On Tyrants & Tributes : Real World Lessons From The Hunger Games discussion
FROM THE PROFESSOR: Discussing History and War with the Next Generation?
date
newest »
newest »
First, I don't think many parents have the time to spend reading/discussing books with their children. Maybe they'd watch the movies with their children but I think most kids would go see it with their friends. As a public school teacher, I know not many families even eat dinner together, where much discussion could take place. Second, I know in my own family, where I have adopted older children from foster care, I do not like my children exposed to violence. They were exposed to too much violence in their younger years and some even developed post-traumatic stress disorder. I simply want to protect them from anymore violence for as long as possible. That being said, several of my teen boys have read the books several times despite my desires for them. They enjoy the series; however, my other sons and I haven't read or watched beyond the first book due to the violent nature of the Games. I may force myself to go further in the series just so I can know what my sons are reading and discuss accordingly.
I think war is a topic that should be talked about so people have a better understanding of who's hurting and who's benefiting from the war itself. We can also talk about ways we can avoid war and how to solve problems other ways.
This question reminds me of the flashbacks to Rico's "History and Moral Philosophy" class in Heinlein's Starship Troopers (not to be confused with the horrible late-90s movie).I see two potential themes related to history. There's personal history, that is the history/legend you know or which is (somewhat) reliable handed to you directly from your relatives, friends, etc. Then there's social history, i.e., the kind of history kids tend to learn in Social Studies classes and which is concerned with political relationships, both peaceful and non.
In The Hunger Games , the Districts seem to survive on personal history. Within each District, people have their daily relationships, and history seems limited to a generation or two. Katniss knows about her mother and father, but we get very little about her grandparents, and most of that obliquely (e.g., by learning that Katniss's maternal grandfather was an apothecary). Perhaps the limited memory is a way of coping with the omnipresent tragedy of their situation, from deadly work environments to oppressive political leaders to diurnal struggles against hunger and poverty.
However, even in the midst of this limited historical personal memory, we can see the passing down of knowledge for helping people survive, and this serves as something of a social subconscious. Primarily, this is seen in the handing down of trade skills, such as Mrs. Everdeen's apothecary knowledge, which she eventually teaches to Prim, or Peeta's learning various baker's skills from his parents. And of course, Katniss learning to hunt and forage from her father. Interestingly, this type of memory seems to be primarily peaceful -- although, as we can see, it is adaptable to non-peaceful uses, not just with Katniss's archery skills, but also with Peeta's strength and camoflage.
[Potential SPOILER in the next paragraph]
The Capital seems more interested in promoting a very specific conscious social history (distinct from the subconscious social history noted above). As we've all heard quipped, history is written by the victors, and there is definitely some question -- more so in the books than in the movies, I think -- about whether the rebellious war in the distant past actually went down the way Pres. Snow et al would have everyone believe. Was there truly a "rebellion," or was it rather a successful coup d'état with some really convincing (when accompanied by a gun) post facto propaganda? We learn in the later books that there is a District 13, which officially was blasted into nothingness, and the District's very presence acts, ironically, as a smoking gun that indicates the Capital's version of things isn't always correct.
So, to get back to one of the original questions posed, I think this book very much has a theme of "knowing your history." But very often knowing history isn't enough. You have to be willing to question the history you "know," and you have to able, mentally and physically, to act when you discover evidence that shows the history you know may not be accurate.
Incidentally, with regard to knowledge of history (or even knowledge in general), from a story perspective I find it interesting that we learn things along with Katniss. This seems very similar to Michael Drout's ideas of "epistemic regime" in The Lord of the Rings, in which we are viewing the story from the perspective of the character who has the least amount of knowledge: In LOTR, it skips from character to character, but in Hunger Games, we get Katniss's view the whole way through. Thus, we are able to know what she knows about history, but we have to learn what others know along with her--or at the very least, we can sometimes surmise things before she does, but that happens rarely in practice, it seems.
As for inter-generational discussions...I'll let you know when I've succeeded in convincing my daughter to read it....
I think War is a topic that could get handled better, countries get into war for stupid things. People that start wars are usually angry about the person. I think if people discuss there problems they wouldn't need to have a war.
[spoilers for Mockingjay]
Certainly, ''knowing your history'' is a theme in the books. Right at the end the story of The Hunger Games is passed onto Peeta and Katniss' children. For Katniss, it's important the story is passed on. Knowing your history is presented as an important way to escape past mistakes. Plutarch presents the problem of a short collective memory as contributing towards human destruction-- "But collective thinking is usually short-lived. We're fickle, stupid beings with poor memories and a great gift for self-destruction". Katniss writes at the end of the book about telling her children- "We have each other. And the book. We can make them understand in a way that will make them braver. But one day I'll have to explain the nightmares Why they came. Why they won't ever go away".
I'm unconvinced, however, that it lies to the parents to tell their children about war... given that most parents haven't had any first hand experience of it. I do think it's important for schools to dwell on the issues of war, to bring in people who do have first-hand experience of it into talk in schools. I understand Collins concern that, since most people only see war through their television screens, they don't seem particularly real. No one wants a situation where people, who know little about the nature of war, make military decisions.
Since the victims of The Hunger Games are young children, this speaks out about the horrors of war in a way that draws the attention specifically of young people. However, The Hunger Games are also a reason to go to war. Given that they are a form of oppression by the state. Collins doesn't seem to be against war in general as Katniss notes, when Peeta gives a call for a ceasefire early on in Mockingjay, that "he made it sound as if he were condemning both sides in the war. But at this point, with only minor victories for the rebels, a ceasefire could only result in a return to our previous state or worse".
Collins addresses issues in the ethics of war. For instance, in any case, killing civilians or aid workers is condemned (ie. the presentation of The Hunger Games, of Prim's death and of Katniss' own killing of a civilian woman). Moreover, beating your enemy once their down doesn't seem to be approved of by Katniss or Collins-- for instance, during siege of The Nut where Gale causes avalanches to trap those inside, a young man finds his way out and Katniss rushes to help him ("suddenly, he's just another burn victim from a mine accident"). Gale had planned to seal The Nut with avalanches, trapping all those inside. There should be an ethical line in these matters. The notion of respecting individual rights (in this case, specifically, the right to life) is key in a libertarian philosophy.
The over-arching message I think that can be gained from The Hunger Games series is that, sometimes, violent action is justified in order to put an end to worse oppression or violence. However, the human capacity for revenge (that results in the installment of the games), self-defense, misinformation, pre-emptive strikes can result in a self-destructive cycle. It's a difficult balance. Collins shows that whilst war can be glamorized for screen, it leaves the individuals involved with deep, psychological scars. The Hunger Games series does effectively help people, specifically young people and children, engage with the ethical issues of war.
Certainly, ''knowing your history'' is a theme in the books. Right at the end the story of The Hunger Games is passed onto Peeta and Katniss' children. For Katniss, it's important the story is passed on. Knowing your history is presented as an important way to escape past mistakes. Plutarch presents the problem of a short collective memory as contributing towards human destruction-- "But collective thinking is usually short-lived. We're fickle, stupid beings with poor memories and a great gift for self-destruction". Katniss writes at the end of the book about telling her children- "We have each other. And the book. We can make them understand in a way that will make them braver. But one day I'll have to explain the nightmares Why they came. Why they won't ever go away".
I'm unconvinced, however, that it lies to the parents to tell their children about war... given that most parents haven't had any first hand experience of it. I do think it's important for schools to dwell on the issues of war, to bring in people who do have first-hand experience of it into talk in schools. I understand Collins concern that, since most people only see war through their television screens, they don't seem particularly real. No one wants a situation where people, who know little about the nature of war, make military decisions.
Since the victims of The Hunger Games are young children, this speaks out about the horrors of war in a way that draws the attention specifically of young people. However, The Hunger Games are also a reason to go to war. Given that they are a form of oppression by the state. Collins doesn't seem to be against war in general as Katniss notes, when Peeta gives a call for a ceasefire early on in Mockingjay, that "he made it sound as if he were condemning both sides in the war. But at this point, with only minor victories for the rebels, a ceasefire could only result in a return to our previous state or worse".
Collins addresses issues in the ethics of war. For instance, in any case, killing civilians or aid workers is condemned (ie. the presentation of The Hunger Games, of Prim's death and of Katniss' own killing of a civilian woman). Moreover, beating your enemy once their down doesn't seem to be approved of by Katniss or Collins-- for instance, during siege of The Nut where Gale causes avalanches to trap those inside, a young man finds his way out and Katniss rushes to help him ("suddenly, he's just another burn victim from a mine accident"). Gale had planned to seal The Nut with avalanches, trapping all those inside. There should be an ethical line in these matters. The notion of respecting individual rights (in this case, specifically, the right to life) is key in a libertarian philosophy.
The over-arching message I think that can be gained from The Hunger Games series is that, sometimes, violent action is justified in order to put an end to worse oppression or violence. However, the human capacity for revenge (that results in the installment of the games), self-defense, misinformation, pre-emptive strikes can result in a self-destructive cycle. It's a difficult balance. Collins shows that whilst war can be glamorized for screen, it leaves the individuals involved with deep, psychological scars. The Hunger Games series does effectively help people, specifically young people and children, engage with the ethical issues of war.
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 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.
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 think this inter-generational discussion is absolutely important. Thinking back over my own life, I wasn't really even aware that the US military was engaged in any foreign interventions during the '90s. I was 12 in 2001; all I knew about the why the US was invading Afghanistan was "because of 9/11." I was never encouraged to think critically about this. In my home growing up, Fox News would be on TV most of the time and when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 Bill O'Reilly said that he would treat anyone who criticized the war as "enemies of the state." It seemed that the media had led me to believe that questioning the actions of the US military was unpatriotic, and that members of the US military deserved our utmost gratitude and respect. It wasn't until I was in college that I started questioning the war and the military (a process started by, ironically enough, Fox News' Judge Napolitano).As to whether Collins has been successful in fostering these discussions, I don't know. I worry that people might miss the theme of war entirely because I believe that when people think of "war" they typically envision some event between militaries of two or more countries, not a people rebelling against the government that rules them. If this is the case, they may see The Hunger Games as just another story about a rebellion against tyranny, not a commentary on war. But I think what many people don't realize is how intertwined tyranny and war is (I was a bit surprised that, unless I don't remember correctly, Panem wasn't at war with another country or enemy, since it is when people are afraid of some foreign threat that they are most willing to give up their liberties).
Collins definitely brings up some moral ambiguities of war. As mentioned in other posts on the forum, there was a discussion of whether Gale was justified in using the same tactics as those of the Capital; this is reminiscent of the debate of whether torture can be justified or is wise to allow as a government policy. As well, the use of double tap strikes to kill first responders occurs in the trilogy, as it does in Pakistan and Yemen when the US military uses drones. I hope these points aren't lost on readers.
I'm sure some parents feel the need to teach their offspring about the ethical dilemmas of war, but I am not sure it's enough. I sometimes wonder if the citizens of the Capital are an allegory for most Americans, who are apathetic about the wars their government wages; they don't fight in them and they don't feel the financial hardship wars typically create for the taxpayers forced to finance them because of the US government's unique ability to borrow and export inflation, so they effectively ignore them. Thus, I believe education about the true costs of war (as well as the history, the understanding of propaganda, and the like) are imperative for the future of liberty.
Well those are some very thought provoking questions. As far as I know she drew inspiration from the novel as it has been talked about from switching the channels from reality TV shows and seeing news of the war and we should question all that more. The concept of war is what the Hunger Games is built upon as the story goes for the society that it becomes and that is where specifics of it come in for having the Hunger Games I'd say. The nature of it is addressed on different levels I think from in the arena to out of it. The ethical ambiguities differ. To the state as they paint it in their image as with the sacrifice of the teens in the games as people see it as ethical to the outside where people realize the system they live in is wrong where and that is where liberty comes in.
Its not a bad idea to to me to introduce your children to the reality of war and the reasons for it. I mean they will hear about it one way or another in today's world.
In this century it hasn't very well I believe. Young men and women enlist and don't exactly know what they can get themselves into. the image can differ from what they will actually see or deal with.
Education definitely does good as we are learning in this century as for the education of liberty and what its values can teach us from it.
There is people out there that do teach there kids though. I was raised that war was more of a bad thing than a good thing and have taken it to the extreme questioning the wars of today.
Oh yeah, I believe knowing your history is a important theme in the book as it teaches us how the world can change. As for the case in the Hunger Games history has been twisted by the elites, but Katniss knows her true history from her father who taught her everything, so I'd imagine Suzanne thought of her father when she wrote the book.
Jordan wrote: "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 s..."You make a great point!
Hyun wrote: "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 hap..."I whole hearty agree! You really said it.
Tate wrote: "I think this inter-generational discussion is absolutely important. Thinking back over my own life, I wasn't really even aware that the US military was engaged in any foreign interventions during t..."Man I really agree with you here too! You make so many great points. I am amazed at mostly everyone's responses that I read.
"All Wars are Follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones. When will Mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their Differences by Arbitration? Were they to do it, even by the Cast of a Dye, it would be better than by Fighting and destroying each other." B. Franklin Letter to Mary Hewson Jan. 27. 1783.We have to learn "wars are not good" even movies, tv... say are necessary.
Then we can teach it.
The Nation Of Panem is Roman Based While 13 Is Barbarian Lombard based. Panem fell to 13 the same way the Romans fell to barbarians known as Lombards.
I think Mrs. Collins has a great objective with her desire to increase inter-generational dialogue. Her books certainly put the thoughts of war and liberty on the mind of young adults, and the younger the better. While young adults may not recognize all the signs that Collins writes in, it still puts them on the mind of those people. Hopefully the things young adults read about in the books will be reiterated by their parents. I think parents have an obligation to talk to their children about the morality of war, but that doesn't mean that all parents will talk to their children about it. Books like the Hunger Games do a great job of installing the ideas of morality in the face of oppression, but nothing beats proper parental guidance. The topics in the Hunger Games are perfectly tailored to the subjects of liberty. I haven't read the books, although this course makes me want to, but from what I have seen in the movies alone has showed me that Collins has a firm understanding of the significance of her books on the mind of young readers. The relationship between the capitol and the rest of the districts is purely exploitative. If the districts did not offer anything of sustenance to the capitol then they would not exist.
I think it's ironic that the capitol played that video before the reaping about this "history" of their relationship. It is clear that the districts offer the capitol resources. The mining district, farming, etc. The only thing the capitol offers the citizens of the districts is "love and kindness." Surely one can't survive off of the affection of others or else Hollywood stars could live forever. The propaganda tactics used by the capitol remind me of the propaganda used by the totalitarian dictators of the 20th century. Installing the idea that without the government we would be nothing, and nothing is possible without the government. To me there also appears to be a sense of divinity. Like mentioned in the question about the game makers similarity with the Greek gods altering the field of battle. When an entity as powerful as the capitol feels like they don't need to justify their actions, they can do anything for any reason. Including subjecting a peaceful populace to regular execution.
It is extremely important to talk to young people about war. Not because they need to know the history of it, but because they need to know why. History is easier if you understand why the characters took the actions that they did. I think it's important for young people to start building an understanding of morality, and that occurs when they understand why we take the actions we do. If we just tell people what is right and wrong then they do not get to figure out morality for themselves. If one can take the time to explain why we do what we do then we can allow them to draw conclusions for themselves.
I definitely think that with the Hunger Games trilogy Suzanne Collins has been successful in getting people to think about war, violence and their ethical dilemmas. Before I read the books, I was generally against war and violence, but after reading them I feel so passionately about it. I get emotional even thinking about it. For me itʼs been almost life changing.It has inspired me to look deeper into the actions of the US military (and other sources of violence) and really consider what is happening in the world. Itʼs hard because at that point it is easy to feel powerless, but just educating ourselves and sharing our knowledge is a great first step.
I know I will teach my children differently, and hopefully more profoundly, due to having read these books and having been so affected by them.
In this interview with School Library Journal, Suzanne Collins talks about how part of her reason for writing is to encourage inter-generational dialogue on very serious ethical questions about history and war:
My father was career Air Force. He was in the Air Force for 30-some years. He was also a Vietnam veteran. He was there the year I was six. Beyond that, though, he was a doctor of political science, a military specialist, and a historian; he was a very intelligent man. And he felt that it was part of his responsibility to teach us, his children, about history and war. When I think back, at the center of all this is the question of what makes a necessary war—at what point is it justifiable or unavoidable?…
One of the reasons it’s important for me to write about war is I really think that the concept of war, the specifics of war, the nature of war, the ethical ambiguities of war are introduced too late to children. I think they can hear them, understand them, know about them, at a much younger age without being scared to death by the stories. It’s not comfortable for us to talk about, so we generally don’t talk about these issues with our kids. But I feel that if the whole concept of war were introduced to kids at an earlier age, we would have better dialogues going on about it, and we would have a fuller understanding.
What do you think of this goal? Would you say Collins has been successful in fostering such inter-generational discussions? How does "the concept of war, the specifics of war, the nature of war, the ethical ambiguities of war" relate to The Hunger Games trilogy as a whole? To the subject of liberty?
Do you think others today share her father's conviction that it's the responsibility of parents to introduce their children to the subject of war and its ethical dilemmas? How well do you think this has been accomplished in the 21st century? Does such education have any implication for the future of liberty?
Why did her father emphasize history and war, do you think? Is "knowing your history" a theme in the books?
What are your thoughts?