In Chapter 4, “Leather Straps,” (15), one of Campbell’s guards tells Campbell that “almost everybody who came through [World War Two]” got so that they “couldn’t feel anything.” (16) What, if anything, does this claim suggest about the nature of war? What, if anything, does this claim suggest about the experience of reading about war or about the experience of seeing scenes depicting war on a video screen? A tangential question: why is “cold-blooded” murder (that is, murder that is executed without feeling) considered to be more morally reprehensible that a “crime of passion”?
War is something that cannot be taken lightly. War takes a toll on every one. Some people pretend to be okay with what they have seen, heard, felt, and done, but underneath every one feels the same way.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not know what it is like to have been in war and to have seen the horrors committed. I have seen depictions in movies and read about it in books, but it is not the same. I do know that when soldiers come back from war and go through personal examinations, a majority lie. They do not want to go through extreme testing; therefore, they tell the examiner everything they want to hear.
As to why "cold-blooded" murder is labeled as morally reprehensible, that can depend on the individual. "Cold-blooded" murder is interpreted as something done where the person who has committed the crime has no feeling toward the victim. This shakes people's thoughts because they do not understand how someone can commit a murder without feeling anything at all.
A "crime of passion" is committed when someone commits a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak. This definition implies that even though a crime was still committed that it is more acceptable than a "cold-blooded" crime. People think that because the crime was spur of the moment that it isn't as bad as if the offender would have had time to plan the crime.
Either crime is still a crime, committed in the heat of passion or given time to execute the plan properly, both are unacceptable in society.
Campbell’s guard says, “I got so I couldn’t feel anything…Every job was a job to do, and no job was any better or any worse than any other.” He’s not necessarily saying that he didn’t feel anything, but that nothing felt different. His feelings towards hanging Hoess with the leather strap, felt no different than strapping his suitcase. He is not feeling nothing; he’s feeling empty. Nothing satisfies him. No amount of revenge, no job, no person can change his feelings. I think this suggests that war drains a person, not just physically, but mentally. I have never been in war, but maybe while in war, one feels too much and desires to be empty of feelings. So reading or watching scenes from movies about war cannot truly depict war.
ReplyDeleteAbout cold-blooded murder versus crime of passion, both are obviously unacceptable. I think when a person is “numb” and feels the same about all things it is dangerous, not just in murder, but in life. If one does not have strong feelings for anything, then are they human? So when someone kills “cold-blooded” and kills without feeling it almost results in a more animalistic response than a human response.
I think the nature of war is something that people can't fully understand without experiencing it first-hand. From what Campbell's guard said, I take from it that war alters some people's mind frames to such an extent that when they come home they are unable to reset it back or "snap out of it" to how it was before war.
ReplyDeleteWithout being in battle personally, someone can't comprehend what soldiers go through. I agree with Nik; I haven't ever been there but I don't think books and movies come close to the horrible realities of war. One would almost have to become indifferent and not think about what's going on or what they are personally doing to be able to handle everything mentally.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing a cold-blooded killing and a crime of passion, I agree with Allie. Neither is okay or acceptable, but I believe that cold-blooded killings are viewed as more morally wrong than a crime of passion. If there was no reason for killing that particular human being then couldn't any other person be a target as well, in a cold-blooded killing. In a crime of passion, the killer at least had a specific motive for killing that particular person.
I agree with Nik, there is nothing that truly shows war in the way that it is. A book, a movie, a story-none show the hours of being on edge, the surprise attacks and drill and guard duty and the friends that will never return back to camp in a way that we can grasp to its full extent. The toll is greater than that which can be portrayed. The only thing even remotely comparable would be the feeling of not having enough sleep for a prolonged period of time, to where things really don't matter and all you can think about is how nice it would be if you could drop what you are doing and go back to bed. But even this is a laughable comparison to how draining war must be. As to the question over cold-blooded murder against a crime of passion, I agree with Jodie that cold-blooded murder is more alarming, and suggests that the person is completely unstable, with little or no boundaries. At least with crimes of passion there is some form of reason and motive, although that does not in any way make it acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI think it suggests that to function in war, a person has to remove a little of their own humanity. They have to put aside the things that they would hold as constant at home, forget the rules of morality they were taught or have constructed for themselves. I do not think that people who have not been through a war, who have not directly seen the damage or had to make the hard decisions, can fully understand. It is something we might try to understand, or think we do, but we cannot unless we have lived it. Some may think that they know sort of what war is like from television or movies or books, but I think it is dangerous to think we know something because we have read about it.
ReplyDeleteJessica, I am struck by your claim that "at least with crimes of passion there is some form of reason," since the term "crimes of passion" suggests that they are crimes committed with no forethought. They are irrational. On the other hand, cold-blooded murders are rational and planned.
ReplyDeleteWar comes at a price. The price that everybody sees is the casualties and the body counts, but there is a price that many don't ever see or experience. That price unbeknownst to many is the mental damage and death that a vast majority of war survivors have to learn to live with or seek help. There are a group of people who go to war and don't get scarred the way others do. Whereas the majority of survivors experience hallucinations or terrors constructed by their minds and past memories, this group is damaged in the way that they almost cease to feel anything. A big percentage of that group lose all feelings other than the most primative feelings of hate, anger, and sometimes possibly fear. This group, as a whole, are less receptive to emotions that we as a nation are use to using in everyday life. War shakes the very roots of the mental structure of the soldiers that participate in it's violent nature so that the combatants have to be structurally sound when it comes to their minds lest they too fall under war's crushing boot
ReplyDeleteA lot like my answer on the Sonderkommando question, we as humans, are easily desensitized when it comes to war. When 9/11 happened, we were all stunned to know America was at war. But almost eleven years later, we’re so used to the fact now. Most of us don’t cry about it. I can almost bet that a majority of us don’t really care anymore. I pull CNN up on my phone every day, and it’s always saying how a bomb killed this many people in wherever that day. I don’t even budge. It just becomes normal—a lot like it did for Campbell’s guard. It was just another job. Nothing more, nothing less.
ReplyDeleteWhen we read about war, it is so easy for us to say that something is wrong. We wonder how people do what they do, but in all honesty, we don't understand. Soldiers do what they have to do to survive. What they want to do does not always come into play. Many learn to detach themselves from what they are experiencing to try to make it easier. People will do what they need to do whether its ideal or not. No one is right in war 100% of the time. People have the misconception that they are though.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that people get to where they can't feel anything proves one thing about war: It's extremely hard. A life is a life. People don't stop caring just because they are on different sides. It doesn't make someone's life worth less. I think that is shown since people have to detach themselves just to get through it. They have to learn to do what they have to do, not what they want. War is never a wanted thing. It sometimes, though, feels necessary.
War isn't something that people can completely understand. Those of us that have never been in war are not capable of fully comprehending what exactly the soldiers go through. People may feel astonished when they read about soldiers going through with awful murders and executions as if they are just another daily chore. The simple fact is that war changes people. Many people would like to think that they could not be changed by war, but they just can't know. The things that soldiers go through daily are nothing that can be easily imagined. After a period of time, committing the same actions over and over would seem like just another chore. They would feel the need to separate themselves from their actions by feeling nothing. It isn’t that they don’t care. It’s that they do what they need to do in a time of war. Reading about wars and seeing movies about wars could never compare to actually being in one. It's easy to read about something and agree or disagree about it, but it just isn't the real thing.
ReplyDeleteIf we made a list of experiences that people can never understand unless they personally undergo those experiences, couldn't our list be infinitely long? When you get right down to it, can anyone of us know what it is like to live someone else's life?
ReplyDeleteWhy is "war" the experience that most often gets singled out as the experience no one else can understand?
ReplyDelete