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

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

I agree that this is a subject that should be spoken of with our children. I wonder what exactly she means by young though. I agree with Alison that exposure to violence (and sex for that matter) at a young age can be very damaging for the human psyche. However, I think this underscores the importance of conversations prior to visual exposure. Violence and sexual themes flood the media and unless we know how to think critically about what we are viewing, our ideas will be shaped by others.

To understand what a makes a war "just" is not simple or easy. There are certainly convincing arguments that a "just" war is not a real thing, and that violence is never a valid response. Personally, I am agnostic on this question. It seems to me that there is a time for war, e.g. World War II, but it also seems like some wars may be presumptive, e.g. Vietnam. That said, I know very little aside from what public school and the popular media have told me about those wars, so I think it is safe to say my information is biased at best and propaganda at worst.

The characters in Anna Karenina are portrayed beautifully, and the interpersonal dynamics help one to understand and relate to the characters at their core. I feel like Collins displays these qualities in The Hunger Games.

Emily wrote: "My problem with the "They do it, why shouldn't we," approach is that that makes you no better a person than they are. I'm sure some people are able to throw away morals when going to war, and I'm n..."

Emily, this starts to get at the problem of what gives someone the right to rule? Unfortunately, if we based leadership on who the better person is I am not sure we would have many leaders. I agree with you though about throwing away morals during war.

To shed blood would take quite a bit. I believe it was Jefferson who said that we need a revolution every generation to keep us on track; I believe the Framers of our Constitution attempted to set up a governmental structure that would allow for peaceful revolutions. On another note, the revolution will not work if we do not make clear what it is that we are attempting to change. At this point, the clarity is not there. Perhaps that is the point of this question? Somehow we need to try to work our way back to the Constitution of 1789. Unless we attempt to do this within our current system first, I fear we would meet with an even worse situation...meet District 13.

Andrea wrote: "Both Katniss and Peeta understand that there is a line related to human rights that should not be crossed. In "Hunger Games," they both had an opportunity to kill other tributes in order to ensure ..."

Well said Andrea.

When thinking of the romantic aspect of The Hunger Games I quite agree with a post from yesterday that said the true love of Katniss' life is Prim. While she cares deeply for Gale and Peeta, Prim holds the key to her heart. This is important to interpreting the symbolism of Katniss' more romantic love. It is clear that Gail and Peeta represent two different methods of dealing with oppression, but perhaps Prim represents a third.

Peeta speaks of the righteous warrior that has mercy on his enemies. Gail is one who seeks vengeance as well as deliverance. However, I see Prim as the true motivation behind Katniss' rebellion. After Gail has been whipped and is healing, it is the realization that if she rises up as the Mockingjay she may be able to save the children (Prim, Rue's siblings, Gail's siblings, etc.) that pushes her to the point of becoming a revolutionary. Indeed, at the house by the lake when Gail and Katniss are arguing it seems the motivation of keeping future generations from the reaping is a motivation for Gail as well.

So is there a line that can be crossed when trying to save one's children from torture? I think this question is easy to wax philosophical about until it is your child being tortured. If I knew my child was being tortured and I had a prisoner that could help me stop that from occurring, I would be hard pressed to not follow suit. The key to my answer is it is my child, and I am the one making the decision. I realize this is perhaps an overly simplistic way of looking at this, but until our legislators begin thinking about what it takes to pull the trigger, it will never stop.

I enjoy the subtlety with which Collins wields Mr. Everdeen. I agree that his quiet independence can be seen in the allusions made to his character and Katniss' defiance of the Capitol, but I also agree with Stacy that the hypothetical plot and subsequent murder are perhaps taking it too far. On the other hand, part of what is rich in the Hunger Games is the way it makes the imagination run. For people who read the books prior to seeing the movies, we all have some disappointment because we all have our own understanding of the world Collins portrayed so powerfully. (This is not to say I disliked the movie. I quite enjoyed Hunger Games and am looking to seeing Catching Fire as soon as I can find a baby-sitter.)

Michelle wrote: "I've thought the same thing. :)
Andre wrote: "I really want to be able to "like" comments. Not just this one but for a lot of what is being discussed in this group.""

Is flagging a comment equivalent to liking it?

The Beltway - The division is more dramatic in the book, and perhaps needs to be in order to be effective. The division between ruler and ruled in America today is large on the National Level. The fact that a Health Care Law that is intended to help the people cannot be understood by even the typical College Graduate is a prime example of this. If the lawgiver must explain his law to me, is this truly rule of law? Also, the culture of lobbyists and favors in D.C. definitely seems to me to resemble the life of the Capitol in Panem.

The System - While a benevolent dictator can rule a glorious free society, in the long run the system needs to be changed as inevitably "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is where the American Founding Fathers showed their genius and self-control. The difficulty for us today is over the years we have looked more and more toward the central authority for solutions instead of looking to ourselves. Once government has power there are very few as restrained as Cincinnatus and Washington as to give it back. Would Congressional term limits help this issue?

I teach high school government and economics. My career goal currently is to develop my understanding of economics and improve my ability to teach the principles of the Economic Way of Thinking to High School Students. I am currently shopping for Master's programs (or PhD) that combine economics and pedagogy, and would allow me to do course work online and over the summer.

I believe my calling is to help others sharpen their ability to wield their mind as a sword and attain to the fullness of their calling.

Tyler wrote: "Nathaniel wrote: "The theme that caught my eye most dramatically was that of righteous leadership, that is, why does one person have the right to rule another. This theme is also dominant in Game o..."

Yes! And one question that would be good for us to consider is once we concede an area to the Government, can we take it back without bloodshed?

James wrote: "Nathaniel wrote: "The theme that caught my eye most dramatically was that of righteous leadership, that is, why does one person have the right to rule another. This theme is also dominant in Game o..."

I apologize for the length of this response.

James I can see what you mean about government being born of violence and aggression. In "Revolution" I take my perspective from the flashbacks that reveal how Miles and Monroe eventually take the steps to organize. It seemed that in the beginning what they were doing was protecting the weak from the strong. While a strictly Darwinian perspective may see the violent death of the weak at the hands of the strong as a part of life, it seems to me that part of Government's role is to stop that.

In Game of Thrones (I have only watched 1 and 1/2 seasons) your point is perhaps more prevalent as pretty much all of the leaders seem to be corrupt and manipulative. At this point I see Robb and Ned Stark as representing those who are attempting to serve their families and people well. They of course have their flaws, but seem to be moving in the right direction.

In short, I think all three works display humankind's moral bankruptcy when given power, yet they also demonstrate our need for order. It is because of that bankruptcy and need for order that I believe the 1789 Constitution is the most genius creation of all time: a government that both governs and is governed.

One last thought, your point makes me think of the Pax Romana. After the Roman Empire conquered Europe their was a lasting peace in which great strides forward were made. This was, as you say, born of violence and aggression, but once leadership was established a period of flourishing began. This is what I wrestle with as I watch/read works like this: it seems civilization is born of blood and fire. How does one justify his rule? If America fell tomorrow with whom would I raise my sword? Would I abide in peace with my neighbors, or is the peace we live in today because of the Government we exist under?

I am having a hard time remembering the second and third book, but I quite enjoyed the scene in The Hunger Games when Rue died. I also love Peeta's statement about not letting the Capitol turn him into a killer.

The theme that caught my eye most dramatically was that of righteous leadership, that is, why does one person have the right to rule another. This theme is also dominant in Game of Thrones and the recent T.V. series "Revolution". I think that all of these works make clear that some form of leadership and oversight is necessary, the dilemma is who should it be?