#saturated societies

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

We Do What We Must

By Kevin Ortiz

In a society saturated by violence, life for anybody is going to be anything but normal.  When violence overpowers order, the rules that once kept everyone in order and thinking rationally are now thrown out the window.  The will and instinct to survive takes a hold of people and morals disappear along with sympathy.  Trust becomes a life or death issue, and the only person truly accountable for anything is yourself.  Life loses value and the souls of man become expendable.  History has vividly shown us just how selfish we are when it comes to living.  Humans will not hesitate to use force, deception and just about any means they can against whoever they must in order to survive.  Those who fail to understand this or refuse to live this way are usually the victims to the trying times.

            Man’s Search for Meaning is a perfect example of this concept, a man broken down by the horrors of the holocaust and scarred by the will to live.  Viktor Frankl is another unfortunate victim of the holocaust and his book is an attempt to give the readers a raw non-skewed view of the terrible events that transcended from it.  The book characterizes the mindset he had to take on, emotionless.  Other text’s seek sympathy from the readers but this book is simply a recount of the real uncut world Frankl was thrusted into only a short time ago.  His society and his entire life were saturated by violence on all P.C.P (Political, cultural and personal) levels.  He was dehumanized by the Nazis and tortured by the war.  Everything around Frankl influenced and constituted violence, it was a way of survival. 

            One excerpt from the text I thought characterized the mind-set Frankl was in while being held captive, came when he spoke about decision-making and how that boiled down. “We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life- daily and hourly… Life ultimate means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual .” (77).   I found this to be a lighter way to look at the mindset Frankl had to take on.  It’s in a sense he is saying life throws problems our way and it’s how we deal with our own problems that molds who we are.  It’s not a direct justification for violence, but more of an OK for doing what we must to survive, and if that involves violence or acts we deem questionable in a non-violent society it’s because it was the only option.  I credit this mindset for why Frankl survived the holocaust and also why mentally he was able to stay strong during and afterwards.   

            Frankl’s society did not constitute violence per se’ but it promoted and enamored the will to survive.  Frankl realized this and adapted to it and because of it he was beaten but never broken.  Other’s confused surviving with becoming violent all together, instead of using violence as a last resort means of survival.  Frankl was more willing to accept what his reality has become so his attitude made his experience slightly better if even possible.  Nobody could escape how terrible things had become.  A good way to understand what they were dealing with is when Frankl compares the prisoners to sheep. “And we, the sheep, thought of two things only—how to evade the bad dogs and how to get little food.” (50).  This shows just how helpless everyone in camp was, it’s no wonder people took to violence to survive, it was the only way.  When a society is overrun by violence survival is the only important thing, and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. 

  Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning. 4th ed. Massachusetts : Beacon Press, 1939-1945. 33, 61, 63. eBook. <

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

No Limits: Violence in Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning

By Lyndsay Rogers

In a saturated society, the limits to what constitutes complicity in violence are endless because a saturated society has its face turned away from a moral obligation and towards its own self-serving agenda, at least in the societies we have discussed thus far. In the elementary version of a concentration camp, there is the prisoner and the SS officer, two entities that form a co-dependent relationship to reinforce the complicity in violence. The prisoner, who has been subjected into this position by the officer, first depends on violence to come from their superior, thus maintaining and keeping the position as prisoner. As this relationship continues to be imposed, eventually a prisoner only has to depend on him or herself (not the SS) to swallow their daily dose of violence-not physical violence but a mental for.

Frankl discusses this notion at the end of his piece when he is asked by the Capo to give the speech to his fellow bunk-mates on a day they were forced to fast because of the prisoner’s refusal sell out a fellow prisoner. He encourages his bunk-mates, reminding them that the suffering they have endured so far is to be done proudly and that their pain does have a meaning. After his speech he says, “The purpose of my words was to find a full meaning in our life, then and there, in that hut and in that practically hopeless situation. I saw that my efforts had been successful,” (83). If this hut is to be an example of the saturated society, then it can be said that these prisoners-up until this speech- had been their own complicities of violence to themselves, to their mental and physical health. Frankl recognizes the potential power that his words could have on the prisoner’s morale, and the meaning that they could derive from this otherwise hopeless situation of all their lives. It is from this example that the reader of this text can see how the limits to complicity in violence is unimaginable. The Jews of the concentration camps, even though the Nazi agenda placed them in their suffering, mentally inflict more violence on themselves than any commanders or SS officer is capable of. Early on in the piece, Frankl begins to discuss the idea of a person’s reaction to a certain situation when as a citizen of a saturated society. He says, “an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior,” (20). He later talks about how the Capo would hasten the normal reactions of the prisoners in his example of cleaning out the latrines. He recalls that if a prisoner who is detailing the bathrooms were to get any debris on him or herself or show any sign of disgust toward this task, they would be hit by the Capo, thus an instance where the abnormal reaction to the abnormal situation is transformed into normal behavior. Also, this is another instance where the reader can observe the prisoner being the aid to their own violence, mentally enabling their abnormal reaction. While this argument may be true in many cases, I do not believe that it is the fault of the prisoner that they fall victim to subjecting violence on themselves. In a saturated society, violence is the corrupt adhesive that is holding the unit together. Obviously a prisoner in Frankl’s position was limited as to how they were to react, but it is their acknowledgment of that action that ensures their survival, at least according to Frankl. He says toward the end of his work that “No situation repeats itself, and each situation calls for a different response,” which is an applicable observation to my understanding of his text (77). Frankl tells his reader that nothing will ever be repeated and the reaction to a situation will never be duplicated, so when one is examining this piece it is applicable to say that a person of a saturated society is not innately complicit to the foundations of that society, but inevitably will become the victim, acknowledging their place in this society as the key to the situation. Their reactions, thoughts, words, may never be repeated, but as ‘each situation calls for a different response’ the manifestation of their mental framework expands.

Works Cited

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2006. Print.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Saturated Society; Man's Search For Meaning

Written By: Amanda Basham

In a saturated society, what constitutes complicity in violence? Stating this question is far simpler than trying to find a perfect answer for it.  There are many aspects that must be taken into question when trying to find an answer to this question and no one solution is going to fulfill every side for there are no two identical men in character.  So for the purposes of this blog I am going to approach the question from the angle that violence promotes violence even though this is not true in all cases.

Let me begin by setting the scene from two completely different societies that are both saturated with violence during two different eras of the twentieth century. First we begin by looking at “Man’s Search For Meaning” written by Viktor Frankl. This book looks at the psychological aspects of a concentration camp from the perspective of Frankl, and that of his fellow prisoners. Frankl takes a different approach to explaining the less known side of concentration camps; the slave labor that was being contracted out to local businesses, and provides an insight to the day-to-day torture that was experienced on a personal level. Frankl states the following in one of his passages:

“During this psychological phase one observed that people with natures of a more primitive kind could not escape the influences of the brutality which has surrounded them in camp life. Now, being free, they thought they could use their freedom licentiously and ruthlessly. The only thing that had changed for them was that they were now the oppressors instead of the oppressed. They became instigators, not objects, of willful force and injustice. They justified their behavior by their own terrible experiences“ (Frankl 90).

  Frankl, provided information in this passage to support that violence promotes violence. Those who have experienced an injustice, such as the imprisonment based on religious persecution, may react negatively and violently once freed from the circumstances: which provoked the behavior in the first place. Frankl is not the only one who believes that violence promotes violence, this is something that can be seen throughout history from social feuds, to racial equality, and to civil war; which brings me to my next point.

Violence promotes violence can be seen in many forms throughout history, another prime example can be seen in the 2006 action packed political thriller “Blood Diamond” which was directed by Edward Zwick. This film depicts the civil war in Sierra Leone that occurred for almost a decade over the exploitation of natural resources by the RUF (revolutionary united front), anti-government forces whom were wreaking havoc on the country. Similar to the experience of Frankl, the RUF were enslaving their own people and forcing them to mine for diamonds in order to fund their anti-government engagements. The film depicts a few characters that show the relationship of violence promoting violence, from leaders of the RUF to the white Rhodesian.

  Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Danny Archer a diamond smuggler whom has been smuggling blood diamonds from Sierra Leone into other nations embodies the idea that violence promotes violence.  Archer describes in the movie how he used to live on a farm with his parents in Rhodesia, and how at nine years of age he witnessed his mother being raped, and then shot; and his father being decapitated, and hung from hooks in their barn. After an experience like that it may be difficult to see the good in the world. Archer finds himself promoting violence at every turn in his life from there on out. Archer joined the army, and waged havoc on all who crossed his path, becoming a hardened man who knew violence was needed in order to survive. Mr. Archer continued down his path of violence even after the wars end; smuggling diamonds became his career path; which caused blood shed in full circle from providing the anti-government forces with weapons which in turn caused the blood shed of more innocent people.

 The idea that violence promotes violence has been one that has been around for centuries, this is seen in the fact that Frankl’s book was written in the late nineteen forties and is still being depicted in modern films. Being made witness to violence or experiencing violence may be a key factor in what generates violent behavior in some of the people that we encounter but as Frankl states:

“There are two races of men in this world, but only these two- the “race” of decent man and the “race” of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people” (Frankl 86).

  This would lead one to believe that decent individual will be decent no matter their experiences, and those whom are not will unveil their indecent sides at some point in time. Whether that time comes before or after they experience violence depends upon each individual’s character.

Works Cited

Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search For Meaning. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1959. Print

Blood Diamond. Dir. Edward Zwick. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Dijmon Hounsou, and Jennifer Connelly. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2006. DVD.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Surviving Through Psychological Endurance

Rachel Sams

ENG 205

1/26/2012

Surviving Through Psychological Endurance

                 “Man’s Search for Meaning” was written by Viktor E. Frankl, who was one of the survivors of the Holocaust and he had a firsthand experience of the psychological beatings of living in a concentration camp. This story is not about how horrible the camps were, but about what happens mentally to a person’s mind and how a person’s behavior changes to survive. Frankl was born in Vienna, where he trained to be a doctor and psychologist. He wrote this story in 1945, telling his personal account of his friends and him learning to shut down their emotions to escape the pain. Frankl and friends taught themselves to become numb to the beatings and find humor in the most negative situations. Instead of crying, they would make jokes, and instead of feeling pain, they would feel nothing. When everything was taken away, Frankl discusses how the prisoners learned the concept of being content in order to be happy.

To survive a person would need to appreciate the most insignificant joys that most people take for granted. For example, sleep was a joy, even in crowded conditions of the bunks. “Light sleepers now can sleep with the sound of loud snoring,” but in the past they didn’t appreciate the rest they got to have in a more comfortable environment (17). Prisoners started to find happiness and hope in the beauty of God’s earth: “In camp, a man might draw the attention of a comrade working next to him to a nice view of the setting sun shining through the tall trees of the Bavarian woods….” (40). However before the man might have gone through his usual work routine, ignoring the beauty around him.

This simple joy was hard to keep, considering the work conditions. Frankl throughout his book explains the changes the mind went through according to four stages: shock, suicidal thoughts, apathy, and some developed “provisional existence” (72). The prisoners in the beginning hoped they were going to some place to be employed-- not Auschwitz (9)! “The very name stood for all that was horrible: gas chambers, crematoriums, massacres “a place that was similar to hell (9).  Frankl, who was in shock, actually thought he was still viewed as a human being at the time. When he asked an old prisoner or commander if he could keep his lives work, a scientific manuscript, he harshly replied by shocking “shit” (14). Soon, many began to have suicidal thoughts, but Frankl promised himself not to “run into the wire” the popular method of suicide- touching the electrically charged barbed-wire fence (18). The third stage was apathy, the shouting off of emotions that cause pain.  Usually, when a fellow prisoner was shot, the other prisoners couldn’t stand to watch, “but the prisoner who had passed into the second stage of his psychological reactions did not avert their eyes anymore.” “By then his feelings were blunted, and he watched unmoved” (21).

Apathy helped people survive the dehumanizing work conditions. Prisoners had to work in the worst weather from extremely hot to bitter, cold winters.  Before even work began, the commanders played the “finger game” (12). If the finger pointed to the left it meant unable to work, so these people were worthless and was sentenced to death. The lucky ones, who were pointed to right, had to look forward to hard labor (12). Apathy helped prisoners escape the feeling of beatings and the constant name calling. It also helped develop a sense of humor.

The last stage was the most dangerous, what Frankl tried to keep himself out of “provisional existence”.  Provisional existence is where people start questioning the meaning of life.  “Instead of taking the camp’s hardships as a test to inner strength, they … despised it as something of no consequence.” “They rather live in the past” believing they had no future (72).  The people in this stage gave up the idea of liberation; and they gave up “and simply vegetated” (72). This phase meant death.

Frankl didn’t fall into the trap of provisional existence. Instead, he realized it was better to let fate lead your path, and don’t try to change fate or intervene.  First chance of fate was going to “rest camp that was arranged for the second time but instead of going to death camp like the other transports it really was a rest camp”. “Those who thought he was heading to his death, they remained in a camp, where famine raged…” so fate intervened to save Frankl (55-56). One day, a red cross from Geneva came announcing that they were giving the prisoners protection, medicine, cigs, and transporting them to freedom. The chief doctor said Frankl had to stay behind (60). He didn’t try to jump aboard, he decided to stay behind and let fate decide. Lucky for him, the SS truck was going to Switzerland, and in 48 hours prisoners arrived to a camp where they would be burned to death (60-62). Frankl wanted fate to lead his journey, and it helped him to survive to write about his experiences and ideas in this book.

Works Cited:

Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Saturated Socities: Man's Search for Meaning

            By Sophia Cecardo

As American citizens we have become consumed by violence.  We see it in our media, schools, and even our everyday personal lives.  There are multiple reasons behind why we as Americans have been consumed with violence.  Due to the fact that we are constantly being exposed to it we have become violent by nature.  We live our lives by the idea of survival of the fittest.  We have also developed our violent natures because of the fact that we gain things that we desire by being violent.  Due human tendencies like these that we are able to see the reason behind violence in saturated societies.

            We as humans have been consumed by violence.  The same can be said for the community of prisoners described in Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning.  Frankl discusses his daily life and the multiple torturous events that he endured.  However, instead of focusing on the numerous important milestones that Frankl experienced, he focuses more on the smaller details that many Holocaust survivors neglect to mention in their tales of survival.  In the book Frankle states that, “a man counted only because he had a prison number.  One literally became a number: dead or alive- that was unimportant; the life of a number was completely irrelevant”. (Frankl. 63)  This quote illustrates for its readers the level of unimportance that was put on a human life in the concentration camps.  Because the officers and guards in these camps treated the prisoners as if they were livestock, the prisoners developed a since of survival of the fittest.  They were willing to do anything and everything in order to be able to live even if it meant just one more day.  One vivid example that sticks out to me in this book is the example Frankl gives when he describes the way prisoners took the clothes right off a dead man’s back the moment he died in a desperate attempt to make their selves more comfortable in their already dirty and miserable conditions. 

            A second prime example of violence in the prisoners of Frankl’s camp is when a man refers to concentration camp prisoners in a photograph and says, “ Isn’t this terrible, the dreadful staring faces—everything about it”.( 48)  When Frankl responds, he simply asks why the man felt that the photograph was sad.  Frankl shares that he doesn’t understand why the man feels that way.  This quote can be compared to the analogy of a parent and child relationship in two different ways.  For one, Frankl can be viewed as the child figure because he simply does not understand why an outsider would see the picture as horrific, because for a large portion of Frankl’s life that was all he knew.  The sick and disfigured faces that the stranger looks at in disgust are the same faces that Frankl looks at and thinks of as his colleagues and friends.  However, the stranger can also be seen as the child and Frankl the adult because the stranger does not understand the world that Frankl has come to know.  The stranger cannot the comprehend the level of torture and fear that Frankl and many other concentration camp prisoners went threw, and therefore is naïve much as a child would be to the real world.  For Frankl the picture is something that he was used to seeing everyday.  The beaten down people in the picture is a sight that is all too familiar to him, even to the point that he does not recognize the picture as being grotesque and foreign, but rather as something that became an everyday part of life for him. 

            Violence in our society has become an everyday part of life, very much the same way it did for Frankl in the concentration camps that he lived in.  Although people are able to recognize this type of violence as being bad we continue to take part in it on an everyday basis.  This has led us into forming ideas such as survival of the fittest which lead us to become violent in order to gain something for our own benefit, not matter what the affects may be.              

Works Cited

    Frankl, Viktor E. Man's Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon, 2006. Print.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Behind the Veil of Violence

By: Sterling Baxter

Violence in our world is very predominant. Each year in the United States more than 50,000 people die from acts of violence, including more than 32,000 deaths from suicide and 18,000 deaths from homicide (Sanford). Keep in mind, that’s just the U.S, imagine the number of violent deaths for the rest of the world. It wouldn’t be very hard for me to tell you why all of this violence happens, and honestly, you probably don’t want to read that either. You’ve probably grown up hearing all about violence, seeing it in movies, video games, and the news. You and I could come up with some good answers as to why people are violent: power, money, prestige, gang members want to be “in” so they have to take another life to do so. Violence is all around us. We may not be directly affected by violence, but we aren’t totally ignorant to its role in our world either. A better question is: “What constitutes the complicity of violence in our world?” Why do people join in when violent situations occur? You may have to think about that question a little longer. I feel that it’s a much deeper issue.

Firstly, in case you’re jumping into this column totally unlearned, I’m writing this for class. I’m a student at the University of Kentucky and my class is all about violence. Pretty cool huh? We have been talking about “saturated societies” which are communities that are suffused with something. This “something” is often the cause of violence or conflict, like conflict diamonds in Africa for example. Throughout this reflection I’ll be giving some examples from a book about life as a prisoner in a Nazi work camp by Victor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor who died in 1997, and also the movie Blood Diamond. These two works are great examples of saturated societies that are pervaded by violence. Assuming you have either read my last blog post or posses some small amount of knowledge of these two works I will not be explaining there context or history in great detail.

So back to our question, “What constitutes the complicity of violence in our world?” Why do people join in on violent schemes? I’ve thought about this question and come up with three ideas that could offer good reason. Here they are: people are complicit in violence because they are continually exposed to it, witness unjustness, or they are motivated by personal gain. These theories do not need to be applied together in order to be true, nor does one negate any of the other two, they are independent.

Have you ever been in a fight? I’m assuming if not, you’ve at least watched one. Whether you enjoyed the battering of fists in your middle school’s hallway, (or wherever else you were) or thought it to be the sign of total stupidity you were probably surrounded by a crowd of people standing around shouting. My point is that people love to watch fights. Think of the NFL, or boxing, or hockey, they’re fun to watch because of the competition but also because of the jarring hits you might witness from the comfort of your couch. Take a karate movie for instance, when a child watches a film with a lot of fighting he usually gets up and jumps around putting holes in the walls for the next two hours. In Frankls book, Man’s Search for Meaning, he talks about the affects of observing violence in Nazi work camps: “Since the prisoner continually witnessed scenes of beatings, the impulse towards violence was greatly increased.” (Frankl 63). This description gives the reader a great insight into how prisoners of war camps often felt in captivity, but more so the effects that violence can have on our psychological orientation. We also see violence transform one of our characters in Blood Diamond. Dia, Solomon’s son, is taken away from his family and forced to become a child soldier. Before this, Dia was a sweet boy, only the son of a local farmer. However, when Dia is forced to become a child soldier he becomes violent because of the culture he is exposed to. In this case the expression “like father, like son” doesn’t quite work since Solomon seems to be the most nonviolent character in the film. Although, we do see Solomon’s dark side when he finally meets the Commander that has kidnapped Dia, which bring me to my next point.

It seems that no ever stops a fight were the little guy is beating up the big guy. I think this is in part because that hardly ever happens and usually the big guy wasn’t following the rule of “pick on somebody your own size.” Although, when humans see injustice, like the big guy beating up the little guy, it stirs their deepest angers. There is something inside every human that hates injustice. Before we even get out of our diapers we are accustomed to tattle tale on whomever it might be that took our toy or said a naughty word. We want justice! Frankl touches on this issue in his book in a more somber tone:

Beatings occurred on the slightest provocation, sometimes for no reason at all. For example, bread was rationed out at our work site and we had to line up for it. Once, the man behind me stood off a little to one side and that lack of symmetry displeased the S.S. guard. I did not know what was going on in the line behind me, nor in the mind of the S.S. guard, but suddenly I received two sharp blows on my head. Only then did I spot the guard at my side who was using his stick. At such a moment it is not the physical pain which hurts the most (and this applies to adults as much as to punished children); it is the mental agony caused by the injustice, the unreasonableness of it all. (Frankl 63)

I think Frankl gives us a clear picture of the injustice that takes place in Nazi war camps as well as some saturated societies. Though there was no violent rebuttal from the victim, there was undoubtedly pain, and probably anger. I think when injustice is witnessed in an environment, good or bad, it stirs a deep anger inside of its viewers. We also catch a glimpse of redemption from injustice in the film Blood Diamond. There is a clip towards the end of the movie where Solomon comes face to face with Dia’s kidnapper. They engage in some hand-to-hand combat and Dia’s father beats the kidnapper’s head in with a shovel. That’s pretty graphic right? However, I’m confident that many of the viewers in the theater were out of their seat screaming, “Hit him again!” "Why?", you might ask? Because he deserved it. It was justified. The man had taken Solomon’s son and was teaching him evil and violence. One could say it was Solomon's turn to crack some skulls...cricket...cricket. Anyways, I’m not condoning Solomon’s actions but I do think there was a purpose in them. When the most stable, calm, and peaceful figure in a film goes crazy because of injustice, there’s a reason behind it. Solomon was simply looking out for what was best for Dia.

The last and maybe most common reason people participate in violence is because of personal gain or motivation. Frankl elaborates on this by writing of his experience as a doctor in the typhus block of the Nazi work camp. Not only was he responsible for the health of his patients, but also the cleanliness of the hut. If the hut were disordered, it often resulted in a beating. Here he tells us about the difficulties of keeping the hut clean because of the sick prisoners.

Apathy was particularly increased among the feverish patients, so that they did not react at all unless they were shouted at. Even this failed at times, and then it took tremendous self-control no to strike them. For one’s own irritability took on enormous proportions in the face of the others apathy and especially in the face of danger (i.e., the approaching inspection) which was caused by it. (Frankl 64)

In Frankl’s attempts to save his own skin he admits the struggle to not become violent. I can understand why it is that communities at war with one another, countries that are politically depressed, or people who are trying to make a living in saturated societies resort to violence. I think they feel powerless, there’s nothing else to do. I personally believe that violence shouldn’t be used unless in self-defense, and even then there are times to remain passive. But what about people whom day in and day out live in corruption, aren’t their personal beliefs compromised to the point of asking themselves “do wrong and live, do right and die?” We also see this in Leonardo DiCaprio’s character "Archer" in Blood Diamond. There is a scene in the film where he says he would do anything to get out of Africa. His lifestyle gives testament to those words as well. There isn’t much that Danny won’t do to find Solomon’s diamond. He even threatens to skin Solomon’s face off if he threatens their safety. Chill out Archer! When we examine these two examples I think we are truly just skimming the surface of all the personal reasons people interact in violence. Whether it be, as I mentioned earlier, gang members that want to be “in”, or people in search of money, prestige or something else they want, the reasons for personal violence go deep into the situations they often result from.

Issues of violence are deep in the hearts of people. Being exposed to violence often produces someone who is violent, just like the children of a loud parent will most like be loud or share similar characteristics. The injustice that people witness is also a heart issue, something I explained earlier. There is no toleration for injustice in the hearts of people, especially if it is someone they know and love. And lastly, people resort to violence because they feel powerless. I think there comes a time in the lives of people who live in saturated societies when they have to question their survival, they have to prioritize their needs. “Do I want to do the right thing and die, or do I want to be violent, against my neighbor, and live?” It’s obviously not a great question to have to ask yourself, and thankfully not many people in America have. I hope that someday none of the other countries have to ask themselves that question either.

Sources:

Sanford C and Hedegaard H (editors). Deaths from Violence: A Look at 17 States -- Data from the National Violent Death Reporting System. December 2008.

Frankl, Victor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. Print.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Over-saturated by Violence

by Taylor Mullins

I believe our country is an accumulation of several saturated societies. Many different parts of the United States have experienced something locally that has affected their lives and will continue to do so for a long time. Occasionally, something happens that catches national attention and rocks the emotions of American citizens. For example, the tragedy of Laramie, Wyoming has catapulted the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) community into fighting back against their torturers. Not only is the town of Laramie changed forever, but the country also has a different perspective on hate crimes as they apply to something other than race or religion.

What is it that makes a tragedy nationally significant? At some point, a line is crossed that sets a story on fire in the media. I believe that the main reason for this is that we, as Americans who have been bred into this society of acceptance of political use of violent rhetoric, want to read and listen to stories that create the most controversy. We like to see what we can argue about the most and whom we can point fingers at in order to make our point. This type of finger-pointing blame game is something we continue to do even after tragedy has struck the nation.

The Arizona shooting is something that was deeply troubling and equally surprising to our nation. No one expects to be confronted by a man with a gun for seemingly no reason. However, this tragedy was a wake-up call to many political leaders and the use of violent rhetoric. Many put the blame on Sarah Palin for an image found that depicted gun crosshairs over several different Congressional districts, and also threw angry accusations of violent rhetoric with the use of the phrase “blood libel.” (Berman) I find it interesting that an accusation of violent rhetoric starts up another political media battle that is just as violent. The argument changes from one thing to another, simply because we want someone to blame. Jon Stewart says it well in his commentary on the violent acts in Arizona. “Boy would it be nice to be able to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible. Because then we could convince ourselves that if we just stop this… then the horrors would end.” I think our country all too often has the idea that if we blame someone, then the problem goes away, but it’s difficult to make the problem go away when it originates in ourselves. We contribute to violent rhetoric everyday by letting the media use it constantly. We are saturating our own society in this way.

Our country’s overuse of violent words and images sends the message to children growing up around us that it is okay to behave in this way because that is how things are done. If you do not agree with someone, lash out. If something happens that upsets you, then find someone or something to blame and blame it for everything you can. In this way, we are creating our own saturated society. We are teaching ourselves that it is okay to speak and act this way. We are reinforcing that it is okay to be violent. There are video games upon video games that depict major acts of violence. Having personally played the video game Call of Duty and nearly all of its different versions, I have seen how the graphics are becoming more and more realistic to the point where now we actually see blood spurting out of the enemy’s head. My brother is currently stationed in Kuwait, and has been through several types of gun training. He has talked to me numerous times about how similar the guns are in the game to real life. The speed at which they shoot and the time it takes to reload them is nearly identical. We are breeding a culture of violence, and (for the most part) our country seems to be okay with it.

However, I do not think that video games like Call of Duty are responsible for violent teenagers who grow to be violent adults. I think parenting has a lot to do with it. A parent is responsible for how the child is raised. Sure, the media is overpopulated with violence, but without proper guidance and explanation of this violence, it is possible for the child to get the wrong impression and think, “This is just how the world works.”

Our country is falling into a constant state of physical and verbal violence against one another. Instead of arguing about the problem, we should fix the problem. If we don’t change our actions, our society is going to be over-saturated by violence and the idea of what our country will be like when we reach that point is terrifying.

Works Cited

Arizona Shooting links

1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/the_tuscon_tragedy_freedom_fro.html

2) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-gabrielle-giffords-tucson-shooting-admonishes-journalists-pundits-blood-libel/story?id=12582457

3) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

The Unsung Hero

By Manny Cortez

Set in 1999 during the civil unrest in Sierra Leone, the film Blood Diamond follows diamond smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) and fisherman Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) as they team up on a quest through war-stricken Africa. Solomon and Archer team up to find Solomon’s son Dia who was captured by rebels and to hopefully find a diamond to serve as Archer’s ticket out of Africa. The film sheds light on the more gruesome prices paid to get diamonds into the hands of sellers. The film shows how militaristically saturated life has become by focusing on the violence inflicted by the rebel group R.U.F. on villagers. From their idea to cut off hands to deter voters from voting against the guerilla group to their turning of village boys into child soldiers, R.U.F. presses forward (demanding respect where respect is not deserved.)

By the end of the film many displays of sacrifice introduce the question, “Who is the real hero?” (If you have yet to see the film, SPOILER ALERT.) With all of this bloodshed and this view into a world we know nothing about, what was its purpose? Initially, I thought perhaps Archer was the hero because, after all, he is the main character. He participates in many heroic deeds, one of which allows Solomon to keep the diamond and flee Africa with his son. Archer is a strong candidate, but then maybe it should be Maddy Bowen the American reporter. Without her Archer and Solomon would not have had the chance to even find Solomon’s family on the manifest of refugee names or even reconnect the separated family. With her quick thinking and desire for her story, she seems pretty heroic herself. The true hero is the one I leave out, the one I consider last that makes me realize the meaning of Blood Diamond. The hero is Solomon Vandy.

Throughout the movie Solomon remains steadfast in his quest. When Archer threatens to kill him should he take another step, Solomon simply replies, “He is my son. I am his father. I must go find him. Go ahead, shoot me if you want, but I will go find him.” (Zwick) This devotion to his cause is what I think makes him the hero. He goes all the way from walking his son to school to running through his village to give his son and the rest of his family a good chance of escaping an R.U.F. invasion. The real heroic deed is the testimony Solomon gives at the end of the movie. He makes a deal with the Van de Kaap business and has it recorded on film proving the Van de Kaap group participates in the buying of blood diamonds. His testimony shuts down some of their market as the demand for conflict diamonds decreases and people begin to realize how these diamonds are acquired. Solomon is the real hero because in all his efforts he has made the largest impact worldwide.

Although our society may not be saturated in violence or in a way that families like Solomon’s would be in danger, there is something beneath the surface that nags at me: “T.I.A,” (Zwick). TIA means “this is Africa” and is used throughout the film. TIA embodies the notion that this is how it is now and how it will be forever. I fear I did not automatically jump to Solomon being the hero because I thought in as terrible a situation as it was, there would be no way he could surmount what obstacles lie in his path; almost as if I had given up on the character all together. I wish to contest the notion that should one find himself in a daunting situation he has no choice but to succumb to whatever bad shall progress because it is how it has always been. As a society we must change to effectively meet the needs and safety of our people. People should not be afraid to let their children walk to school like I am sure Solomon’s character was. Every society is saturated to some degree and at times will find itself on the brink of tipping the scale from quiet violent implications in political campaigns to full-fledged violence as in Sierra Leone. It is important to maintain the courage to get away from the “This is Africa” stigma and decide to make positive change as Solomon did with his son and the blood diamond.

Works Cited

Zwick, Edward, dir. Blood Diamond. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2006. DVD.