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?
Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo showed courage in their own respect. Father Gabriel's faith was his courage. He believe that his faith in God will lead the people to their freedom. It takes a lot of courage for him to stand by his beliefs and conduct the ceremony during the battle and not being phase by the shooting and killing that was happening around him. He had the courage to lead the people with no fear in his eyes, when he knew that he himself will be killed in the cross fire. Courage can be expressed in different ways and this was Father Gabriel's way. He stood by his beliefs and for the people that believed in him.
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo's way was a more straight forward approach which was to take definite action. He stood up for the people that he once led to capture for slaves. His courage to gather the other priests and show them that they have to fight back and not bow down to the power hungry people of Portugal. What made him courageous was the fact the he was not afraid to oppose the power of authority to do right what he thought was wrong of them. No one should have the power to take away someone's freedom and their right to live.
Prompt #2:
ReplyDeleteFather Gabriel says, "If might is right, then love has no place in the world... But I don't have the strength to live in a world like that."
For better or for worse, it does indeed seem that might is right in the world we live in.
• Modern day societies have been built upon interwoven bloody and gruesome histories.
• Greed for higher profits (and lower overhead costs) has fueled corporations to take their business away from U.S. soil in order to exploit cheaper labor from poorer nations.
• Governments from all over commit atrocities in the name of freedom.
• War is perpetually waged over land, religious beliefs, century old disagreements, etc.
Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons characters disagreed on whether or not violence is the answer when faced with certain death. De Niro’s character believed that their way of life was worth preserving, and thus he was willing to fight. Irons’ character favored the course of love, nonviolent resistance and perhaps in the conscience of men. The dramatic ending visually teaches the audience that there are no winners of war. When we attack one another violently everybody loses.
I personally feel that violence isn't the answer, but I also wouldn't back down from defending myself (physically) when called to do so. I vehemently oppose the use of weapons; guns, missiles, nuclear weaponry, etc. All these types of weaponry tip the scales in such a way that there is no honor in them. Fighting over ownership, over profits, over religion, and all the trivial things we fight over make us in turn owned by all of these things.
What if we, as the future stewards of the world, did things differently than all of our predecessors? It would be quite the phenomenon if we all stood-up to let our parents, grand-parents, mayors, governors, and senators, and so on know that they have it ALL wrong. And that they have had it wrong for quite some time; look at the state of things we are to inherit!
Kelan,
ReplyDeleteYou're raising some good points, and I like that you're pulling in other concerns to your discussion. You want to rope it more tightly to the question, though. If you move away from the original question during your discussion to open up the issue, be sure to bring it back around at the end so that everyone can see how your broader discussion fits into the question. Looking forward to the rest of the discussion.
--CB
Professor Boyle,
ReplyDeleteYou should have seen the original draft! I find it very hard to narrow my focus. The main point I'm trying to make is that all of my concerns, and the issues that I brought up, are meant to illustrate how violence as a course of action is failing.
I believe that Father Gabriel knew that we cannot win when we choose to destroy one another. His faith has taught him to believe that love and understanding are the real tools/weapons we must employ in order to bring "prosperity" to the world. He opposed violence because the only certain outcome is a tragic loss of life.
Father Mendoza was only a novice to the Jesuit order, and because of his violent background he only knew how to respond violently. I do not doubt that there was love in his heart for the Guarani people, but his efforts were in vain. As a soldier, mercenary, assassin, etc. when you live to fight another battle it would indeed seem as if you do have the answer, but ultimately you will meet your end (in such a lifestyle).
I find it interesting that they didn’t choose to just flee for another territory. I guess to some, once you’ve found sanctuary it is hard to let it go. I’m most saddened by the history of these lands because I come from Spain.
This is what these asynchronous threads are great for! It helps you build on, focus, and develop ideas, and other people can come on and challenge you to develop this even further.
ReplyDeleteSo, I hope that'll happen - I would love to see everyone engage with one another at a high level and push our ideas to be more and more thought out and complex.
This is a great way to start us off - there's a lot of good stuff to work with.
I do think that violence can be an appropriate response. There are certain situations and criteria that I believe afford a violent response. The most obvious would be when violence is perpetrated against you or someone you love. In the movie, The Mission, violence demonstrated by the Guarani Indians was an appropriate response to the violence and aggression from the Portuguese Settlers. Based on the Guarani’s past interaction with the Portuguese settlers, they most likely knew that when the Portuguese reached their village it would NOT be a peaceful encounter. The health and welfare of the tribe was at stake and their options were to run away, and give up all they had worked for, of launch a violent assault to try to save their livelihood and way of life.
ReplyDeleteI believe Father Gabriel knew that the Portuguese would defeat the Indians and was truly a nonviolent person. His personal beliefs and his obedience and belief in the true teaching of the church (as opposed to Cardinal Altamirano’s political interpretation of the church’s teachings) guided him to his nonviolent behavior. Father Gabriel said in the movie “if might is right then love has no place in the world.” This statement attests to his passive and true peaceful nature. Father Gabriel probably knew that even if the Guarani had defeated the Portuguese the first time there would have been continued challenges by the Portuguese to close the mission (the Guarani also knew this to be true.) Father Gabriel witnessed the defiance and intense hatred the Portuguese Ambassador had for the Guarani Indians. The Portuguese did not view the Indians as people but as filthy animals, or at best, a pool of future slaves.
In The Mission the Indians and the Jesuits tried diplomatic efforts to come to a peaceful resolution. When these efforts failed and a violent assault was imminent then, and only then, did the Guarani invoked violence. I think their response was sadly appropriate.
I believe that Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo both should courage in their special way. Father Gabriel was courageous because he did not fight back. He honored God and believed that it was not right to fight back. He had to stand up for what he believed in which, was not fighting or killing people no matter if they were trying to kill him and his people. He is truly a man of God and believed that love would conquers all. He did not want to die sinning he believed, that God would be displeased with those actions. I could not imagine just singing and walking while guns and cannons were being fired at me. Even if I did not fight I would have at least ran or something.
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo was also courageous because before he became a Father he was a general a man who fought for what he wanted and defended what was his. After killing his brother he wanted to change his life for the better and he did but when he felt threatened and felt a need to protect his new family he did just that. The General part of himself came back and he knew what he had to do, he did not care that he would possibly die in war as long as he died fighting. So again they were both courageous men in their own way. They both felt that what they had to was right so that is what they did.
@ Joan H.
ReplyDeleteJoan makes an excellent point that certain situations can only be responded to by violence. Of course, violence is not the answer to everything, but when violence comes along and threaten your livelihood or of someone you love dearly then the only way to respond is to fight back for yourself and the people you love. We have to fight back to show that we are not afraid to protect our self and our loved ones, we need to show that we do have a spine and you cant come and run over us every single time. It will make them think before they try to mess with you again because now they know that you are willing to stand up for your self and hopefully it makes them think that maybe violence is not the way and people can learn to settle things more peacefully.
@ Benicia H.
ReplyDeleteFather Gabriel was truly a man of God. Even in that hostile environment he was able to keep his composure and kept on believing in his faith, the Guarani people, and love over might. Some may say he was crazy and other will say that it was a courageous act, but all can agree that he was truly committed to non violent actions. His saying of, "If might is right, then love has no place in the world..." showed he was a man of love and if this "might" (violence) is the only way, he knew that this world was not for him. He walked down that path knowing of what will happen to him and he wanted to leave the world without sinning so in the after life he can live in a world that has "love".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Do you think violence is ever an appropriate response? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteViolence is an appropriate response to a situation in which a threat is imminent and where dialogue has failed. When all diplomatic solution is contrived, then violence is the only reasonable solution. The worst/last case scenario in any situation is the use of physical force. Yes it is "primitive" to resort to violence to solve problems, but when you are pushed into a corner with nowhere else to go, you are bound to push back. When you very survival is at risk, you are instinctively going to fight back. Violence is a survival response.
Also ponder on this, if a person cannot be heard verbally what other forms of communication this person can choose. Only option is via physical means. A great example would be pre-Revolutionary war, taxation without representation. (Short Synopses) At that time Great Britain, did not voice the concerns of the early colonies to the British Parliament. So the colonies declared independence and won through physical means - War.
Let's also talk about WW2. Should we sit by passively as Europe was being annexed by the Nazis and let Japan conquer Asia? (Let’s disregard politics and foreign policy in this case)
No! We need to defend ourselves and our allies. We pursue violence in the name of our defense. I believe we should all become pacifist. When we are attacked by an aggressor, we can use violence to fight back. This works as a military defense policy and to any individual.
In addition we should practice preemptive defense, this in turn can be preemptive war. If there is an aggressive foreign nation, that public speaks of the death of our Nation, we should eliminate this threat. Ponder on this, imagine you are in a bar fight. You are going to have to throw the first punch, it is not tactical to reason with a drunken guy yet alone wait till this drunken person hit you first. The bible even supports preemptive war, “Let he without sin cast the first stone.”
So in closing, violence is a response to an imminent attack or attack, when alternative solution has been used up or when a person is being excommunicated.
What did you think about the divisions over the use of violence in response to the closing of the missions in the movie?
The Guarani use of violence was only rendered because the Portuguese did not want to hear them out. I believe the Guarani use of violence is right. It was their only option, because they refuse to go back in to the jungle. The Chief of the Guarani practice diplomacy the first ever practiced by these people. In return they got ignored. They got ignored what else can these people do, sit in protest? They tried at the church and those people died along with the priest. So instead the smartest thing is to die fighting rather than die in vain. Die on their feet rather than on their knees.
Joan, Benicia & Anthony:
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that you seem to believe that violence is warranted if someone attacks you, I can’t say that I completely disagree with you. I can only go so far as to say, I would stand up and fight but I would not want to inflict fatal blows to my enemy; I would rather see them subdued and have them continue to live.
As depicted in The Mission, all of those who chose to act/respond with fatal violence ultimately perished or lived on with one of the worst sins (6th Commandment; Thou shalt not kill!). Can any of you honestly say that there was any type of resolution to the problem that brought both sides together in combat? What had really been accomplished, if anything? Near Genocide is what was accomplished.
Acting out in fatal violence isn’t any real type of settling a conflict; its real purpose is to assert dominion over someone or something. Would you want to live a life in submission, where your voice is never heard? Perhaps not, and ask yourself this, are you willing to die so that you might be heard, "die on your feet"? Even if you know that your death will mean nothing other than you are gone from this world? Would you still think that violence was the appropriate response then?
I value every other person's life as much as I value my own.
In my opinion, I feel that violence is never an appropriate response, because it is destructive and ruins people’s images. Instead of violence, I feel that people in the situation should talk about the problem instead of solving the solution with violence. Violence doesn’t solve anything; all it does is bring up more drama and the more drama there is, it could cause more of a problem. I feel that people provoke others into violence because they want to boost their egos up and act like they’re the tougher person by fighting, when in reality they are looking stupid because fighting or violence doesn’t resolve anything.
ReplyDeleteThe divisions of fighting at the end of the movie proved my point that fighting doesn’t resolve anything, because the Indians ended up losing, which lead them to becoming dead or the settlers’ slaves. The only reason that the Indians fought back is because they were being invaded by the settlers and felt that they needed to defend themselves by making arrows and other defense mechanisms out of wood. In this situation violence could be an exception, because the Indians were defending themselves, and self-defense was the only way for them to at least keep their land if they won against the settlers. Violence could only be appropriate if you are in a dying situation and you have nothing else to resort to, but no one should take it to the extent where they have to shoot someone just because their loved one was the victim of them.
In The Mission, I do think that both Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo showed courage in their own ways. For Father Gabriel, he had shown his courageousness by channeling it through his religious belief in God. I feel that he showed his courage throughout the whole movie, but especially in the end while walking with the women, children, and older Guaranis left in the village towards Father Rodrigo’s direction and into the path of gunfire. Courage doesn’t necessary need to be shown through physicality, but mentally, which I feel Father Rodrigo was able to show very well in his character. He never once gave up on the Guaranis, especially when the Eminence had told Father Gabriel and everyone in his Mission that they would be excommunicated, which I would say was another way he showed his courage.
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo had also shown courage throughout the movie. In the beginning I must say that I didn’t like his character at all, but after killing his brother and asking for Penance, I began to see another side of him. After having to carry out armor and swords as they climbed the Cliffside, and showing that he wasn’t giving up (when they dropped the armor and he went back to get it), he had showed courage. Also, the events that took place prior to the war, such as being granted Penance, befriending the Guaranis, and speaking in defense of the Guaranis as well as apologizing even though he didn’t see the point in doing so had shown his courageousness. I also think that Father Rodrigo fighting alongside the Guaranis was definitely courageous enough on his part.
To me, both men were very courageous and what they did to help fight to keep their Mission a sanctuary for the Guaranis had proven that courage comes in many forms. It’s not always the obvious that can be counted as courageous, but also what you can’t see, like I stated it’s not only shown through physicality, but also mentally.
Jennifer N.,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree on you with violence never being appropriate. My reason is that if you think about it, the world would be a way different place without the violent conquests and events that took place in the past. I’m not saying that violence is always acceptable, but there are certain situations in which you can’t control or have any say in, which sadly results in violent acts. I feel that depending on the situation, for example, an argument resulting in a physical fight would be very different as compared to the war of the Guaranis and the Portuguese. I must say that I was a bit confused with your post, because in the beginning you had said that violence is never appropriate, then in the end you had said “Violence could only be appropriate if you are in a dying situation and you have nothing else to resort to …” I too, think violence should be a last resort kind of thing, but like I said, if there were no violence that took place, everything would be very different.
Joan H.,
ReplyDeleteYour post about violence being an appropriate answer, I would say I have to agree as well. Knowing that the Guarani tribe had unfortunate interactions with the Portuguese settlers, I clearly see why violence was the only option available. Also, knowing that the Portuguese settlers had used many captives of the Guarani Indians as slaves, there’s an obvious reason why the Guaranis had felt that they should have never trusted the Portuguese. Even though the Guarani tribe was defeated, seemingly almost instantly, they proved that no one can just come and take what they had worked for, especially not without a fight. I think if you put any two different civilizations together under the same circumstances or similar situations as the Guarani and Portuguese trying to come to a compromise, the result will most likely be unfavorable and violent.
I don't think violence is an appropriate response in many cases but in some cases, I do. In cases where it involves a loved one, or to protect myself,it should be considered the right response. I mean, what else are you to do when someone that dislikes you starts to punch you in the face, or kick you in the guts. You aren't gunna let 'em hurt you right? What if a whole mob of 20 people go against you and your sister, just you two alone, simply because they don't like you and they are against your religion. You two alone verses 20, or possibly more people. What would you do then? Please tell me you both would run and hope you survive their gunshots chasing after you. As you both run, you running ahead of your sister by a feet or so, and all of a sudden, you here your sister plop to the ground, shot at, dead. you would turn around, seeing her flat on the ground. You tear but keep running. You found a spot to hide at until they all left. After then, you are probably so mad and sad at the same time, that the only thought going on in your mind is revenge. You would run and gather a lot of people that would help you, usually the ones that love and care for your sister and they hate the people who killed her, and they would want to get back at the people who killed her too. You would gather those who believes what she believes like the people from church. Then when time is right, fire gun shots and use other powerful weapons to kill the people. Even though you don't know which one of the group killed her, you would go after all because they all had to do with it. It doesnt matter who killed her, the fact that they all were trying to in the first place is what matters. Violence here is a right answer, because your loved one is dead. A main reason why violence occurs in your mind is when violence has been hit onto a person very close to you, or the people you love. The right to fight back depends on the situation. In this situation, you have the right to fight back because it hurt someone dearly, a great person that you love. The fact that she is a good christian and has never done anything bad, she didn't deserve to die.
ReplyDeleteIn the end of the movie, where the Guarani were going to attack Portuguese, because they were going to get rid of the Guarani people, Violence henced to both sides. The Guarani had the right to call for violence against the Portuguese because they were not letting the Guarani people stay in their own home. A place where they have adapted to, a place they all want to be. Since the Portuguese weren't going to let the Guarani people stay, The Guarani was going to attack, trying to save their home. They all hope to win so they can continue living peacefully in their home. At this time, Violence is the right answer because the Portuguese would not let them stay in their home. Violence was their only response because what other way can they try and save their home from the Protuguese taking over. Violence was a shot, and their only chance they have in saving their home. If they won, they are able to continue living happily, but if they lost, the ones who are left would not be able to have their freedom and would not be happy. Therefore, violence in this situation is right. Sadly, it didnt turn out the way I wanted it to be, nor did it turn out the way the Guarani wished.
I've decided to respond to the question, "Do you think violence is ever an appropriate response?"
ReplyDeleteMy immediate gut reaction to this question was yes, of course. While watching "The Mission" in class, I was pretty disgusted at Father Gabriel's pacifism in response to the closing down of the missions. I tend to look down on pacifism as I believe our culture generally does. However, as I construct my comments for this blog, I believe I've had a change of heart.
While I was considering this question, I thought about the fact that the Guarani were put into a situation where there only hope for survival was naturally to fight back against their attackers. I thought to myself that if the Guarani had won, Father Rodrigo would have been heralded as a hero and there would be no question of whether their violence was appropriate. However, if the best reason for fighting back was to fight for the Guarani's survival, then we can witness by their crushing defeat that this was a poor reason. Their army had one sword, three guns and maybe a couple of daggers amongst them. From a purely objective point of view, it's almost impossible that they could have been successful at battling a more technologically advanced, equipped and prepared army. Therefore, their actions must have been motivated by something else - whether it be a sense of betrayal, hurt pride, or some other emotion. Is emotion enough to justify the Guarani's desire to kill their enemies, and to justify the casualties of their own men?
Although I obviously sympathized with the situation of the Guarani while watching the film, now I'm wondering why they didn't just move further into Spanish land. They faced a great injustice and indignity, but wouldn't sucking up their pride and rebuilding elsewhere have been better than being killed? It's easy for people to rally for the underdog against a Goliath in an obvious case of good versus evil, but the world's conflicts aren't that clear-cut. As I write this, my thoughts keep drifting to the conflict over the Gaza strip. Like many others, I am beyond weary of the fighting that has gone on seemingly forever over this land. But this complex conflict also illustrates that one can't argue that someone is justified in fighting for a good or noble cause because if you look at a situation broadly you can almost never declare one party universally "right" against their opponent. The fact that people fight over being "right" as opposed to fighting with reason is part of why these pointless wars go on forever and ever.
While discussing the case study of the man who committed robbery, my group denounced "eye for an eye" logic and most of us agreed that the punishment for a crime must accomplish something. This leads me to my final point:
Violence is never an appropriate response to conflict because it doesn't accomplish anything. While some of your opponents may be silenced (by their death), you have not actually reached a resolution to your argument.
Both characters in the movie (Gabriel and Mendoza) showed courage. Father Gabriel as a religious person saw that slavery was wrong and decided to protect the Guarani people by rehearsing religion in a peaceful way instead of using violence. I think he showed courage by using his religious beliefs towards the Guarani, Spanish, and Portuguese people. He explained that God will protect them, and violence is against God, and God is LOVE. His emotions against violence were under control. He demonstrated that he was firm about his beliefs and that his moral ideals were all from the Bible. He showed a lot of courage by setting up a mass in front of the church and stand up against the enemy by using prayers. Father Gabriel was a great Jesuit.
ReplyDeleteFather Mendoza, showed courage in a different way than Father Gabriel. As he studies the Bible and lives with the Guarani, he learns that they are people, and deserve a chance to live as humans not slaves as he previously thought. Mendoza was a mercenary and slave trader, his vows to God was not strong as Father Gabriel. So to protect the Guarani, he had no doubt of giving up his vows and put into action his knowledge about war. He works together with the Guarani to protect the Mission. Father Mendoza knew the only way to defend the Mission of San Carlos and the Guarani from slavery was to battle the Spanish and Portuguses.
Nubia G.
Responding to question 3.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think it was cruel for Cardinal Altamirano to give hope to the residents of the missions he visited when he premeditated to close them down. However, no matter how cruel it was, Cardinal Altamirano made the right chose to comply with the Treaty of Madrid. Portugal wanted to expand its territory and Spain wanted to avoid another Spanish-Portuguese war. Spain gave the territory where the Jesuit missions resided to the Portuguese empire.Despite the big land grant, the pro-slavery Portuguese thought it was profitable to shut down the Jesuit missions for two reasons. 1)Closing down the missions will disassemble the only sanctuary the Guarani Indians can escape from slavery. 2) The mission are already self efficient infrastructures with cultivated land.
Cardinal Altamirano, speaking on the behalf of the Catholic Church in Rome, had to shut down the Jesuit missions. The empire of Portugal demand to disassemble the missions because it is an obstacle of slavery. The Catholic Church must comply, or it will lose its influence in Portugal. If that happens, it will lead to a domino effect where one powerful country denounce the power of the Catholic Church, other countries will follow. To keep everyone happy (everyone meaning Spain, Portugal and the Catholic Church), Cardinal Altamirano had to do what he did for the survival of the Catholic Church and prevent less hostility between Spain and Portugal.
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?
ReplyDeleteIf someone tries to harm you then it is called violence, but if you’re going to response over that action, I call it self-defense not just violence.
An example story is that what if someone attempts of killing you, you have to protect yourself, your life, so it means you have to fight back. But not to the point that you’re going to do the same thing that person was trying to do to you. Maybe, just harm the person until he/she is no longer able to do what he/she planned to do.
There is only certain time that harming someone should be used as an appropriate response and that is when it is a matter of life and death.
The people in the mission from the movie used violence to protect everyone’s life and not just because they’re being greedy for their territory. They were trying to protect their community that they grew up into, the place where they started. They were protecting it against those people who were telling them to leave the place where they living their lives happily.
Aiza O.
In my opinion, I do not think violence is ever an appropriate response in most cases because there are other alternatives to resolving things. Although the Indians had no other choice but to fight the Portuguese, I think they made the right choice because it was an act of self defense, so to say. The Portuguese wanted their land, and the Indians did not want to give it up. The Portugueses’ decision about battling the Indians for their land was not the right choice, but that was their only option. Although I feel sympathy for the Indians, the Portuguese felt like it was their only other way that they can get what they want. In the Indians defense, they also have every right to refuse since they were there first. In the end, the only thing accomplished is many killed, even the innocent protesters.
ReplyDelete-j. Omaque
In response to the question of whether Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo Mendoza both displayed courage, I personally believe Father Rodrigo Mendoza showed courage, but Father Gabriel displayed something else. I have the greatest level of respect for Father Mendoza because he stood up and fought along side the Guarani’s. I still cannot get the scene out of my head where he accepted the sword from the young boy. Although Mendoza became a changed man by accepting the word of God, he realized something very significant…GOD WAS NOT GOING TO SAVE THE GUARANI’S. Instead, he realized that the Portuguese were going to conquer as much land as possible by any means necessary. The Guarani’s rightfully did not want to leave because the mission had become their new home. They could not go back to the jungle because it would only be a matter of time until the Portuguese or another country come along and end up wanting to use the “jungle” for their own use. There was a need for someone or multiple individuals to stand up to the Portuguese and send them a message. That message is that you are not going to run over us, if we are savages we will show you characteristics of a savage. The Portuguese were bullies, whom generally continue to pick on individuals perceived as inferior until they are punched in the mouth. Father Mendoza knew the Portuguese had a huge advantage….guns and cannons vs. bow and arrow + one sword, but he did not care. Even if the Guarani’s did not win the battle, he knew that standing up and fighting would send a powerful message to Portuguese, a message that could possibly make them think twice about conquering land in the future.
ReplyDeleteIf Father Gabriel wanted to display bravery, he should have picked up a bow and arrow and fought. I do understand that he was a religious man, and if he picked up a weapon he would not have been practicing the things that he was preaching, but I believe this particular situation was an exception. The Portuguese had no respect for life. As I stated earlier, they were going to conquer land by any means necessary; they were on their way to kill every Guarani in sight, along with anyone who defended them. Hypothetically speaking, if Father Gabriel were to have felt that he had no other choice but to bare arms, if he was deeply sorry for his actions and confessed about his sins at a later point, it is plausible that God would have forgiven him. I feel that Father Gabriel displayed stupidity by singing in the middle of a battle. He decided to walk with a cross towards flying bullets as if it were his shield, failing to take notice that innocent women and children were being killed one by one. Maybe he believed in his words a little too much, because in fact, the cross was not a shield and I noticed no one saved him. He himself felt the end of a hollow point bullet, so was it all worth it? What was he trying to prove? If he really wanted to save the Guarani’s, he should have rallied up as many of them as possible and went somewhere else….The world is big.
In my perspective, I want to say that Father Gabriel showed courage, while Father Rodrigo did not. Father Gabriel's faith in God was his courage. Even though he knew they would end up dying, he never doubted God. He believed that whatever God had planned ahead for them was the best thing. He wanted to show the Guarani that having faith in God would pay off in the end, that's why he had the ceremony during the fighting. He didn't show any signs of fear or remorse. He just led the people straight to the Portuguese (to freedom, since dying means you are free, in a sense).
ReplyDeleteI think Father Rodrigo did not show courage because he was scared to die. They all knew what was going to happen, Father Gabriel just accepted it and tried to convince the others as well. But Father Rodrigo lost faith and wanted to fight to try and change God's plan and escape death. This also shows another side of Father Rodrigo. He never really truly accepted his vows of obedience as a Jesuit. He was always a mercenary at heart. That's why he didn't accept what God had planned for them and was so easily for him to renounce his vows of obedience.
(this is all with my assumption that the Jesuits were very faithful, and God's plan was that the Guarani would be taken over by the Portuguese, since that's what happened in history)
I also want to add, the definition of courage from dictionary.com is the "quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear". The fact that Father Rodrigo lost faith shows that he was scared. He was scared of what God planned and scared to die. Father Gabriel accepted it and he was fearless.
Alice L.
I think Father Gabriel had courage because he standed up for what he believed in and that was putting faith into god and stayed to pray even though he knew that he would get killed. To me thats courageous because no matter what in the stand he was standing up for his beliefs whatever the outcome.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes for Father Rodrigo even though he took a different path he still was fighting for what he believed in and was fighting to death to protect something he cared about. Rodrigo died protecting those people even though he was againist them in the begining but that show people can change for the better so to me that is being courageous.
Being courageous can be looked at in many different way as long as your willing to see it for, taking this movie for example, you had two different people and different views but same ideal in the end. As long you follow in what you belief in you can truly be at peace with yourself.
Father Gabriel showed a lot of courage to stand up for what he believed in. Not only did he risk his life for the Indians but he did it in a non violent way which showed his commitment to his religion and stood his ground in the way he believed was right. His influence on Indians all over the land must of been important to him which gave him to courage to stand his ground and show the Indians that violence isn't always the solution to problems.
ReplyDeleteMendoza was also very couragous in his own way. Although Father Gabriel disagreed with his method of solution, he still continued on to fight with violence for the rights of the Indians. Being forgiven for capturing their family-and even slautering some-changed his views of Indians. Seeing that the Indians are normal human beings and deserve the same rights as everyone else gave Mendoza the courage to fight for the justice. Not only was Mendoza couragous in defending the rights of Indians but that he actually returned to San Carlos after causing them so much pain. To return to such a place and expect forgiveness takes alot.
-Tommy Saefong
@ Sophia K.
ReplyDeleteI love, love, loved your post! I am happy to see that you were among the many who had the initial reaction of yes violence is appropriate, but that the emotion of the Guarani tragedy was able to sway you in a new direction.
You explored the way we as a people have of fighting without cause quite well! Too often, as you pointed out, people are fighting over who's right and not with much other reasoning than that. I applaud you for being able to observe something like this from a different perspective than your "gut feeling".
I also agree that perhaps it is out of pride, belief in the underdog (David vs. Goliath as you pointed out), or whatever else that makes people want to face dire odds as depicted in the film. However, I feel that when it comes down to a matter of human life the gamble isn’t worth it. Facing overwhelming odds is indeed noble and valiant in other situations, but in situations of war the loss is always, always tragic and wrong.
Father Gabriel as well as Father Rodrigo (Mendoza) were courageous but both in very different ways.
ReplyDeleteFirst I think Father Gabriel seeked a more peaceful way out of the situation. He stood next to the Guarani until his own death and he did not participate in physical combat. That is pretty courageous right there because he was walking forward knowing that he was going to die whenever a bullet hit him. His idea was peace in the world and not through violence or “might” like he mentioned.
Father Rodrigo (Mendoza) even though he changed, he took his vows, and dedicated himself the church realized that if he didn’t fight back the Guarani were still going to be killed and that God was not going to help them. Father Rodrigo felt bad for fighting again and wanted the blessing from father Gabriel before going out and fighting, that right there was when I realized that both of them were being very brave by having their firm standing points on the situation and what they believed in. One father stayed behind knowing that he was going to be attacked unarmed and the other went and risked his life and fought side by side with and for the people he once had no respect for. Father Rodrigo truly learned Father Gabriel’s teaching which was to love others.
Test
ReplyDeleteI'm late in posting but here it is anyway, (apparently I can not log in to this on my own computer to save my grade...)
ReplyDeleteI don't really think Father Gabriel showed courage. Not in the sense of facing difficulty without fear anyway. To most,courage means facing challenges or difficulties with a strength of will, without fear. Though he did show that to a degree I'm more of a mind to say it was resignation that drove Father Gabriel. He gave up hope and decided that there was no point in doing much else. So he chose to stay with the Guarani knowing he would likely die because he basically gave up on everything else. If might is right then love has no place in the world...and I don't have the strength to live in a world like that. That sounds like giving up to me. When someone gives up all hope they tend to get as much resolve as someone who is very courageous or determined. His actions mirrored courage, I think, but the motivation behind them was not something that took courage to go through with in my opinion.
Rodrigo on the other hand did show courage. He was a haunted man after he killed his brother and ever since he was seeking redemption somehow. He showed that strength of will and firmness of mind. He could have given up hope on living and just killed himself, or let himself be killed, but he found a reason to live. In the end he fought for it, he tried to do everything he could, whether he thought he would succeed or knew he would lose was irrelevant. To me, he didn't show the same resignation as Father Gabriel.
Just to touch on the other topic, I think sometimes (and then rarely) violence is the only thing that gets through to human beings in this day and age. Maybe there was a time when things could be solved by simple words and exchanges of commodities, but there are some people out there who are so set in their beliefs that it always comes down to an "us or them" scenario. The use of violence on the missions though, was unnecessary and fueled by greed on the part of the Portuguese and Spanish. The priests were defending themselves and the people (in their eyes at least).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Lord's wisdom, wisdom of the lord, or Lord by wisdom... very interesting screen name, Dominus sapientia.
ReplyDeleteWell, what I really want to comment on is that I didn't realize that everyone agreed that courage is the absence of fear. Many "heroes" I've heard interviewed admit to being quite frightened while they did whatever act it was to herald them heroic.
Father Gabriel seemed to hold steadfast to his conviction that might/violence was not the path he'd elect. As he lead the usual service he appeared to face his impending murder with a resolve that very few could match. I think holding on to his believes, and facing the outcome (come what may) was quite courageous and very much devoid of cowardice.
I believe that his most notable comment about "might is right" is more along the lines that he is allowing the outcome to fall under G-d's will. He wants to believe that love/conscience will overcome the greed/hatred in men's hearts and end the conflict peacefully... but we all know the actual ending. I think in the end, he held on to his beliefs and hadn't given up in the sense that you claim he did... and that's the most wonderful thing about interpretation, we can all take something different from the same thing =)
Personally, I think that both Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo were courageous; both were in a whole different way though.
ReplyDeleteFather Gabriel kept everything in peace, he believed that slavery was bad and he stood by the Guaraní people through everything, unlike Father Rodrigo, he didn’t want anything to do with violence, he mentioned to Father Rodrigo that if he died with blood in his hand, there was no God, I believe that’s what he said, so Father Gabriel decided to have faith in god and prayed, knowing what was going to happen at the end, he showed courage by holding the holy cross, praying and walking with the Guaraní people watching them get shot and killed he stood there with his head up and stood up for what he believed eventually he got shot and killed, but he died knowing he followed what God wanted and knowing he did everything he could for the Guaraní people.
On the other hand, Father Rodrigo faced a few rough challenges, after the death of his brother, actually after killing his brother and realizing it was a mistake, he decided to go into religion and become part of it. He showed courage by coming back and helping the Guaraní people and also he showed courage by standing up for them and fighting to have the Guaraní people free, he died by helping others be free, using violent ways, unlike Father Gabriel.
Melissa Cavenecia
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteIs violence ever an appropriate response? I believe that seldom is violence ever an appropriate response, but occasionally it is needed.
Violence causes all sorts of contempt all over the world, and most of the time violence only broods more violence. If you kill a man’s brother or friend, that loved one may hunt you, or others you care about, or their resentment can be directed towards other people. This is in general the atmosphere violence brings, and it tends towards a never-ending cycle, for when someone is confronted with violence, violence is usually returned. However, on a small scale there are many acts of random violence, such as shootings for gang initiations, muggings, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you are attacked without provocation, it may be necessary to use violence to defend yourself, and in this situation, as long as you use reasonable force, violence can be an appropriate response. An example in which violence is an appropriate response could be if a terrorist tries to blow up a train and kill many people, it may be necessary to use violence to kill or incapacitate the terrorist to preserve the lives of others. There are some people that respond to little other than violence, and non-violence may not accomplish anything. If you non-violently resisted Adolf Hitler, he would have you killed. Would he stop killing innocent people unless stopped him with force of violence? In a situation with severe negative consequences can happen unless violence is used to control the situation, I believe violence is an appropriate response.
In terms of the division of the use of violence in the movie, I believe the use of violence was appropriate. Non violent resistance would have been ignored by the Portuguese and there were severe negative consequences, like slavery, lives of hardship, prejudice, likely with much violence ahead of them (shown by the lashings the previous slaves had received), and in some cases probably death. Had they run back into the jungle, they would have faced lives of running from slave traders, as it was described they did before the mission was built at the beginning of the movie. The tragedy of non-violent resistance and violent resistance was equal in negativity. I think it comes down to what the natives as individuals and as a society wanted. Would you rather live as a slave or die free? If they would rather live, then non-violent resistance would have been the best option, however if they would rather have died, then violent resistance was appropriate. The natives were approached with violence from the Portuguese, and as such their violence was in self defense and self preservation, and thus an appropriate response.
I think both father Mendoza and father Gabriel were courageous in their actions. Father Gabriel was courageous in many ways, he wasnt afraid of the guarani, and didnt treat them as animals or savages. Despite the differences between himself and the guarini, father Gabriel recognized that they were people and didnt deserve to be killed or hunted in order to be slaves. Father gabriel was also courageous in his defense of the Guarini all throughout the film. And finally, father Gabriel showed courage in his stance of non violence towards the end of the film. His actions reminded me of other leaders who took non violence stances in the fight for human rights. This shows courage because in my opinion it is easiest to fight back if someone is causing you harm, and I cant imagine the difficulty of letting somone else attack you without fighting back. Father Gabriel died along with the Guarini in a very courageous way.
ReplyDeleteFather Mendoza showed courage in his ability to change himself completely. He went from a Guarini hunter to a Guarini defendor. I always say that people never change unless they want to. Mendoza changed himself because he recognized the errors in his ways. Sure in the end he was still violent, but it was to protect people that deserved to be left alone.He recognized that they were causing harm to no one, and didnt see the point in killing off these people. Mendoza also dies along with the Guarini and he dies defending them.
I’d like to respond to a couple of posts from my classmates stating their opinion that violence never is an appropriate response. The common thread in each posting is that violence never leads to resolution of the argument or conflict. I think the human “collateral damage” of violence is inhumane and sickening but violence does lead to resolution although not without immense causalities. Without a violent response against aggression (World War 2) we’d living under Nazi and/or Imperialist Japanese rule! Violence did lead to resolution of World War 2 and from the resolution all countries involved experienced economic growth and prosperity and the establishment of important political relationships. History indicates that the human condition is prone towards violence and out of the violence comes periods of peace and resolution.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, violence doesn't solve anything. Violence is a sense of pride that doesn't become resolved. When two parties have different
ReplyDeleteinsights on a situation, they usually believe in what they feel is
right and avoid all other points of views. Immaturity and ignorance
is a common way of handling situations that result into violence. Since everyone has different opinions and perspectives on everything, people should understand that being different than someone else can be beneficial when having different reasons to be for against your opinion.
From the movie, I assumed the Americans felt that they could overpower the Indians. Once they demanded the Indians to leave the mission, and return to the jungle, the Indians retaliated and informed the Americans that it was war. The Indians didn't want to move back to the jungle because they believed that the devil lived in the jungle, and
the only place they would feel secure and safe would be in the
mission. The Americans didn't want to compromise, so it resulted to
violence which wasn't the best option. Americans had premade guns,
bombs, and canons while the Indians devoted their time into making
hand-made weapons. Americans ended up burning the Indian church by shooting fire bowen arrows toward the place. The remaining Indians
were forced to become slaves.
Violence is not an appropriate response to resolve a conflict, what violence does is that make the disagreement worst where more people get hurt, in particular innocent people such as, children and women. However, in some occasion people have to defend their selves of people who think that they are superior. For example in the movie the people from Spain or Portugal thought that they were superior and powerful that the people of the Guarani, therefore, they treated the Guarani as an animals. In this occasion, the only choice that people of Guarani had it was to use the violence because powerful people always will be behind them trying to control them. I know that divisions over the use of violence in response to closing of the mission wasn’t what we expect, but I think that was the right decision because the Guarani’ve had the right to live in the mission that they created and also they’ve had the right the a better quality of live. At least they tried to keep what they created and loved.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question of whether the payment to the Waunana Indians is problematic:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that paying the actors collectively rather than individually treats them like children. My first thoughts on this were conflicting. What if the people would benefit more from a trust fund than from individual payment? But what if the director is paying them less per person as a group than if he had payed them individually? And what if they're receiving less than what comparable American or British non-leads would be payed for similar roles?
My first question of whether the people would benefit more as a group assumes that the individuals might not be able to handle or make use of the money, but why? Since I know nothing about the modern society of the Waunana people, I think that this is a racist assumption that they are not living like the people of "advanced" countries such as America. But because the director payed them in such a way, it does make it seem like they can't be treated as individuals who can be responsible for taking care of and using their own wages as they see fit. Even if they are still living traditionally, I'm not sure that it's right to not treat them as individuals in our modern world. It certainly wouldn't be right for a group of people in America to be payed for their individual efforts in a trust fund, unless that group requests such a payment.
The next questions are about the amount payed. I wonder if paying the people as a group saved the director a significant amount of money more than if he had had to pay them seperately. This is a huge problem if it's the case, and if the Waunana actors received less than actors in other situations would have been, because I think that everyone should be payed the same for the same work, regardless of social status or economic situation.
The use of the money to try to secure land rights seems like a positive action, if I'm willing to ignore the fact that it denies the individuals money that I think they ought to be able to use as they see fit. I certainly don't think that it would ever be suggested that a major actor such as Robert De Niro, or anyone other than a minor, have the money they earned be put into a trust fund, and even for a minor, the money would be available to him upon reaching adulthood. That is not the case for the Waunana Indians. That treats them as different, and probably as a "lesser" people. That is definitely not right.
Colleen Garland
Sophia K,
ReplyDeleteYou say that violence is never an appropriate response to conflict. Then what is a better alternative? If you are pushed into a corner you are bound to push back, would you not? Sure sometimes conflicts can be resolve through dialogue, but most of the time it's about money or economic gain. No amount of pleading or reasoning will get through to these types of people. Money make the world go round, as sad as it sounds. Money talks, money makes you walk. Usually if the dispute is over economics then to only settle the dispute is over the use of physical force. Also violence is a counter-measure against a violent aggressor.
I ask you do you support the US involvement in WW2? Do you support law enforcement use of violence in the drug war? Do you support the Revolutionary War? My point is to rebuttal your claim that violence is never an appropriate response. My point is that sometimes violence is the ONLY response.
I am not claiming that violence is the only answer. It sure worked during the Civil Rights movement and in liberating India.
To Joan H.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you use World War II as an example of how violence solved everyone’s problem, as if by magic. That tragic historical event left somewhere between 60 – 80 million people dead. It is indeed very saddening how the Nazi Germans were invading everywhere to try and conquer the world. The use of the atomic bomb in Japan is what caused the surrender of Japan, and ultimately the end of the World War.
However, all of the important political ties and alliances all relate to the state the world is in now. The Nazis didn’t get the chance to control all those around them, the U.S. ended up developing into an imperialistic and almost tyrannical power throughout the globe. The fear of a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bought us a lot of “friends” through fear.
I think you’ve completely discounted the comprehensive aftershocks of what really happened after World War II. Our relationship with Cuba, Vietnam, Panama, etc. are all related to the choices made by our governing body dating back to the time the U.S. asserted dominion over the world back in WWII. The Cold War lasted from approx. 1945 – 1991, and now many countries have enough nuclear weaponry to wipe out mankind completely.
It is a dangerous world we live in, and a lot of it began with World War II. Violence remains the wrong answer every time! Remember, the bombing of Japan was the first and only time of such a devastating nuclear attack in the history of warfare. At least the realization of that prevented any further loss of life at THAT time. What is stopping us now? The memory of that war is (apparently) no longer as powerful to us now.
Many of us seem to think that violence is the way of the world, and it is a shame that you’d think like that. In order to change, we have to want to change; and change comes little by little once we start changing. Much like alcoholics, we must take it one step or day at a time.
I don't feel like posting a complete post, but Anthony Hoang... A lot of the demonstrations in India and later in the U.S. during the civil rights movements were based on non-violent doctrine. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. both advocated civil disobedience which is complete NONviolent action.
ReplyDelete@ Joan
ReplyDeleteI have always felt that violence is never the answer but throughout the discussion you raised some good points. You mentioned the nazis and the japanese, and it made me think that you have a point; If it werent for our efforts, and the efforts of other countries we would live in those kinds of societies today. You also made a valid point when you mentioned that it's human nature for us to be violent. It's only natural that a mother fight off anyone or anything that attempts to hurt her child, the same could be said for brother protecting his sister. However, i do believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Cesar Chavez, and Ghandi's efforts arent any less efective. I believe it was Kelan who mentioned that he values his life as much as anybody elses, as Im sure the three aforementioned men did. Violence may be necessary at times, but if we all placed the value of our own lives on the lives of others we would live in a completely different world.
@ Ja Nel
ReplyDeleteIt saddens me to think that you found no courage in father Gabriels actions. I think that both he and father mendoza showed courage, albeit in different ways, but courage nonetheless. In my post I said that it's easiest to fight back and answer to violence with violence. I also stated that I couldnt imagine how hard it must be to offer up the other cheek when someone has slapped you. In my opinion father Gabriel showed courage because he let his faith guide him into doing what he thought would be right. Father Gabriel's faith helped him have no fear and stood alongside the Guarini and he died with them.
I believe Father Medozza wasn't practicing what was said in Corinthians 13:13 and what he quoted instead, Ephesians 6:17, "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" Father Medozza is courage. What does it take to be courageous? I believe to look in the face of fear and laugh in its face. Father Medozza walk through a hail of bullets, and died holy. I mean with holes in his body. Still he walk through the valley of the shadow of Death, he did not fight. Psalm 23:4, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." To march to certain death carrying out your ceremony that is DIE hard. Also he made the promise to that little girl to stay with them. Now we all know you cannot break promises, especially from a cute little girl. (Father Medozza was also has to follow the order of the Jesuits, do not know much about the Jesuits but I think they are powerful.)
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo on the other hand is also courageous yet he slipped back into his past sins, to save his people. Catch 22.
Anthony Hoang, Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) was the one who was nonviolent and Father Rodrigo Mendoza was the fight fire with fire one (Robert De Niro). I can see you're just trying to be humorous though.
ReplyDelete@ Kelan
ReplyDeleteI believe all of us are of the consensus that non-violence is always the best response when its effective,but there are many situations in which it just isn't effective. In an idealistic world, non-violence and love is the way things should be, but thats unfortunately not the way things are. You are right in the sense that everyone should adopt these policies of love an non-violence so we can change, however not everyone will. What do you do when someone is ignorant to love, and insists on violence? Do you use non-violence to sway a mind that cannot be swayed?
You are right, WW2 was a catastrophic event, and its negative effects can be seen through the world today, however what was the alternative? How many people would Nazi-Germany have killed if violence was not used to stop them? I fear the death toll would be much, much higher. You forget that the Prime Minister of England Neville Chaimberlain used a strictly non-violent approach to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, choosing only to negotiate with them. This took them nowhere, as the Germans disregarded EVERY agreement negotiated. It is also true that the Germans were researching Nuclear weapons along-side the Americans, and if non-violence was used, the Germans would still have found nuclear technology, and I fear the Nazi's would have used it MUCH more readily than us.
Violence did not solve world war 2 as if by magic, and it was certainly tragic, however the world would be an infinitely more dismal place if violence had not been used.
True peace is NOT peace without conflict, true peace is peace with conflict done well. If the US had intervened sooner in WW2, its probably that lives would have been saved. It is sad, but sometimes violence is needed in order to perform conflict well.
To Jennifer N,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your blog it has become clear to me that you are a passionate believer that violence is not the answer. You even stated that “violence is never an appropriate response because it is destructive and ruins peoples images”. You went on to say that it really doesn’t solve anything and it can lead to other problems. I do see your point. Now, the problem that I have with your response is that in the second half of your blog you all of a sudden shifted course and said violence is an exception when defending yourself. Is self-defense not a form of violence? If I’m wrong please let me know. You clearly stated that violence is never appropriate, so I’m a little confused. Wouldn’t you agree that instead of resorting to violence we can all run away. Since violence is never appropriate, wouldn’t you also agree that running away is a better solution instead of defending yourself.
To Tinrobles18/ Aiza 0
ReplyDeleteAiza, I feel that your argument is weak. I am however, pleased to see that you realized that self-defense is not just violence. The reason I say your argument is weak is because violence is violence. If someone physically harms you, and you do the same back to that individual its still violence. How are you going to "just" harm someone? Based on your blog, you believe that the only appropriate time you should harm someone is in matters of life and death. What situations would you consider life and death? If someone pulls a gun on you, do you consider that a matter of life and death? If someone threatens to slice your throat but you do not physically see a weapon do you consider that a matter of life and death? If three guys surround you weapon free as if they are going to beat you up, do you consider that a matter of life and death? My point is that violence is violence. To counter your argument, if someone back hands you across your face, wouldn’t you say that is an act of violence? In this situation you’re not dying, you’re not even bleeding so technically this isn’t a life and death situation right? Now, its known fact that we all have a right to defend ourselves, but according to your argument the only appropriate time to “harm someone” is in matters of life and death. Are you telling me that if you become a victim of a slap, you are not going to harm that individual because the only appropriate time to “harm someone” is in matters of life and death.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteThe conversation is great, here, and you're doing a very good job of challenging one another.
Just a reminder to make sure that your tone is always respectful. When you're typing something and not face to face, subtleties can get lost, so make sure it's always clear that you're responding to someone respectfully, even if you strongly disagree with that person.
Kelen
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world there would be no violence just as you want but since we live in a sinful world sin is what you tend to get out of it. I guess that is what my teacher in my critical think class was trying to oexplain to the class about ideal value vs real value or morals . idealy i do not want to be violent ever because it may not solve anything really but, realistically I would fight for what I felt was being threatned. Human nature is fight or flight and being me I would fight. I am not disagreeing that violence isnt wrong I am saying whether it is wrong I would still do it because I believe in defending my own.
Dominus
ReplyDeleteEven though I believed Father Gabriel was courageous in committing to his beliefs , I can also see what you meant by it not seeming so courageous to just sit there and let them attack the people he loved and himself. I see how their can be two sides that people would see and I am glad that you put that point out their.
But think about it though wouldnt you feel courageous to committ yourself to what you believe even when it is the hardest thing to do. I think that alone was corageous. I think even if they would win he still would not have fighted physically. Violence was not in him. But I am sure that it was hard to see his spiritual family get hurt
Alexis Yick:
ReplyDeleteI feel that you made very good points about violence. A lot of people have this pride that they won’t let down because they feel that violence always resolves their situation. But actually it just leads to a never-ending act, because the victim’s side will always want retaliation. If everyone took the time to think about violence and how it’s affecting the world around us, I think that the world would be a different place, because there wouldn’t be innocent people dying left and right.
J. Omaque:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I agree with you because there are a lot of other ways that you can resolve conflicts other than with violence. A lot of people don’t think about the alternatives, because when they are in that moment, all they think about it getting back at the other person, which most of the time leads to physical fights. People just think about hurting the other side so that they will look like they are the tough ones, but violence doesn’t solve anything but make the situation bigger than it already is.
Prompt 2:
ReplyDeleteI feel that violence is not always the appropriate action to push towards. Because once violence occurs that is when more violence occurs. Because the first victim is going to want revenge for what was done to him. And say for example someone he know was killed during the moment of violence, well then I'm pretty sure that he would want to kill that person who killed who he knew. And with that its like a chain reaction everyone would want to kill that person who killed somebody then knew. And i feel like that "chain reaction" can go for almost any type of situation really, because people will want revenge.
As far as the violence over the division of the missions. I think that was over the limit, because for one the people weren't hurting anybody outside of their community. In the movie they said they had a one child limit per family because that was all they were able to handle, but if that's the way their community works that's just the way it is. It's not like they would just kill a small child here and there or just because they wanted to, they had to in order to survive, but the Portuguese could have easily just talked there problems out and came up with a compromise rather than invading and killing everyone above the falls, because now if anyone were to have escaped or survived somehow they will want revenge on the Portuguese. And that revenge could live on forever if the population grew again
-Devin P. (went by rubric date thought it was suppose to be done by today)
Whoops! Meant to say Portuguese instead of Americans. Got mixed up with my other class movie.
ReplyDeleteIn response to J. Omaque
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you! After watching the movie, I believe that both sides could of handled it way better than resulting to violence. After reading your response to this question, you did bring up very good reasons as to why they have fought. I looked at the whole situation and realize that maybe both parties must have been fierce and outraged so they probably weren’t thinking clearly when they both agreed on war against one another. Unfortunately it did kill many innocent people like you’ve stated. Seeing men, women and children being shot and killed on the Indian side was very disturbing. The turn out of the situation didn’t resolve anything and all that was left were mostly dead, innocent people.
In response to Liz
ReplyDeleteYes, in all cases, people do defend themselves to feel that they are more superior than the other group. Great point. I’m just very disturbed because of the way they handled it. Having one short meeting with both sides then resulting into violence? I believe that is pure immaturity. They could of compromise to make both sides happy, but, both parties were selfish. So towards the end of the movie, all you do see are innocent victims killed for no apparent reason.
Terrific discussion, everyone. I like how refined you're beginning to get in your discussion of courage and of the use of violence.
ReplyDeleteReal quick because the movie does condense a lot and it gets a little confusing about what's happening: The Portuguese never negotiated with or talked to the Guarani - the discussion you saw was from an emissary of the Catholic Church and the Guarani. Cardinal Altamirano was sent to close the missions in what used to be Spanish territory, but became Portuguese territory after the treaty of Madrid (by the law of force - they were occupying the land).
Given the overwhelming force the Portuguese could bring to bear, and the fact that the state treated the Guarani as inhuman, what would cause them to negotiate, for those of you who believe the Guarani should have negotiated with the Portuguese?
@ Liz
ReplyDeleteI like how you said that violence isn't the way to solve a situation, but at times someone has no choice but to defend themselves. And if that means violence I feel like that would be an appropriate time to resort to violence, wouldn't you agree? For example if you were walking down the street and somebody just randomly starting hitting you or attacking you say for the simple fact they didn't like the clothes you had on. Besides not doing anything what other choice do you really have but to fight back you know? So I like what you said about sometimes you kind of "have to."
-Devin P.
Response to Kalen…..just got back onto the blog and want to respond to your post of March 7th. I don’t think that violence “magically” solved all the problems of World War 2. But, it did solve the major problem of the world being at war and without an end to the war the 60-80 million dead would have been much higher. And yes, it would be lovely to live in a world where we could all respect each other’s land, cultures, values, thoughts, sexual orientation, parenting styles, politics, opinion, etc. I live my life with respect for others and have never once hit another human (even my sisters) but my small acts of “change” don’t seem to be playing out in the big picture. I’ve been leading a nonviolent life for decades but it doesn’t seem to be helping the suffering souls of Darfur, Iraq, or North Korea.
ReplyDeleteI’d also like to comment on your statement “it’s a dangerous world and a lot of it began with World War 2.” It was a pretty dangerous world prior to World War 2 especially for all those Jews, gypsies and homosexuals killed “en mass” by the German Government. In my mother’s German Jewish family 105 members were killed by Hitler, mostly in concentration camps. My Mom had also lived a nonviolent life but Hitler didn’t seem to take that into consideration when he started murdering people.
@ Liz
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point about the Guarani have the right to use violence to defend their way of life. The Guarani would have become slaves if they submitted to Portugal's rule. Also the Guarani had no attention of running away from the Portuguese and start over in the deep treacherous jungle. The Guarani would father fight than being force off their land where their ancestors lived for generations and become slaves. The Guarani (as most people) rather die as free individuals than whither away as slaves. Like Emiliano Zapata would say "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
@ Thom
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo showed their courage in their own way. Father Rodrigo, who is a former Portuguese mercenary and slaver, showed his courage by fighting side by side with the Guarani warriors to the death against the Spanish-Portuguese army. This action also has a deeper meaning to Father Rodrigo for he is battling as a Jesuit monk against the Spanish-Portuguese army, a reflection of Father Rodrigo former self as Mendoza the slaver.Father Gabriel showed his courage by giving faith to the Guarani people by praying to God in a hail of gun fire. However, I can't help but wonder if Father Gabriel chose to stay with the Guarani people because he believe it is right and "God is Love" or he could not bare to live in a world where "might is right".
@ Sophia and Alexis
ReplyDeleteI agree that violence because of pride is foolish and wrong, but I wonder whether or not the Guarani were actually fighting for pride. Before they found the mission, they were living in Spanish territory, and despite being in Spanish territory, they were constantly oppressed, hunted, and kidnapped as slaves. The Portuguese persecution of Guarani people was so bad each family could only bear 2 children so they could run away from the slave traders, any more they had to kill the children. At the mission they found peace and solace because the church had diplomatic immunity to being attacked.
The Guarani people thought the devil lived in the jungle because of their lives before they found peace at the mission, and they knew that if they returned to the jungle by running, they would be under persecution again. The Portuguese were not sympathetic to the plight of the Guarani because they were considered "sub-human", or "animals with human bodies".
So my question is this: If the Guarani believed that they would be persecuted if they left the mission, were they fighting for pride, or were they fighting for peace?
Yes, perhaps the smartest option would be to run, but is that the best option? Or the most ethical option? If they ran they would be constantly chased, persecuted, enslaved, and killed, and their lives would have continued as before. We know this because they were in Spanish territory at the beginning, and were hunted regardless. They as a people knew this from experience. So, when they decided to fight, were they fighting for a sense of self and superiority (pride) or for peace and solace and their right to live?
Would you not agree that a persons psychological state of mind is just as important as your physical state of being? If the Guarani ran, they may have suffered less physical harm, but their psychological harm would have been increased exponentially. They would have no peace, they would have to kill their own children again, and they would return to their hell (I believe they considered that life as hell because they believed the devil lived in the jungle). If you agree that psychological state is just as important as physical state, then you should also agree that self defense should include defense of your own psychological state. Now I believe all defensive violence should only be used with reasonable force, but when someone attacks with intent to kill, or intent to enslave, reasonable force includes killing the assailant, that's why in the court of law, if someone tries to kill you and you kill them defending yourself, you are not prosecuted. If they ran, their psychological state would likely have been undermined, and the Portuguese had intent to kill and enslave. Their sense of peace, and sense of wholeness, and possibly even sense of self was under attack, along with their sense of freedom, sense of love, and their very lives.
Another question is: is it wrong to fight against whats wrong? I think you should always fight whats wrong, for only if you stand against it can you eventually stop it and change that type of behavior. Nazi Germany was wrong in their persecution of the numerous peoples they persecuted, and had nobody stood to fight them, the world would be an infinitely worse place. Was it appropriate to fight them? If so why? I think the "why" as to why its ok to fight Germany's persecution in WW2 is the same "why" as the Guarani fighting to defend themselves, as the Guarani faced a similar kind of persecution, just on a much smaller scale.
@ Thom
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said, “He had the courage to lead the people with no fear in his eyes.” Father Gabriel shows a lot of courage because he did not present himself as fearful, especially when he was leading the mothers and children. He did not run away, hide or try to avoid the gun shots or fire. His bravery lead his believers to continue to believe despite the fact that a battle was going on.
-J. Omaque
To my classmates who believe that violence is appropriate as a last resort, here is my question for you:
ReplyDeleteIf we resort to violence as the only way to solve problems that can't be solved diplomatically, are we thereby creating a world where the most violent nations & the best equipped nations are the powers who make the difficult decisions for everyone else? If so, do you have any qualms with this situation, or are you okay with it as long as that authoritative power is our nation/some force that represents our interests?
@ Liz
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that violence just makes a disagreement worse because in the end many innocent people are killed. The men who fought to keep their land, ended up dying and the women and children, who protested peacefully, ended up being killed as well. It goes the same way for the Portuguese; many of the men who fought lost their lives just because they wanted the Indians’ land. Their situation definitely could have been resolved much easier if violence never occurred. However since violence did take place, the only choice left for the Indians were to fight back and protect their land and people.
-J. Omaque
To Alice Lu,
ReplyDeleteI disagree when you mentioned that Father Mendoza did not show courage because he was scared to die. On the contrary, I think Father Mendoza showed a lot of courage when deciding to help and protect the Guarani’s tribe from the Spanish and Portuguese’s. Father Mendoza died fighting for those that he cared for and to me that’s being courage. Father Mendoza did not lose faith, he just wanted a better life for the Guarani’s. Of course at the end they all died, but they defended themselves with courage.
@ Joan H.
ReplyDeleteI’m another person on the long list that agrees with you on this one. You have to know when violence is a good solution to your troubles. What the Guarani did in my opinion was the best thing they could have done. If they moved like they were told to do what guarantee did they have that they were not going to be bothered again after having built another community and home because the Iberians could have showed up again and again try to take their land. Yes, they got killed but it was better to die fighting for what belonged to them than to surrender and still end up dying, either because they were killed in battle or brutally over worked by the Iberians later on as slaves. If I was in their situation I would have also fought and killed to defend what belonged to me and the rest of my people, and of course to defend my family.
@ Anthony's post from 3/7 that was addressed to me:
ReplyDelete"Do you support law enforcement use of violence in the drug war? . . . My point is that sometimes violence is the ONLY response."
I think it's interesting that you used this example to back-up your argument that violence is the only response to certain problems. You made an assumption that I support the drug war, which I am in fact very strongly against.
This brings me back to my point that it's difficult to justify the use of violence by saying there is an immediate need to suppress another's actions. In many cases, the urgency of a perceived threat is open to interpretation. Who is to say which acts of violence are justifiable, and which ones are petty?
It's easy to point to examples on the extreme side of the spectrum (suppressing the Nazis, for instance), but I think it's more important to address all of the hazy stuff in the middle. I think to live in an ethical society we must make sure our ethics apply to all situations, not just examples of extreme "evil"
I agree Sophia, that If you resort to violence to solve all problems that cannot be solved diplomatically, then yes, I do believe you create that kind of world. I dont believe that you should use violence to solve all problems that cant be solved diplomatically, I only believe violence should be used to sort out violently oppressive problems where another is violent toward you, and diplomatic reasoning is ignored. In many situations if you can just agree to disagree, violence can be avoided, however for problems like the ones created by Adolf Hitler in WW2, and the Portuguese created for the Guarani in "The Mission", violence is a grim necessity, for without it, the times like the holocaust and other attempted genocides would be far more bloody.
ReplyDeleteIn 90% of all cases I agree that non-violence is the appropriate response, however in the particular case of the Guarani, I believe violence was appropriate.
I also acknowledge that those who win the wars are likely to impose their will on those they conquer, something I personally see as wrong, and something I believe corrupts all "just" wars, as once the just are the victor, they usually become the tyrant. This is something that should be changed, and is what I believe a fundamental problem of all violent encounters. But despite this, I still believe that if you are violently oppressed, and all forms of diplomacy and non-violent communication fail, violence is an appropriate response, for if you do not resist violent oppressors, the consequences are worse that if you do resist them.
P.S Sorry if Im ending up being one of those pricks that sound offensive, I sincerely don't mean to demean anyones ideas or beliefs, merely to challenge them, and thank you all for challenging my ideas, Ive found myself needing to spend hours thinking of reasons and going back and forth between violence and non violence, lol.
One more question:
ReplyDeleteThere are many students in our class who are defending the use of violence by bringing up Nazi Germany. Since you feel so strongly that the Nazis were a power that needed to be suppressed, would you enlist in the military today if the US was involved in stopping genocide in Darfur?
This brings to mind another problem with violence. I've already asked Anthony about who is allowed to say when violence is necessary. But when it is deemed necessary, who are the people who fight these wars? Forgive me because this is admittedly a broad generalization, but I think that many people who support violence are all too happy to let others do the fighting for them. Is that a courageous or ethical way to resolve any conflict?
@ Liz
ReplyDeleteI mentioned this in my other comment which was that you have to know when violence is a good solution to your troubles. And yes, violence can sometimes worsen a situation but since we are focusing on the Guarani’s trouble I think violence was an appropriate reaction for this problem. I think it’s only human to retaliate to a threat to ones well being, especially back in those days when the natives lived off of their land. And I strongly agree to what you said that the Guarani had the right to live in the mission that they created because it is ridiculous how the Iberians came to America and felt the need and did end up conquering and converting the natives to their way of living.
And good point:
ReplyDelete"It's easy to point to examples on the extreme side of the spectrum (suppressing the Nazis, for instance), but I think it's more important to address all of the hazy stuff in the middle."
I agree that there are far too many situations in todays world and in the gray spectrum where violence is used far to readily, and non-violence should be used. What I guess Im trying to say is that I support violence when its used to oppose the extremes when non-violence fails, like Nazi Germany, but seldom in other cases. But again, this is just my opinion
This is such a great discussion. Excellent pushing of arguments and definitions, guys. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteTo: Alice Lu
ReplyDeleteI not agree with you, I think that father Gabriel showed courage, even though he was scared to died. He was fighting with courage to keep that place that he and all the Guarani loved. He had the options of leave the mission like a coward, but he stayed and fights to the end. Besides it was very obvious that they wouldn’t win the war, since they didn’t have enough guns, or explosives and people like the Portuguese did. Father Gabriel showed courage because he defended what he though was right.
@ melidamacc
ReplyDeleteI am agree with you, Both the father Gabriel and the father Rodrigo were courageous. It is understandable they showed they courage in different way because both fathers have singular believes. Father Gabriel was a man who main focus was god and whose believes was to accept everything because that is god decision, therefore, father Gabriel decided to have faith in god and prayed, knowing what was going to happen at the end. The way that father Rodrigo showed his courage was fighting for the freedom of the Guarani.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Susan La
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with you when you said that violence is the right response in the situation that if your sister got killed, you grab a bunch of people and kill them back. That's more just revenge and yes it's still violent, but there are other ways to go about this situation as well. Instead of killing them, you could have gone to the police and have them put in jail and you would have protection from the police against anyone else that was a part of that "gang". If you had killed them, then other people who cared about the ones you killed would come after you and it would just go on forever. At least if you go to the police, it stops (for the most part anyway).
I just want to say that I agree with everyone else's posts about violence being the appropriate action for the Guarani because they didn't have a higher authority they could have gone to (unlike the situation with the sister being killed). So their problem couldn't have been solved without violence.
@ Jennifer N
ReplyDelete"I feel that people provoke others into violence because they want to boost their egos up..."
I totally agree with you on that! That's probably how the Portuguese were thinking; if they want something they can just take it because they can just kill anyone who gets in their way. No one can stand in their way. It's also how a lot of fights happen at high schools. One guy will walk by a group of people and hear "he's retarded (or something)" but it was directed at him since he just walked by, but he will take it offensive and try to fight one of the people from that group so they can be like "look how tough I am because I beat up someone who called me a retard". It's all just to boost their egos up as Jennifer said.
@Kelan
ReplyDeleteWorld War II may have spawned a lot of negativity the way it was handled but it doesn't change the point that the US's answer was the correct one. while the use of the bombs themselves may have been excessive, the fact is that in order to end the conflict, violence was the answer. You can't sit there and turn the other cheek the whole time, that's how you get conquered. There was no peaceful solution to that war. Some people just get so deep set in their beliefs that the only path is the one they're already on. And if that path happens to go against other civilizations on this planet then violence is the answer. Repercussions of violence and violence being a solution are two separate issues entirely.
Its in human nature to be violent. Ethics come in to play when we try and justify or condemn this violence. Almost all animals can be violent whether it be offensive and defensive. And don't think that wars are restricted to the realm of mankind because there are animals who fight wars themselves (monkeys, lions, ants...). Violence is as much a part of nature as life itself. Its just that human beings have gotten increasingly more creative in how we kill each other.
When is violence the answer? When people are locked into certain beliefs unwilling to listen or change their view. Whether it be the drug addicted man holding a person hostage who needs to be sniped down, or the country launching a preemptive strike. It is just the way of the world we live in, it will not change unless we face some kind of global catastrophe like a nuclear holocaust or alien invasion and that's just the sad truth. Its the one thing that we as a species can not change because we are not willing.
-Jared Cobbs-
@Benicia
ReplyDeleteyea I wasn't calling Father Gabriel a coward or anything. Just saying that I didn't really see it as my own view of courageous, more like giving up hope.
But then I thought about it and I think you're right. Or maybe we're both right. Even though Father Gabriel basically gave up hope on things going his way, the resignation he felt likely fueled his courage in the end and enabled him to commit to the choice he made.
I think it is very problematic how Roland Joffe handled paying the Waunana tribe. It's problematic because he adopts the belief of making decisions for others when the people in question are thought to be inferior. Which can have many implications.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Roland Joffe had the best interest of the Waunana tribe when he funded the trust. The idea itself seems like it would have the Waunana tribe gaining more from a trust fund rather than being payed individually. Although, by assuming responsibility to decide for the Waunana tribe he is implicitly saying that it's ok to make decisions for other people as long as it's in their best interest. To foster this kind of attitude would allow people, organizations, and governments to make decisions for other people based on what they think is the best interest of that group of people. Let's say for example that a homeless person takes a job, and instead of being paid in cash his boss (thinking that he might spend it on booze) decides that it would be better if he paid him in food instead. However, by doing so he robs the homeless persons of the opportunity to advance,and also, of the freedom to decide for himself.
Because Roland Joffe choose to set up a trust fund instead of paying the Waunana in cash, he indirectly advocated the right to take a persons freedom away. Instead of letting the Waunana tribe decide for themselves he chose to decide for them, robbing them of the freedom of choice. And if one freedom could be taken away it would make it possible for others to be taken away as well.
Another problem that his action implies, is of superiority. By assuming he knows what's better for the Waunana tribe than they do for themselves, he places their capacity to reason- for what's best for them- below his own. By allowing this kind of thinking it would create two different classes in which one could decide for the other, and in which one might receive better treatment than the other.
Javier A.
@ Joan H.
ReplyDeleteI definately agree that violence can be appropriate in certain situations as the one you mentioned however pertaining to the closing of the missions, was very unnecessary and therefore violence is not an act that should have been taken given that scenario. Violence, in the Portuguese's view was an act of power over the Guarani and to gain that power preceded to violence. The Guarani was attacked and even unarmed women and children were slaughtered for no apparant reason. Innocent people being killed when they don't pose a threat is by far the worse thing possible. So in this case violence is in no circumstance necessary to be used in any way to gain ones desires.
-Tommy Saefong
I agree with Kassandra when she said that both Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo showed courage. Courageous is not just about fighting violently to win something or to save someone, sometimes it is about fighting what you believe in. It is actually harder to fight for rather than just fighting with blood. Swinging your fist or pulling armor is way easier than holding the urge to show violence.
ReplyDeleteI believe than once u started a fight, it is hard to end it. Revenge is natural to humans. That feeling of taking revenge when someone fought with you is very hard to control. Or when times you see someone you care about being beaten up, instead of making the trouble bigger, you have to control the urge of fighting back. For me, I think that’s what Father Gabriel showed us and that is being courageous as well.
Aiza O.
Response to Ja Nel Johnson:
ReplyDeleteThe question, “Are you telling me that if you become a victim of a slap, you’re not going to harm that individual because the only appropriate time to harm someone is in matters of life and death?”
The answer is yes (not harming that person violently). Like what our classmates have been discussing about, if we could settle things in a diplomatic way, why not? Why would I put myself in more trouble? From the fact I am already in one for some reason why that person slapped me.
For saying not harming the person violently, I mean I could harm him/her in a different way. I could use my rights, like for example reporting that person to whom it may concern and that is not being a snitch because I am trying to settle things in a diplomatic way.
Aiza O.
@Alice Lu
ReplyDeleteI like how you said that father Gabriel accepted what god had planned, because it definitely showed when he marched up to the Portuguese in the end. But I don't think father Rodrigo was afraid to die. When he was in jail they said that he had refused to eat, which could be a sign of wanting to die for the remorse he felt for killing his brother. And if he were afraid to die he could have ran away instead of fight. I also don't think he lost faith, since he fought against the Portuguese. By fighting it shows that he still has faith that something could be done to save the Guarani. I also think that he was obedient, or at least tried to be. When asked to apologize to Cabeza he does, reluctantly. But there is some truth when you mentioned that he wasn't fully obedient, for the reason you stated, "was always a mercenary at heart". I think because of this it was easier for him to fight rather than be obedient to father Gabriel.
Javier A.
@ Jennifer N
ReplyDeleteIn your response you said that no one actually won. I'd have to disagree because the settlers resorted to violence due to the fact that the Indians were fighting for justice. In the end they ended up dead or enslaved which was what the Portugese wanted. They portrayed the Indians as animals which they felt should continue on. The lesson to be enforced by the Portugese was that they were superior and to get that across violence was needed.
-Tommy Saefong
@Ja Nel Johnson
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that father Gabriel would have been forgiven if he had repented after fighting with the Guarani. And that he would have shown courage had he fought. But I think that he showed courage by not fighting. After all, he could have just headed for the jungle. I think it took a lot of courage for him to stand his ground and march against the Portuguese army, unarmed. He fought non violently in what he believed was the right way of accomplishing things. You also mentioned if it "was all worth it?" I think the same could be said of the people who decided to fight, because they didn't seem to accomplish anything either. But they both showed courage by standing their ground in the manner they each chose.
Javier A.
Father Gabriel did show courage in my opinion. To be able to stand up for the Guarani people showed that Father Gabriel had compassion for these people; he was also able to confront Mendoza and challenge him to embark on a suitable penance for killing his brother. He also showed courage when he attempted to show Altamirano why the mission of San Carlos should be allowed to stay at least for the Guarani people to avoid slavery. When Father Gabriel refused to fight against the military attack, he seemed to become a martyr in a sense. He (Father Gabriel) believed that fighting went against God’s love.
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo at first, showed no sense of courage. Killing his brother Felipe in a fit of anger over the fact that his brother was in love with Carlotta and he found them laying together, showed no sense of courage only a lack there of. After Father Rodrigo was acquitted for his brother’s death, Father Rodrigo fell into a deep depression; Father Gabriel met with him and confronted him. Father Rodrigo showed a lot of courage when he took on the suitable penance and showed determination for carrying the net of Spanish armor until he was met by the Guarani people. He showed courage, compassion and a passion to help the Guarani people. He did not hold his tongue when he expressed his feelings to Altamirano and Don Cabeza. It was obvious his apology to Cabeza was not very heartfelt. When Father Rodrigo attempted to fight for the mission and the Guarani people, his passion for them and the mission was obviously felt.
Bothe Father Gabriel and Father Rodrigo showed courage in the form of compassion for the Guarani people, and the mission San Carlos. Courage can be shown in many forms and it doesn’t have to be in a violent form. For me, I find that the bravest people are those who fight for what is morally right, and those who do not give up.
When in a conflict we resort to violence, we're still not persuading people that we're right. We're silencing our opposition by putting them to death. You may win that battle or war, but to me you've lost.
ReplyDeleteWWII is seen from many different perspectives. The U.S. didn't declare war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, they began participation as an act of retaliation. The U.S. until that time had repeatedly refused refugees from its borders. Don't disillusion yourself with our motives being somehow noble. The motivation was revenge!
Statistics, averages, something being a part of our nature... all of these are excuses for our poor choices. Statistics and the like only represent what someone else has done, has said, has thought, has behaved, etc. They do not, or rather they should not, dictate the choices you're going to make.
Does an adultery cheat because he is incapable of choosing otherwise, or because it is in the nature of men. This, like many things (such as violence) is not human nature (at its core), because many people choose to live their lives otherwise.
J. Omaque
ReplyDeleteYou’re right!!! the Guarani had no other choice but to fight the Portugueses. Violence was an appropiate response for the Guarani’s to defend what they thought was their home. However, I disagree with battleting being the only option for the Portugueses. The Spanish and Portugueses seem more educated than the Guaranis, so they should had use a different method to get their land. To me they should have negotiated with the tribe, instead of killing all those inocent people. (The Guarani’s and Jesuits). But of course, it was all about getting free slaves.
Nubia
-Do you think violence is ever appropriate response?
ReplyDeleteYes I believe it is on certain situation; violence can be used in situations regarding yourself and your beliefs or to defend the people you love. On behalf of the movie, violence was used to defend the Guarani Indian’s territory. The Portuguese Settlers thought they can take their land by encountering a successful war that killed the Indians and their priests. Yet the Indians fought back to save themselves and the land they have lived in for years. I believe it was the right thing to use violence in this situation because they were fighting for the village and the people they loved.
Honestly, I didn’t expect the movie to end this way; I thought the Guarani Indian’s were going to win this battle and keep their territory. Then again the Portuguese settlers have a higher demand of taking over any land they desire. As of father Gabriel, he stood by his beliefs by not resolving the situation with violence. The Indian’s as well wanted a peaceful decision with no violence, but when the settlers came with war, the Indian’s obviously fought back. They didn’t want to be used as slaves or referred as animals either. Therefore, I think it was best to had fought the war and had died with pride.
jessica b.
Sophia,
ReplyDeleteMy assumption was based on deduction. You told me that violent is NEVER a valid response, in considering that idea, ANY forms of violent You would disagree on. Right? So the use of violence in the Drug War would not be favorable to you, Right? Please, please correct me if I am wrong, or restate your stance on violence because I am utterly confused with your position if my assumption is not True.
Who is to say which acts of violence is justifiable, well we left it up to Congress during WWII and the majority of America was in full support. To summarize we leave it up to politics, constituents and the People of the united states, the Democratic process if you will justifies violence. Violence is necessary when it is the only option.
For example diplomacy worked with Hitler when the allies gave up Poland without a fight just
Handed it over to to Germany in promise that he would not expand, what happen next Hitler got hungry and took over more land.
“It is more important to address the hazy stuff in the middle.” I totally agree with you 100% Sophia, lets ignore the extreme sides of evil.
And focus our attention on moderate evil, well said!
I used extreme examples to counter your EXTREME view, that VIOLENCE is NEVER an answer. Period!
Sophia
ReplyDelete"One more question:
There are many students in our class who are defending the use of violence by bringing up Nazi Germany..... Is that a courageous or ethical way to resolve any conflict?"
Who FIGHT these wars is Soldiers who voluntarily signed up to fight. There is no longer a draft. A person who support violence and send other people to wars, without fighting wars during their time RE called “War Hawks.”
I do not know why we are not in Darfur, but they are NOT a threat to our national security. Sure if we have the resources, I support going in and ending the genocide…………………………..like we did in Somalia. We pick and choose our wars Sophia, it a military strategy.
RE EDITED:
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo was courageous, he was just following what he was taught in the Bible.
I believe Father Rodrigo wasn't practicing what was said in Corinthians 13:13 and what he quoted instead, Ephesians 6:17, "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" This means not to take up physical arms, instead arm yourself with words and peace. That is why he did not take up arms. Rodrigo is courage. What does it take to be courageous? I believe to look in the face of fear and laugh in its face. Rodrigo walk through a hail of bullets. Still he walk through the valley of the shadow of Death, he did not fight. Psalm 23:4, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." What this mean is that you need to face evil head on and not twitch in evils sight. Walk though with faith, with the knowledge that your passive action is most courageous. To march to certain death carrying out your ceremony that is courageous.
Father Rodrigo was just following the Laws of God. He is 100% loyal even in the midst of great dis-pare his church did not even support his efforts. I highly respect him for that.
Father Mendoza on the other hand is also courageous yet he slipped back into his past sins, to save his people. Catch 22.
Father Gabriel demonstrated courage by his commitment to his faith. I think that by keeping to the terms of his faith and not submitting to the violence made him the most courageous of all.
ReplyDeleteFather Rodrigo showed his courage by being willing to fight. Father Rodrigo put aside his own pain, guilt, and shame to teach the Guarani people how to defend themselves.
These were the very people who forgave him for his violence against them; they loved and nourished him back to life.
Unfortunetly, violence has been the motivating force that has brought about great change in our world. It's just unfortunate that so many human lives had to be sacrificed. I defintely believe that violence was appropriate in the particular situation. If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. These people would rather have died than have lived as slaves. Their fight made it better for generations to come.
yes, i think that both Father Gabriel and Rodrigo Mendoza should courage. fatjer Gabriel showed courage from the very beginning of the movie when he travelt ot he Mission after the death of his friend. He planned to finish his friend's work and that was impossible with out courage. He probably attained this courageous character from his spirituality. Mendoza should his courage by capturing the natives in the beginning of the movie and also through freeing the natives spiritually later on. His first episode of courage was founded through himself while the later courage was most likely from spirituality.
ReplyDeletein response to THOM again.
ReplyDeletei agree with his approach on how he said Rodrigo Mendosa had courage to stand up for what is right after he had once captured the people that he was trying to set free now. nice point.
Jennifer said….
ReplyDelete"I definitely agree that violence doesn’t solve anything. But, unfortunately that sad truth is that we have always lived in a world that believes otherwise, that violence will and has solved most of our "major disputes"."
As violence relates to this particular situation, the Guarani tribe did in fact try to communicate their position of a peaceful resolve. But, the Portuguese did not really want to hear them out. It appeared to some extent that they had already decided that they were going to take over these people and their land with hostility.
So, in order to survive the Guarani had no choice but to fight and/or die for what they believed in. And yes, I believe that they only fought back because they had no other options. I think that violence was most definitely appropriate is this situation.
LM,
ReplyDeleteIt’s true; violence has to bet set in a certain extent. If it’s regarding what u believe in and care for, ypou have no choice but to bring violence in the picture. If the Guarani Indians would have never fought, they would have all died not defending what they believe in. Violence was mist definitely appropriate in this situation; they really had no choice, all they wanted was there land to be left alone. BUT the Portuguese obviously consisted for them to leave. So it was right for them to fight back in this war. Father Gabriel being such an angel really should have just fought for the people he met and changed for good. I don’t want to say he was a coward because he went by what he believed but in the end he really shouldn’t have been mad at the Indians for fighting back.
-jessica b
I honestly feel that both Father Gabriel, and Father Rodrigo showed courage in the movie, but they each took their own approach according to their beliefs and values.
ReplyDeleteFather Gabriel, took a more peaceful approach to the situation. He relied on his faith to help the people. Father Gabriel was extremely courageous because it takes a lot for one not to want to fight back. He really focused on his faith and I thought it was amazing. We see throughout the movie that Father Gabriel did not fight with violence, he prayed and prayed, until the very last minute. We even saw at the end of the movie that he still just stood by his faith and refused to resort to the use of violence. Father Gabriel was definitely courageous.
Father Rodrigo took a much more different approach to the situation. He decided to gather up the people to fight for their freedom. He shows courage through his bravery to want to fight back, and not sit and hope for the best. He knew it was going to be an extremely hard battle, yet he still took the risk of fighting. He also did not give up, and remained a fighter throughout the entire movie.
There are certainly different ways of showing courage, and we saw that through Father Gabriel's approach, and Father Rodrigo's approach. Both men showed courage, they just dealt with the situation differently. One relied on faith and prayers, while the other went out and directly fought to give the people freedom.
--Maria C. Diaz
In response to Joan H.
ReplyDeleteI always like to say that violence is NEVER the answer, but i think i might have to reconsider because you bring up a lot of strong points. I do think that if violence was inflicted in either my family or myself then I would definitley fight back. Self-defense is a tolerated way of violence. And in the Guarani's situtation, I do think that they absolutely had to fight back. They were deserving of their freedom and you are right they could not just sit back and surrender what they had created with such hard work, they had to fight.
--maria c. diaz
In response to Liz,
ReplyDeleteMy thinkin on the topic of violence is very much like yours. I certainly like to stay away from violent confrontations, but just like yourself I do feel that in certain occasions it is necessary to respond in a violent manner. For example, the Guarani did create their colony with such hard work, therefore they could not just sit there and allow the Portuguese to snatch their freedom and their place of living away.
Violence is not always the answer, but in some occasions it is a valid response.
--Maria C. Diaz
Alexander Tom said…
ReplyDeleteI agree that Father Gabriel showed his courage by standing up for what he believed in. He stood strong in his commitment to his faith in God, and by praying showed that even more.
You mentioned that Father Rodrigo stood firm in his conviction to his faith, I agree, I thought it was quiet clear of how they both demonstrated courage on opposite levels.
It was nice to bear witness to the fact that while taking two totally different paths and both leading to the same place, peace within self dying for what you believe in.