As I declared in class, my keyword shall be the word “war”. War is defined as a conflict large enough to authorize the usage of armed forces. It is a concept that has been with humans from the beginning of civilization and I can give you a lengthy history of war or I can just link you to the Wikipedia page. What I will discuss in this post is how this keyword is used in current times. Of course, the very mention of war brings thought to the War on Terror. Today, we can see banners and posters displaying “Say no to war” and the like. Immediately, “war” is referenced to the one we are currently in rather than the poster meaning say no to war in general. I find it particularly interesting that these pacifistic activists only stand up during times of war, and go about their daily lives during peacetime. Hardly do I ever see groups of people with banners and posters saying “preserve the peace” and such when we're not at war. Actually, I'm pretty sure some people do carry peace signs with them everywhere but those people are hippies and I've mentally blocked them from my vision. The point is that word “war” has the power to draw great attention and activity amongst normally civilized people.
Despite all the negative connotations that war is associated with, it is still a very attractive concept to the American audience. Films like 300 and the three Rambo movies which revolve around war are widely successful. By the way, I stress that there are only three Rambo movies ever made and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and should be shot. Look at that, even my everyday use of words seem to suggest military violence. Even war based video games are praised by how realistic they are compared to real war. What makes war so damn bloody appealing? One such reason might be because the media always portrays the military to be a symbol of masculinity and strength. Another reason might be because we feel that war brings on a sense of patriotism and defending our beliefs. Or maybe the human race is just a violent race to begin with. That might be a very cynical perspective of our society but I dare over half of you all to honestly say that you haven't shouted out “This is Sparta!” once in your life.
Biological war is another usage of the word that was prophesied to be the format of the next war. Obviously, our current war is still being fought with bullets, bombs, and sons. I suppose we haven't reached the level of full biological warfare, yet the horrifying image of life-form based weapons still exists. I find biological warfare particularly terrifying because all our war based games will then be like Trauma Center and Dr. Mario. Putting how the concept will affect the entertainment industry aside, its interesting how we can so easily empower the fear of war with imagery such as biological weapons. We fear that war will bring all sorts of different kinds of horrifying deaths as technology advances such as disease or nuclear apocalypse. Perhaps terror and fear is where the power of this keyword comes from.
So now, we have this War on Terror. When I looked up war in a dictionary, one of the first definitions was a conflict between nations or parties within nations. However, what we have here is actually a war on an abstract idea. By the way, I should give mention to those honorable and brave soldiers in Iraq somewhere in my post... and that's done. Anyway, wars against objects other than nations have been in existence for quite awhile. I've declared war against Macs ever since they came out with the ugly and equally useless iMac G3 series. The word “war” is often tossed around in place of “competition” or “conflict” when used in phrases such as gas price wars or mafia wars. Placing the word “war” in those terms makes them more dramatic and powerful. Be it affecting people, concepts, or even phrases, the power of the word “war” seems to stand on its own level.
Oh, and war is also a card game. Yes it is.
Finals week...
14 years ago
1 comment:
There is a strange wavering in your post between general and partial claims. For instance, you conjecture that the human race could just be a violent race; but then as evidence, you estimate that at least "half" of your readers have cheered for a movie about a mythical war—not that half of your readers have killed another person, but that half of your readers have watched a Hollywood film about killing. So how can you rest on a general claim about humanity when your evidence is based on a certain portion of human *spectators*? This logic does not hold up, especially given that you are trying to make an argument that has grave implications. If you are simply trying to defuse the seriousness of war, I think you could do it more cleverly by pointing at the ways in which entertainment networks and visualization technologies have rendered 'war' a cinematic event that is abstracted from the tearing of human flesh. Do you see what I mean?
This sentence is very provocative: "Perhaps terror and fear is where the power of this keyword comes from." If this is the case, it would be paradoxical that we have a war on the very sensations that allow for 'war' to exist in the popular imagination.
This is a good beginning, but I have to say that it was not one of your more successful posts. Usually you are able to make your reader completely rethink a subject by gaining a humorous perspective; in this case, your post belies a kind of reverence for a subject that seems also to slip through the grasp of your prose. For instance, your claim about "hippies" contains a mixed metaphor of mental and actual vision; furthermore, your post ends up recognizing this group, which you have told us you don't do. And again, this labeling of a general group ("hippies") threatens to sound incredibly narrow-minded, A) as if there ever was (or is) a coherent group called "hippies," and B) as if this group is entirely and consistently positioned against war. Even the most cursory study would reveal that soldiers can become resolutely anti-war, and that in certain contexts so-called 'hippies' have resorted to violence.
What are the more subtle difficulties with the idea(s) of war in 2008? What are the implications of these difficulties? Your post risks sounding brash about a subject that does require enlightened critique. And I mean "enlightened" in the way that you are usually very good at lightening your reader up about a subject so that its ironies and absurdities come into view.
Post a Comment