L&O; Youth in a War Zone

The main reason I thought the story "Love and Obstacles" was so compelling and well-written was because the author was clearly able to deliver his point that no matter where young people grow up, they will go through exactly the same phases their parents and grandparents did before them when they were the same age. Lust, rebellion, and spontaneous forays into uncharted waters are what young people live for. It is quite easy for the protagonist in this story to turn an otherwise monotonous journey to secure the purchase of a family freezer into a drunken adventure in which he plays the role of the desperate teenage boy seeking physical gratification. He writes down every scenic detail he can find in the world around him; his need to document every aspect of his life and creatively use every plot twist as poetic inspiration shows his unquenchable thirst for life, and his refusal to let anyone else tell him how to live it. He is determined to make his own mistakes, and to have the time of his life while doing it.

Although the author makes it clear that this young man's journey is by no means a safe one--he encounters some thugs on the train and the town he stays in is run-down and not at all modern or secure--the boy is excited rather than anxious at this sense of danger, for it makes the journey all the more intriguing.

Unfortunately, not all youth were able to experience their late teenage years quite so freely. Growing up in Srebrenica during the massacre robbed the children who survived of their childhood innocence, and forever changed their lives in ways adults aren't able to understand.

Although "Love and Obstacles" ends when the war begins, it can be assumed that the boy's life was never the same after the war started; all we know from this excerpt is that the electricity was cut off and all the food in the beloved freezer rotted.

Here is a link to an interview with a young woman who grew up in Srebrenica; she knows that the Srebrenica massacre will be a part of her for as long as she lives.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/06/03/18232186.html

Genocide--Who is to Blame?

In hindsight, it is appalling that a genocide operation was able to execute over 8,000 Muslims, running smoothly without any outside interference or opposition. It is even more disturbing that this took place a mere 40 years after the Nazi genocide exterminated over 6 million Jewish people. Fifteen years after the Bosnian genocide took place, citizens are still aghast that neither the United Nations nor the Dutch soldiers stationed in Bosnia did anything to prevent the Serbians from stampeding into Bosnia and ruthlessly murdering Bosnian Muslims as though they were poisonous creatures that needed to be wiped out.

Over a decade later, the mourning continues in Bosnia. Citizens have still not recovered from the loss of their loved ones, and many are still irate at the thought that if perhaps someone had interfered in time, their loved ones might still be alive. Why didn't the soldiers or the UN do anything to stop these horrible killings? Are they truly to blame, or was there anything the Bosnian citizens could have done? What really allows a genocide to happen? Can blaming a specific group of people or holding the government accountable fully explain why the genocide took place with almost no resistance? Hopefully, providing answers to these types of questions will help prevent another mass gathering to mourn loved ones whose blood was shed fighting someone else's war.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Thousands-Mourn-on-15th-Anniversary-of-Srebrenica-Massacre-98194039.html

The Evolution of Evil

During the massacre at Srebrenica, the Serbs slaughtered almost ten thousand men and boys in Bosnia-Herzegovina. One of those men was Emir Suljagic's father, who suffered greatly before being killed in the horrible mass defiling of human life that occurred in the summer of 1995. Emir survived, but now has a mission--to create a museum that will remind future generations of what happened at Srebrenica and will serve as a tribute to those who were killed so their families will know they will not be forgotten.

In this video, Emir talks about why it is important to recognize the fact that genocide is still happening today. He explains that the nature of genocide has changed from the Holocaust of World War II and says that action must be taken if we are to live in a world where genocide is not allowed to exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Opab3PY30

Love and Obstacles

In "Love and Obstacles," the author examines the unique relationship young people have to the world around them. There is a large gap between the world as it is and the world that young people live in, which is mostly comprised of their own imaginations. Although the main character's parents try to force the young man to develop some practicality, he resists this as much as he can and instead pursues his own goals to recklessly experience the world and discover the lustful urges of desire.

I found an interesting link that suggests teens who experiment with so-called "risky" behaviors, such as this 17-year-old does, actually have more mature brains than those who play it safe. This relates directly back to the story because being a rebellious teenager is something everyone who has gone through such a phase can relate to; it's all part of the struggle of growing up.

http://www.newser.com/story/68427/reckless-teens-have-more-mature-brains.html

Remorse?

When we looked at the pictures in class of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib, what disturbed me the most were the pictures in which American soldiers posed with them. Lynnde England giving the thumbs-up sign next to the corpse and the man who had the prisoner's head pulled back like a deer were particularly horrifying because she could have been standing next to a prize-winning pie at the state fair, and he could have been celebrating his first deer hunt. It made me wonder whether they should be believed if they say the things they did were out of control, or even if they feel any remorse for the torture they inflicted on the prisoners.

I found this interesting article about England that was written two years after the Abu Ghraib scandal had been brought to light. After reading it, I still have mixed feelings about her, but I can't decide whether or not she feels true remorse for what she did. Sometimes it seems like she's still trying to play the victim--"I was only in the photos for a split second of time"--but it is also clear that she realizes her life will never be the same. Take a look and decide for yourself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/29/national/main5121230.shtml

Is it possible to find meaning in suffering?

So far in the book, the protagonist has been the victim of a malicious cycle in which he wanders from village to village, which only culminates in his ejection without any trace of hope remaining that he might be able to return. He suffers excruciatingly at the mercy of his many masters, and is always despised and feared by the villagers, who see him as a Gypsy or a Jew and unhesitatingly cast him as a social pariah.

So far, the reader has not been able to see the effects of this painful life on the boy; Kosinski is very good at keeping the reader in the present because the boy's mind doesn't seem to ruminate on the past or speculate very much about the future except the occasional lament about how painful his life is. However, the story finally progresses enough that the reader is finally able to witness the boy's breaking point. After he witnesses Ewka coupling with the goat, he realizes that the ultimate power of the world is really evil, and that if he wanted to become powerful and in control of his own life, he would have to become a prop for evil.

The irony is that the boy will never be accepted by the Germans because they will never see him as a person, only as a Jew and an outcast. As he runs from village to village, he becomes more and more accustomed to torturous beatings, to disturbing images and to having nowhere to go and having no one to care for him.

One question I have after this reading is this: Since the boy's worldview is becoming progressively darker, and he has not had any experience with real love and care since his earliest childhood days, what would happen if he was suddenly returned to his parents? Would he be able to fit in with regular society, given all that he has been through?

Along the same lines, what is the point of all this endless suffering and the wandering from village to village? When the boy discovers prayer and desperately hopes that he can accumulate enough "days of indulgence" to escape his miserable life, the author almost seems to mock the reader by making the boy pray incessantly, yet futilely. Kosinski seems to be saying that there is no such thing as a "quick fix," or some simple equation that is the root of the boy's suffering and will bring meaning and healing to his life.

At this point in the story, how does the author want the reader to feel about the boy's future? Does the author still want the reader to hope that something will suddenly happen to him that will free him from the cycle of pain and flight? Or is the author merely setting up a trap where the boy dies in the end? Would such an ending be surprising?

Here is a link to the abstract of a research paper that attempts to analyze the extent of the impact of concentration camps on survivors' lives, as well as what it takes to begin to overcome that impact. If the boy survives everything he has been through, the rest of his life will doubtless be very painful as he attempts to overcome they physical and psychological hardships he has suffered. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3971282

Road of Lost Innocence

I found an interesting PBS interview online with Somaly Mam, author of the book, "The Road of Lost Innocence." The interview took place about a year after the book was written, although the book isn't mentioned anywhere in the newscast. This seems strange; wouldn't a newscast on such a well-known station as PBS be an opportunity to advertise the book to increase royalty earnings and get more money for the shelter?

Something I found intriguing about the interview was the way Somaly described her relationship to men. She claims that she doesn't hate men, but after getting married she realized she could never love a man. Something else she mentions in the interview but not the book is that she teaches her girls to forgive the men who caused their trauma. "Forgive them," she says. "It's not for them, but for yourself." This struck me as a very different image of Somaly than what I had gotten from the book; in the book she seems extremely angry and bitter about what has happened to her, and even while writing the book, particularly horrible memories still make her want to vomit. I also didn't get the idea that Somaly had forgiven the men who had done those terrible things to her. The fact that she now teaches her young girls to forgive their perpetrators does not make her a hypocrite, but it does somewhat downplay how deeply Somaly has been affected by her life's experiences. I think this shows that despite how much Somaly resents Cambodian culture, it has in some ways allowed her to keep up her work. Instead of focusing on how bad her life has been and retreating in self-pity, she sees herself as only one of many, many victims and focuses instead on how to help whoever she possibly can to the best of her ability.

Another thing I noticed was that in the interview, the media somewhat randomly mentions Buddhism, a religion that "the vast majority of citizens embrace." I don't remember reading anything about Buddhism or karma in Somaly's book; I got the feeling that families sold children into prostitution because of economic reasons, not because of anything to do with a person's "past life." Why was this included in the news report? Was karma mentioned because it "fit," or is this actually a significant cultural phenomenon that contributes to the problem? It's hard to say.

One more thing- I thought about when Somaly said that human rights organizations are bad because all they do is talk. What were her intentions when she wrote, "Lost Innocence"? It is clearly written for a Western audience, the very group she is frustrated with because they don't take action often enough. Yet her goals with the book seem a bit open-ended and vague; the book doesn't seem to be a rallying cry to oppress the people who are exploiting thousands of young girls. She does say (in the interview) that organized crime is extremely organized, whereas those who fight it are often scattered and inactive; however, she offers no potential solution for this problem for the people who read the book or watch the interview. She almost seems to be saying, "I'm doing my part. Now it's your turn to step up."

Interview link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/february-12-2010/rescuing-child-sex-workers/5684/

Social Darwinism in "Luxurious Hearses"

We talked in class about how in the story, "Luxurious Hearses," the Luxurious Bus is symbolic of Nigeria in a state of newly declared democracy. The reality, however, is that under the thin, transparent veil of democracy, the new state really operates on something much more sinister: Social Darwinism. According to Wikipedia, Social Darwinism is a result of "social forces" that "produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the 'survival of the fittest')." There are multiple examples of this throughout the story, but the reason it occurs is that the goal of each person on the bus is not to look out for one's peers, but to ensure his or her own survival. When political corruption infects a nation to the point where it can no longer function as a community, people will turn against each other because they learn to trust no one but themselves. In Nigeria's case, it never had the ability to function as a community because the political boundaries of the country were drawn by Westerners who had no idea that it would be like putting a cat and a bird in the same cage. No matter how big the cage is, or whether there even is one, the cat will always want to eat the bird.

In "Luxurious Hearses," there are several examples of how people from different social groups--in this case "social groups" are mainly determined by a character's religious affiliation--strive to either become dominant or quietly lurk in the background, hoping to remain unnoticed. On the bus, the dominant social group is comprised of Christians--native religions, like that of the Chief, are treated as somewhat annoying, but are ultimately considered nonthreatening and unimportant. Islam, on the other hand, is the object of the wrath of the Christians on the bus.

This concept is manifested in the characters of Jubril and the Chief. While Jubril tries to be passive and unassuming in order to hide his weakness, the Chief is assertive and confident in his power. Jubril tries so hard to avoid conflict that his passive attitude is regarded suspiciously- people begin to ask him about what he's hiding in his pocket when it might have gone unnoticed had Jubril been able to fake a more convincing accent or countered the Chief's claim to Jubril's seat more aggressively. The Chief even guilts Jubril into giving away his ticket, and although the Chief acts fatherly toward Jubril many times, in the end it is clear he has no personal affection to Jubril whatsoever because he refuses to help Jubril at the cost of losing his influence over the other bus riders. Sadly, however, the Chief is the one who survives in the end because although the Chief is not Christian and is not part of the dominant social group, he is able to convince the others of his wisdom and his power, regardless of how contrived it may have been.

This is also evidenced by the concept of money, which resurfaces several times throughout the story. The police announce that the line for the restroom will change depending on who can pay for a better spot in line, and several people are forced to drop out or retreat to the back of the line. When the Chief announces the "vote," people begin to contribute money to bribe the police. Therefore, money represents a "modern" form of Social Darwinism in that the amount of resources available to an individual drastically affects his or her chances of survival.

The author makes this a large theme in his story in order to demonstrate that contrary to Western view, when a country is in political turmoil, no one will value concepts such as equity, fairness, and peace. Rather, Social Darwinism will dominate because when people are constantly face-to-face with such an imminent fear for their lives, they will either try to fight any threatening oppressors or run from them. Until the citizens of Nigeria can feel safe in their own country, the first priority should be to end all violence before so-called "democracy" kills them all.

Link: http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

Martyrs--A Worthy Sacrifice?

I noticed something interesting as I was reading "The Sorrow of War" on pages 192 and 193. On page 192, after the story of Hoa's sacrifice and subsequent rape, the author begins to discuss the concept of martyrs. Ninh writes, "But for Hoa and countless other loved comrades, nameless ordinary soldiers, those who sacrificed for others and for their Vietnam, raising the name of Vietnam high and proud, creating a spiritual beauty in the horrors of conflict, the war would have been another brutal, sadistic experience." This statement seems incredibly off-putting, especially since the reader has just been presented the story of a woman who allowed herself to be raped in an isolated patch of jungle so that her fellow wounded soldiers would not be discovered; ironically, none of the soldiers even bother asking Kien about her fate. This random burst of patriotism seems to belie the horror of what has just happened--is rape not "brutal and sadistic" in and of itself? Or can it be seen in the "larger scheme of things" as a brave and noble sacrifice, since after all, Hoa's sacrifice ensured the safety of a cluster of wounded men?

On the very next page, however, Ninh writes, "To win, martyrs have sacrificed their lives, in order that others might survive. Not a new phenomenon, true. But for those still living to know that the kindest, most worthy people have all fallen away...then this beautiful landscape of calm and peace is an appalling paradox. Justice may have won, but cruelty, death, and inhuman violence have also won." Through this perspective, Hoa's sacrifice is seen not as a glory-inducing act of heroism but becomes an almost resentful act-- something that will serve as an eternal reminder of the human cost of freedom. This passage acknowledges that martyrdom is a "brutal and sadistic" act in and of itself because far from giving the war a sense of "spiritual beauty," martyrdom only highlights the moral horror that for every survivor of the war, countless others were killed.

This must be part of the reason why Kien has such strong survivors' guilt. The sense of loneliness one must have after surviving multiple imminently dangerous situations has to be intense and psychologically overwhelming. Here is a link that attests to the fact that today's military is little different; soldiers' problems have not changed much from WWI to Vietnam to Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/18/survivors-guilt-haunting-military/

In "All Quiet on the Western Front," one major theme that remains constant throughout the story is that of starvation. The amount of pain, anxiety, loneliness, and sheer terror these soldiers have to suffer throughout the war is incredible. The soldiers' helplessness is a result of both their young age and their utter unpreparedness to enter the graphic world of war. They are barely able to ward off death, knowing all the time their world could shatter around them at any moment; that reality haunts them twenty-four hours a day without ceasing. It seems that in such times-when stress is spiked to astronomically high levels; when men are killed and blood and guts are spewing everywhere one turns; when a man can barely hear himself think over the never-ending drones, whines, and blasts of explosive devices drown out everything else- food would be the last thing on a young soldier's mind.

But food is all these soldiers can think about. The very opening scene of the book, in fact, takes place at the military base's kitchen, where the cook doesn't realize he has prepared meals for tongues that will never taste again. In class, we talked about how this scene sets up a rather domestic picture of life on the front line; the diction in this first scene is almost like young boys enjoying a picnic: "We are satisfied and at peace. Each man has another mess-tin full for the evening; and, what is more, there is a double ration of sausage and bread...The cook...is begging us to eat...He does not see how he can empty his stew-pot in time for coffee" (Remarque, 1). At the beginning of the story, therefore, the author has not nearly established these men as three-dimensional characters. Because he chooses to make the reader first see these soldiers in a relaxed state of camaraderie, Remarque establishes an important message: When soldiers are full, content, and at ease, they are exactly like any other group of friends; virtually indistinguishable from their civilian counterparts who might socialize at more conventional locations like bars.

However, when the illusion of safety and security is shattered, it becomes very clear that soldiers do not merely enjoy food, but will risk their lives to scavenge it. Consider a very different group meal scene near the end of the book that starts out remarkably like the first one. The soldiers are in an evacuated village and have procured themselves a feast. A couple of men play piano and sing while the others heartily prepare the meal. Suddenly, the house is shelled heavily. Everyone launches into action, grabbing the dishes and making a run for it. They somehow manage to reunite and resume the meal as though nothing has happened. Even though in the gap between these events they have experienced more death, destruction and suffering than ever before, the group of soldiers is still able to become human again once they have food in their stomachs.

These two events from the book show the importance of just how central sharing a meal with someone is to friendship. Even though each man knows he could die out on the battlefield, their troubles seem manageable, even when they can still hear the bombs falling outside and are well aware that the war is still around them.

Chronic hunger can cause serious physiological issues that affect not just soldiers in wartime, but households worldwide today:

http://medanth.wikispaces.com/Chronic+Hunger+(linked+to+food+security)