Boss Fight: End of Quarter Conclusion

The blog post to end this quarter. Sorry for the pixel blood if you're squeamish :P 

            It’s been two months since I’ve came to UCI and starting studying Hum Core. To be honest at first I was scared to death. I’d heard rumors of how terrifying the course was. The essays were super hard, there was so much to read, and many people couldn’t keep up and just dropped the course…All these stories came together to create an image of a huge monster that would ruin my freshman year. Of course, I’ve heard a few good stories, from people who said that the materials were very interesting, the TA’s were nice and helpful…These stories gave me strength to not drop out of the class right away. And they were true. I am honestly really happy that I stayed in the class. I’ve learned a lot in the short two months I’ve been here, and thought about questions that opened my eyes to the depth of the world. I originally thought Hum Core would just have generally discussions of different wars and do boring analyses. But we’ve talked about human agency, about different wars and how literature artifactualizes war, and how war is presented to us in different forms and different points of view…

Different point of views affect the way we treat certain situations. 

            The greatest change that has happened to me since I’ve taken Hum Core is definitely my knowledge of how war is presented to us. Before this class, I’ve learned about war only through textbooks, and I learn about them only so I could pass quizzes and exams. I never really stopped and wondered, how can I entirely trust these sources? The history in these textbooks only talk about general events, but what about the common people? How were their lives different and how were they affected? I’ve definitely learned more about war through knowing that there is “history from below”, since it seems more realistic and relatable. And through these lens, I can actually understand the terror of war, instead of just attempting to understand it through lifeless numbers.

            Overall, I am definitely looking forward to the next quarter of Hum Core, so I can learn even more about war throughout history. I believe through learning about war, we can better prevent it from happening, and also better help those already affected by it.  

Works Cited

First image Chun Li vs Johnny Cage by Jenn Dolari http://www.dolari.org/sfjenn/

Second image belongs to Frits Ahlefeldt http://hikingartist.com/

Smith, John H. "Reading (Hi)story." University of California, Irvine. 21 Oct 2015

Lvl 4: Waging War For Democracy Promotion

          There is a huge controversy over the promotion of democracy, mainly because sometimes the promotion of democracy from the US is motivated by self-gains, and not for the will or rights of the governed, and thus lead to foreign nations not gaining anything from embracing democracy and then developing a sense of distrust and hatred towards the United States. Terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS that spawn from countries that the US have interfered with are a direct result of promoting democracy with selfish motivations. These groups don’t necessarily hate democracy, but because democracy is heavily associated with American culture and ideology, they try to reject and destroy it since they don’t like America. Our past actions in meddling with other countries’ governments have given us a bad reputation, in that we only promote democracy to project our power and using other countries to benefit ourselves. This creates a problem because other countries will be less willing to trade with us or become an ally to us if we are ever in need. The US could have the potential to be isolated in politics, creating a dangerous situation to our country.

          Democracy is not a bad thing, but it is not the only form of government that can work, nor does it suit every single country. For example, democracy is supposed to be the best form of government to boost the economy, but China also has a growing economy despite being communist. America’s way of promoting democracy may also not be the most effective way of achieving it. The use of military force to force democracy onto another country is most of the time unnecessary and unjustified, unless it is to provide aid to the citizens of a country looking to end a tyranny or an inhumane form of government. For example, because of the famine and injustice created by the system of government in North Korea, the US would be mostly justified if they sent military forces to save the lives of many North Koreans. Ultimately, the use of military force should be a last resort. International organizations are usually more useful in promoting democracy, so countries can make the choice of change by themselves, and have enough resources to fight injustices that are present. 

References and Works Cited

http://www.cfr.org/democratization/promoting-democracy-whys-hows-united-states-international-community/p24090

Lvl 3: The Interesting Case of Preventive War

     In my opinion, starting a war is never ever justified. In war, the common man has nothing to benefit yet everything to lose. We have seen history prove to us time over time that innocent civilians are the biggest victims in war over useless politics. However, after taking a class in international relations, an interesting case was brought to my attention: preventive war. Preventive war is waged when one country wants to keep another under the boot, to make sure they never become strong enough to be a threat to them. Sound tyrannical right? Surely only a ruthless, evil dictator would ever do something like that. But one instance in history might change your mind about it.

Nazi Propaganda during 1933, it says "give me four years".

     1933, Germany. Hitler rose to power, and started WWII. We all know how catastrophic that was. Maybe that all could have been prevented if the Allies stepped in when Hitler regrouped the military, when Hitler took Czechoslovakia… If the Allies had waged preventive war against Germany, many lives would have been saved, the holocaust would have never happened, and the color pink would still be considered a “manly” color. However, some historians have argued that while the events of WWII were horrific, our society did make great advances due to the war. We wouldn’t have the internet, or air conditioning, the US would still be in the middle of the Great Depression, women in the US wouldn’t have the 19th amendment, etc.

     For those who don't know what Adventure Time is, it's a kids show that airs on Cartoon Network, about the adventures of a human boy and a dog. They live on the Planet Ooo, that has been through nuclear war, causing the planet to be different that the world we (the audience) live in. It is usually very happy and simple, but sometimes the show actually has deeper themes. In Episodes “Finn the Human” and “Jake the Dog”, the show treats the nuclear war in the show as a neutral event, almost positive. It simulates that if the nuclear war didn’t happen, Finn would have gone crazy...

     Jake would’ve become evil...

     The nuclear war would eventually still happen...

     Everything would be in shambles. While in comparison life on Ooo is relatively happy, with Finn and Jake still together.

     What does this all mean? Is preventive war justified or not? I suppose the answer to this question is relative. Personally I still don’t think it is justified. Surely in today’s society we have other ways to intervene with situations that would warrant preventive war. But one thing we know for sure, is that it is important to look for positive things even in terrible events. There is no point in regretting over something you could have stopped but didn’t, since we would have no way to know if that was the morally right thing to do. It is important to make the best out of situations, and doing your best in the current moment, so in the future when we look back in the past we wouldn’t feel guilty, but instead think “I did the best that I could and that’s good enough.”

References & Citations

https://www.quora.com/How-would-the-world-look-today-if-WWII-never-happened

http://schools.nycenet.edu/Region5/ms210/www_two/ww2effects.

http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Finn_the_Human_(episode)

http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Jake_the_Dog_(episode)

Lvl 2: The Illusion of Free Will - Iliad

          In past lectures, Professor Izenberg presented to us a very interesting idea: did the ancient Greeks have agency, a.k.a. free will? Or were they controlled by the gods? The argument over if humans have agency is an age old question that fascinates philosophers, scientists, and people who lay in bed at night crippled with an existential crisis. So, after centuries of debate, have we come to a conclusion? Did the ancient Greeks have agency? Do we?

          Some people used to argue that the ancient Greeks had no free will, and that their actions were entirely controlled by the gods. But there is a lot of evidence in the Iliad to prove that theory wrong. The gods do intervene with human affairs quite often, as seen when Zeus suggest Agamemnon to attack the Trojans, or when Athena comes to stop Achilles from killing Agamemnon, but they merely suggest a course of action. The ultimate decision to act is still in the hands of the human. Therefore, we could argue the ancient Greeks had agency. The existence of the gods in Greek mythology made an intangible logic become something tangible and more easily understood.

          So if according to the Iliad the ancient Greeks seem to have free will, surely we have free will today as well? Well, in recent years scientists have found that before we are even presented with a choice, our brain sends chemical signals to the body, notifying it what to do. This suggests that instead of actually having free will, our decisions and choices are decided by the chemicals in our environment and in our bodies. Darn science, you depressing.

          There are other things that decide whether we have free will or not. For example, in the Iliad, when Athena whisks away Paris and forces Helen to lay with her, she basically presents to Helen to equally terrible choices: to either lay with Paris, or to disobey a goddess and possibly suffer an even terrible fate. In the end she chose to lay with Paris, but did she really have free will? She was forced to choose one or the other, and while she was the one who made the conscious choice, she didn’t have better options. Is that still free will?

          Maybe humans need a few more centuries before we finally figure out this whole free will thing. 

Homer, trans. Robert Fagles. The Iliad. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Print.

Izenberg, Oren. "Deliberation, Action, and Authority in The Iliad." University of California,

Irvine. 30 Sept 2015

Watterson, Bill. Calvin and Hobbes.  http://www.calvinandhobbes.com/
Surl, Luke. Free Will Comic http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/comic/280-calvinism-but-no-hobbes

Lvl 1: Through the Looking Glass - War

          Sometimes, war seems like a cool thing to me. Maybe I've been influenced by the video games I play where protagonists kill evil enemies with flashy effects. Maybe its because of the stories I've read of ancient war heroes like GuanYu from Records of the Three Kingdoms. Or maybe it's because this song would seem to be the coolest background music to play while slaying enemies on the battlefield.

          Imagine that.

          But more often, war is just terrifying and unnecessary. I am a firm believer that there is never a war that is "required" to make advances in humanity's progress, and that there is always more harm done in war than good. And through photographs taken of war, I stand firm in my beliefs.

     Especially ones like these.

          Photos are often taken to make the audience feel a specific way towards a subject. This particular photo was taken after the Nazi invasion of Poland, by German photographer Hugo Jaeger. A simple picture like so strips away all the glorification of war. The photo, captured in black and white, shows us how lifeless and colorless life becomes because of loss experienced in times of war. Through these lens, I can only see physical and emotional suffering. Obviously, the photographer wants to show us the ugliest side of war, and wants us to feel bad for the child. And it works; the image of a child sitting in rubble, his face clearly showing the despair in his heart,tugs at our heartstrings, making anyone with some sort of conscience want to do something to help him. This picture repeats a lesson taught to us and shown over and over again: where there is war, there is chaos and destruction. Innocent civilians with nothing to do with the actions and choices of a government suffer the most from war, and nothing could ever make up for the damage done. 

Nothing can take away the pain of loss felt from war. War only happens when both sides of a conflict can’t work out a compromise, because they were greedy and wanted to gain an advantage over the other. If we were all considerate of one another, and not always looking for personal gain, this world would be a better place where everyone would get along with each other and live peacefully and happily.  Perhaps I’m being unrealistic and naive. But, we are all human beings struggling to get by and survive in this finite world, why must we pay any sort of price to live on our own planet? 

References and Works Cited

Homer, trans. Robert Fagles. The Iliad. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Print.

Video: The Glitch Mob - Fortune Days

Photo of a Child from WWII - http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/

2012/09/today-in-photo-history-1939-poland-surrenders-to-nazi-germany.html/

Is war necessary? - http://worldbeyondwar.org/necessary/