Poetry Project
Our
Delusion
Happiness…
Something everyone desires,
but few
are willing to work for.
Convincing people around us and ourselves
that doing this
or getting that
is what will bring us happiness.
It’s all a
delusion.
The TVs hum and the billboards glare,
piercing our senses and infecting our
minds.
Manipulating our subconscious
to create blocks and build imperceptible
barriers
that keep us where they benefit.
In a prison of our making
keeping us for what we want .
It’s all a
delusion.
We
are
all flies desperately
flinging our tiny bodies
against the impenetrable surface of hard
cool glass
in the attempts to reach the utopia
outside.
It’s all a
delusion.
But what we do not acknowledge
is that we put ourselves in this situation.
We
flew
through that door
in search of something,
only to realize that we had what
we
wanted
all along.
It’s all a
delusion.
Some find their way back out the door,
but most of us continue to uselessly
fling our insignificant weight
against our transparent glass.
It’s all a delusion.
We,
Ourselves, us, everyone
create the delusion.
Paint ignorance over our eyes,
shove lies in our ears.
Shut out the whisper of truth
by belting the crude off key tune of lies.
The delusion is our making.
We have the ability to shatter the
glass.
So do it.
Fight the delusion.
Kinetic Text
Artist Statement
The main focus
of this semester was structures of power. For one of our seminars we read a
chapter from a book called Being Peace
by Thich Nhat Hanh. In this reading he
writes a lot about happiness and how to achieve true happiness. This idea really sparked my interest. In my poem, Our Delusion, I address and go deeper into the idea that we create our
own happiness. I repeat the line, “It´s
all a delusion” to show that the idea that our happiness is dependent on things
and other people is an illusion that we create that inhibits ourselves. It is not the things or people around us but
what is inside us that decides how we feel.
I take this idea a step further by then flipping it and addressing the
problem in our society that we are told to believe the opposite. Society and media blare messages that if you
get this or have that, that’s what will make you happy. We are trained to work ourselves into the ground,
in pursuit of something that has nothing to do with what we are getting. We create our own barrier that prevents us
from ever reaching our goal. In my poem
I focus on the structures of power that lives within, and is created by no one
but ourselves.
I am not a
performer. This is not a judgment or
opinion but a fact. When it came time to decide how we would present our poem I
knew that a live performance just wasn’t an option. I can see it now, me standing in front of a
swarm of eager eye wanting for me to start.
Ears prickle, heads turn, I swallow nervously running a pink tongue over
my trembling lips. Then I begin,
starting out too fast in my haste to satisfy those prickling ears and eager
eyes. I feel the hot fingers of a blush caress
my face and neck. I look down, ashamed,
at my tightly clasped hands. I freeze,
pleading the heavens that it is not true.
The embarrassment is too much; I look up one last time and sprint off
the stage. I had forgotten my pants.
We’ve all had this dream or something like it.
For those brave enough to face this nightmare I applauded you, but as
for me that is just not my cup of tea.
So instead I decided to battle the tyranny of Adobe After Effect. Bryan Bauer, a sophomore from last year, put
his poem, The Lies on TV into Adobe
After Effect and the result was amazing and inspired me to brave the world of
technology. In Bauer’s presentation he
uses sounds to emphasize parts of his poem, I also want to add emphasis and
meaning through means of noise. Also
like in The Lies on TV I think I
might add music in the background. With
this program I believe that I can extend my extended metaphor to a new
dimension. This presentation of my poem will deepen the meaning of the poem,
add imagery, allow for emphasis and lastly but certainly not least keep my
pants on.
My
poem is a free verse, meaning poetry that does not have rhyme or a regular
meter. I chose this form because I
believed it to be the most accessible form of poetry. Meaning one who does not have experience or
is not talented at writing poetry would be able to create something reasonably
good. Without that strict structure of a
rhyme scheme I thought it would be easier to write. So even though my content inspiration is The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe I still
chose to make my poem free verse. But
boy was I wrong. It ended up that just
because it didn´t have a set structure definitely doesn´t mean you don´t have
to have structure. It ended up that
creating your own structure has difficulties of its own. Everything you do has to have a specific
purpose. Whether it’s punctuated or not,
spacing, capitulation, every word has to have a purpose that contributes to the
message, flow, or feel of the poem. What
I did take from The Raven was the repetition, and the extended metaphor. I found the repetition of “nothing more”
beautiful, powerful and unified, so in my poem I repeated “It’s all a
delusion.” The extended metaphor about
the raven made the poem interesting and poetic so added a metaphor about
flies.
Truth of War
Machine of Mass Destruction
India Waller
War is a tragic, horrifying, and monstrous conflict between different nations, states or different groups within a nation or state. When the slaughter of millions is involved there are many questions and opinions that arise and are debated. One thing that is rarely touched on is the truth of war for the men and women who fight it. We hear about general so and so and battle this or that, but what about the millions of common soldiers who lost their lives fighting for something that they may or may not believe in? In order to survive the harsh realities of war, these common soldiers must morph into an unfeeling machine, capable of accomplishing horrible acts without repercussions. Machines have no feelings. They are created to complete a specific task not to provide thoughts or morals. A car is used to transport people and merchandise, a stapler is used to keep papers together, a tank is used to shoot mortars, an army is used to attack or defend something. Because an army is made up of humans does that mean the definition no longer applies? The truth of war for a soldier is that they are part of a machine, are viewed as a machine, and must become a machine to survive the war, mentally and physically.
A soldier is just a tiny piece of a giant, destructive machine. In Enemy at the Gates, a movie about the Siege of Stalingrad in World War II, the soldiers are transferred across a river where they were then forced straight into battle. In this scene there is so much chaos and so many men rushing around that it looks almost like an ant hill. You don’t see one man, you see a giant mass of men charging the enemy like one mass of power and steel. We train them to fight and then we send them off to battle like a factory assembles parts and then sends the built machine off to do its designated task. Army, navy, air force, whichever section our men are sent off to they are transformed from individuals into a part of a weapon of mass destruction. Being viewed and treated as a machine affects the soldiers and their view of themselves. They begin to view themselves as a whole and not individuals. This affects the way they fight and the way they see there own significance. The soldiers fight with less desperation and more structure. Their lives start to lose worth in their eyes and the looming presence of death starts to lose its horror. They are just a tiny piece of a giant machine that can always be replaced. When the troops are in this mindset it is easy for the leaders in a war to view them this way as well. Once the machine is built, it is sent to the Generals and Admirals to be used as a weapon in war. These leaders do not see individuals but only the power and efficiency of the man-made machine.
The leaders in war think of the soldiers as weapon to be used to defeat the enemy. It is easier to think of them as a machine rather than as men and boys. As Joseph Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” We can connect to one man, we can relate to one man, but there is little connection to a thousand men. The people giving the orders can’t connect to these men either. If they could how could they send them to their deaths with no thought for the murder they are indirectly committing? They are disconnected from the troops mentally and physically. The people who get the credit for the success or failure of a battle or war are not the ones facing the enemy, but the ones moving the piece on the board. The troops become a tool to be used. The soldiers become a machine in the eyes of their commanders. The troops worth are measured by their efficiency, strength and mass, not their kindness, humanity, and character. Even the soldiers themselves start to see this disconnection. To uphold these standards they must learn to become a machine as individuals and to act without thought.
Soldiers are put in situations where they can either react or get a bullet to the head. There is no time for thought, they must react mechanically. They must become a machine. On page 113 of All Quiet on the Western Front it says, “We do not fight, we defend ourselves against annihilation. It is not against men that we fling our bombs… No longer do we lie helpless, waiting on the scaffold, we can destroy and kill, to save ourselves, to save ourselves and to be revenged.” (Remarque) This quote shows how soldiers are possessed by the death around them, and taken over by an automatic killing machine. When it´s duck or die there is no time to think, you just have to do. In the quote when Paul says, “We do not fight, we defend ourselves against annihilation,” he addresses a truth that most soldiers feel. This truth is that they are not killing because they are ordered to, they do so to save themselves. The second sentence in the quote addresses another abundant truth, how soldiers not only start to be viewed as machines but they begin to view themselves, each other, and their enemies as machines. When the troops acquire these machine-like reactions, some of their humanity is lost. In society we are taught to think before we do something; war goes against our social norms. It makes sense that things that make up a machine also function mechanically. Soldiers are the mechanical pieces that are put together to create a colossal destructive machine. To make the body react like a machine the brain must also be altered.
Soldiers must murder, that’s their job description, and to deal with these murders the men must disconnect their mind and emotions from the acts they commit. In the book All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque gives us a look into Paul’s head: “Terror can be endured so long as a man simply ducks; --- but it kills, if a man thinks about it.” (138) To preserve your sanity in war, you can’t allow yourself to think about what you are doing. You have to let war take over your mind. You have let your morals and humanity crawl to the back of your mind and let the machine take you over. If you do not you will lose this part of you forever and become insane. Disconnecting yourself from the killing and gore of war is the only way for a soldier to come out of war with some of their humanity and sanity still intact. When Paul says, “Terror can be endured” he is expressing how the emotion is not the thing that destroys a person, it is the way one reacts and relates to that emotion that causes the destruction. Can someone truly kill someone and not lose some of themself? I think not, that is why soldiers must let their thoughts become mechanical and emotionless. War makes soldiers think mechanically, react mechanically, and operate with others mechanically. Therefore they are viewed by others as mechanical. To survive both mentally and physically, a soldier must disconnect themself from the acts they commit and see in war.
The truth of war for a soldier is to survive. To survive they must become a machine. When bullets are flying around your head and screams of pain reverberate in your eardrum, you are not thinking of the battle or why you are fighting, you are just surviving. On page 115 of All Quiet on the Western Front, Paul says, “Their rifles and bombs are aimed against us, and if we don’t destroy them, they will destroy us.” (Remarque) This quote tells it all. When a soldier is in battle his only truth is to survive. For those of us not fighting in a war our worries are about money, and what people think about us not whether our heads will get blown off. When your main goal is to survive these other worries no longer seem significant. This survival is not only physically, but also mentally. In All Quiet on the Western Front when Katnczinsky, Paul’s best friend dies, Paul says, “Katczinsky has died. I know nothing more.” At this moment Paul has failed to survive mentally, therefore he has no will to live physically. It is a great feat to come back from war in one whole piece. It is a greater feat to survive mentally as well. War has so much death that you need great strength to go on living after one has experienced such horror. War makes soldiers machines; to themselves, to their leaders, and to their country. The truth of war for these men is to survive. Not to win, not to lose, just to survive.
Reference Page
India Waller
Remarque,Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 1982.
Enemy at the Gates. Dir. Jean-Jacques Annaud. Perf. Joseph Fiennes, Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, Bob Hoskens and Ed Harris. Paramount, 2001.
Brainyquote.com. 2011. Brainy Quote. 15 Oct. 2011 <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/josephstal137476.html>.
Truth of War Projection Reflection
India Waller
For this project we were told to write as essay that explained what we believed the truth of war for a soldier was/is. Along with this essay we also had to create a project that in some way represented this truth of war. The cool thing about this was that the project could be almost anything. It could be anything from another piece of writing to a video. Though the assignment was the truth of war for all soldiers, in this section we learned about WWI and WWII. We read two novels, All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque and Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, through these novels we explored the different truth of war for the different characters in the book and the authors themselves. We had a seminar for each book. Along with reading these books we learned all the boring facts about WWI and WWII. But because we were reading these books and had a story to engage our interests, these boring facts became relevant and interesting.
Here at Animas High School we have skills that we are expected to apply to our work. These skills are called the Habits of Heart and Mind and are Perspective, Advocacy, Perseverance, Evidence, and Refinement. The habit that I feel I used most in this project was refinement. When Lori edited a draft of my essay she gave me a grade as if it was my final draft to give me an idea of what I needed to work on. One of the things that brought my grade down was proof reading so I went back over my draft multiple times refining and fixing silly mistakes. That is one example of when I used refinement in my project. Another example is in the sculpture that I made. For the project part of the project I decided to make a man out of metal to represent my truth of war. This seemed like a great idea at the time but soon I realized that with the resources I had my project would look very unrefined. So I rethought some of my project to make it more refined.
On the draft that Lori edited I got B’s in two of the categories. One was in proof reading and the other was in development. One of the most substantial changes I made to this essay way that I proof read it many times. This makes the essay better because then people do not get caught up or confused because of a typo or error in the essay. It allows the reader to focus on the content. Another big change that I made was I compared the truth of war of a soldier to the truth of war for a civilian. This really helps the reader see how war changes people.
If I had another week to work on my essay I would expand more on my conclusion. I would also clarify one of my body paragraphs. Not only that but I would also try to expand on my metaphor and try to make it more impactful and deep. As for my sculpture I would attempt to integrate more human parts and really try to show the machine consuming the man. I would also try to integrate the idea of the mind also becoming mechanical.
Veteran's History Project
Project Description:
In this project we were each assigned a Vietnam veteran to interview. Our task was to hear this soldier's stories and truth of war. We have read, scene, and heard other people’s opinions but with this project we were able to experience firsthand a soldiers truths. Once we had this interview we had to donate it to the Library of Congress. This involved lots of forms, organization and collaboration. We worked in two's or three's, I worked with Josh. Of course throughout this process we were learning about the Vietnam War. This interview enhanced my experience by bringing all the facts to life.
Gulf of Tonkin in Class Essay
India Waller
Thesis: One of the main reasons the U.S.A. says they increased their involvement in Vietnam was the supposedly unprovoked attack the USS Maddox by the North Vietnamese, but they have little evidence to support this claim, therefor we can come to the conclusion that they used this attack as an excuse to go to war and not a reason.
In this war the U.S. talks a lot about protecting the people of Vietnam’s freedom and standing up for their rights, but the question is: What do the people want? In order to really get a full understanding of what happened on August 2, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin we must look at the reasons the U.S. gives us and the hidden reasons they hide from us. “We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there was no one else.” (Doc. 5) Says President Johnson in the attempts to justify the government actions and regain the support and trust of his people. He gave this speech over the television on July 28, 1965 well after the Maddox was attacked and the United States presence had increased substantially in Vietnam. So we were the guardians at the gates. The gate to what and who are we protecting? From what I’ve read and heard there was not many Vietnamese people fighting with us to protect themselves, in fact the people we were killing and who was killing us were native northern Vietnamese people. Fighting against them isn’t what I would call protection. Ho chi Min the leader of our enemy was a native Vietnamese. So who are we protecting? Also in his speech President Johnson used a lot of propaganda: “We learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression.” (Doc.5) In this speech he aligns the people who we are fighting with Hitler. By doing this he shows us that he want the people listening to feel distain and hate for our enemy not for what they but for what Hitler did. This sort of aggression of propaganda makes this document unreliable. We know this speech had a purpose, every word thought out carefully, in order to make the people feel a certain way not to give them reliable information. From this document we can concur that real reasons for going to war are hidden and warped. Why did they not tell us the truth? Maybe because they knew we wouldn’t like it.
The United States officials never clearly explain why the Northern Vietnamese people attack our ship, suggesting that they didn’t care to know or they don’t want the people to know. Not only do the officials never give us a straight answer but they contradict each other. “Their very processes of logic are different.” “I haven’t been able, quite frankly, to come to a fully satisfactory explanation.” (Doc. 2) Explains Dean Rusk the Secretary of State when asked: “What explanation, then, can you come up with for this unprovoked attack?” (Doc. 2) Where when President Johnson is asked a similar question his reply is, “What happened was we’ve been playing around up there and they came out, gave us a warning, and we knocked the hell out of ‘em.” (Doc. 3) So which one is it? We don’t know why or we knocked the hell out of them? From what Rusk is saying we get this impression that he’s hiding something and then the President goes right out and blast their excuse that the attack was unprovoked into pieces. So the attack wasn’t unprovoked, what does that tell us about it being one of the primary reasons we went to war? It shows us that this attack was never the reason only the excuse.
The truths of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin have been declared and debated since the day it caused the start of the Vietnam War. We hear what the government told us and we hear people who think the government is telling us lies, but the truths we rarely hear are from the people whose opinions matter the most. The people who were there. “The first boat to close the Maddox probably launched a torpedo at the Maddox which we heard but not seen. All subsequent Maddox torpedo reports are doubtful in that it is suspected that sonarman was hearing ship’s own propellers beat.” (Doc. 7) If the people in the boat that was attacked weren’t sure of the events that happened then how were the officials in the United States so sure of what had happened? Do they have some magical power that we don’t know about? This proves once and for all that the United States government stretched the facts of this attack to create a valid reason to go to war. This cable was sent on August 4, 1964 two days after the attack. They still weren’t sure what had happened two days after. This cable was the last of three and in each cable the doubts about what happened escalate. Each time the Captain was more unsure what this attack was let alone who it was by. If this were truly the reason we went to war then we would have done more research and figured out exactly what had happened and why it had happened. The U.S. government took this attack and turned it into a giant propaganda poster that justified their actions it was used as an excuse to go to war, and not a reason.
If this attack wasn’t the reason we went to war, what was? I do not feel like I have enough data or knowledge to know all or to even guess all the reasons we went to war. War is such a complicated thing involving many powerful people who can only think of their own gain. There are also people who think they are doing the right thing but the right in a war can only cover so many people. War involves so many people that there is no way to please everyone or to do what is right for everyone. War is a horrible, devastating, destructive game that only the cruelest, most indifferent, disconnected, ignorant people can play. Cruel because of all the lives you have to sacrifice. Indifferent because of all the murders you must commit. Disconnected because you must live with these murders forever. Ignorance because you have to be incredibly stupid to think you can live while destroying so many lives. I feel sorry for the leaders of war; they may get all the glory and not have to lift one of their soft weak fingers. But death is no way to live, and if you live in death are you even living at all?
Project Reflection:
The truth of war for a soldier is that they are part of a machine, are viewed as a machine, and must become a machine to survive the war, mentally and physically. In my conclusion I came to a more general truth and that is that the truth of war for a soldier is to survive. In the interview he talks about how he got a silver star metal. He says that it may of look heroic but really he was just doing it to save his own life. This confirms my truth and shows me that war is a constant game of survival.
Ron Bishop, who was the interviewed veteran, got a metal called an air metal. This metal is rewarded when one is shot at while in a helicopter more than 24 times. He has a collection of them meaning he got shot at least 72 times. I knew the reality of war was crazy but the actual events are totally incomprehensible. What makes it even more unbelievable is that he acted like it was no big deal. Hearing all the stories really expanded my knowledge of the reality of war.
If I was a historian I could use this interview as a reference of how much these men were told and why they thought they were going to war. I would compare and contrast this to statements made by the government and civilians. And see the different perspectives. I would read the silences and see what they didn’t know or didn’t believe that somebody else did. This interview would provide a great reference for what was really going on in Vietnam. This would also give me a fantastic resource to use and to be able to analyze and figure out how much these men were told or taught about Vietnam and the war itself.
The information and opinions that I heard and read through the duration of this project has provided me with a new perspective. This is always valuable. The historical thinking skills that we learned were an especially useful tool in looking at information and analyzing it. Also I feel that my group dynamic in this project worked very well and is a good reference point for achieving an efficient collaboration. This project taught me a lot of valuable things and there all so different and have their own worth that I cannot decide which one was the most valuable.
