"Same Love"

The new hip-hop song "Same Love", by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, is about how homosexuals fit into American society. They point out to listeners how unfairly homosexuals are treated by society as they show viewers of the music video the journey of one gay man trying to find his place in society. This song contains so many examples of unjust treatment of homosexuals.

One example of the way homosexuals are treated by society pointed out in the song is the use of derogatory names. "Faggot" is just one of these examples that Macklemore and Ryan Lewis sing about. They also sing about how people use terms like this publicly, such as on the internet. Using derogatory names is not ethically right or just. The people that use them are not being justifiable. There is no reason to call people such a harsh name and the people using them probably know that. Where is the justice in calling homosexuals "faggots"? There are so many people that use this term on the internet, which is easily recorded. Isn't it our job as Americans to make all people feel equal and bring justice to our fellow citizens? Getting people into trouble who victimize homosexuals on the internet would be relatively easy with proof from the internet. The problem, though, is this: people are too afraid to make a stand and fight for the justice of someone that is NOT themselves. This problem is also pointed out in "Same Love" in the lines "When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen". If a person is witnessing unjustifiable acts, such as using derogatory names in order to hurt an individual, and that person does nothing to stand up for the victim, are they behaving in a justifiable manner? Are they being any better than the perpetrator themselves? Although it is not in our nature as human beings to go out of our way to help an individual in situations like this, it will continue being a problem if people don't stand up for each other. The justice system has no strict laws, if any laws, on protecting humans against vulgar and demoralizing language. But serving justice means so much more than doing what is lawfully right; it is doing things that are also ethically right. That being said, I think a bystander would be unjustifiable in letting actions such as this happen. This specific statement can be applied to a variety of situations, such as witnessing a hit-and-run car wreck, or watching someone being murdered, and never reporting what you saw or carrying out justice for the sometimes defenseless victim. Using derogatory names is simply a less extreme version of those incidents. America will probably never become welcoming of homosexuals until perpetrators of abuse like this are stood up against by everyone.

Revenge

A question was brought to my attention when discussing the graphic novel V for Vendetta, written by Alan Moore, which is about a man who was abused in a resettlement camp and is now seeking revenge against all of those who participated in abusing him. The question was this: when is revenge justifiable and when is it not justifiable? It was difficult to come up with a solid answer to this question because of how vague the question was. For the most part, it depends on the situation this question is applied to. In some cases, it might be justifiable to seek revenge and in other cases it might not be justifiable at all. It also depends on a person's perspective of each issue that this might apply to and the person's overall understanding of what is considered justifiable.

To prove that something is justifiable, one must be able to show that it is right or reasonable. In which cases is it right to seek revenge? It is common to think of revenge as going out to commit an act that will harm someone in someway that has harmed you or someone you know. For instance, if someone killed someone else's mother, the victim might seek revenge by killing the perpetrator's mother. Another example of a common revengeful act is if someone stole something from someone, the victim might steal something back or they might even try to do bodily harm to the person. Another way of looking at this question, though, is in terms of the justice system. When a victim of a crime presses charges against the perpetrator of a crime and they are punished for their actions, doesn't that count as revenge?

The problem with this question is that revenge comes in so many different forms. Sometimes, revenge is done at the same level at which the original crime was done. Other times, the revenge is a worse act than the original crime was done. In my opinion, in order to make revenge justifiable, it must be done on a reasonable level, meaning that it must be equivalent to whatever the first act done was.

Freedom Fighters vs Terrorist

A topic analyzed in a previous blog was the meaning of the word justice. This topic can be applied to a variety of situations but in almost every case is ambivalent. Depending on which point of view a person takes in a certain situation, they will argue in support for that definition of justice. In situations dealing with the law, justice can often divide people into two different categories: freedom fighters and terrorists. A freedom fighter is a person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially to overthrow their government. A terrorist, on the other hand, is a person who uses violent acts to frighten people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Notice that the two definitions are very similar. That is because freedom fighters and terrorists are virtually the same. The only real difference is how a person feels about their actions, and they will name them according to how they feel.

I'd like to use the trilogy The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, as a reference to the conflict of the definition of justice and how it leads to the names of freedom fighters and terrorists. The Hunger Games is set in the country of Panem that is divided into twelve districts. Every year, the capitol of Panem draws two children from every district and the government forces the children to fight to the death until one stands as victor, an event the government ironically calls the Games. As the Games carry on, it is being taped and showed to all of the districts in Panem, who mourn the loss of their children, and to all the people in the capitol, who treat it as a celebration. This event serves as a warning to the districts to obey the government and reinforces the authority of the capitol of Panem. This method generally works; the people of the districts are too scared to fight against the government, at least until one girl, Katniss Everdeen, rises as the face of rebellion to the government of Panem.

It is easy for readers to see Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter, as the story is written from her point of view, which makes readers better able to understands Katniss' perspectives. Because of the society we live in and our high regard for children, it is also hard for readers to imagine cruelty towards children, making it even easier to see Katniss as a freedom fighter. Most of the people living in the districts would also claim that Katniss is a freedom fighter because she is fighting on their side and for their benefit. The government and all of the citizens living in the capitol, though, would argue that Katniss is a terrorist. She is going against the laws established by the government, which by definition would suggest that she is not serving justice and, therefore, would make her a terrorist. One could say that Katniss was fighting for the ethical side of justice, not the lawful side. But what about the perspectives of the citizens of the capitol? If they had been raised to believe that forcing these people's children to kill each other wasn't really a bad thing and were never forced to put themselves in that situation, they would honestly believe that Katniss wasn't fighting for justice at all and that she was a terrorist.

Is there a final answer to the question of which title Katniss Everdeen holds in The Hunger Games? If there wasn't such a conflicting definition to the word justice, it is possible that there would be. However, it is too controversial to claim Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter or as a terrorist. By definition, she could be called both.

Who reaps the benefits of forgiveness?

Many people would answer this question without really thinking too far into it. Most people would think this has any obvious answer. Why, of course the person being forgiven reaps more benefits than the person that forgives. To be forgiven holds a feeling of satisfaction, people might say. Nobody likes to have grudges held over their head. These arguments are generally true. But what about the person that does the forgiving? Don't they have any benefits at all?

I'd like the analyze this question in terms of the novella The Body Artist, written by Don DeLillo. Throughout the story, the main character, Lauren Hartke, is dealing with a number of issues that she must overcome. One issue that she faces is dealing with the suicide of her husband, Rey Robles, and trying to forgive him for taking his life. If Lauren is trying to come to terms with and forgive someone who is dead, would the person being forgiven reap more benefits? Probably not. Lauren is trying to forgive Rey, not to help him, but to help herself move on with her life. The second issue that Lauren deals with is trying to forgive herself for her mother's death. Lauren's mother died when she was nine years old and although Lauren is now a grown woman, she has never been able to convince herself that it wasn't her fault, an issue that most kids who deal with death face. Again, forgiving herself would not benefit anyone other than herself. Also, the fact that she is forgiving herself is just going to help her move forward in life, it is not actually going to give her the satisfaction of being forgiven like everyone else always assumes. At the very last scene of the story, Lauren throws open a window in a room, an act that can be interpreted as moving on and moving forward, an act of readiness to come to terms to with everything. Lauren, in this scene, is finally able to forgive Rey for leaving her and herself her mother's death. This is the only time when the benefits of forgiveness are actually shown in the novella and it only shows Lauren's benefits, or the forgiver's benefits, not the forgiven's benefits.

So, who does reap the benefits of forgiveness? I think it safe to assume that Don DeLillo, based on his novella The Body Artist, would say that the forgiver reaps the benefits.

The Word Justice

What does the word "justice" mean? By dictionary definition, justice is the administration of what is just (as by assigning merited rewards or punishments) or the administration of law. If all laws were just, meaning ethical,  honorable, right, and good, this definition might be perfectly true; however, as human beings we know that not all laws that were ever created were just. Therefore, is the definition of justice an appropriate definition?

Some people would argue that all of the laws we have in place today in America are just. Back when it was legal to have slaves, the majority of white Americans would have said the same thing. Slaves could not argue with this; they would be punished severely if they ran away from their masters and found. Which act would have been more justified, under the definition of justice, for a white person who found a run-away slave to be: either return the slave to the owner to be beaten and punished or help the slave run away even further? At that time, the white person would have brought justice to the owner of the slave by returning the slave to them; but was this the morally, ethically, honorably and right thing to do by the slave himself? Now, we would say that the white person would be more justified in helping the slave escape further.

The term "justice" has such conflicting definitions that it is hard to decide what actions to take in a situation such as the one presented. Laws are not always morally and ethically good but one definition of justice is the administration of the law. Would choosing either what is morally just or choosing to follow the law an act of justice? Some would say it would depend on the situation. Some would say to always follow the law and others yet would say people should always do what is right. It is our job as human beings to create a more clear definition for the word justice so that type of conflict does not arise anymore.

Les Miserables

Forgiveness and justice are two common themes or morals in any story. Most popular movies and books contain one or both of these elements. One world-renowned musical that is set around the themes of justice and forgiveness is Les Miserables. Les Miserables tells the story of a man living in France before the French Revolution. At the beginning, this man named Jean Valjean is being freed from 19 years of time in prison as punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Afterwards, Jean Valjean is forced to stay on parole for the rest as his life and has a terrible time finding work because his work papers show that he is a convict. Eventually, Jean Valjean changes his name and leads a new and successful life for a long time.

It is not hard to find examples of either forgiveness or justice in this musical. It seems that almost every character goes through one or the other, even if they are very minor characters. For example, the people of France, many of whom we never get to know, are fighting the government for their justice. In order to fully focus on the portrayal of forgiveness and justice as a theme in this musical without having to switch gears, I would like to analyze just one theme in Les Miserables. After Jean Valjean is released from prison, he is treated miserably by everyone he meets. He has no money for food and cannot find someone to give him shelter. After a while, he meets a bishop who takes him in and feeds him, as well as gives him a place to sleep. The bishop has silverware that can be of value to Jean Valjean, so while the bishop is sleeping he sneaks in his room and steals the silverware. He runs away from the house and is eventually caught by the police. Jean Valjean tells the police that the bishop gave him the silverware. When the bishop hears this, he tells the policemen that Jean Valjean has spoken the truth; and not only that, he also gives him matching candlesticks. The bishop tells Jean Valjean that he must use the silverware and candlesticks to make himself an honest man and commit himself to God. Jean Valjean is really affected by the kindness that the bishop has shown him. After this scene, Jean Valjean changes his name and becomes a very giving and wonderful man.

This scene is a powerful turning point in Les Miserables. Had the theme of justice and forgiveness not been a factor in this scene, the story would have gone a completely different way. The bishop shows justice towards Jean Valjean right from the beginning. He doesn't care about Jean Valjean's past; he is only concerned about helping this miserable man. After almost two decades of punishment for a seemingly small crime, he is treated like a dog by the citizens. The bishop is the first person to show Jean Valjean any mercy or justice. Jean Valjean tries to be a good man and find work and earn his living but no one gives him the chance to. The bishop also forgives Jean Valjean after he steals the bishop's silverware. Because of the kindness that the bishop shows to Jean Valjean by bringing justice to his life and forgiving him when he didn't have to, Jean Valjean becomes a different man.

Les Miserables is a successful musical that utilizes forgiveness and justice as a theme in it's story-telling. Without those two themes, the story would not have had the huge turning point that was vital to the plot.

Frozen

The newest and critically-acclaimed best Disney movie since The Lion King is Frozen. Frozen, directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, is the story of two royal sisters whose relationship is damaged by lies that are kept in order to keep people safe. The character Elsa has magical powers that enable her to freeze anything she touches or sets her mind to. In the beginning of the movie, Elsa's younger sister, Anna, knows about her powers and enjoys them with her. However, after a terrible accident, the sister's parents are forced to erase Anna's memory of Elsa's powers and Elsa is told to keep her powers a secret from everyone. After years of Elsa hiding away and distancing herself from her sister, the parents of the two girls die, leaving Elsa queen of the land. Elsa accidentally ends up exposing her powers to the entire kingdom and sends the whole place into a terrible winter. The rest of the movie is Anna’s journey to find her sister through the storm to help save their kingdom and bring back their queen.

One theme that is portrayed in this movie is forgiveness. The characters in Frozen interact with each other in a way that sometimes requires forgiveness.

The relationship between Anna and Elsa deals a lot with forgiveness, especially on Anna’s part. Anna spends most of her childhood by herself because her sister decides to hide herself away. When she finally interacts with Elsa, Anna is very forgiving of her sister for ignoring her all of those years. Anna is also very forgiving of her sister when Elsa freezes the whole kingdom with her powers and even when Elsa freezes Anna’s heart. Elsa also experiences forgiveness at the end of the movie. Elsa is stricken with guilt after the accident with her sister, which almost kills Anna. This guilt follows her throughout her entire life, even into adulthood. When she finds out that she has frozen the kingdom and can’t figure out how to make the harsh snow storm stop, she again feels guilty. At the end of the movie, Elsa forgives herself for the things she had no control over in the first place. 

There are several other characters in Frozen that experience forgiveness but Elsa and Anna portray this theme of the movie the best.