So I'm not really working towards anything specific here, but just a bit of dabbling around as a way to analyze things we're currently learning.
To me, suffering isn't as big of a theme Russian culture, literature, art, etc. as much as brotherhood. In all three of our sources thus far, brotherhood under Mother Russia has been a huge theme. And perhaps it's this sense of brotherhood that brings about suffering, for one must give up a few things to gain in a social contract. It just seems that the Russians give up so much more than say, us Americans, because they value the community so much because of this clan sense dating back to the Slavs. All in all, being Russian is a big deal, and it's a big no-no when one goes against their fellow Russians.
In How Much Land Does a Man Need, the farmer's greed begins to spark only as he feels it's necessary to aquire more land than that which was to be divided up by all the peasants. The farmer goes against his fellow Russian brothers to gain things for himself. He keeps trying to work his way up the scale, gaining more and more land, until he must pay the ultimate price for his actions, his life. This story is about suppressing the individual because that's what one must do to be virtuous, when working for the good of the fellow Russians.
True, all war films have a theme of virtue, a theme of patriotism, and Alexander Nevsky is certainly no exception. It pushed about every button that would make one want to fight for Mother Russia. I mean, it's all about how the citizens of Novgorod were going to fight what was left of Russia, Nevsky leading them. I think the scene that best describes Russia's brotherhood mentality is at the very end when Nevsky allows the citizens to decide the fate of the people who were to be dealt with for what they'd done against Russia. It was not the Germans, the enemies of Russia who fared the worst fate, but the traitor. To them, it was worse to be Russian and go against Russia, their homeland and Mother, as opposed to fighting against them and not knowing any better.
Russian Orthodox Christianity helped this sense of brotherhood as well, because it gave them a sense of community. "The whole Russian people once thought of themselves idealistically as a single, immense family, with the tsar as a father. Russian peasants, down through the centuries, addressed everyone, even strangers in terms of kinship- father, mother, brother, sister. The individual life was only a fleeting moment in the life of this great clan." This quote basically defines how Russians see themselves, from their individualistic lives, to their lives in the community as a whole.
As Russian, you must suffer, but to the Russians, suffering for the community is every worth every moment.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
4. If you were running for president in the 2008 election what would be the main issue you would want to campaign for?
4. If you were running for president in the 2008 election what would be the main issue you would want to campaign for?
For this question, I worked on example elaboration.
Recently, we've been hearing mention of those who are planning on running in the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, all of whom are sure to have a specific issue they plan on addressing. With the escalation of troops being deployed to Iraq, and the public's increasing disapproval of the war overseas, it'll most likely be getting our boys home. However, there are more pressing concerns that our country faces, concerns that both Al Gore and George Bush would say are things that are important to our country, that would be breaking our dependence of oil.
First and foremost is the fact that the US is, as good old Georgie put it, 'addicted to oil'. We spend $13 million an hour fueling our cars, SUVs, and minivans with foreign oil. We want our oil, and we want it cheap. As we saw in Syriana, we'll go to almost anything to get our oil cheaper, even if it involves depriving a country of democracy and killing people. True, that's a fictional film, but if you look at which countries we 'befriend' in the Middle East, you can tell we only like those who can protect our oil interests. Look our involvement with Iran prior to the Revolution, look at our long time relations with Saudi Arabia. Leading oil producers and America's best buds. It's not an unknown fact that we went into Iraq for the same reason. IRAQ HAS THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES! We needed to bring the government down in order bring disorder to the country so that oil would be cheaper for us. This is pretty much the same scenario as Syriana, where disorder meant cheaper oil prices for the United States, who was willing to murder Prince Nasir, who wished to bring order and democracy to his country. I thought we lived in a virtuous country who wanted to spread democracy and order in the world so that countries would reap benefits that we take for granted everyday. Apparently not. And the thing is, the countries of the Middle East realize this hypocracy, which may lead to long list of reasons why they hate us. Breaking our addiction, and realizing that some things are more important than cheap oil prices may help our image within the area. That may lead to a decreased chance of terrorism against us in the future.
Al Gore has become increasingly popular since the debut of his movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Unfortunately, global warming isn't as hot of a topic as the war in Iraq, but it definately should be. The United States is responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India and Japan combined. The reason why America is such an airclogger is because of our oil addiction. If we didn't need to fuel up our cars three times a week to emit those gases, we could become a leader in cleaning up our world. We, the world's sole super power, could start a great movement that would benefit not just us, but our children's children, and their children. And if we focused on alternative sources of energy, we could have more job opportunities for our fellow Americans, and our economy would boom. We'd be in an even higher place, doing good for our planet and ourselves, we could replenish our diminishing middle class, and our democracy would flourish.
So if I were running for President in 2008, I'd focus on a plan for us to break our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. There's no down side to doing it, it'd improve our planet, our relationship in the Middle East, and our stance all over the world. It's just something that needs to be done because it's something that so adamently dominates our politics.
For this question, I worked on example elaboration.
Recently, we've been hearing mention of those who are planning on running in the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, all of whom are sure to have a specific issue they plan on addressing. With the escalation of troops being deployed to Iraq, and the public's increasing disapproval of the war overseas, it'll most likely be getting our boys home. However, there are more pressing concerns that our country faces, concerns that both Al Gore and George Bush would say are things that are important to our country, that would be breaking our dependence of oil.
First and foremost is the fact that the US is, as good old Georgie put it, 'addicted to oil'. We spend $13 million an hour fueling our cars, SUVs, and minivans with foreign oil. We want our oil, and we want it cheap. As we saw in Syriana, we'll go to almost anything to get our oil cheaper, even if it involves depriving a country of democracy and killing people. True, that's a fictional film, but if you look at which countries we 'befriend' in the Middle East, you can tell we only like those who can protect our oil interests. Look our involvement with Iran prior to the Revolution, look at our long time relations with Saudi Arabia. Leading oil producers and America's best buds. It's not an unknown fact that we went into Iraq for the same reason. IRAQ HAS THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES! We needed to bring the government down in order bring disorder to the country so that oil would be cheaper for us. This is pretty much the same scenario as Syriana, where disorder meant cheaper oil prices for the United States, who was willing to murder Prince Nasir, who wished to bring order and democracy to his country. I thought we lived in a virtuous country who wanted to spread democracy and order in the world so that countries would reap benefits that we take for granted everyday. Apparently not. And the thing is, the countries of the Middle East realize this hypocracy, which may lead to long list of reasons why they hate us. Breaking our addiction, and realizing that some things are more important than cheap oil prices may help our image within the area. That may lead to a decreased chance of terrorism against us in the future.
Al Gore has become increasingly popular since the debut of his movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Unfortunately, global warming isn't as hot of a topic as the war in Iraq, but it definately should be. The United States is responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India and Japan combined. The reason why America is such an airclogger is because of our oil addiction. If we didn't need to fuel up our cars three times a week to emit those gases, we could become a leader in cleaning up our world. We, the world's sole super power, could start a great movement that would benefit not just us, but our children's children, and their children. And if we focused on alternative sources of energy, we could have more job opportunities for our fellow Americans, and our economy would boom. We'd be in an even higher place, doing good for our planet and ourselves, we could replenish our diminishing middle class, and our democracy would flourish.
So if I were running for President in 2008, I'd focus on a plan for us to break our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. There's no down side to doing it, it'd improve our planet, our relationship in the Middle East, and our stance all over the world. It's just something that needs to be done because it's something that so adamently dominates our politics.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)