"In the face of fear" Omaha Beach

"In the Face of Fear"

The Image I have chosen depicts American Soldiers in a landing craft at Normandy. This picture was taken on June 6^th, 1944 at Omaha beach in northern France. This picture depicts the allied invasion of Germany's "Fortress Europe" during World War Two.  The Battle of Normandy consisted of five amphibious landings across the beaches of France, combined with airborne landings on the previous night.  The image of the beach landing depicts the character of the soldiers involved and America as a whole.

                The surface level of the soldiers themselves says a lot about this photo. Looking at the gear they are carrying, it seems that they are members of the U.S. Army. Their faces look young, depicting that it is a good chance they are either volunteers, or have been drafted. Imagine being in your late teens and early twenties and entering combat for the first time at Omaha beach. They must feel terrified, but still they approach shore in the face of chaos.  They look to be in a follow up wave approaching the beach; crafts from the prior waves are visible in the distance. If one were to look at this image as an American citizen in 1944, they would not only be proud of their fellow citizens for fighting for their country, but also be thankful of their country staring evil in the face and not backing down. The American fighting man in World War Two is an ultimate testament to individual patriotism and bravery.

Not only is this image a testament to American soldiers in World War Two but also illustrates what America is. This image seems to be a personification of the American spirit. When faced with obstacles, America has never hesitated to be in front and storm the beach.  The world looks to America for leadership; we are at our best when we lead from the front. In World War Two, we were not the first country to fight, but when our time came, we saw the job through. This image is timeless in its representation of America never giving up, and having a wining spirit to make it through tough time. That is something that will continue to unite our country despite all the differences we all have, we will always be American. This picture sends the message, in the end; America will always overcome adversity and come out a winner. Even today, America is seen as a power of good fighting the righteous fight against evil forces in the world. America is the tower on the hill that people look at for support. Like in both World Wars, America will be there to answer the call. The men in the boat are all from different backgrounds but one common bond brings them together, they are Americans.

                Something about this image seemed to just speak to me. It not only presents the courage of a group of soldiers in World War Two, it represents America's place in the world.  The beach they are taking is the source of evil in the world. America and other good willed countries will take this head on and storm the beaches no matter the cost. Although it may not appear that way, the American spirit remains strong, in times of crisis it will prevail.  Being able to capture images of war on film has both hindered and helped public opinion. In this case, I feel this image is a testament to facing danger in the name of doing what needs to be done for the greater good. Like the militia during our founding, and the soldiers fighting against terror today, the ideas have not changed. The American soldier has always been seen as a force fighting for what is just. This image just captures a specific instance one of times where America was at the vanguard of what is right. In the future from now, this picture will have the same message that it brings today. America can always succeed if we come together for a common beneficial cause.  I hope in the future, we do not become a force of evil in the world, but remain a bastion of sanity.

" How am I not myself" A study of personal identity.

"How Am I Not Myself"

                Benjamin Franklin said once, "The only things certain in life are death and taxes." In a way, this is very true. Life is a journey, discovering the unknown. It is hard to be sure about anything in life because the answer is not clear. Marcus Aurelius, roman emperor, had many writings discussing life and the purpose of the human soul. In his book Meditation, Aurelius discussed the purpose of the soul and identity. The ideas he brings forth over eighteen hundred years ago are still questioned today. During the 60s, Bob Dylan discussed the same issue. Dylan, a musician, uses his songs do bring out ideas he wants to discuss. His song, "Like a Rolling Stone" is an example of the questions he asked. The movie "I Heart Huckabees" is discusses the issue of life and existence. The movie follows a modern character in his quest to find the reason for his life. Marcus Aurelius, Bob Dylan, and "I Heart Huckabees" explore the same message of existence and the purpose of life.

                One idea presented is that all humans are the same. We are all connected to one another in some way.  This idea of being connected is present in all three of the sources, even though they are written years apart. In "I Heart Huckabees," a blanket is used to represent the world. In the blanket, we are all sharing the same space on earth together, connected. The investigator goes on to explain one person's life always has a bond to others. Bob Dylan also presented this idea in his song, "Like a Rolling Stone". The message of the song relates to all youth no matter what time period. It tells a story of the struggles youth face in their lives no matter what background. Facing similar struggles with others in your age group connects you to them. People are connected by a common bond of growing up in the song, similar to by the blanket in the movie. Marcus Aurelius brings forth connectives the quote from Meditations. Pondering that state of his soul he includes, "A child's, a boy's, a woman's, a despot's, a dumb animal's, a dangerous beast's." The fact that he mentions all of these things when thinking about his soul relates to how all of these things are connected to the life he lived. Aurelius did not just write about the state of his soul but how his life affected others. Like the movie and the song, everything is connected; Marcus Aurelius is just another person in the blanket of life. Even written years apart, all three sources cling to the idea that something unites people, all people have something in common. I can agree that the world is connected; actions of one part of the world have a chain reaction on another part. One example that I would like to point out is the "War on Terror." The whole war was caused by a single act by a group of men; their action caused a reaction from the whole world. Another example is the murder of Archduke Ferdinand prior to World War One. The death of one man became the spark of a global conflict. I believe that all human history is connected; each individual is just another piece of the puzzle.

                Another main idea is that of being remembered after death. All three sources bring up in some way being remembered and known. Dylan mentioned being unknown in the chorus of his song, "How does it feel ... Like a complete unknown."He brought up the idea that youth are unknown, have not made a name for themselves and will be unknown. Aurelius also touched on the subject of being known and remembered. Stating, "and whose soul have I at present?" He asked this about himself. Aurelius felt that knowing the answer will give him a picture of how he will be remembered. Aurelius worried about being remembered. He knew that being Emperor, his name will live on, but did not know the manor which it will live. In "I Heart Huckabee's", the character Albert is also dealing with making a mark on the world to be remembered. In the movie, he places pictures of himself in a store along with pictures of famous people. He does this because he believes that they will be remembered, and if his picture is in with theirs, maybe he too will not be forgotten. All three of these put an emphasis on being known, and remembered. I believe that the individual is unsecure about their life. They wonder if they have had any meaning of their existence. People feel like they need to do something in order to be remembered. They feel like just living does not make a good enough impact on the future.

                Personal identity is also a topic that is paramount amongst the examples. In each, there is someone who is unidentified with whom they are. Aurelius tried to understand what the state of his soul is. He honestly did not know how his life has effected and changed who he was. This is evident when he stated, "To what purpose...am I now using my soul?" Not only does he wonder how he is using his soul but to what extent is that affected who he is. In "I Heart Huckabee's" the whole reason for the movie is for Albert to find himself. This is most evident when he states, "How am I not myself." What Albert is doing with this quote is ask himself if the person he is now is the same person he use to be. Finally, Bob Dylan has had a mixed identity his whole career. The person he is representing seems to be changing every ten years, from folk, to rock, country, and evangelicalism. I believe that a person always changes and grows. You can never know who you are at any time because it is an always changing thing. These sources exemplify the fact that when people age, they end up changing and will always be changing.

                I do not think that we will have the answer to some questions ever. That is life. Even though they are all published at different times, "I Heart Huckabee's", "Like a Rolling Stone" and the quote from Meditations all touch on the same issue. The idea of having a world that is all interconnected, wanting to be remembered after death, and personal identity are all present in each source. Having these issues still present over a large period of time tells me that they are universal to man. There is no simple answer to things, everything is permitted. I wonder if in the future, there still will be a problem with understanding one's connection with others, being remembered and changing personality. My guess is that these will always be questions because they are unanswerable.

Bob Dylan Like A Rolling Stone

Am I a Stone?

                After reading and listening to "Like a Rolling Stone" I am surprised by the universal message Dylan is giving. This song is a timeless story about growing up and living life.  This song seems to be sung as if he is asking the listeners, what are they going to do about what is going on?  The way the story is depicted by Dylan, this song can be listened to by any generation and applied to their lives.

                Each verse of the song depicts different parts of the struggles a person is going through.  First, it seems to be describing teen years while living with parents and having no worries about life. Growing up they hear that they need to do something or you will end up failing. When you are on your own, things will be different and it will not be easy. Then it goes on to describe how the school system has done nothing to prepare for life, and you end up settling for less than you dreamt for.  According to Dylan, you eventually are no longer entertained by life, and will be taken advantage of. As this happens to you, the government is having a good time, pretending everything is ok. When the government calls for you, you will answer because you have nothing. In this case it seems to be to go fight in Vietnam. This message at first was used to explain life in the fifties which lead to the vast changed in the sixties.

                Bob Dylan is able to convey a message about growing up and the struggles of life that are universal for all time periods. Personally, this song makes me wonder, what my government is doing to make my life better.  Look at the sixties compared to now, people are having problems getting educated and getting jobs, the government is sending a message that they know the answer to the problem. I find it very interesting that over all this time, things have not changed. Dylan's message still has a timeless meaning to it and will be as true in the future as much as it is now and in the sixties.  

America, Israel, and the Middle East: Can't We All Just Get Along?

America, Israel, and the Middle East: Can't We All Just Get Along?

                In 1967, the Israeli Military with backing of the United States was able to defeat an alliance of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in just six days (Lennon 21). The Six Day War marked the American support of Israel in its struggle against neighboring Arab nations in the conflict over Palestine. Since then, America has been the strongest western supporter of the State of Israel and this has not come without its consequences.

                The issue that I have decided to take on is "why has Western support of Israel led to tension between the West and the Middle East?" The American backing of the State of Israel has led to a clash between Western Civilization and Islam. The problem all started with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One. After the Ottoman fall, there was no unified power in the Middle East and the land was carved up by the British and French into the Mandate System (Lennon 20). With the British in control of Palestine, Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour came up with the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East (Lennon 20). From this, the idea of Zionism was adapted by many Jewish groups scattered across Europe. As a result of the Holocaust, the western Allies supported large scale Jewish immigration to Palestine. The State of Israel was formed after bloody conflicts between the native Palestinians and new Jewish population has caused the British Government to partition and abandon their mandate in 1948. As a result, multiple wars occurred between the newly formed State of Israel and Arab nations. During the Cold War, the world got divided up between Nato allied countries and USSR back countries, America sough allies in the east.  Following the war of 1967, the United States became the main western supporter of Israel (Lennon 21). The American support of Israel has lead to the terrorist's attacks of 9/11 and the current War on Terror (Madden 206). Since then, there has been a surge of Islamism groups forming, whose agenda is to kick out Western Influence in the Middle East. The Western backing of Israel has lead to the current conflict between Muslims and Western Civilization.

We need to look at all sides of the issue, first we look at the Muslim point of view. Looking at what is going on from the position of Muslims whose history has been covered with conflicts against the west. The U.S. support of Israel's occupation of Palestine is seen as a continuation of western crusades, and imperialism against the east. Conservative movements formed to focus on early Islam teachings, without foreign influence has become popularized as a result of Western Globalization. Some examples of these groups are; Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Al Qaeda (Madden 206).  Since the Gulf War, there have been an increased number of American troops stationed in bases around the Middle East. Islamists view this as the West trying to destroy their culture, control state politics and westernize the people of the Middle East (Pfaff 9). The United States and Western Countries support Israel's state sponsored terrorism against the Palestinian people. A single terrorist attack against Israel causes the Israeli Defense Forces to wage a mini war with those responsible and cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people (Grinberg 1).

Since the creation of Israel, followers of Islam have urged for a struggle against the western "Franks" that infest their native land (Madden 207). New waves of Mujahidin or Strugglers operate to fight the expansion of the west, and for the survival of traditional Islamic culture. They believe that the West has no right to place a foreign people in native Arab lands, as well as supporting these people as they wage a bloody war to eliminate the Palestinian people. The American response in the Middle East as a result of the War on Terror has been blown of proportion. It is just an excuse for America to further the spread of westernization, and secularization of the Middle East (Pfaff 9). Western Civilization is trying to push their culture on another without respecting the culture that is already in place.  For example, "There is constant Western pressure on Islamic governments to conform to Western conceptions of human rights and to promote free and critical religious and political thought" (Pfaff 9). The idea of westernization, and continued support of Israel have been the issues that have polarized the Muslim world with the West. No conflict is one side so we need to take a look at the Israeli and Western sides of the story.

From Israel's point of view, everything is drastically different. The idea of Zionism, which had been secretly adopted by the British after WWI, was in full effect after the Holocaust. Thousands of Jewish immigrants made their way to Palestine for their new promised homeland. They however, were met with hatred and violence by the native Palestinian population. Thus the conflict between Western backed Israel, and the Muslim Middle East was conceived. From the beginning, Israelis felt like they were outnumbered, and surrounded. They believe it is necessary to fight for their lives against Arab nations who do not want them to exist (Grinberg 1). That is not a very friendly situation to be placed in, but the Jewish people were able to band together and have survived. Now with the constant attacks on Israeli soil by radical Muslim groups, the IDF conducts operations and occupations to ensure the safety of the State of Israel (Grinberg 1).

As a result of the terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Israel, the Israeli Government feels justified it has the right to defend itself, and protect its people. Supported politically and militarily by the United States, Israel is able to make aggressive operations against these extremists groups. Take a look the statements made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, he states that he wishes to wipe Israel off the map all together (Hashemi 1). When this kind of statement is made about your country by the leader of another, I would feel the need to defend myself just as the Israelis do. The country of Israel feels like it is just trying to provide security to its people but, is faced with overwhelming opposition from the Muslim World who do not even recognize Israel as a country. The State of Israel believes its right to defend its existence with any means is a result of their support from the West, and continued hatred put forth by Muslim groups.  The other faction that is a major player in this conflict is the West, in particular the United States.

To look at this issue full circle, we dive into the Western perspective of Israeli and Muslim relations. In the aftermath of World War Two, Western powers developed sympathy for the plight of the Jewish people. This eventually led to the creation of Israel and the Western arming of this new state to provide it with means to defend itself. The United States has formed a strong bond with Israel because it is a Western friendly country, and is strong military ally in the east. Not only do we support Israel, we have also worked to try to modernize, and westernize the Muslim world (Pfaff 9). Our intention is not to steal their culture but to provide modern technology, and thinking to an isolated part of the world. This caused anger amongst extremist groups who do not like outside influence and lead to the evens of 9/11. America increased their presence in the Middle East more than this because they felt it is their duty to help provide assistance and stability to regions where extremists groups reign.

Most European powers have taken a stance as peace brokers between Israel and the Palestinians but the United States has taken a more controversial approach. We conduct operations in the War on Terror; we identify Israel as an important ally in the Middle East to fight against Islamic extremists. Support for Israel has been increase by America in both, arms sales, and politically (Grinberg 1). We feel like as a super power it is our right to have a presence in the Middle East regardless of how negative it is coming across. Furthermore, America's stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been to support peace but also putting full support behind Israel's right to security.  The West has taken a policy of globalization because we believe in the end we will provide stability, and modernize the world. We also have taken a stand that Israel can, and should exist as a Jewish country in a Muslim land. I believe that America has taken the steps to continue to support Israel in their struggle, regardless of the backlash we are receiving from the Muslim world. 

There is no doubt this conflict has deep roots amongst its three main factions. There has been so many events that further complicate the issue at hand. I do not deny that I hold a bias position in favor to the Western viewpoint, but the blame cannot be placed on only one group of people. The underlying issue here is a clash of two very different civilizations; One being the globalized Western Civilization, and the other being the isolated culture of Islam. The fact that Israel is a Jewish country is not the reasoning behind the violence; I believe the same result would occur if it were a Christian country. It is a fact that Israel is a modernized, and Western supported country. That is what the real issue is boiling down to. Muslims reject the Idea of having a foreign presence within native Arab land; they have held this belief since the founding of Islam. I have to place some blame on what I believe to be Muslims not being able to accept change and intolerance of others but it is not a one way street. Their responses to Westernization has resulted in the formation of extremists groups carrying out brutal acts of violence to prove a point. Their acts of aggression against the West for having a presence in the Middle East has lead to even more American presence. As a result of being attacked, American presence in the Middle East has skyrocketed to deal with this threat. The problem is that it is a vicious cycle that will keep spinning with more attacks on the West, and an even larger Western response.  The same goes with the conflict in Palestine. Israel responds to terrorists attacks with military force, which in turn cause more terrorists attacks. This has been going on since the formation of Israel and neither side has taken steps to avoid its continuation.

The issue is not whether one side is correct and one is not. It is what has each side done to fix the problem; the answer to that is nothing. There has been no attempt on either side to look past the issue at hand, and come with a solution that can work in the future. There needs to be some accountability taken for ones actions by the West, Israel, and Muslims. Before there can ever be a resolution, there needs to be a change in the way of thinking that got us to the conflict we are in. Sadly, this conflict has been going on since before I was born and the way things are going it does not looks like a resolution will ever arise in my lifetime. It makes me think, can there ever be a resolution to the conflict between Western Civilization and Islam?

Post #9 Reflection

I really enjoyed learning about both Greek and Estrucan art this quarter. Greek history was something that I have always been interested in and studied a lot during school, so I was interested in actually learning about the artwork for the period. Estrucan art on the other hand is something that was totally new for me, all I had learned about the Estrucans was that they were the predecessors to the Romans, but did not know anything about their history or artwork. In school we had always gone over the Greeks and moved straight into the Romans barely even mentioning the Estrucans. Learning about Estrucan art gives me a better understanding of their culture but also serves as a bridge between Greek and Roman art.

Specifically in Greek art, I enjoyed the new viewpoint I gained about the actual appearance of Greek art. The idea that Greek art was plain and simple was a viewpoint I had always held, but this was shattered. The “Peplos” Kore really illustrates what color can do for the piece. My reaction to the piece is totally different in its form of color. The premade idea I had of Greek art turned out to be untrue, and I even felt a little uneasy with the colored Greek pieces. The same came with the piece depicting the archer. Looking at the plain form, I would have said it looks like a perfect example of simplified Greek art. However, taking a look at the reconstruction, I am greeted with a mass of colors which throw off my interpretation of the piece all together. The initial reaction of the use of color is off putting to me, it takes a bit to process and analyze. The discussion of Wincklemann and his promotion of pure and simple Greek art helped with the accepting of the colored pieces. I actually got a little mad with the result of Wincklemann altering my understanding of Greek art to actually be false.  It was nice to be able to learn about how Greek art really was, not just the interpretation of what it should be.

Etruscan art on the other hand was something I had known nothing about coming into this class, so I was interested to see what it was all about. The most interesting part of Etruscan artwork I found was the change in tone which occurred in tombs. For example, the tomb of hunting and fishing depicts a very upbeat outlook. It consists of a very naturalistic viewpoint; it was interesting to see how quickly this outlook changed. The “tomb of the blue demons” sheds light on this change presenting a very different outlook. The artwork seems very dark, and I was surprised to see forms of demons and serpents present. The relation to these changed in the pieces of artwork and the downfall of the Estrucans was something I found very interesting. I liked the fact that with time the artwork even changed with the climate the culture was in. Another piece of Etruscan art which really caught my eye was the “Tomb of Reliefs”. The amount of detail use with all of the tools and items painted or carved into the tomb is pretty surprising.  It seems to be very thorough with having all the necessities present for one to bring to the afterlife. It even reminded me of Egyptian pyramids, and all of the material sent with one to the afterlife. Overall I found Etruscan art very unique with its tombs, not only with the detail but also the tone of the artwork that changed. 

Byzantine and Early Medieval Art Option 1

Taking a look at Byzantine and Medieval art, there is a big discrepancy with regards to naturalism than what was seen in Greek or Roman art. I find this to be interesting because in time, one would think that abilities improve, so naturalism would improve, but that does not happen here.

                The first piece that I think illustrates this difference is the “Presentation page with Abbess Hitda and St. Walpurga” located on page 450. The lack of naturalism becomes clear very early with looking at the size of the two people in the image in relation to the buildings. Another part, the center character has his head outlined with a gold flat halo, which is more symbolism than who one would actually appear. The figures also have a black outline, this outlines is used for physical features along with outlining their cloths. The use of line in place of actual features was not used in Greek art and is not a naturalistic trait. There is no sense of physical form or features present, Greek and Roman art emphasized the physical form and muscles. In this piece, the people are covered from head to toe in very loosely fitting clothing reflecting no physical features at all. On top of this, their appendages do not match their bodies. Both figures have abnormally small hands and feet compared to the rest of their body. What is interesting about that, the character on the left, despite having small hands, has abnormally long figures. There seems to be a lack of caring when it comes to correctly adding proportions to the characters. It is also clear that like medieval and Byzantine art, the figures are elongated abnormally in this figure. The distance between their feet and their waste is not naturalistic at all. Overall, I get the sense that the content of the piece takes precedent in making the figures look natural.            

                Another image which adds to the idea that medieval art stepped away from naturalism is the “Matthew writing his gospel” on page 431. Although not as blatant as the first one, there are some aspects of the people in this piece which really go away from naturalistic works. First is the existence of the halos like in the work before, used in more of a symbolic form than natural looking. Onto of this, all of the figures use outline and lines to represent their features. For example, Matthew’s beard and hair, does not look natural at all. Instead, it is stylized using lines of different colors; I do not know one man who has colored lines like that for hair. Also, his body parts seem unnatural, his feet are awkwardly lines up one behind another, it actually reminds me a little of Egyptian art. I also see this with his hands; this second hand which rests on the bible seems to just disappear off into mid air, normally one would see the arm continue in some fashion. Although not as evident at the other work, this form seems to be also elongated, longer than a person normally would be. The clothing is also used to really hide a lot of the physical characteristic. Like the previous work,  it appears that emphasis is placed on the subject matter and story told rather than representing people naturalistically. 

Commodus and Caracalla

The pieces featured Commodus as Hercules and the head of Caracalla are similar however provides some distinct differences that help to visualize how the rules portray themselves. The bust of Commodus as Hercules is made from marble in typical roman fashion. In the message, Commodus seems to not rely on himself to appear great, but has to relate himself to being a descendent of the gods in the form of Hercules. He is depicted very ornately featuring almost perfect features and muscles, armed with a club, apples, and a lion’s fur, with distance hair and beard. It seems like he is trying to get the viewers of this piece to relate his image with that of Hercules, however, now days we do not have a good idea of what Hercules looks like, so to us, it just looks like Commodus is going to great lengths to add to his appearance. The bust uses light to its advantage with the use of the lions head as a hood; it focuses the eyes on Commodus’s face. Overall the image tried to depict Commodus as a worthy ruler that can be related to the gods, signifying that Commodus has divine backing, because he has relation to Hercules.

                The head of Caracalla, a bust as well, serves a use of propaganda but not in the form of presenting himself to be godly or appear to be someone he is not.  Just like the bust of Commodus, this is made out of marble and is a piece of propaganda. This however, is where the similarities end. The head of Caracalla does not show humans in their perfect form like the bust of Commodus as Hercules does. Instead, Caracalla has lines in his forehead, and a very stern brow. He presents staring eyes, with an almost frown upon his face. Along with this, his beard and hair are very short and barely visible unlike Commodus who has very curly hair and beard. This piece portrays Caracalla as a very serious ruler, just looking at his face a viewer can tell that he is not easy going and has a lot of concern in his face. This is unlike Commodus, who seems to have a very perfect, neutral expression. Someone looking at this piece from this time period would be able to relate the face with the struggles the empire is facing at the time and know that Caracalla, the stern looking ruler takes things seriously, unlike Commodus who is just playing dress up. Even looking back today, not knowing the time period or Caracalla by appearance, we can discern that he is indeed a serious man. Looking at his face, it might even give the viewer a sense of fear if against this man, or a sense of safety knowing that he is in control. His serious expression is even added upon with the use of lighting with the darkness on the right side of his face and the darkness above these eyes. Looking at these pieces, one gets the sense of the periods they lived in relation to the Roman Empire. Commodus, coming out of the height of the empire, is carefree, and able to portray himself as whatever he wishes in perfect form. While Caracalla has a more simple serious representation of himself, with no time to or need to represent him as anything different.