1.
After reading Wendell Berry's essay, "The Failure of War," write a 300 word response to question 3 under the topic Writing About Issues and Concerns.2.
Berry makes several good points in essay, however he also only really offers one viewpoint on the subject of war. Where can you find your own? Though it need not be oppositional to Berry's, perhaps your perspective is more logical or persuasive. Choose one of Berry's points and challenge it against your own in no less than 250 words.
5 comments:
Essay 1
Of course the idea of relying only on our nation for our needs is one that Americans have had for the longest time, the idea of isolationism, leaving the rest of the world to its own desires while we focus merely on ourselves. Sure this seems as if it would allow for a greater degree of "national freedom", as we would no longer have to worry about foreign nations cutting off our oil supplies, or hiking up costs on the cheap goods assembled in foreign nations. And, of course, we would no longer have to engage in warfare for natural resources, such as the "Oil Wars" of recent times. But the problem with this isolationist policy is that it merely doesn't work. The reason most of the world is finally catching up to the Western lifestyle is because of the transfer of our wealth to less developed nations, which allows them, in turn, to become more advanced. Also, we could be as independent from other nations as we want to be, war is inevitable so long as humanity exists on the face of the planet. In fact, if we were to cut all of the economic links that tie us with all the nations of the world, it would almost certainly result in global poverty, followed by global warfare. The economy is a very distinctive creature, in that when anything happens to one link in the chain, an effect can be felt around the world. Case in point: the housing market crashes in America, leading to a recession that not only affects us here at home, but the global economy as well. The recession we feel now is not just isolated to where it started, but widespread. The only way to remove our dependence on other nations is to somehow find a way to prevent that dependence from ever happening, which would be nigh impossible unless someone could invent some sort of time traveling device (but now I'm just ranting). To think that we can just shirk away from the rest of the world in order to help ourselves is ridiculous.
-Eric
Essay 2
Seeing as i love to argue as much as i do, i could probably go on and on about Berry's entire argument, but I'll limit myself to his argument that through peace, we can solve all of our problems. I know that nine times out of ten there is certainly a better alternative to war, whether through peaceful protest or through other methods along those lines. However, to believe that all of the problems humanity has faced can be solved by pacifism is too unrealistic for my tastes. Take for instance the second World War. The Nazi's were some of the most despicable people in history, killing millions upon millions of people in their quest for "racial purity" and rampaging through Europe. Now, at first the Europeans attempted a peaceful resolution, appeasement, in order to prevent the Germans from starting another war, but this had no effect, in fact, it may have only tempted them to see what else they could take with Europe in the state it was. Getting to my point, some people cannot be negotiated with. Hitler was a lunatic, a man who could not be reasoned with, and no amount of public protest short of a coup would take him out of power. Had the western allies and Russia not taken any action, the map of Europe might look very different today. Even in the natural world, violence is necessary for survival, and fights among members of the same species are important in order to ensure the species survival through natural selection (I would like to think that humanity is above such base instincts, but that would also be unrealistic, as we are animals with the same instincts as other members of the animal kingdom).All in all, the world is not all sunshine and flowers, sure public reform can be brought about through nonviolent action, such as during the civil rights movements of the mid twentieth century, but when another group is committing horrible acts against humanity, you can't expect to fight that kind of insanity with words alone.
-Eric
Berry made an interesting point that the United States should be self-reliant in order to gain economic independence. However,the United States relies too heavily on China and other middle easten countries that to just to rely on its own and the skills of its people is out of the question and as of now is just impossible. Of course, it will be an important step towards national freedom because we would no longer have to depend on other countries for our everyday goods for living. However, I feel that by cutting off our relationships with other countries will limit our exposure to the developing countries and spark violence within our trading countries. Not only will they lose the negotiations of trade, they will lose the goods they need from us as well which will spark violence. If everyone doesn't agree with the U.S. being self-reliant they may go to extreme measures to fight for what they need. Also, the U.S. doesn't produce enough goods for the country to end all foreign affairs. I don't feel that self-reliance is necessarily a step toward national freedom because it's not like we are in a communist government where we are being dictated, we chose to engage in foreign affairs to help the citizens of the united States. Right now, I don't think that it's best to be self-reliant on our own country because we need other countries, like China, to bail us out of this financial crisis. Sometimes it's good to be independant but I have to disagree with Berry. His belief of the country being isolated from the rest of the world is more of a burlesque dream than living in reality.
whoops that was mine!!! Sorry
~Tylie~
I'd like to challenge Berry on his belief that you shall love your enemy. How can you love someone that does harm to you emotionally, physically or mentally? Love is a strong positive devotion or affectionate emotion towards someone or something so when someone is out to hurt me I'm unabled to show any kind of love towards them. I respect and understand that God says to love thy enemy but the human in me doesn't allow me to do so. Love is a strong word and to love someone that negatively challenges you and is out to hurt you makes people incapable of loving thy enemy. People always say put yourself in their shoes or find a place in your heart to forgive them but I feel by loving them is telling them that everything they did is ok and it's not. For instance, if someone murdered your mother. Do you think you could find it in your heart to love them just because "it's the right thing to do"? Personally, I wouldn't be able to find a single space in my heart to love someone who took something so precious and dear away from me. I know I may sound cruel but it's the truth. Also, people always say "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Friends you trust, enemies you don't, so why keep someone you don't even trust closer than someone you do? I don't know whether or not I'm grasping the concept correctly but I really don't agree with Berry on that topic.
~Tylie~
Post a Comment