Jordan’s Comments (group member since Dec 16, 2013)

Jordan’s comments from the On Tyrants & Tributes : Real World Lessons From The Hunger Games group.

I think her philosophy is great. And I agree that if people grew up with a better understanding of war and its effects, we would probably be more averse to it as a society. However, while I would say that she's been successful at fostering inter-generational dialogue on the topic, she hasn't really fulfilled what she said, which was that kids should be exposed at an earlier age. She gets young adults, which is when I started thinking about war myself. What do you think of this goal?

Well war in real life is how our government keeps us in line. They make us fear the enemy, or make us fear being labled as the enemy, in order to take away our rights in the name of "security". In the books, the same thing is done, but it's the fear of letting what happened before happen again that keeps them in line. It's the same thing, but they just use a different horror.

I certainly share her father's conviction, but I think I may not be the majority in the world that wants to protect their kids from everything.

In the 20th century I think American society at least has failed at this, because everyone born from the 90s on pretty much has been alive during constant war, so that's all they know.

I think this changes some people. There was thread here on this class that asks our thoughts on what it would take for us to start contemplate revolution. If you think you are already contemplating it, or that you are close to, you run the risk of being singled out by the NSA or who knows who if you say you do. So you have to censor yourself. This is an example, again, of how the fear of being labled a terrorist keeps people in line, sort of like the fear some white people have of being labled as racist makes them bend over backwards for minorities.

This is definitely a sign of oppression. The problem is, as mentioned in the book "101 Things to do Til the Revolution" written by I can't remember who, is that it's too late to fix things by working within the system, and is too late to just shoot the bastards (referring to corrupt government). So any action taken, even civil disobedience (can someone say raising three fingers?) is written off by the media as the actions of a crazy person and is handled by heavily-armed SWAT teams.

And while many people are probably making bad decisions when it comes to posting private conversation in public forums, or photos or videos on Facebook and Youtube, that makes it open to view for private citizens, it still doesn't, in my opinion, authorize the government to look at it in an investigative capacity. Why do we have to sacrifice ease of navigation for privacy with GPS? Since when was that the trade?

I currently work in retirement finance and investing, and I could be satisfied doing that. But my ultimate goal is to be a writer.

I can't say I know this is the most prevalent theme, but the one that pops out to me is the fear of terrorism and being labled as a terrorist. Our actual government maintains control over us today in many ways, including excusing the loss of freedom by saying "we have to do it to keep you safe". Some people are convinced, because their nationalism is played to, some aren't, but go along with it anyway because of the second way, fear of being labled a terrorist. Pretty much any dissenting opinion can be found if it's in text, online, a phone call, email etc and it keeps people from bringing up incendiary topics, as well as from question what's going on. Either you stay in line because you don't want to be labled a terrorist, or your stay in line because you belive that will protect you from terrorists.

Maybe my sights are already set on it...

I actually can't think of any examples of how Katniss' rashness, if she has any, has provoked her to violate basic rules of equality.

It's interesting that she says that, because that's how it is in real life. No one wins in real life either, except for the government. When there's war, who profits? It's to the Pentagon's budgetary benefit to have long extended wars that balances just the right amount of American deaths. If they win, their funding goes away til they find a new target. If they lose, they lose funding til they find a new target. Who wins with overregulation? The government, because of fees etc. Who wins because of the terrorism threat? The government, because they get more control. So I think it's a fair comparison.

I think Peeta and Katniss are right. You can't have the moral highground about natural rights and individual sovereignty in one breath, but be ok with violating those rights in the next breath when it's not your people who are affected. Humans are humans, whether they're friends or not. That doesn't mean, and I don't think Katniss and Peeta believe this, that no violance is ever warranted. But rather, it's the circumstances under which it's enacted, and the restraint showed that's key.

I'm convinced. This is the reason I took the course. The minotaur and the gladiators were obvious to me, but these further examples just solidify my connection to the story.

Cincinnatus Goes Home

I think it's satisfying to see them living those kinds of lives, at least is for me. People who aspire to have a different kind of life might find it lack-luster after going through everything they went through.

That being said, I think it is important. It's not a obvious indicator that someone who spends a lot of time in politics hungers after that lifestyle, I'm sure the founding fathers, some of whome spent years off and on, found it exhausting, but felt dutybound to give of their times. They were real public servants, servants to the public.

On the other hand, it can retroactively confirm trust placed in the Cincinnatuses of the world when we see them live modest private lives after their public actions.

The Capitol = The Beltway

Whether she intended it to speak to this division I think is moot unless she tells us, however I think it certainly CAN think it, and I think authors of fiction really lose control over their work in that sense once it's published because it can be taken in any way that makes sense to the reader.

So yes, I think it can speak to that division and actually does a great job representing it. It's sort of allegorical (right literary device?) though because while wealth and power gaps are real in the political world in comparison to regular peoeple, the way it's represented in the books/movies as opposed to real life is different. For example, the books are blatant about the obsene wealth and opulence experienced by the people of the Capitol, while in reality, those facts are hidden as much as possible from the public to avoid problems. Also, the people of the Capitol are portrayed as getting their fix from the Hunger Games much in the same way the Romans got it from the Gladiator games and how regular people today get their schadenfreude from reality TV shows. The big difference here though, is with the exception of one or two districts, it is only the people of the Capitol who get satisfaction from the Hunger Games, the people of the Districts do not. It could almost be read as a "first world problems" situation. People in the Capitol (pretty much all of America, or even the West) are worried about their favorite tribute, what to wear, what's on pony-tail guy's show etc. Whereas the people of the districts (regular Americans to some extent, but to even more extents in other countries) are trying to figure out how to stay alive, be free, and find food.

I think Mr. Everdeen was right to teach his daughter the things she did. Even if she never blossomed into the young revolutionary she is, the skills he taught her at very least would have helped her provide for her family. The fact that she's very likely a product of her father is probably what caused her to save Prim in the first place.

Had she not been raised with a sense of some kind of morality or fairness, then she wouldn't have saved Prim, or Roo, or Peeta. She wouldn't have bothered to try to protect people in the districts but would have rather lived a life of luxery like Hamich apparently did for most of his time after winning the Hunger Games.

To call him the great unsung hero is a big title, however. It's obvious that parents have effects on children, but in that context, when is the parent ever NOT the unsung hero or villain in a person's life?