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

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

I look at the behaviors when people speed as the best example of when people watch your behaviors. When you have no person on the road and you have to go some place in a certain time frame, most people would speed in order to get to that place in the time frame that they wanted to go to. Now lets put a cop somewhere on the side of the road where that person could see the cop. Usually, if the person speeding don't wants a citation, they would slow down for the cop in order to not get a citation. Now lets say that the person knows that the particular road is known for cops hiding someplace near the road. The person would do the same thing and slow down since they know that the area is known for cops trying to catch people speeding. With surveillance in mind, it definitely changes ones behavior and if you do the same with watching people without people knowing about it and let it out later, it changes how people secure their things so that people could do whatever it takes to not be watched. Privacy is an important thing and if you try to look into a person looking at porn, drinking at home alone, rocking out with their cocks out or something, it will change their behaviors now since they have an audience or a person that they didn't want to show what they were doing. It is same as harassment. What we are living in now is a surveillance state after the revelations of Edward Snowden confirming so. This under minds people's liberty for the sheer thing that they cant do what they want without some person harassing them and even worse, possible prosecution for doing bad behaviors.

A region or place is usually would have to have some type of symbolic reasoning on why it was so important. To this knowledge, I don't know anything about that area but if it were me, I would ask does the Appalachian area be the appropriate place or ground for liberty or is it the only reference the author could think of for a place of liberty? The knowledge that I do know is the liberty in east Asia where the Korean people were fighting for their right to be free from the Japanese during the 1910. Also, the March 1st movement that turned pretty ugly for everyone but was a great movement that stuck in history. As the for the Chinese, the liberty movement for them would probably be the fight against people who are trying to colonize China during the early 1900s. The Chinese would try to alley with groups that were against the British at the time when forces became evident that the British wanted more of their land. When the kingdom of China fell, there were plenty of bidders who wanted to colonize China but a person from whom studied in the US by the name of Sun Yat Sen tried to reclaim China for to be independent for themselves with the price of allying with the US. The only thing with their struggles was with the Japanese colonization period when they would move up to China after colonizing Korea. With that, it would be way to long to explain the independence people want from each other and soon ended with disparity between all parties in East Asia. The most important is that people has been fighting their governments in China and South Korea even during the cold war era. China has been slowly going to the liberty route and South Korea has protested until they got a more freer society. I would think that in these examples, people fight for freedom in many places and if they have to remember or reflect to a place to remind them that, then it should be encouraged but also people should also seek the truth about the area as well. Nothing pretty ever happens in a particular area all the time but pretty things happens in small dosages everywhere, every time.

I think these quotes would do it justice.

Quote 1: "And may the odds be ever in your favor.”

Quote 2: "Destroying things is much easier than making them"

I am already fighting for liberty peacefully as I can through promoting the truth of wars, educating people through the non aggression principle, and signing petitions to act on my part. In terms of a violent revolution, the state would have to show their presence of force for me to civilly disobey and even to the point of rallying people for something. As for now, I would think the best approach to change is to educate people outside the narrative of the state being a great entity.

As a veteran myself, I think that her father discussed to her about war in an early age because to let her understand what happens in war. The concepts of war, about violence, about things that happen is crucial for human development because it teaches how there are dire consequences when you are sent to fight a war that you may or may not want. No person intentionally want war but for the right narrative and justification, a person would be willing to fight for something that they think would be saving their family or their friends. History is very important because it lets you know what worked and didn't work in the past and to learn from those experiences. When you lie to the people, there will be people that will know throughout generations that the history can be distorted with certain people in power. The narrative of history changes like many times from the perspective of the people with money. Its good to remember the history to pass down so that people can truly understand what freedom looks like and what made it work. For the series or films of Hunger Games, I think trying to find the truth about history is would be more accurate than just knowing history, especially since most history is in the perspective of people of class/ nobility/ Royalty or people with money. With acknowledgement of the truth of history, we would know the signs of tyranny would look like. Overall, I think that this film was a great depiction of what can happen when people follow the state narrative instead of seeking the truth about what history really was. As for children learning about war with this film, I think children already learn about war through other means like things you can see in television, video games, etc. The only difference is that the influence of television and video games seem to promote the narrative of war being a positive thing. The movie seems to create the narrative of seeking truth about war and tyranny and how people should really seek knowledge so that they wouldn't have to live in a world of less freedoms, less liberties. I thinks this film helps promote the seeking of truth about war and makes children really question the narrative of war being positive.

I really don't think this is about propaganda but something deeper than that. I believe the fundamental war in the Hunger Games is trust with archetypes. The reason why I say it is the war against archetypes is that I would take action more to an account than what the people think or hear. I would already assume that people either know it is propaganda or that it is something people really don't care about, as long as it doesn't involve them. Most people don't care about the propaganda but of living their lives even if they keep hearing or seeing, but behaviors effect people more than what advertisements could really do. The government could spew out all the propaganda and if there no action that is being done to coerce people into doing what they want, people generally don't care. I would say that because of the people actually being coerced through the force from the police force is that people are acting back due to knowing that they have and will do those types of actions multiple times. The only way to subdue people into not taking these actions is to justify their actions through an excuse. Most people who aren't intelligent would think that oh they have an excuse to justify what they have to do so their actions were just. The archetypes of the state have acted to provide something so that people don't have to think about the actual intent of the actions of force. Its just like when people get spanked, people in society thinks that spanking is ok but that it is assault on a baby or toddler. There is some type of relation their and usually people who aren't as educated would think that. The small proportion of the population who do have intelligence or at least like to question the narrative from the archetypes of the state (statesmen or people who serves the states). The war is with trusting these people who plays the role of the statesmen or the role of the police. Eventually, the trust factors will have to come from people who serves the states to the very statesmen themselves to trust whether the narrative of the state or archetype of power is something beneficial to the person in charge. The society will determine the war between the trust of people vs the archetype of the men people in charge.

This movie reminds me of a Japanese movie called Battle Royal. I like this film in that it would be the better version of this Battle Royal but still very similar non the less. There are countless amounts of stories about tyranny but I think in this film, as many others films represents the classic revolution story of what happened before, I think she is a definite figure for people aspire to when the revolution happens, whether with or without her.

I don't think manipulation is applied here since she did things voluntarily like volunteering in the place of her sister. She made those choices because she thought that the choices at the time where the best choices to do. However, she saw the consequences of changing her speech the first time in catching fire. The old man died and therefore she didn't try to change the speech and went along with what the president wanted. That was coercion and that type of choice is a control choice in which she didn't voluntarily wanted to make willfully. I think the second movie was more towards manipulation but the first movie was definitely by the choice due to unfortunate circumstances.

Overall, I think she is a hero for women to look up to .

I would say education but I like the design of business and for profit. I like to one day get my Masters in business and PhD on sociological economics. My own school would be something I would like to venture one day.

I would say when the old man started to hold the three fingers up after Katness first speech about that district in the second movie.

I would say that the most relevant theme of current events is the rise of the liberty movement or what the movies say is the resistance. There is a rise in the liberty movement that is all over the nation and yet people aren't seeing it in Main stream media. The scene when Katness seen the town on fire or people rebelling reminds me of what Brazil is going through right now. The liberty movement isn't being mentioned over there but the crowds are being fed up with the government and what it does or doesn't do. Same with here how the certain events are not being shown because to promote certain agendas. There are tons of events in which the liberty movement should have hit the news yet non doesn't event get spoken from by any outlet. Only things that concerns politicians like Sandy Hook for gun control or the Syrian war for another reason to wage war over. That's it. No one ever talks about the rethink 9/11 with a group full of 1200 architects and engineers and how they proved or shown mathematically that it would be impossible for building 7 to come down from one beam. Same with the rest of the buildings. What about the navigators in Obamacare who will have access to all of your information if registered on Obamacare? Those people don't even have to have a background checks for christ sakes. They just need to take something online in order to be eligible. Just ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfw...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuUyO_...

What the hunger games reminds me of is South Korea in the past 60 years or at least from the 1960s-1990s. Korea showed great examples of a top down system of a tyrannical government that went utterly wrong. Korea's case was something that has never been really looked at closely but something that could relate to the resistance of people and how they fought back. During the Chun Doo-Hwan regime, there were two major protest that inevitably took lots of powers from the governments role and really made it look on what the Korean people wanted for their government. Two massacres. People protested and soon a revolution happened in South Korea that grew from a top down heavily led society to almost a republic in which government don't take too much of a role in society. Through this, it helped the society boom. People think it was Park Chung Hee who led the economic growth in Korea but what he did was to create monopolies that are so powerful that it became the society in Korea. Each major corporation owns a part of the major colleges in Korea and where those students study is probably where they will work at.

To get back to my conclusion, I would say that the Hunger Games world, Not the games, remind me of what it was like to be in Korea when Chun Doo-Hwan was in charge or the later terms of Park Chung Hee before assassination.