Watching a film critically is always an insightful task. Even though is not the first time I do it, watching American Sniper almost at the end of the term, makes you realize that there are so many things about the film that ring a bell, or draw a parallel to something else you have studied. Watching this film was very intense because its very violent and stirs up many emotions  I could not simply watch it without flinching at some point.

The first thing I considered about the film was his director: Clint Eastwood. From my history course, I learned that whenever you are analyzing a source the first thing is to identify the lens or the perspective, in this case, the background of the director. The director shapes the film according to his ideas and what he wants to convey. Clint Eastwood is a legendary director, who also served in the military during the Korean War and is affiliated with the Republican Party. It is important to take into account how his experiences might have influenced his choices for this film, but also to find value in it, not simply crossing off bias as inherently bad.  

On another note, the theme of trauma that has come across throughout our syllabus, in Persepolis and Safe Area Gorazde, it’s also present in the film. In my opinion, the film conveyed very powerfully the trauma of war, through different people. It focused mainly on the portrayal of Chris Kyle’s struggles during his training, being deployed, and when he was on duty. I think it is interesting to see that they showed how hard it is for soldiers to come back home because of their experiences in the war and the psychological toll while showing as well the glorification of veteran culture. 

 Additionally, Deer’s argument of the normalization of violence in everyday life can be applied in multiple examples of this overlap during the film. Through the home-coming of soldiers and their difficulty of adapting to ‘normal life’, the suffering of families in the US and Iraq, veteran culture and the use of guns since childhood.

The meta-narrative of the Iraqi as the mortal enemy and the objective of war to defend ‘the greatest country in the world’, from the ‘savage’ terrorists, is dominant in the film. It raises questions about representation and collective and culture memory (Sturken). Who are the victims? Who are we defending? What is being used to justify the war? This aspect of the film reminded me of The Reluctant Fundamentalist and how 9/11 has created a division between the East and West by distancing us from a war that is fought abroad for the sake of the “protecting”  the West.

The concept of the precariousness of life by Butler is definitely one of the main themes when it comes to American Sniper as a representation of the Iraq war. I appreciated the scenes were the families from Iraq were portrayed and also how they have tried to live their ordinary lives during a time of war. There were several parallels in terms of the role of religion and having war heroes, portrayed on both sides of the conflict. This for me represents an attempt to show the shared pain of the experience of war. 

 

 

Every year I have had a conversation about poetry, mainly in my literature classes. I have never been a fan of poetry but slowly I have been able to appreciate it more. I actually realized that I generally say that I’m not into poetry but in fact, one of my favorite books is about the poems of the Rubaiyat by Omar Khayam. They are the core of the story written by Amin Maalouf in  Samarcande. The book starts with when the manuscript of the Rubaiyat disappears into the sea after the wreck of the Titanic. “At the bottom of the Atlantic, there is a book. I am going to tell you its history. When the Titanic went down its most eminent victim was a book, the only copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam the Persian sage, poet, and astronomer”.

Omar Khayyam was one of the most famous poets of Persian but also a mathematician and a scientist of the 11th-century.  His poetry is very unique and has stood the test of time. In the late 19th century he became increasingly popular among Europe’s erudite and nowadays his poems can be read in many different languages. For his time, Khayam defied and questioned things such as faith and the meaning of life. Thoughts that others took for granted. He was only certain about the ephemeral nature of life and that death was inevitable.

Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat is still relevant even 11 centuries after, because of its atemporal nature and universality. Khayyam’s poetry is not very different from the notions of life we have discussed in class, about the precarity of life and vulnerability. 

It does not matter where you were born, what religion you practice, what you believe in, your skin color or nationality, we all value our lives greatly because we all know  (spoiler alert) we are not immortal.  Poetry has the power to reminds us this fact in an often compelling and confusing way. No wonder Plato wanted to ban poets from the Republic. Poetry is powerful and can give voice to those that have been silenced.

Were it not Folly, Spider-like to spin
The Thread of present Life away to win –
What? for ourselves, who know not if we shall
Breathe out the very Breath we now breathe in!

-Omar Khayyam

While looking at the Amazonia exhibition, feathers were a recurrent material found in different artifacts. Among them, the headdress and 3 other feather works, that were “orphan objects”, caught my eye.  This category of “orphan objects” was explained by the exhibition, as artifacts that did not come with a reference.  Different experts from the fields of anthropology, and history have had done research to trace back the origin of these artifacts, but there is no absolute certainty. Furthermore, these objects invite the us to acknowledge our ignorance and also reflect about the colonial aspects in the accumulation of objects of which which we have no knowledge about, those objects whose story cannot be told. “Having objects for display with no information, seems to exclude the people who used them from the conversation”, argues the curator of the exhibit. I found this message to be very powerful, because it reflects on how colonialist relationships have marked so many aspects, and how modesty is a step forward to restore that broken relationship in the process of decolonization.

Both objects belonged to the Kayapo people who consider birds as divine creations, therefore feathers have a very important cultural value. The headdress which was made all of feathers, was brought by the group of people from Canada, including Haida members, that went to support the leader of the Kayapo (Mebengroke). The solidarity between Indigenous groups shows their empathy and the similar struggles they have had in order to preserve their culture and their lands.

These objects made me reflect on the identity of the different indigenous groups and how their culture for many years has been undervalued. There are definitely many parallels between Indigenous groups in Canada and in the Amazon. They both have been victims of history and carry a  legacy of struggle and subordination.

The wisdom and the vision the Indigenous groups have on having a balanced co-existence with nature, is something we all should learn from. Part of the disregard many countries have had is due to the carelessness and the stigmatization of the Indigenous people. The lack of interest and dialogue that has characterized this relationship has been an obstacle in recognising their rights and learning from their culture.

At the same time, the countries that share the Amazon territory have faced these problematic relationship that has been strained for many years, and now are trying to mend. It is difficult to look back on history especially when a  government  is  labeled as the perpetrator. However, the courage to want to have that dialogue should be greater than the animosities from the past.

Whenever we read books, particularly those that we really liked and we can’t stop until we finish it, I think, wow, I can believe someone just came up with a  such a good story and wrote it.

In reality, readers ignore how much work goes into a book. I always imagined a sort of magic pen that authors used, that made words glide and assemble perfectly in paper. The reality is that it is a long journey, that authors struggle with themselves and with others. 

Books can take years… to write or to get published and writers go through a long process.   

What is seen on the vitrine of a bookstore is just  the end product. When looking through Joy Kogawa’s fonds, it struck me, how writers are often underestimated, when in fact what they do is a very arduous task. Seeing all the work, in papers, letters, sketches, that shaped the writing process of Obasan was impressive. Also, time is of encapsulated in those documents, and give us an insight of that particular time period.

After seeing, all her fonds, my impression of Joy Kogawa changed. Or better said, I could see the person behind the prose of Obasan. She  became less distant, and a person that can be relatable. It changes the focus from what is in the book, to the creator of it, and intensifies the themes portrayed. Joy Kogawa was incredibly courageous to write about, her personal trauma but also addressing an issue of public memory, that was not so public. That touched me because, one could see the dedication she put in writing the book, and that it was not an easy task. On the one hand, confronting all her memories, and trauma and valiantly putting it in words, on the other hand , trying to publish and bear all the obstacles and consequences of publishing a book that condemns a dark period of Canadian history that was silenced for many years.  

As George Orwell described it…

“Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.”   

Across all my classes the subject of memory and identity has been brought up. In sociology we discussed what is a nation, in politics we talked about sovereignty and in ASTU we touched upon what collective memory entails.

September 15th is an important date in several Latin American countries, I thought about this day while reading  Kate Douglas’ essay. It made me think about how  we remember our historic past, and the ways we celebrate our identity and contribute to public memory. 

In my country, Independence Day is a very solemn celebration. Since we are young we are encouraged to be patriotic and always remember that part of our country’s history. There are different ways to show our cultural connection, with this day, for example, wearing the shirt of our national soccer team, or wearing the colours of the flag. There is also a wider celebration across countries and a sense of solidarity with our fellow Latin Americans on these days. Despite not being in my country for this day, I was congratulated by other Latin American students who were also celebrating independence day, and I realized how strong a shared historical past can be. It may be easier to identify ourselves with something that we share even if it happened a few centuries ago and even if  we were not even alive to witness it. But it is the collective memory of that event that shapes our identities and strengthens the solidarity we feel towards each other.

Independence Day, it’s not only about pride but also a time for reflection on the struggles  a country had in order to emerge. It reminded me of Douglas argument on the selfie as new ways of  young people acknowledging and engaging with the past and how they witness  trauma sites. These are two different situations but the question that comes to mind is: how do we remember and ‘honour’ our past? It’s a question that requires us to look at different aspects of our culture as a generation but most importantly makes us realize the importance not so much of how we do it , but how do we continue to engage with it and avoid neglecting the value of our past.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!