Tim O Brien Injustice Essay Example for Free

Tim O Brien Injustice Essay Justice is the pursuit of right, the elevation of goodness, and the elimination of evil; however, such lucid definitions often lack substance when stood up to the tests of reality. Injustice is the denial of rights and the lack of morality for the embracement of barbarism. When looking for injustices in the world, what most readily comes to mind are violent crimes? Murder, theft, and rape are domestic injustices commonly recognized, but injustices, like reality, exist in perception. Therefore, to deem someone or something unjust, first agreement upon its definition must be established. When the United States declared her independence, we perceived the unjust indignities to be clear; however, to the militant king, the refusal to pay his taxes was injustice and the nullification of his law was the warrant for war. When such implied meanings come in to play, one has to determine what is just. In order to eliminate war, first all nations must outline the true meaning of â€Å"injustice† and find suitable solutions for reparation. The most diligent participant of war is the injustice done upon both sides, the backing of both by god, and the misconception that both will prevail due to their side being right and just. These differing views of injustice and justice are what cause the eventual degradation of war. (JRSOT) Tim O’Brien takes account of the injustices of war when he refers to opposing emotion and feelings. â€Å"The beauty was spelling binding as the horrific napalm burned the forest to the ground. (O’Brien) The contradicting impression, of awe and beauty combined with that of horror and grotesqueness leads one to a sense of immeasurable injustice experienced by those fighting the war. A war he hated, he still found the thrill of combat alluring, even as the fear of death overwhelmed his body, forcing his feet forward by quivering will. The emotional damage was the injustice upon the men, due to the memories that will haunt them forever. â€Å"There were many bodies with real faces, bu t I was young then and I was afraid to look. And not, twenty year later, I’m left with faceless responsibility and faceless grief. † (pg. 180, O’Brien) Injustice once more finds its discontinuous meaning bearing not only upon willful acts of corruptness, but upon the unsuspecting soldiers of piece, fighting to stay alive, sane, and together. Reflecting upon the travesty of war, one begins to realize, aside from the soldiers of opposition, there remain innocent victims, caught between the fences, killed, slaughtered, and mercilessly hunted for their unfortunate occupation of a warzone. The injustices, done upon these innocent bystanders are just one of the many costs of war. Families lose their members as well their homes. (Incite Magazine) â€Å"The old guy walked with a limp, slow and stooped over, but he knew where the safe spots were and where you had to be careful and where even if you were careful you could end up like popcorn. † (pg. 33, O’Brien) The devastation brought about by war, affects not only economic, physical, and emotional well being, but it leaves a disastrous scar upon the land. Following the Vietnam War, orange gas, a carsogenic toxin, was widely used as a biological weapon. This weapon, though severely lethal to humans, also caused permanent damage to the environment. Vietnam is of a tropical climate. It is clothed in towering rain forests and blossoming clover fields. (Incite Magazine) Animals run abundantly through the undeveloped slopes and the shadowing forest floor. Industry has destroyed many of the once beautifully adorned civilizations of the four legged and winged; however, the noxious pollution released by industry in Vietnam has been minor compared to the devastasion caused by war. In every war the assault falls most heavily on the countryside. In Germany, during WWII, mortar shells redecorated the hill sides, and tanks rolled on, crushing the fertility from the land. The chemicals released to combat each other brought with them the collateral damage. When the war was over, thousands of lives had been taken and millions of dollars had been squandered. The environment has always recovered from our stupidities. How long, though, before will it be unable to repair the atrocities of our reckless ways? Tim O’Brien refers to the Vietnam War as something incomprehensible, incalculable, and exclusive to those that lived it, breathed it, and carried it home. He attempts to convey the ambiguity of war and embellished story-telling as reflecting the actuality of combat. In order to truly understand the experience of war, one must find fiction in order to convey it properly. (O’Brien) The enemy could melt into ice, and consolidate before your very eye: such was the terrible progression of the war, and the fiction that crept into reality. The surreal seeming of war, is mixed with the reality of it. When written upon paper the occurrences recounted transcend reality, but, in actuality, the comprehension of the event, in the mind of the soldier, was, in fact, experienced that very way; as in a dream characterized by the cinematic embellishment of fiction. The contradictions that he depicts, â€Å"it was atrocious; it was thrilling,† is proof of the injustice of war, and the injustices he felt were around him. â€Å"There were time in my life when I couldn’t feel much, not sadness or pity or passion, and somehow I blamed this place for what I had become, and I blamed it for taking away the person I had once been. â€Å"(pg. 185, O’Brien)

Securing a Place of Power: Reinventing the Role of Women in Theatrical Representation :: Research Papers

Securing a Place of Power: Reinventing the Role of Women in Theatrical Representation In The Feminist Spectator as Critic, Jill Dolan examines the current hegemony of the â€Å"white, heterosexual, middle-class male† (121) as the subject of representation in theater. She examines why feminist attempts to expose this bias and use it to change the objectification of the roles of women have failed, when this has even been attempted, and furnishes her hypothesis on how this failure can be prevented. In the dominant illusionist tradition of American theater, the individuality of the spectator is subsumed in the singular mass of the audience. The face most often given to this mass audience is that of the â€Å"white, heterosexual, middle-class male† (121). Women’s roles are objectified, and, in the process, the feminist spectator is alienated as her gender, race, class, and/or sexual orientation have no relation to what is presented onstage. Feminism is a critique of the prevailing male-dominated social norm that seeks to change this norm and therefore is the platform from which to change its domination in theater. Dolan enumerates three segments of American feminism: liberal, cultural or radical, and materialist. She credits liberal feminism with the bolstering of female visibility and involvement in theater and acknowledges the women-affirming aspects of cultural feminism, but she finds them both flawed and unsuitable for an effective attack on the male domination of theater. Materialist feminism looks at women as a class, oppressed by material conditions and social relations. It considers gender as a social construct, in the service of the dominant culture’s ideology and accepted as normative by the less powerful, which is oppressive to both men and women. It rejects the universality of the mythical Woman and instead views women as historical subjects whose position in the social structures of the dominant culture is influenced by race, class, and sexual orientation. Materialist feminism sees as necessity the unmasking of the ideas of gender and power of the dominant culture and thus what most theater and performance represents. Materialist feminism does not aim to judge, but to examine the ways in which a performance delivers its ideological message, in order to formulate strategies for combating the oppressive cultural assumptions inherent in this message. Its goal is â€Å"to affect a larger cultural change in the ideological and material condition of women and men† (18), and it sees the necessity of politically analyzing the current condition and its representational

Analysis of “The Singer Solution To World Poverty” Essay

In the essay â€Å"The Singer Solution to World Poverty,† philosopher Peter Singer addresses the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need. Singer believes that withholding income is the equivalence of letting a child starve to death. Therefore, Singer suggests the ethical thing to do to end world hunger is to give up everyday luxuries. Although donating a vast amount of money could help dying and starving children, Singer’s proposition is not only unrealistic but also too demanding for everyday Americans who have responsibilities of their own. Singer begins his essay with Dora, a schoolteacher, who sells an orphan awaiting to have his organs sold in a black market for a new television set. Eventually, Dora regrets her immoral decision and rescues the boy from his fate. Singer compares this act to Americans, who spend their income on food, clothes and vacations by suggesting that the money spent could have made a â€Å"difference between life and death for children in need† (327). Singer goes on to compare how the situations are similar, pointing out that the only difference is ignoring an issue that isn’t in your presence and one that is. Singer continues by calling himself a â€Å"utilitarian philosopher† and defines his character by stating that he judges acts by their consequences (327). Singer then introduces Bob and his expensive Buggati. Bob chooses to save his car from a train even though he could have saved a child’s life by destroying his prized possession, and compares this story to Am ericans and their lack of donations. Singer concludes with comparing income and how much a person should give away based on that number. He suggests all Americans have the choice to give up all luxuries because these sacrifices could better a child’s life. Singer targets all Americans in his essay, implying everyone needs to help. He begins with saying that two hundred dollars is enough to make a difference for a child, to declaring the only solution is to give up all luxuries. Singer uses Bob and Dora, two individuals who chose money and objects over children, and compares them to his audience. He even goes as far as to compare the lack of help Americans give starving children in  Africa to Nazi Germany and those who did nothing to stop the Third Reich. He bases his logic on what the moral thing to do is. Singer attempts to guilt trip his readers by giving examples of life and death situations, in which lay in the hands of immoral people. Although Singer does mean well and wants to make a difference for those whose lives are at risk, his solution to is too demanding for everyday people and his authoritative deliverance in not very persuasive. Furthermore, Singer not only expects too much, but doesn’t realize luxuries and necessities mean different things to different people. Singer overwhelms the reader by stating one number to expecting a lot more. Singer fails to mention how much people struggle in America alone. Sure, it would be great to end world hunger, but what about giving to those in need in the US? According to Unicef, the United States has the second highest population of child poverty in the list of developed countries, (Unicef). Although it would be wonderful to be able to help all in need, sometimes it isn’t possible when Americans are struggling themselves to pay bills and raise their own. In conclusion, although Singer does have a good meaning behind his essay, he fails to persuade his audience by being too demanding. Although poverty is in fact an issue, he uses mostly exaggerated examples and guilt trips his readers by comparing them to Nazis and leads them to feel bad about themselves. Not everyone is able to help due to their own financial responsibilities, and it’s unrealistic people will give up most of their income for strangers in other countries. Despite his tone, I do believe the only way to overcome world issues it to work together, but unfortunately I don’t think Singer’s solution is a realistic solution to world poverty.

Plato s Meno True Opinion Vs. - 983 Words

Plato’s Meno: True Opinion vs Knowlege Socrates was one of the most influential and thought-provocative people in all of Ancient Greece; he was so monumental in his teachings that his theories and argumentative styles are still utilized today. One of Socrates’ most influential students was Plato, another ancient philosopher that followed Socrates through Greece and kept record of his arguments and teachings, who would go on to be some of the most significant philosophical academia to ever be published. In one of Plato’s recordings, the Meno, he records an argument that Socrates enters with a friend of his, Meno. In this argument, Socrates and Meno are attempting to define virtue, and are having a very difficult time in doing so considering that they were two brilliant and learned men. In the Meno, Socrates argues that true opinion and knowledge differ from each other, although sometimes it seems that they can serve as replacements for one another. However, Socrat es is able to form an argument to help Meno see how knowledge and true opinion differ from each other. As I read the Meno, I found that I agreed with Socrates and his platform which argued that the two did in fact differ from each other, but they could also serve as two separate means for the same ending. While Socrates and Meno were having their debate over the definition of virtue, Socrates asks Meno if he thought that he had a definition of virtue, and Meno began listing what virtue would entail for different