J.T.’s Comments (group member since Dec 16, 2013)

J.T.’s comments from the On Tyrants & Tributes : Real World Lessons From The Hunger Games group.

The fight between governments may have been waged with propaganda, but it wasn't OVER propaganda. The war was for the hearts and minds of the people, either through fear and intimidation, or through indignation and outrage.

That said, I think that even the individual battles end up being pieces of what Katniss decides to do. After all, what happens in the wider world is but the decisions made by all the people in it.

Could the rebels have won without a Mockingjay? Maybe, although it's hard to say there would have been such a linchpin as that.

I just don't think those are necessarily unconnected.

Nathaniel wrote: "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..."

I agree with you both on a lot of things and thought maybe there's another way to look at that particular concern there.

Maybe it's not civilization that is born of blood and fire, but that people are naturally conditioned toward blood and fire, and on occasion civilization has been an intensely beneficial result. I think going back through history, we're hard-pressed to find any example of lasting peace between differing groups, much as we may desire it and understand the profound superiority of free trade to warfare and the conquering of others.

Civilization is fine, and a strong civilization (meaning powerful internal cohesion) will find outside forces to be annoyances at worst. And yet, time passes and societies change, because people grow old and will imperfectly transmit their values to their children. Eventually, the civilization will have to change as well.

If America fell tomorrow? It would depend on the circumstances. Know what you believe at the deepest possible level, have some foundation at your core, and make sure that every action matches your moral conviction, even if that action might make things tough. It's not "to be or not to be" so much as what defines BEING in the first place. (I just felt a chill as I realized who I'm challenging here...)

Additional apologies for another long response!

I'm a writer. I wrote that =->Sunlost

I have written a lot on my site about politics in modern media, although at least half of it has to be centered around The Hunger Games books (and movies too, yes).

When Katniss shoots the arrow at the gamemakers. I agree with Sebastian.

There's something raw and powerful in her honesty, there. In Catching Fire and Mockingjay, she's this symbol and she has to play this role, so she can rarely be honest with anyone, and she can rarely dare to trust.

But when she was just a tribute, from a backwater no-name district? When Katniss was nothing but a production of the spite fed into the people of the districts? She just... Did. Not. Care. 'Yeah, I'll give you gamemakers the finger' (yes, a reference to the origin of the middle finger insult, archery stuff, look it up!). Love it!

Dalmo and Alex both touch on some important topics; the similarities between Panem and the Soviet Union, to name one of stunning relevance.

Several people mentioned that Panem is a particularly awful class society, and that is true. The notion of a classless society still has yet to be proved possible (and we anti-utopians insist that every society will include natural differences between people which will manifest in some sorts of distinctions, i.e. we can classify people based upon some distinctions). Yet, the USSR claimed to be a society that was ridding itself of the scourge of class structures.

The only result was a two-class society; (1) the elites and (2) everyone else who served as clay for the elites to shape at will. Not entirely unlike Panem, right?

When the communists took control in Russia, they refused to subject themselves to the scarcity their economic plans imposed upon everyone else. They fought a two-year civil war to suppress popular rebellions in districts like Samara, Tambov, and Yaroslav.

Why did the people rebel? Because the communists were imposing food production quotas on these provinces that HAD to be met, BEFORE anyone from those provinces could have their own share. Often, the quotas imposed exceeded the output those districts could produce en total, thus leaving people starving to death.

During the two-year war only, somewhere between 300,000 and half a million people were killed, deported, or starved to death from this man-made famine.

Sounds a lot like the Dark Days to me...

From The Black Book of Communism, testimony from an eye-witness, "Vladimir Ilich Ulynov [Lenin] had the courage to come out and say openly that famine would have numerous positive results, particularly in the appearance of a new industrial proletariat, which would take over from the bourgeoisie..."

In another paragraph it says, "As an "objective" ally of the regime, hunger was the most powerful weapon imaginable, and it also served as a pretext for the Bolsheviks (Communists) to strike a heavy blow against both the Orthodox Church and the intelligentsia who had risen up against the regime."

Panem's parallels to the Soviet system have been on my mind a lot lately. :)

The most relevant topic covered in the books? Self-ownership and the perils of every alternative to this ideal.

In the Capitol, we see the individual subject to the whims of the political elite. They exist at the mercy of the authority.

In the Districts, we see the individual absolutely overruled to support the designs of wicked men.

In District 13, we see the individual oppressed all the same, differing only in the means of administration. Thus Katniss' reluctance to support the rebellion (on top of all the other stuff she deals with, anyhow).