a good idea. I want to defend myself from those who might call me isolationist - I love to travel, I enjoy other nations and cultures, and I am firmly in favor of free/fair trade (depending on the specific situation) - I just don't see why we need to get ourselves tangled into millenia-old conflicts. Thats pretty arrogant of us to assume that after the Arabs and Jews have been mutually of distrustful of each other (and sometimes outright hostile) for many, many years, that we could support both sides and then make peace.
I feel as though these quotes, plus the preceding quote from Washington, cover my feelings on this matter:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine
Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.
-9/11 Commission Report
"Justice is meaningless without Freedom"
-V, page 41
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
