The Photography of War

Last Friday, we watched James Nachtwey, the photographer, talk about his experiences in war zones, taking pictures and showing them to the world. He said that his inspiration for becoming a photographer was watching the effect the photographs of the Vietnam War had on the United States community.

Most of the photographs shown—and indeed most photographs from war zones—are bloody, gory, and violent. Not only are they somewhat gross, they’re also emotionally trying. The average American doesn’t have to deal with famine or gunshot wounds on a daily basis, and seeing these things in such life-like clarity is scary.

On the one hand, these photographs can have positive effects on the public. They can mobilize a nation, creating protests against an irrational war. Sometimes it becomes difficult to get through to people if they are too removed from the situation. For example, it took years for news of the genocide in Darfur to reach American people en masse. Photographs open a person’s eyes to the reality of war, and this is rarely a bad thing.

But there is another side. For one, these images are painful to see. They can even be emotionally scarring, if seen at the wrong time or in the wrong context. And, eventually, people become desensitized to the violence involved. If this happens enough for a long period of time, people become even more apathetic about things like genocide and famine.

So is censorship in terms of war a good thing or a bad thing? Should images like the ones that James Nachtwey shows be broadcast to a nation? Since we are Greenhill students, I expect that most people will say that yes, they should. I’m interested to hear why, though.

The Essential Warrior

We ended class on Friday with a question that is basic for any war situation: What are the right and wrong ways for a warrior to act? I found myself thinking of this question in slightly different, more difficult terms. Basically, what is the ideal quality in a warrior? If a soldier could only have one quality, what would that be?

In the Iliad, war is clearly a task for those with strength. Achilles is considered the strongest warrior on the battlefield of the Trojan War (except, of course, for his heel), and therefore he is the best. Odysseus, while respected, is not entirely revered for his cunning. In the Odyssey, in fact, Homer casts some doubt on his worth as a hero purely because he is so full of tricks.

Many other qualities could be considered as The Quality to have. Honor, reliability, and obedience are considered good characteristics on most battlefields, but they are not always the most important. Strength was the single most important quality throughout the majority of history, but as different technology became available that started to change. Bows, swords and maces gave way to guns and cannons, and brute strength was traded for eyesight and precision. Strength was still important, but somewhat less so. As technology progressed further, strength was even less important. Hitler did not even stand six feet tall, but he commanded troops throughout Europe, and was successful for a time. (I don’t support Hitler *at all*, I merely find him a useful example.)

It is difficult to determine the ideal quality in the Vietnam War. However, I think that mental toughness is certainly up there on the list. Perhaps this is only due to psychological research done only through the past century, but it certainly seems that post-traumatic shock is a bigger problem than it once was.

In today’s wars, we rely on technology more heavily than ever before. For the older men and women in the armed forces, it has become imperative to adapt to new ways of doing things. Younger people have less difficulty adapting, but they must still have the intelligence and capability of using technology to their advantage. At the same time, none of the older qualities have really passed out of their time of need: honor, reliability, obedience, strength, and mental toughness are all important to be successful in battle.

However, if one quality were to be lifted above the rest, I believe it would be maturity. After the multiple reports of various horrible actions in modern wars (for example, the case of torture in the Abu Ghraib prison), it is hard to believe that the soldiers behind these actions possessed any maturity at all. Maturity leads to many other strengths as a soldier. It takes maturity to admit that someone else has something to teach you, and even more maturity to learn from those people.

Women and Ancient Warfare

I promise not to do this often, but I think someone should every now and then. As the only female in the class, I feel responsible for presenting a different viewpoint than some of the male students might have.

First, I am not a psychotic feminist. I believe in gender equality, not the superiority of the female gender. After all, feminism started out as a movement to gain equal rights for females. That’s what it should continue to be.

But that’s not the point of this. My real question is how this class is relevant to women specifically. Clearly this role has changed since the Trojan War, but how? How has society changed so significantly that women have gone from being prizes to fighting soldiers, and what were the “in-between” stages?

The Iliad, though a novel filled with male characters, has its origins in females themselves. The simplest cause of the Trojan War was the quarrel between Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite about who was the “fairest” goddess—a contest which is justifiably seen as vain and associated with women. When Paris gives the apple to Aphrodite, she naturally rewards him with a prize: a woman, Helen of Sparta. The entire story is based around several stereotypical situations: the three women arguing about “silly” vanity, Zeus passing the judgment to Paris instead of getting involved in a “woman’s quarrel,” and the reward of a beautiful woman. Homer was by no means politically correct according to today’s standards, but it is important to remember the time frame in which he wrote.

Throughout the Iliad itself, women continue to be represented in similar ways. As early as Book 1, Agamemnon and Achilles fight over Briseis, a woman claimed as “bounty.” Agamemnon wants Briseis in exchange for Chryseis, another girl, since they must return Chryseis to her father. Briseis and Chryseis themselves really have no choice in the matter, though doubtless they would both prefer to simply go home. By Book 2, Agamemnon regrets their quarrel, lamenting that if only he and Achilles could work together, Troy would fall immediately. Women are represented as distractions and possessions in war, not workers and certainly not able fighters.

Another interesting scene regarding the role of women is in Book 4, when Aphrodite attempts to lure Helen back to Paris after seeing her husband Agamemnon. Helen tries to resist, saying it would be wrong. One threat from Aphrodite, however, is enough to silence her. This, combined with Hera’s and Athena’s roles as warriors, clearly shows that goddesses play a different role in Greek myths than human women. (However, this is not enough to overcome the gods; in Book 1, when Hera provokes Zeus enough to cause a reaction, she becomes “terrified” afterwards.)

Clearly the Greeks did not believe that women were equals in war. Instead, decisions were made for them and they were seen as possessions, distractions, and hindrances meant to be left at home; they were not fighters or even contributors to a war effort. Today, women fight in the military, and might even be drafted someday.