Please post a comment on one of the questions below. Post your answer by Saturday morning at 8 a.m.
Please respond to two of your colleagues by Tuesday morning at 8 a.m.
Make sure your answers are substantive and that you've given them plenty of thought, and elaborate on your answers. Good answers will be at least two generous paragraphs long.
- Do you think Father Gabriel showed courage in the movie? What do you think made him courageous, or not? Do you think Father Rodrigo (Mendoza) showed courage? What do you think made him courageous?
- Do you think violence is ever an appropriate response? Why or why not? What did you think about the divisions over the use of violence in response to the closing of the missions in the movie?
- Do you think Cardinal Altamirano ought to have refused to carry out the terms of the treaty? What would it have accomplished? Does it matter that it wouldn't have stopped the closing of the missions? Why or why not?
- The Waunana Indians of Columbia portrayed the Guarani in the film; rather than paying them individually for their roles, the director arranged to fund a trust for the entire village (the trust was used, in part, to lobby the government of Columbia for certain land rights for that group). Do you think that arrangement is at all problematic? Would you imagine Roland Joffe sugggesting that he fund a trust for the city of New York, in lieu of paying Robert DeNiro for his work?
The definition from Miriam-Webster dictionary of courage is mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty. Looking at this definition it is easy to see that both Father Gabriel & Father Rodrigo showed courage throughout the movie The Mission.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the film we are shown instances of courage from both men. Father Rodrigo showed courage when he faced his penance for killing his brother. It would have been much easier to give up, but he persevered hauling the heavy bundle up to the top of the falls even when others tried to relieve him of his burden. Father Gabriel showed courage in his daring initial encounter with the Guarani Indians. He was surrounded by men with spears yelling at him but he peacefully continued to play the flute until they realized he was no danger to them. Father Gabriel’s climb up the falls was also an incredibly courageous event.
At the end of the movie both Father Rodrigo & Father Gabriel show courage by facing the impending attack of the colonists and not leaving the mission. They both show firmness of mind and strong will during this time. It is clear that neither man will leave the Guarani even though they know the extreme danger that they will face. However, each man responds very differently to the impending attack. Father Gabriel stands firm in his belief that God is love and that they should trust God and not act violently whereas Father Rodrigo breaks his vows and violently fights to protect the Guarani. Some may say one method was more courageous than the other, but these people are looking at the way each man responded and agreeing with the response (violence or peace) not the actual act of courage shown by each man. In this case Father Rodrigo & Father Gabriel equally showed they had the moral strength to stand up to the colonist attack.
I believe Father Gabriel’s faith is what made him courageous. His strong commitment to God was obvious throughout the movie and his belief that God would make things right gave him strength to overcome and stand up to difficulty. Father Rodrigo’s courage seems to come from his background as a lower class slave runner. The movie implied that he was from hard a working class background where he needed strength to survive. Thus his courage may have come more from his survival needs.
In answering the first question I would have to say that we saw courage out of both men but in very different ways. When it comes to Father Gabriel, I see him as a pure priest that follows his religion by the book. He is very spiritual and he showed courage in the begging of the movie also the end of the movie.
ReplyDeleteIn the begginig of the movie he shows courage by going into the jungle by himself, unarmed knowing he could put himself in danger with the Indian tribe. He gets a handful of priest and builds a mission for the Indians in a attempt to convert them to Christianity and was successful.
At the end of the movie he knew he was gonna die if he didnt leave the mission with the tribe. The tribe was not going anywhere and he decided to stay with them. That was a display of courage all in its own but he even showed more courage by not picking up a weapon in the middle of war but instead lead by example and showed a small portion of the mission how to beleive in their faith and died praying.
Father Rodrigo was much different in that this man made a full 360 and changed his life to becoming a priest. It took the tragedy of him killing his own brother outta jealously to realize he was living in sin and needed a change.
In the end Rodrigo showed courage because the very people he hunted down for profit in the begging of the movie he fought for. He also died trying to save a wounded child on the bridge putting himself in the way of fire.
I think the thing that made them both couragous was the mission. The people and atmosphere was so peaceful and they had made so much progress that they did not want to loose it.
When it comes to violence it is never appropriate but it is sometimes neccessary. I dont believe that violence should be used to handle any arguement but sometimes you may be put in a situation where you must use violence to keep yourself from harm.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the division of the mission on fighting or not i would have been on Rodrigos side. If im going to die either way im going to take some people with me. Its pretty stupid when you think about it because when you look at Rodrigo he is fighting because he belives he is doing the right thing. When you look at gang violence they are killing one another because they beleive that they are doing the right thing. Its like eye for an eye you killed my friend so its only right i kill one of your love ones. In all actuality all violence is absolutely wrong but like i said this world is a evil place and sometimes violence is neccessary.
What if someone tried to take your child from you are you not gonna use violence to get your baby back. Sometimes violence is just human instinct to protect you and your own and in that case and that situation only I believe violence is alright. I dont believe Rodrigo or Gabriel were wrong or right, i just belive they did what they felt was right in their heart.
I believe violence is an appropriate response on a certain degree. Because in order to keep peace in a society, violence must be used to control people from doing wrong. When X person takes advantage of another person Y by lets say threatening Y's life in order to gain self interest, X must be threaten with violence so that he will know that what he is doing is wrong and cannot continue to threaten anyone else in the future.
ReplyDeleteFor the Colonial, their use of violence was stupid. The European Catholic Church teaches what the bible says and that God is love. They obviously don't believe in the bible and that statement because they were acting violent in the place where the said was a house of God and where people can communicate with God.
As for the Guarani, there use of violence was appropriate because they where taken advantage of and whether they where using violence in or outside of the mission, their beliefs of the bible were not known until the European Catholic Church introduced it to them. So they are just using violence as a way to protect themselves, so the laws of God has not fully developed because they have been only taught about the bible in a small amount of time compared to the Spanish and Portuguese where they have been practicing it for centuries.
Response to Caroline, Even though that Gabriel believes in the bible, should he at least act in some violence towards the colonials to let them know that what their doing is wrong because how can his belief in God continue through out the world if he is killed? Some violence maybe necessary to preserve good beliefs, even though violence is not the answer for everything but in Gabriel's situation it might be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris that violence is wrong and that it is sometimes necessary to use violence. In his example where someone is trying to take a persons child away from them, that person must/should use violence to protect their child.
ReplyDeleteThanks for starting off a great discussion, guys (I use this in the East Coast, un-gendered, sense).
ReplyDeleteYou've already raised some really important issues about violence. It's a shame we have no time to read Leviathan, because Hobbes points out some centrally important things in it regarding violence. For example, the kind of "eye for an eye" violence Chris references with gangs is the result of a breakdown of social order, just as the extreme conditions in the Spanish and Portuguese attack on the Mission represented a kind of return to chaos. The distinction Joe and Chris want to make between whether something is justified or necessary might be referring to this sense that it's the chaotic conditions and breakdown of the social order that necessitates the violence.
I'm looking forward to seeing more discussion in response to the great ideas already put forward here.
Joe, can you expand a little on your response to Chris? Should a person necessarily use violence to get his/her child back? It isn't obvious to me that this would necessarily be the best approach - for example, you might easily get yourself and/or the kid killed in the process.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2....
ReplyDeleteI think violence is appropiate if there is meaning, reason, and purpose behind it. The Guarani Indians had a reason to fight. They fought to defend what they believed in, protection from slave traders, for their community, for freedom and independence. They fought cause they did not understand how a person respresenting God from another world can dictate turmoil in there community where God to their understanding represents love, compassion, forgiveness,and hope. The Guarani felt decievced and betrayed by the threat and inturn they had no choice but to fight to presereve their quality of life. I mean if the Guarani's left the mission they would be prone to be hunted and slaved by traders. Either way they lose. Caused by political factors.So why not stand and fight for what they believe is right.
I think the reasons to fight must have some meaning. in religous concepts like what Father Gabriel practice violence has no means to resolve issues cause of his devotion to his religon. But for the Guarani's they have no options for sanctuary against these colonies. there were no resolution, nothing! with only the thought to feed for thereself. So they were givin no choice but to act in violence with the hope of saving their mission.
Shea S.: Question #1-
ReplyDeleteI think that Father Gabriel showed courage a couple times in the film. The first courageous act was when he allowed Mendoza to become a monk in his order. Mendoza was a murderer and a mercenary, but Gabriel trusted him. Another courageous act was how Father Gabriel set up the mission with the Guarani. According to his faith, he was doing good. A previous missionary was killed for presumably the same thing, so Gabriel took a big risk venturing into the Guarani’s land alone and unarmed. Also, it was courageous of him to stand up to his superiors and disagree, when they said something like the Guarani weren’t humans but animals and that’s why enslaving them is o.k. Finally, father Gabriel’s last stand at the end of the film was courageous. He died doing what he believed was the right thing. He didn’t forfeit his principles even in the face of death. He could have forsaken the Guarani, but chose to stay.
I think that Father Rodrigo also showed courage a couple times in the film. The first act of courage was how he decided to pay penance for his sin of killing his brother. He could of cowardly chose to starve to death in the monk’s prison cell, but he decided to try and do something about his situation and actually better himself. I think anybody who can pull through a misery like that is courageous. Another courageous act father Rodrigo performed was how once he converted and became a monk he helped and became friendly with the very people he had been hunting before. It was brave of him to open up and build a relationship with the Guarani. Father Rodrigo’s last act of courage was his participation in the battle at the end of the film. He had to give up his monk vows in order to take lives of the enemy, so he could save lives of the Guarani. He didn’t want to kill, but felt it was his only option. He could have given up on the Guarani and saved himself, but instead he stayed and lost his life doing what he thought was the right thing.
Well in a situation where a person is with there kid walking down the street and a stranger threatens to do harm or even take their kid, then that’s when I think violence is appropriate to defend the kid from harm, because they can't run or call the police at the moment so that person is left to defend themselves. If the person and the kid get killed in the process, then at least they tried to defend themselves. Same goes for animals, they kill predators just to defend their young. It may not be the same but it’s in human instincts to do so but we can choose to defend or let it happen and I think in this situation I would use violence. If the kid has already been taken then I would use the authorities to get the kid back. But in my culture we can resolve to violence if a situation ever occurs.
ReplyDeleteI am mostly a non-violent person. I say mostly because I have gotten extremely angry and yelled tons of insults at someone. I, however, have never been in a physical altercation. The reason being A) I have never been in a situation where I was faced to get in a fight, B) It depends on the subject of the altercation that would elicit my response, and C) I will only use violence, physical or verbal, if I was pushed to the edge or I felt myself, my morals, my family, etc. was threatened first. In saying that, I believe violence is an appropriate response when a person is defending their self, their loved ones, their morals, their home, etc. Most people would agree that others use violence because they felt like some form of them was being attacked. However, people use violence in unnecessary situations. For example, two people on the street start insulting each other and it ends up in a physical fight. Each person felt like the other was attacking their well being when in fact, all they were doing where letting their anger get the best of them and didn’t check themselves. If it is times of war and the enemy is at your doorstep telling you to leave to take over your home and possibly kill you then violence is more than justified. Your well being is at stake and you face death rather than some hurtful “yo mama” jokes. Violence should be seen as a tactic for survival, not one for revenge and anger. People constantly use the famous passage “an eye for an eye” to justify violence. In it’s essence it makes sense. Someone harms you in a way and it is only fair for them to be harmed in the same way so they can suffer along with you. What most people forget is Gandhi’s addition to that Bible passage: “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” In other words, violence is something that you should participate in because someone hurt you and feel they should suffer to. We have psychiatrists and prisons for that. Violence is for self-defense in an all or nothing situation. Of course there are a million different situations and each case may be different but since we cannot account for all variables, this is my moral belief of black and white situations since I cannot completely account for all that grey area.
ReplyDeleteThe violence used by the Portuguese and the others who attacked the Guarani were wrong in the sense that the Guarani weren’t threatening them. The Guarani wasn’t attacking their spiritual, mental, or physical well being. The Guarani were threatening their pockets. Money and greed was the motive. The reason that defending the possibility to make more money isn’t a reason to use violence is that the plantation and slave owners could have made money other ways. They were also interrupting the lives of others to make that money and they used violence to get it. The Guarani had every right to try and defend their mission. The mission kept them safe. It was a place for them to work together in a community and support each other without having to fear the men who would take them away and use them. Their way of life, their soul, their families were in danger and if they had to use violence to try and save themselves or even make a point, then even though they lost, the violence was justified. Although not all of the Guarani responded with violence, including Father Gabriel (fyi I wonder if anyone else got the symbolism that he is named after the archangel who is known as the angel of mercy in the Catholic Church) who stood up non-violently against the men. I don’t mean to say that violence is always the answer when your life is in danger, but the use of violence is justified. Even though he did no fight back with his fellow brethren, his death did not go in vain as well.
-Kendra M.
Do you think violence is ever an appropriate response?
ReplyDeleteTo perform a violent action to justify personal means to me seems impractical. Yet, violent crimes happen every month. In July 2009, 143 offenses occurred in the city of San Pablo. Of those 143, 12 of those were manslaughter by negligence.
( http://www.sanpablopolice.org/main/documents/July_2009.pdf ) Yet, to protect myself from violent actions happening to me that threaten my life is instinctual. I know personally I don’t want to die and do what it takes to stay a live.
What did you think about the divisions over the use of violence in response to the closing of the missions in the movie?
The Guaranà fear slavery and yet they spilt in half, some would react to the Colonials with violence while the others would join Father Gabriel in the mission. Father Gabriel strongly believed violence is not the way to handle this and involves the Guaranà in a peace walk. The night before the attacks, Father Gabriel says to Mendoza “God is Love” and yet this comment doesn’t stop Mendoza from fighting back.
Sadly violent actions cause Father Gabriel’s and the GuaranÃ’s death when moments before some of the Colonials didn’t want to continue when they heard Father Gabriel and the Guaranà singing. One of the men giving commands to the soldiers says, “I don’t care what you think, just do it.”
-In response to question 2
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is impossible to say violence is NEVER appropriate in certain situations. The thing is, violence can be a form of defensive behavior in response to a hostile environment or situation. By hostile environment or situation, I mean a situation where your life or family is on the line, a do or die situation. It is natural instinct that forms violence; if you can connect it back to a primitive age, it was necessary for a means of survival because if you weren’t aggressive you’d probably get wiped out. If you show weakness or submissiveness, everyone else would trample all over you. The same concept carries over for centuries in the form of tribal wars over land and water, to wars for freedom and preserving nations. The thing is, violence is needed in certain instances, even if you don’t consider it right, it is necessary to control individuals or groups of people. The thing is, we don’t live in a Utopia where everyone has a peace-oriented mind and peaceful actions; sometimes to instill order one would need to display a certain degree of violence to keep those who have ill-intentions towards others in line (like attempted murder).
The Guarani’s use for violence was purely instinctual; they were continually attacked by outsiders, so they had to use violence as a means of survival.
As for the use of violence in response to the closing of the missions, I think the Guarani and Father Rodrigo were justified in their use of violence because they were fighting to protect what they had built and conserved; the colonials use of violence was to simply conquer and keep those who rebelled in order; in my opinion it was not right for them to ruin a peaceful existence but in their terms it was necessary in order to contain the rebellion.
Of course, everyone has different ideals. Father Gabriel did not believe in the use of violence, he mentioned to Rodrigo that “God is love” and continued to do a peace walk rather than join in the fight against the colonials. So that goes to show that even though violence is necessary in certain situations, not everyone will take that path like Father Gabriel (whose path was noble at best).
“But in my culture we can resolve to violence if a situation ever occurs.”
ReplyDelete-GIXXXERJOE521-
The idea that culture dictates what actions we should take when something is life threatening is a good point. At one time the Aztecs believed that sacrifice would appease the gods and outsiders saw this as violently disturbing. Some cultures believe that cannibalism is right when our culture sees it as wrong. We seem to use our own culture as a rule to justify our own actions. We show contempt to others that don’t see the same way as we do.
“The Guarani’s use for violence was purely instinctual; they were continually attacked by outsiders, so they had to use violence as a means of survival.”
ReplyDelete-Adrian C-
I don’t see the Guarani’s use of violent force as instinctual. Their people had been repressed and turned into slaves for some time. They didn’t become violent for a long time and tried using the mission as a peaceful way of saving their people. It wasn’t until the Guarani realized that staying in the mission wasn’t going to save them from slavery. That’s when they split apart; on one half became violent towards the colonialist when the other half stayed peaceful. Guarani people seemed try everything they could so they wouldn’t have to become violent.
In response to question #4 I do think that the situation for payment to the indians was somewhat problematic. Although they did get a trust funded in part of their government I still believe that the indians should have been paid individually. I don't think that Robert Deniro would have accepted the role in the movie if his payment was a trust fund to the city of New York. Therefore I don't think the way that the indians were paid was a fair deal. Was that the only type of payment they were offered? I feel that the Indians never get the fair end of the game.
ReplyDeleteMany are saying the violence is an appropriate reaction for the Guarani as they are defending themselves and their way of life - there was meaning behind the violence. And I agree. However weren’t the Portuguese also defending their beliefs and right to land and “property” (as slaves were considered at the time) & couldn't we argue that there were reasons that they initiated the attacks? Portugal was entitled to the land that the missions were on after they signed a treaty with Spain. The Jesuits were trying to take this land away from Portugal and threatening their pro-slavery ways of life. The Portuguese were also being pressured by the Spanish to follow the ways & laws of Spain (even when it was obvious many in Spain did not follow these laws themselves). You could say that the Portuguese were feeling threatened and fighting to defend their right to land that was promised and the property on it. Thus if we argue that violence is appropriate when used for defense then it follows that the violent attack on the missions by Portugal were also appropriate as they were simply “defending” their ways.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Valerie saying that the payment as a trust fund was problematic although I can understand why she would think so and my initial reaction when I read the question was “Why would they pay the group and not the individual?” We all live in a very individualistic society where we tend to take care of ourselves and the American Dream is one of achieving personal riches and wealth. Members of an individual centered society are used to thinking about themselves first and the greater good of society second and for these people it would naturally seem problematic that we would pay a group of people rather than each person individually.
ReplyDeleteTo really answer this question I believe that we need to know more about the Waunana Indian community and I suspect they are a collective society where money comes in to the entire community and is used for the good of all. In a collective society the priority is group goals over individual goals. I looked on line and the proceeds from baskets that are woven by the women of the Waunana Indians of Columbia go back to the community, not to the individual women who wove those baskets. Thus if this is the way of the tribe then I do not see anything wrong with paying the group as a whole as that is what their society demands.
Great work, everyone. I'm really pleased and impressed with your discussion! Carolyn, thanks for pushing everyone in your two recent comments - everyone be sure to read these and take them into consideration in your discussion.
ReplyDeleteI noticed a couple of people didn't see my instructions to make sure you had at least two long paragraphs of substantially developed ideas for your post (the vast majority of you did, and you've done a great job). Feel free to continue to develop your post if you don't think you've included enough in your first response.
Keep up the great work, everyone!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how Carolyn mentioned Rodrigos actions of courage. While watching the movie i didn't notice how Rodrigo carrying the bundle up the mountain showed courage or a sign of penance. This makes me feel more compassion for Rodrigo, because throughtout the movie i didn't like him too much, but his actions are more clear to me now as i think about it. He did show alot of courage, and faith. Despite their differences Rodrigo and Father Gabriel made a great team.
ReplyDeleteViolence is only appropriate when you need to defend yourself in some circumstances. For example, to either defend yourself from harm or defend someone else, it would be okay, because you need to do what you can to protect your life, and someone else's, especially if they are defenseless.
ReplyDeleteLet's say your'e walking alone, and your'e about to be attacked, you don't stand their and take whatever is thrown at you because you've been taught that violence is wrong. You defend yourself in any way possible because life is precious. If in our society, violence is taught to be wrong, then why is it ok to have wars? Because it's necessary once in a while, when we have no choice. Im not saying i support the war, but it does happen and it's nothing we can truly control.
I think agree with Rodrigo's actions in the division of the mission on fighting. Rodrigo used violence because he felt it was appropriate to at that time. I would've probably done the same.
I agree with what star said, violence is inevidable and there's nothing we can do to stop it. We can only avoid it by not starting anything ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI think that Father Gabriel did show cougrge in the movie because he never gave up his faith in the Jesuit. All the way until the end of the movie he stood by his faith and the the guarani people while there was people shooting at them. I also think father Rodrigo was courageous because he left a way of living that he was so comfortable with, with lots of uglyness and voilence and helped the Guarani people. Even though he did return to using violence at the end of the movie, he was using viloence then in a positive way by helping the Guarani people defand the place that they had created. So I thought that that was pretty courageous.
ReplyDeleteDo I think that Father Gabriel showed courage? Of course. In the beginning of the movie Father Gabriel went out of his way by climbing up the falls and presented himself to the Guarani Indians in a non threatening way. Father Gabriel was not afraid of the Guarani Indians. Thus, help the Guarani Indians to make their lives better in their own environment without having to move or be sold into slavery. Father Gabriel listened to everything the Guarani Indians had to say about their lives and try to help them by converting them into Christianity. When the war broke out because of the Portuguese men wanted to control the land of the jungle causing the Guarani Indians unwilling to leave their homes and possibly be put into slavery. Father Gabriel was still their for the Guarani Indians and help fight for their rights. Although, the Judge ruled the Guarani Indians out, the Guarani declared war. Father Gabriel was against the war because it went against everything he had taught the Guarani Indians about violence and peace of earth. However, Father Gabriel showed his support by praying with the children, the mothers, and elderly at the Mission. Father Gabriel even went as far as marching down from the Mission with a cross held up high and singing prayers amongst with the rest of the Guarani Indians who were not fighting in the war. In the end Father Gabriel was killed by fire arm. He died for a chance of freedom for the Guarani Indians in a non violent way.
ReplyDeleteMean while others were being killed by guns and canons that the Guarani Indians didn't have, instead they had only bow and arrows and hopes of stealing guns thus, gun-power. Sadly the war was a lost cause of lack of technology and money to support the war, plus lack of Guarani Indians, there was more Portuguese soldiers. Since Father Gabriel had no part in killing in the war, Father Rodrigo, was one of the priests that wanted to support the war. Father Rodrigo felt that he was fighting for a good cause since the Guarani Indians were being stolen of their homes and land. Father Rodrigo felt he needed to fight for their rights since it seemed that nothing else was working. Father Rodrigo was also full of courage, even though he had committed a sin by killing his own brother out of jealously of a girl. He had proven himself to others and god that he was truly ashamed and sorry for killing his brother by climbing up the mountains of falls with a bundle of heavy weapons tied up in a net of rope that he had to carry the up to the Guarani Indians jungle where he once used to capture them as slaves for the slave trade. Once Father Rodrigo learnt more about the Guarani Indians and learnt more about how to be closer with god. Father Rodrigo realize he was ready to convert himself not only into a priest but also a good man. This is the very reason why we went into war because he truly had love for the Guarani Indians and felt it was the only right thing to do in order to pay back for what he did to them in the past as a slave trader. In the end he ended being killed in the war for saving a little boy from being shot and helping others.
Either way, violence and non-violence both Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo showed that they were courageous for what they did for people other than themselves. They were unselfish men that only cared for others.
Amy Gomez. Sorry its a late response my internet was down! I will e-mail you for more info!
i believe both father mendoza and father gabriel made courageous decisions. mendoza, was an ex-mercinary who really had no obligation to stay and fight with the indian tribe, but his warrior spirit took over and he led the tribe into battle.
ReplyDeletefather gabriel was courageous because he died doing what he believed in. even tho the church turned their back on the indian tribe, father gabriel stayed with them till the end, even tho he knew they were to be executed. He died for what he believed in.
I think that there can and are different levels of courage. In the sense of Father Gabriel having courage it depends for me the situation. With regards to him standing up for a group of people that he had very brief connection to prior to there time of need for me that was courageous. He didn't have to fight but being a Jesuit he had a duty to the church and what he thought for himself. He put the ideas of the church aside and he chose to fight.
ReplyDeleteWith Father Rodrigo I think he was also courageous. For Father Rodrigo it seemed like he had been a Jesuit longer than that of Father Gabriel. ANd having this background he felt stronger about what the church believed. For Father Rodrigo he wanted to show the Guarani that they didn't have to fight if they had a problem with someone. In Rodrigo's eyes he was showing the Guarani what God would have done and wanted them to do when faced with this decison to fight or not.
Either way both Jesuits were courageous. But in this case they had to deal with personal beliefs and that of the church that they belonged to.
-Abigail Brock
Carolyn has brought another side into the argument of violence but I have to argue that the Portuguese reason for violence was confusingly valid even though the situation was wrong to begin with. Its not a valid reason to resort to violence because you cant make the Indians slaves if they are part of mission. The only reason that Spain wanted the Portuguese to take the land is so they can continue to make them slaves. Since when does a slave trader hold as much weight as a priest in a arguement on morals.You had people praying to God as they are lighting the mission on fire and shooting little unarmed children.It would have been different if the Indians left the mission and they could start over in the jungle with no fear but they were in a lose, lose situation they were going to die anyway or become slaves. The Portuguege chose to become violent and the Indians reacted to the violence along with Rodrigo and the other priest. Gabriel chose not to react to the violence but to go peaceful and he still got killed. Im personally not the type of person that is going to sit there and let you kill me and I feel that is what the Indians and Rodrigo did.But Carolyn is absolutely right in bringing up the other side to the argument from the Portuguese point of view.I just saw them as the bad guys and Rodrigo and Gabriel as the heroes. But after i read what Carolyn wrote you have to wonder what would have happened if the Portuguese didnt go through with it, maybe war?
ReplyDeleteLuis T.
ReplyDeleteI believe both people showed a vast amount of courage. Father Mendoza chose the violent aproach. Father Gabriel did not. Both acts are good acts because theyare both fighting for the same, good reason. These men defended what they believed in.
In my opinion both methods are effective. The only difference I see is that father Mendoza fought more for his own good. He took matters into his own hands which doesn't follow the message that funded the mission in the first place. He thought more in his survival and not the survival of his faith and teachings.
In the other hand, father Gabriel stood his ground. As these were Jesus' teachings. I believe that most religions have a savior or teacher that tought of peace and love, Ghandi, Martin Luther King comes to mind. "You cannot change people, love them and they will change". This quote is somehing I learned over the weekend and I believe father Gabriel did just that. His testimony is greater than father Mendoza's. In the long run the mission is still there and people still follow those beliefs. Like Dr. King did, his act of peace and love perserveared. Thanks to people like them we live in this great nation. These people make a big ans effective change. If I'd be in their shoes I would of done as father Gabriel.
Response to Shea S.;
ReplyDeleteShea S. brought up a good point about how Mendoza was a murder and a mercenary, but Father Gabriel trusted him.
i think that both indivdual showed courage. I mean to accept a person that has hurt, harm, and killed the very people your trying to
save is extraordinary to consider. And for Mendoza to reconsider all he knows to change the way of his life is also spritually amazing and hard to
to do. bravo Shea S.
Response to Lindsay;
I like the example of walking alone and attacked. I mean it's only human nature to defend for yourself and the people that you love.
If a person puts your life at risks of course you would have no choice but to fight and risk of harm cause the preditor might infact harm u in more
ways that you can ever imagin physically, psychologically and mentally. Good input Lindsay!
Answer to question#2: No I do not think violence is ever the answer, but in order for that to really work both sides have to agree that violence isn’t the answer, but that’s not always the case making it sometimes a necessity to fight back. Violence doesn’t help fix anything it just creates more violence but as you can see in the movie it’s hard to say if they should have fought back or not. No one should have ever fought at all it just created hate and that lead to many unnecessary deaths, but many had no choice but to fight back for what they believed in, but at the same time they could have tried to find another way.
ReplyDelete-In response to chris I agree that both priests found their own way to defend what they believed in. and yes one was more violent than the other but still they both showed courage in what they did, and both tried the ways they thought were best to save themselves and what they believed in.
-In response to tonicdust I don’t think father Gabriel showed courage in letting Mendoza to become a monk, I think he did that more because it followed his beliefs and what he believed in, not because he was courageous. But I do agree that father Gabriel did show many other ways of being courageous throughout the film.
-Adriana Ramirez
I do think that there are times when the use of violence is appropriate. In terms of using violence as a response to violence towards you, your family, or anything you hold dear. I feel there is a time for using your words, and a time to use your fists. I think Malcolm X said it best when he said: "We are violent with those that are violent with us." My family is the most important thing in my life. My daughter being at the top of the list of people I would be violent about. If anything ever hurt her or even threatened to hurt her, I don't think I would even have time to contemplate reason. It would be a knee-jerk reaction that I would have little or no control over.
ReplyDeleteA few months back, my daughter was at Headstart in Oakland. One day I went to pick her up and the family liaison woman stopped me and told me that a little boy in my daughters class had touched her inappropriately and made her cry. My daughter and the little boy were both 4. Regardless of the fact that this woman was telling me that the little boy eventually apologized and they had spoken to his mother, I found myself looking around for the boy and his mom. I literally felt myself puffing up, my muscles flexing and my teeth grinding. Had that little boy not gotten picked up half an hour earlier I'd be hard pressed to say that I would not have been in an altercation with the boy's mother. It was only through talking the situation out with a friend who wondered what kind of home life that boy had that I did not find the his mom the next day.
In The Mission I liked that the Native Americans chose to fight for the home that had essentially been forced down their throat anyway. I liked how Robert DeNiro's character used the violence he was an expert at to defend the very people he had previously victimized.
I think that he died defending them was a kind of poetic justice.
I personally wish that in real life violence was used as a final measure in a noble cause as opposed to randomly directed at innocents.
In response to: xoxonanaboo
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the mission priests did everything they could have in order to prevent a violent ending. They appealed to the church to understand that the missions were now home to the natives. But the natives made the decision to fight. Sure, the priests could have tryied harder to talk them out of fighting or wrote to the Pope themselves, but to what avail? For the church, turning the natives out of the missions was a politcal move, whereas the natives were fighting for thier (new) way of life. I have been wondering why the natives fought at all... In reality they only needed the missions for protection from the slave hunters.
In response to Carolyn:
ReplyDeleteThe way I understood the situation with Portugal and the Cardinals role in the conflict was that Portugal wanted to expand thier territory and they did not want the missions harboring or sheltering any potential slaves in the missions. The Cardinal explained that they needed to give the Portuguese what they wanted to maintain the churches political clout in Europe.
So while Portugal may have been defending their way of life, their way of life was morally wrong to begin with. Also the fact that the Cardinal came knowing when he left what decision he was going to make without even understanding or hearing out the natives or the priests makes his motivation morally wrong as well.
Violence is an appropriate response in certain situations, but not all of the time. I think it is appropriate when one has a personal instinct that violence is necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe divisions over the use of violence in response to the closing of the missions, I would have to be on Father Rodgrigo's side because he took a stand with the Waunana Indians. The Waunana Indian's should have been able to stay on their land and it was wrong for the violence to occur in the first place. It was also wrong how the women and children were killed in front of the church as if they deserved to be killed.
There should have never been a dispute in the first place because the Portuguese were trying to take the land of the Waunana, who were the inhabitants before the missions came along. The Waunana Indian's should have been able to live peacefully instead of being mass murdered for the sake of profit for the Portuguese.
The response above was from me...Janelle R.
ReplyDeleteIn response to fearnothing5...I agree with them in the respect that the quote from Malcom X is very true. A lot of people do not initiate violence, but when it is needed they are violent. The story is very sad about their daughter and I know if I was in the same position I would react in the same way. Athough the children are only 4 years of age, it is still a problem and I would also be searching for the mother and son to discuss the issue.
In response to nicci...I agree with their response that Father Gabriel was courageous because he stood by his faith even though he knew that he was going to be killed in the end. He followed his faith until death, and that alone shows his courageousness. I also agree with nicci about Father Rodrigo too. He was also courageous and it is true that he used the violence in the end in a positive way because he was taking a stand with the Waunana Indians who should have never had to fight for their land.
ReplyDeletei agree with kay-nay, violence should only be seen as a tool of self defense and not for revenge and anger. When father Robert De Niro took arms to defend themselves was the correct choice because for HIM because thats what HE believes is right.
ReplyDeletei disagree with Adriana Ramirez that the indian's could have found another way because the reason the indians were fighting in the first place was because the spanish were making them move from the mission. If the indians had stayed there they would have just been turned into slaves or slaughtered. The indians believed that fighting back was the right choice and they acted accordingly
Shea S.:
ReplyDeleteI think Roberto Torres brought up an interesting point when stating that Father Rodrigo’s “warrior spirit took over”, and that’s why he led the people into battle. I would agree that it’s possible he was ingrained on a deep level to respond to threats with violence. Even despite being a newly converted monk, he retained many of the traits of his former mercenary life. But it was also interesting how he used violence to achieve a goal that he deemed “right” or “good”.
I think Chris Goodlow’s point is interesting, when he says that all violence is wrong, but there are certain emergency instances in a persons life when violence is an appropriate response. It seems when matters of family or love or money are at stake, people are more prone to violence. The other notion I strongly agree with is that father Gabriel and Rodrigo weren’t “right or wrong”, they were just doing what they felt was right.
In resopnse to fearnothing.... I do too think that there is times that violence is apporiate, expecially if someone is hurting someone that is very close to you and your heart,someone you love, like a family member, or friend. I am one that believes that you should always try to avoid being viloent or letting something or someone make you become violent. But if someone was hurting someone I love and they were using violence, I would have to fight back and most likely end up becomming violent to protect teh person or people that I love.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Miguel.... I too love the quote "you cannot change people, love them and they will change", and that is exactly what Father Gabriel did for the Guarani Indains. He loved them. In the end of the movie when Father Rodrigo comes to Father Gabriel for a belssing before he was going to fight for the Guarani Indians, Father Gabriel says he cannnot bless him because "God is love", and God would not want the Guarani Indainds or them to win the battle with violence, but win it with love.
“However weren’t the Portuguese also defending their beliefs and right to land and “property” (as slaves were considered at the time) & couldn't we argue that there were reasons that they initiated the attacks?” –Carolyn
ReplyDeleteI agree with this as well. Since we justify the Guarani’s use of violence as appropriate for the situation, we should also take into account the Portuguese’s reasons for attacking as well. The Guarani were basically threatening their ideals and taking away land that was theirs as well due to a treaty the Portuguese signed with Spain. The thing is, even if the land was used for a good cause, it was still property of the Portuguese, and this gave them ample ground for a probable cause of an attack against those who opposed them. In all, I agree with Carolyn’s idea that the Portuguese were entitled to the land that they were promised; and the fact that they were simply defending what belonged to them; the same way the Guarani and the Jesuits were fighting to protect their beliefs in the church and the missions that were built on the land.
In response to Roberto Torres, I agree that both men were courageous. It seems like an overwhelming majority of people believe so as well, it would be difficult to say that they weren’t courageous for their actions. Father Rodrigo’s courage stemmed from his desire to help those whom he chose to enslave and kill in the beginning of the film; like Roberto T. states; he had no obligation to stay. He could have just as easily have left and called it a day, but he stuck with the Guarani and gave them his support until the bitter end.
ReplyDeleteFather Gabriel chose his own brand of courage through the act of nonviolence. I’m sure it would be difficult for a man to choose peaceful retaliation while he was practically walking through a minefield with the natives in order to keep his ideals as true as he could to the church. Even in the face of death, he kept his beliefs, and died demonstrating those beliefs to others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read alot of answers for question 4 and I would go in the direction of saying it was not problematic for the tribe to get paid in this way.I believe that peace is kept in the tribe when they are not individuals but a tribe a family. They all worked as one and the question never stated they had a problem with it so I dont. It would have most likely been shared even if they were paid individually.
ReplyDeleteI think their way of living is much different from my own or anybody elses. Material things only go so far but the land they recieve can last generations.
My answer is to question 2:
ReplyDeleteI believe that violence is an appropriate response to violence. If someone is threatening you with violence, there is almost no other option but to fight back with violence. For example in the movie, the Indians decided to fight back with violence and the Colonials had no other option but to fight back. The Colonials couldn't just stand back and get attacked. The Indians didnt have to respond to the Colonians the way that they did and that in the end was their demise. I understand that the Colonials were trying to take their land, but if they had not fought with violence, a lot of lives would have been spared.
I can also see that violence is needed when criminals are fighting the police and resisting arrest, or if they are known to have a concealed weapon. Violence is not okay to use when it is not necessary. For example, there are a lot of cases where police are put under investigation for using violence when it is not needed. People who are not a threat get shot, beaten, tazered and more. Violence is a very touchy subject, sometimes it is acceptable and other times it's not. It just takes common sense to know the difference
Joe:
ReplyDeleteI see where you are coming from on using violence to control someone who is doing something wrong, but what if the person who is doing something wrong is just stealing a candy bar? Thats really not a reason to hurt someone, and I highly doubt that someone who is stealing a candy bar would use violence against someone if they got caught.
Adriana:
If violence is never the answer, then would you just let someone walk up to you and start punching you in the face and not fight back? I don't think that anyone would just allow that to happen. Sometimes your answer is to fight back or else you may get severely injured or worse. It may not be clear why there is violence but sometimes you have to fight back.
I have to disagree with carolyn although I do understand what she is saying completely and It makes sense. I think that if thats the way the waunana indiand live than it is ok. but I also believe that if that is the way they live that although they might not mind getting paid individually, they so far do not know what getting paid individually is like, so they really don't mind being paid all together. I also feel that for the proceeds going toward the woven baskets that they made, that is great but they made them inside of their own community. To come and act, and work with our community for this movie I believe that they should have been paid the same way, that everyone else is paid.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn said:
ReplyDelete“You could say that the Portuguese were feeling threatened and fighting to defend their right to land that was promised and the property on it.”
You’re right, however, was it really Portugal or Spain’s land to have and give away in the first place? Wasn’t the land already the property of the Guarani? It was Spain and Portugal who decided that it was “their” land and used force to take it over. Therefore, neither country had any right to the land.
Adrian C said:
“The thing is, violence is needed in certain instances, even if you don’t consider it right, it is necessary to control individuals or groups of people.”
The problem with this statement is that it not only justify the Portuguese’s attacks on the Guarani but it can justify violent means in order to get slaves and keep them. I understand where you are coming from but you need to be more specific when you mention how it is “necessary to control individuals or groups of people.” This then opens the door to who those individuals are, who can control them, why they have to be controlled, and what are the necessary amount of violence to be used to control them.
-Kendra M.
In response to Nicci's post,
ReplyDeleteI also feel that father gabriel had complete courage to walk around the village and preach his good faith amongst the waunana Indians while gunshots were being fired at him, that action shows complete courage in himself and the courage that he felt in the indians. I also believe that the Waunana Indians showed great courage to walk around the village with father gabriel preaching. Especially the women and young children, they were not hiding from this violence, they were standing up for what they believed in.
In response to elizabeth's post
I have to disagree and say that for the fact that the waunana Indians were fighting for their mission and the little bit of land that they built it upon, so I believe that in that situation violence was the right answer. If they had not fought and every waunana indian along with father gabriel and father rodrigo just walked around the mission preaching their faith and upon their land, they would have been killed anyways. They felt that the mission was rightfully theirs and therefore in acting with violence and fighting back, they were fighting for their rights.
Response to Serina S.,
ReplyDeleteI believe violence is an appropriate response on a CERTAIN degree. I use the example of someone threatening to take ones child. (Chris Goodlow). On the other hand I would respond to your example that yeah isn't really a reason to hurt them, but if they are not punished then they will fell they can do it again and again and eventually lead to something more bigger, so its better to clean up small than to clean up a big mess. I'm not sure if I get your last sentence, but in certain places where poverty is high, people will use violence to get what they want even if its as little as a candy bar. In the Philippines where I'm from, people would fight their own relatives over things that I would bring from U.S. for example a snicker bar. For my culture that is very shameful to the Filipinos to fight their own relatives but there is some much poverty that they are at the edge of loosing their culture. You can also see it here in Cali. esp. in ghetto schools where students grew up in poverty. I know because I would end up fighting someone by the end of the day because they were trying to take my food, candy, etc. So if I didn't resolve to violence then they would keep doing what their doing and I would go home hungry. And yes I let the teachers know but their not with me through out the whole day.
I believe violence is not the best resort to take when handling any debate or argument, but sometimes confrontation's lead to violence. I believe violence is only necessary if you are in harms way and it is mandatory in order to protect yourself. I think violence is ONLY appropriate if the other party initiates it first. Violence should only be the option chosen if you are severely provoked or threatened, or if someone commits a violent act towards you first. Unecessary senseless violence is wrong, but if you are protecting yourself from harm, or one of your loved ones, I dont feel that it is wrong if someone initiated violence towards you first. As for the violence in response to the closing of the missions, I felt it was the right appproach to take because The Guarani felt threatened. They had every right to protect something sacred to them (the missions). The missions were where they built their foundation, so if that is in any way threatened they had the right to defend it.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to saeleek #2. . .
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the Guarani feeling threatened and betrayed. I believe they had every right to fight and protect their missions. As you stated, they fought because they did not understand how people representing God can cause turmoil and destruction in theyre community, when God is of loving and preserving all things, not destroying. They had every right to protect their missions, as anybody would want to fight and protect something they've built and believed in. Its like a natural instinct.
In response to fearnothing5:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about how violence should be used more often for a noble cause, as Robert De Niro's character did. Violence can be either senseless or heroic depending on the cause. If youre using violence senselessly to adress an issue that is wrong. But if youre resorting to violence to stand for a cause or something you believe in that is more acceptable than resorting to violence for a senseless issue. I think it depends on what the reason is behind the violent acts that help us decide whether it was morally wrong or right. We could relate this situation to benign Relativism.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteWho is fearnothing5? I don't have that handle written on the cross reference sheet. Make sure you let me know so I can give you credit for the assignment!
In responce to xoxonanaboo.
ReplyDeleteI think that in this instance violence was necessary. The Guarani had been accustomed to having the Jesuits religion in the culture. So when the church told the Guarani that the mission had to be shut down was a huge shock just after being told that the reason that the Jesuits were even there in the first place was because God wanted them to come there. So I think in this case it was hard for the Jesuits to not be upset and violent towards the people taking back the missions.
With Valerie Norton in response to Elizabeth's.
I agree with her In response to Elizabeth's post that in this case violence was necessary. Either way they were going to be killed why not go into it with a fight. Standing up for what they believed in would make this better for them and having some kind of dignity.
In response to Nicci..
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicci on Father Rodrigo using violence against the portuguese. That Father Rodrigo was putting his past into good use by fight for the Guarani Indians. I also like how Nicci used example between positive violence and negative violence.
Response to Lindsay:
I definity agree with Lindsay on the part she said about there are some situations where you have to defend yourself and others. Especially the way the Portuguese came onto the Guarani Indians land with fire arm already killing them without any chance. The Guarani had no chose other than to defend themselves and their people.
Amy Gomez
First of all I want to start off by saying that violence is never the right way to handle a situation or a dispute about something. If possible I think that violence should only be used in deadly situations. In the movie "The Mission" I believe the violence was necessary due to the cause of the situation. The Waunana Indians were being attacked with deadly force so it was obvious to receive the same type of treatment. The guns were definitely more powerful but the Indians did what they had to do to fight for the Mission.
ReplyDeleteEventhough I believe that violence is wrong, I also believe that the Waunana Indians along with Father Rodrigo had the right to fight back with violence. They were fighting for the tribe just as Americans fought for our country in past wars for example. Father Gabriel also did the right thing by not promoting violence however they had no choice in the matter. Father Rodrigo died fighting for what he believed in.He was also courageous for his actions considering he started off being the bad guy trying to destroy the missions that Father Gabriel was trying to build. I was surprised at how Rodrigo turned out to be but also proud at how he changed.
My response is for question #2
ReplyDeleteIn response to fearnothing5:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% when you said that violence is appropriate in certain situations as far as family goes. If someone uses violence against you, the average human being will use violence back for it is the only way to save yourself if you can. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself but only use violence when it is necessary just as the Wunana Indians did for the mission.
In response to lexygomez-
ReplyDeleteI agree that Father Gabriel had a lot of courage to do what he did. He risked his life the entire journey. I believe that Father Gabriel showed the most courage with wanting to saves by turning them over to Christianity. He was working for both God and the Indians
After reading everyone's commets i think we all feel the same that sometimes you gottta do what you gotta do. Ive been in situations in life where I had no choice but to fight back and thats just sometimes how the ball rolls, therefore in response to # 2 yes, violence is appropriate only when its the last resort.
ReplyDeleteThe movie exemplifes how bloody wars have been around since the beginning of time.
Carolyn, I agree with you on your point yet where the Portugese truly entitled to that land? I guess technically yes over the treaty with Spain but morally I do not believe they are entitled. I dont think God would have wanted the Portugese to wipe out the Natives.
Nonetheless what really came to my mind from this movie and how it depicted violence was why is it that violence has been a continual pivotal element in society.. I mean nowadays people are quick to flash and everyone has a violent side to them its in human nature yet some can control it some cannot. Its sort of difficult to fathom that in order to stop violence you have to be violent to win. Alexandria you are right how De Niro's character symbolized what was morally right. He died for what he believed in, thats an honorable respectable way to go out considering he had a choice not to fight back.
- marcelo
I forgot to tell you: I made a mistake in the points assigned for the first forum. Responses are 25 points each. I left the original points for the first assignment and will adjust accordingly, but 25 is full credit for a response. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteIn response to question #2;
ReplyDeleteI don't believe violence is a right response, yet we often use it. We as humans have the ability to think, which has been said that it is the only thing that makes us different from the animals; therefore, if we have a capability to think, why don't we?
Violence is always used to see who's the strongest, achieve power, take over something, and sometimes to defend the loved ones.
In the case of the movie the Spanish and the Portuguese are over using their power. They used brutal violence, outnumbering the Indians, having better guns, they murdered the Indians. In the other hand the Indians attacked as well for their survival, their cause seems appropriate to us nowadays, but I assure that if we would of have been there, our way of thinking wouldn't have been the same.
The example of someone harming a child raises a lot of controversy, but for me there’s a limit between defending and violence. Also if someone tries to harm me I would not let me, but I won’t use violence, that’s why we have authorities that can take care of it (that they don’t function as well as they supposed to, or give the measure that we expect is another subject).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Do you think Cardinal Altamirano ought to have refused to carry out the terms of the treaty? What would it have accomplished? Does it matter that it wouldn't have stopped the closing of the missions? Why or why not?"
ReplyDeleteI think he should have refused to carry out the terms purely out of the goodness from his heart, for morally right reasons, but then who knows what could've happened later on if he refused. it wouldn't have accomplished much except the mission and the Guarani would've survived a little while longer.
It only would have mattered for ethical reasons if Cardinal Altamirano refused to carry out the terms of the treaty because it would've shown that he cared about the Guarani and wouldn't want them to lose their home instead of just giving the Portuguese what they want, so the church's strong influence could be maintained in Europe. So yes and no. It wouldn't have mattered with the closing of the mission but at least Cardinal Altamirano's choice would've been morally right if he did refuse the terms of the treaty.
In response to Marce: "After reading everyone's commets i think we all feel the same that sometimes you gottta do what you gotta do. Ive been in situations in life where I had no choice but to fight back and thats just sometimes how the ball rolls, therefore in response to # 2 yes, violence is appropriate only when its the last resort."
I agree, along with everyone else. The Guarani could've accepted the treaty's terms of returning back to the jungle but they would've either gotten killed or captured and turned into slaves. They felt so strongly and revered their new home that the last resort for them was to fight back with even the tiniest hope they might win.
In response to Carloyn: "Many are saying the violence is an appropriate reaction for the Guarani as they are defending themselves and their way of life - there was meaning behind the violence. And I agree. However weren’t the Portuguese also defending their beliefs and right to land and “property” (as slaves were considered at the time) & couldn't we argue that there were reasons that they initiated the attacks? Portugal was entitled to the land that the missions were on after they signed a treaty with Spain. The Jesuits were trying to take this land away from Portugal and threatening their pro-slavery ways of life. The Portuguese were also being pressured by the Spanish to follow the ways & laws of Spain (even when it was obvious many in Spain did not follow these laws themselves). You could say that the Portuguese were feeling threatened and fighting to defend their right to land that was promised and the property on it. Thus if we argue that violence is appropriate when used for defense then it follows that the violent attack on the missions by Portugal were also appropriate as they were simply “defending” their ways."
I agree with you pointing out Portugal's side for defending their ways and the land entitled to them and unfortunately the mission being on the same land. Both sides had good reasons to fight and it seems violence was only answer after the treaty was signed since neither side wanted to give in.
Those of you responding to Carolyn - would you want to make any distinctions based on the fact that the Spanish and Portuguese were simply laying claim to the land, and that the treaty was conducted without any input from the people actually living on the land at issue?
ReplyDeleteThis raises a good point about moral questions, in that there are often several important issues involved in an evaluation of the ethics of the case.