On Tyrants & Tributes : Real World Lessons From The Hunger Games discussion
FROM THE PROFESSOR: More Than Just a Love Triangle? Gale, Peeta, and "Crossing Some Kind of Line"
date
newest »
newest »
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.
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 their survival, but they both chose not to - unless a tribute directly harmed a loved one. To them, the Hunger Games were not about survival through murder, but rather survival through living. I have no doubt in my mind that if Gale's name was chosen instead of Peeta's, he would have killed to get through the games. He sees the world as a true "dog eat dog" place - and like Nathaniel stated, he seeks "vengeance, as well as deliverance." Gale has no concern for the lives he may harm by blowing up The Nut, because he simply views it as a way of seeking vengeance on The Capitol. Katniss only resorts to acts of violence against others when it directly effects the lives of her loved ones. She only kills the boy from District 4 when he attacks Rue, shoots Cato once he strangles Peeta, and kills Snow once she assaults a crowd full of innocent children and medics, which include Prim. Ultimately, the greatest contrast between Katniss/Peeta and Gale is their motivation behind murder: while Katniss uses murder as a mode of justice, Gale uses it as a means of survival.
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.
They all know the line within their own boundaries which humans don't like crossing. that is watching the death of a fellow human who you probably known. example: watching the death of prim in the explosion which the president of 13 did.
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 ..."I also think this is well said, good job A.
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 their survival, but they both chose not to - unless a tribute directly harmed a loved one.
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 not saying that's a bad thing. I just think that it all boils down to who's the better person.
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.
When innocent people lose their lives is where the line is drawn and should not be passed.
There may be a line, but what does it profit us to avoid it if said avoidance causes us to loose? History tends to look kindly on those who won, and poorly on those who lost. We have to dig deep into history to learn the sins of American forces during WWI, and the civil war. but the sins of the Germans and Japanese are laid bare for us
The tactics used by George Washington's army, what was to become known as gorilla warfare, were considered by many at the time to be acts of terrorism. But had Swampfox not shot british officers from behind cover and concealment would we not still be british subjects?
Can we really blame weaker oppressed peoples for using any means necessary to overcome more powerful tyrants?
If we reduce it to an individual level, what type of force would we say is to vicious or to brutal for …. say a woman to use in defense of rape? Or a parent in defense of their children?
and if we say they should use any means available to them, then why should it be different for an oppressed group?
Emily says "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 not saying that's a bad thing. I just think that it all boils down to who's the better person". fantastic!!
Emily pretty much every one over looked a principle known as the golden rule " do unto others what you would do unto them" this is what Katniss Everdeen lacked at that particular moment.
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 wonder how panem came to be we need a prequel novel to the hunger games to understand more about the capitol's rising.
Humans are humans you can't just stand back and watch because it's not you.
Oswaldo wrote: "Emily says "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 wa..."Did Katniss lack the "golden rule?" She never caused pain or suffering willingly unless she was personally affected. Katniss is by no means perfect, but I think majority of her actions were justified throughout the series.
I also agree with Emily with maintaining your morals during war. There are leaders such as Gandhi and MLK who managed to protest peacefully, even if they were on the receiving end of violence, and managed to get their goal achieved. Then, you have the leaders who were at the forefront during our revolution, which was essentially violent. Given the progression of America, was a violent revolution more effective than the peaceful protests led by Gandhi in India?
Katniss does seem to be taking in account their ethical standpoints when deciding who to be with.
For instance, right at the end of Mockingjay, Peeta votes that they shouldn't have a final Hunger Games involving children from the well-to-do within the Capitol. Katniss, meanwhile, elects that they should. However, given that she has been thinking about Prim's death right before making that decision, and because she reckons it would be counter-productive right before making up her mind ("All these people I loved, dead, and we are discussing the next Hunger Games in an attempt to avoid wasting life. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever will change now"), Katniss disagrees with herself. She does think that there should be some rule book about what it would be unacceptable to do to another human. She's too blinded by rage to care.
Collins seems to be saying that abuses of basic human rights, in the name of a greater good or in retribution, are completely irrational and motivated by nothing more than anger. The Hunger Games themselves were instigated after a war, in the vague hope they would bring peace. Collins clearly presents them as horrific.
When Katniss winds up with Peeta, in the end, she notes that- "what I need to survive is not Gale's fire, kindled with rage and hatred. I have plenty of fire myself". Gale helped make bombs that would go off twice, killing those compassionate enough to aid those injured at the start. He doesn't have a rule-book for what it would be unacceptable to do to another person in order to achieve his own aims. Katniss recognizes that such people do not change the world for the better and are ultimately destructive whilst Peeta represents compassion, growth and rebirth to her.
For instance, right at the end of Mockingjay, Peeta votes that they shouldn't have a final Hunger Games involving children from the well-to-do within the Capitol. Katniss, meanwhile, elects that they should. However, given that she has been thinking about Prim's death right before making that decision, and because she reckons it would be counter-productive right before making up her mind ("All these people I loved, dead, and we are discussing the next Hunger Games in an attempt to avoid wasting life. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever will change now"), Katniss disagrees with herself. She does think that there should be some rule book about what it would be unacceptable to do to another human. She's too blinded by rage to care.
Collins seems to be saying that abuses of basic human rights, in the name of a greater good or in retribution, are completely irrational and motivated by nothing more than anger. The Hunger Games themselves were instigated after a war, in the vague hope they would bring peace. Collins clearly presents them as horrific.
When Katniss winds up with Peeta, in the end, she notes that- "what I need to survive is not Gale's fire, kindled with rage and hatred. I have plenty of fire myself". Gale helped make bombs that would go off twice, killing those compassionate enough to aid those injured at the start. He doesn't have a rule-book for what it would be unacceptable to do to another person in order to achieve his own aims. Katniss recognizes that such people do not change the world for the better and are ultimately destructive whilst Peeta represents compassion, growth and rebirth to her.
*spoilers for MockingjayRuth wrote: "Katniss does seem to be taking in account their ethical standpoints when deciding who to be with.
For instance, right at the end of Mockingjay, Peeta votes that they shouldn't have a final Hunger G..."
Ruth, in my opinion Katniss votes "yes" because she if she doesn't, she won't be in Coin's favor. She knows that she won't get the opportunity to execute Snow if she doesn't stay on Coin's side, at least in appearance. I think that she might have even been plotting to kill Coin instead at that time.
I seriously doubt that she really would have voted "yes" for any other reason than to still be able to execute Snow/Coin. That's my interpretation at least.
Kelli wrote: "*spoilers for Mockingjay
Ruth wrote: "Katniss does seem to be taking in account their ethical standpoints when deciding who to be with.
For instance, right at the end of Mockingjay, Peeta votes th..."
Okay, that would make sense. However, her decision to kill Coin does seem rather sudden, coming about after as she becomes sure (though she had her suspicions before) that the bomb that killed Prim came from Coin (this she gets from looking at Snow right before she's supposed to kill him).
Even if she didn't decide to instigate another Hunger Games because of her anger over Prim's death, she might've been willing to let the Hunger Games go ahead again just so she would have the privilege of executing Snow, which is an act of rage in itself. Of course, she might've decided to retract her vote the moment she'd executed Snow. However, I doubt that Coin would have refused Katniss the privilege of executing Snow, given that she made the promise in public.
I don't think that Katniss manages to always live up to her own ethical values anyway- look at her comments about her killing a civilian woman... "I stole from the woman's home. Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I killed her, too. I'm taking out unarmed civilians now". She hardly sounds approving.
At any rate, idealistically, Katniss does think there's an ethical line.
Ruth wrote: "Katniss does seem to be taking in account their ethical standpoints when deciding who to be with.
For instance, right at the end of Mockingjay, Peeta votes th..."
Okay, that would make sense. However, her decision to kill Coin does seem rather sudden, coming about after as she becomes sure (though she had her suspicions before) that the bomb that killed Prim came from Coin (this she gets from looking at Snow right before she's supposed to kill him).
Even if she didn't decide to instigate another Hunger Games because of her anger over Prim's death, she might've been willing to let the Hunger Games go ahead again just so she would have the privilege of executing Snow, which is an act of rage in itself. Of course, she might've decided to retract her vote the moment she'd executed Snow. However, I doubt that Coin would have refused Katniss the privilege of executing Snow, given that she made the promise in public.
I don't think that Katniss manages to always live up to her own ethical values anyway- look at her comments about her killing a civilian woman... "I stole from the woman's home. Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I killed her, too. I'm taking out unarmed civilians now". She hardly sounds approving.
At any rate, idealistically, Katniss does think there's an ethical line.
Nathaniel wrote: "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 h..."I agree with you there because the whole series unfolds because of Katniss' volunteering in Prim's place for the Games.
"Does Gale's "they do it, so why shouldn't we" approach create a slippery slope?"
That reminds me of Gandhi's quote: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
When in District 2, when it was pointed out that there were some moles in the Nut (as in spies), Gale replied that it was necessary to make some sacrifices.
Gale is too quick to act rationally. Katniss understands that sometimes sacrifices are necessary, but that they should be the last resort.
I was not a fan at all of the love triangle - it seemed liked it was added there just 'cause. I think Collins just could have had Gale as her best friend and leave it at that. It's still interesting to see Katniss' views ultimately disclosed when she chooses Peeta.
I like what Nietzsche had to say on the matter. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you.”The longer you spend fighting something, the easier it is to justify acting like your enemy. Maybe you lost friends, maybe you've had your own near-death experiences, or maybe you feel that you're being held back by your own morality.
SPOILER: As Ruth pointed out above, we see Katniss slipping in Mockingjay. I think Prim was what kept her anchored to her morals. Her vote for a final Hunger Games was telling. If the war had gone on longer, we might have seen her at Gale's level.
Monkeybench wrote: "Her vote for a final Hunger Games was telling."At first I thought that her vote was a bad sign, but after looking into it, it seems that she (and Haymitch) could have voted that way in order to throw Coin off and then assassinate her.
Katrina wrote: "Monkeybench wrote: "Her vote for a final Hunger Games was telling."At first I thought that her vote was a bad sign, but after looking into it, it seems that she (and Haymitch) could have voted that way in order to throw Coin off and then assassinate her.
I agree Katrina. I think (like throughout the series) Haymitch was able to discern what Katniss was thinking and react accordingly. It reminds me of how they were able to communicate in the arena.
I think it's an interesting reversal of the end of book 2. In that instance, Haymitch chose to keep everything a secret from Katniss, but here they seem to have an unspoken understanding that nobody else has.
Monkeybench wrote: "I like what Nietzsche had to say on the matter. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also lo..."SPOILERS: I never thought of the Katniss's vote in favor of the "final Hunger Games" as a slippage away from her morals due to Prim. This is a very interesting point. This is a pivotal part of the story. I thought that Katniss voted the way that she did not only for retribution, but also because she knew that she could not stop such despotism (in this case through that games). Even with her vote against the final Games, those who were taking power would abuse it in one way or another. I guess I attributed her vote to her conception of concentrated power and her pessimism when it came to leading, and changing her world. She (and Haymich) allowed the games to happen because even if it was voted down by the victors someone would find a way around the vote. Additionally, a vote in favor of Coin's proposal would allow her to get within arrow range of the President. I find your theory interesting, and I agree with you 100% that Katniss was in this to protect Prim who she cared for the most.
Monkeybench wrote: "I like what Nietzsche had to say on the matter. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also lo..."SPOILERS: I never thought of the Katniss's vote in favor of the "final Hunger Games" as a slippage away from her morals due to Prim. This is a very interesting point. This is a pivotal part of the story, which I considered at some length when I read it. I thought that Katniss voted the way that she did not only for retribution, but also because she knew that she could not stop such despotism (in this case through that final game). Even with her vote against the final Game, those who were taking power would abuse it in one way or another. I guess I attributed her vote to her conception of concentrated power and her pessimism when it came to leading and changing her world. She (and Haymich) allowed the games to happen because even if it was voted down by the victors someone would find a way around the vote. Additionally, a vote in favor of Coin's proposal would allow her to get within arrow range of the President. I find your theory interesting, and I agree with you 100% that Katniss was always trying to protect Prim, who she cared for the most.
*spoilers for Mockingjay*Does anyone think that the voted-upon Capitol children's Games actually took place? It is never explicitly stated if they did or not and I was under the impression that once Coin was gone, they were abandoned (largely due to the fact that they were her idea, and I think everyone wanted to more or less move on with the future of the country), so I don't think they ever took place. Did anyone else get that impression as well?
I think the text supports this because Katniss says that after the execution "the first big televised event was my trial." No mention of any Games. They're never mentioned again after the vote.
Kelli wrote: "*spoilers for Mockingjay*
Does anyone think that the voted-upon Capitol children's Games actually took place? It is never explicitly stated if they did or not and I was under the impression that o..."
On the final pages or so of Mockingjay: "The arenas have been completely destroyed, there are no more Hunger Games. But they teach about them in school..."
Think this means that the plans for the 76th are scrapped following Coin's assassination.
Does anyone think that the voted-upon Capitol children's Games actually took place? It is never explicitly stated if they did or not and I was under the impression that o..."
On the final pages or so of Mockingjay: "The arenas have been completely destroyed, there are no more Hunger Games. But they teach about them in school..."
Think this means that the plans for the 76th are scrapped following Coin's assassination.
The only person Katniss really loved was Prim, but this ended because her life was taken by coin by sending her into a dangerous area of explosives. So Katniss was devastated by this act of cruelty to her very own and only sister Prim.
First off, the "double tap" method for targeting first responders to an attack is used frequently in the modern theater of war. In areas as technologically advanced as United States military drones which use their missiles to target terrorist convoys, then launch another missile once their rescue shows up. These tactics are not only deadly, but psychologically terrifying. It prevents you from acting on your instinct to rush in and rescue someone is distress. American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan can be forced to watch their friends bleed to death, unable to act because their might be another explosion waiting to go off. The value of this psychological beating by the attacker cannot be understated. Gale knows this, and is ready to fully implement it as part of the battle plan. I think Peeta comes to realize the value of it, but since he has already come to terms with the requirements of their resistance does not feel the need to maintain a level of morality.With that said, I do not think it is right. If you are immediately defending yourself then there is absolutely nothing you should not do to save yourself. However these traps were an offensive weapon, and their secondaries were even more-so. I believe that if you want to win you have to be better. Not only militarily, but morally. Just because they did it is a cop-out response that allows you to continue with no moral justification for your actions. I think Katniss and Peeta have both experienced the worst and don't want to drop to such a low level of depravity. Otherwise what is the point, you save yourself only to oppress others.
I definitely agree with Katniss and Peeta. There is a line. In a war, the only people who should be attacked is the other side's army. Gale's approach would definetly create a slippery slope. If both sides fight with the same lowly tactics, each side would get more and more ruthless in their war tactics to shock and devastate the other. Both sides would become monsters.
Will, while “double tap” methods might be common in modern theaters of war I think we can distinguish them from IEDs and the other types of weapons used that you describe. The types you describe are used against soldiers, in places where war has been declared. Double tap drones are different because they are used in countries where the US has not declared war. They are also used against people who are not “soliders” in uniform, and they are people who have not had a trial and not had any kind of charges brought against them. Then, 49 out of every 50 people killed are innocent civilians. Thatʼs a 2% success rate.So these double tap drones kill innocent civilians and execute supposed enemy combatants without evidence or a trial.
I totally agree that the other types of double tap methods are wrong, I just think that double tap drones used by the US are particularly troubling.
I also agree with you that we need to be morally better.
It seems to me that Gale and Peeta offer far more than two potential/competing love interests for our heroine. They represent, in fact, two opposing reactions to oppression.
Consider a scene in Mockingjay that sets up the ethical dilemma clearly: Katniss goes to the Special Defense area and finds Gale and Beetee adapting Gale's traps to use against humans. Katniss is horrified that they're planning to booby-trap food and water supplies and even construct two-stage devices that kill more people by counting on the compassion of first responders.
Katniss voices her protest.
"That seems to be crossing some kind of line," I say. "So anything goes?" They both stare at me - Beetee with doubt, Gale with hostility. "I guess there isn't a rule book for what might be unacceptable to do to another human being."
"Sure there is. Beetee and I have been following the same rule book President Snow used when he hijacked Peeta," says Gale.
Interestingly enough, though, Peeta himself, despite all he's been through (two different Hunger Games as well as physical and psychological torture), does seem to think there's a line that can't be crossed.
Is this relevant today? This question has been discussed in this very same context by journalist Sarah Darer Littman, who writes, "Gale's 'they do it, so why shouldn't we?' response reminded me of mail I got after a column I wrote following revelations by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison. Several writers questioned why I was so concerned about those imprisoned at Abu Ghraib after what 'they' did to us on 9/11. Never mind that in all likelihood the inhabitants of Abu Ghraib had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, or that, according to an International Committee of the Red Cross report... military officers estimated that between 70 to 90 percent of persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."
Is this a fair comparison, do you think?
In Mockingjay, Katniss says to a mineworker, "...it just goes around and around, and who wins? Not us. Not the districts. Always the Capitol."
What do you think? Are Katniss and Peeta right? Is there a line related to human rights that we should not cross? Where is it? Does Gale's "they do it, so why shouldn't we" approach create a slippery slope? Does Katniss's choice between Peeta and Gale reflect more than mere romantic inclination?
What are your thoughts?