Discussion on first-class-research-and-journal-notes-activity-chapter-1-blood-rites

[o]

As essay 2 asks students to judge the value of Ehrenreich’s argument
in Part I of Blood rites, it will be good if students understand the
argument. Let’s work together to outline the first few chapters. Since
there are already posted notes on the Foreword and Chapter 1, let’s
move on to Chapters 2 and 3 in the following fashion:
a) during class Monday, 1/12, students will work with a partner to
determine topic + opinion of a page of Chapter 2 (and also work with
the same partner on the first class research and journal activity);

b) for class Tuesday, 1/13, students will determine topic + opinion of
a page of Chapter 3:
Rogelio A p. 36 Abraham A p. 37 Jonathan A p. 38 Giovanni B p. 39
Dianna B p. 40 Eleanor C p. 41 Connie C p. 42 Brian D p. 43
Eliad D p. 44 Elliana E p. 45 Edward G p. 46 Karen G p. 47
Kelvin G p. 48 Jose Luis J p. 49 So Young K p. 50 David K p. 51
Jose N p. 52 Luis P p. 53 Liliana P p. 54 Zheng Z p. 55
Sinai Y pp. 56-57

c) we’ll condense the students’ page by page summaries into outlines
of the chapters then compare the students’ outlines to the
instructor’s.

Students may also find the following interview with the author a
useful brief overview of many of the main ideas of Blood rites:
Ehrenreich, B. 1997. Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P7yU444TT4

[Jose N.]

Eleanor C., Jose N.

Topic 12
a) What we like about this section is that Ehrenreich is pretty
straightforward with her opinion and it is true to war culture, where
the lines of morality are blurred and there is no right and wrong.

b) What we didn't like about this section is that Ehrenreich makes it
seem that once a person goes to war they are not normal again. She
states that you have to be part of a ritual that transforms you into a
killer. She makes that once a person kills they have to be transformed
once again into a normal person.

c) What we didn't understand is how the rituals of old tribes relate
to us today. There should be more information on the similarities with
post war treatments today as the ones that were used back then.

Ehrenreich, B., (1997) Blood rites: origins and history of the
passions of war, 12.

[Elli]

Elli E.
Karen G.

1) What we like about this passage is that she is comparing us to our
closest relatives, the chimps, which are known to wage wars and
protect their territory. They are very protective of their home.
2) What we do not like about this passage is that just because they
kill those of their own kind does not necessarily mean that they
engage in war. Also, they presumably lack the cognitive ability to
strategize and wage war similarly to us.
3) What we do not understand about this passage is how ants can be so
similar to us in planning and waging wars if they are so genetically
different from us. If war is something that is in our past, what is it
that is common to us both that makes them behave the way we do?

Ehrenreich, B., (1997) Blood rites: origins and history of the

passions of war, 20.

[Brian D]

Brian and Luis

Ehrenreich, Barbara (1997). Blood Rites. NY, NY: Henry Holt, LLC.

Topic 20
a) The ides we liked about the topic is that no matter what kind of
species there are war is part of instinct and natural part of life.

b)The author was not consistent in her ideas, changing often and not
committing to any one topic for too long.

c) the author asks, "which are we: beasts because we make war, or
angels because we so often seek to make it into something
holy?" (Ehrenreich, 1997) making it unclear as to what is the reason
behind sacrifice in war and how humans try to make it holy. It is
unclear from the author how and why we use sacrifice in war.

[Connie]

Journal Entry for Connie C. and Jose J.

a) What we liked about the professor's notes and Ehrenreich was that
the author mentions that scientists do not really study peace, for
example. We emphasize on the negative aspects and try to find a
solution to the problem through aggressive means instead of focusing
on diplomacy and peaceful efforts.

b) The thing that we do not like about Ehrenreich's opinion is that
war is associated with religious practices. Not all rituals require to
shed blood to show devotions to a belief.

c) What we do not understand is how Ehrenreich arrives to her
conclusions without any war experiences or background. Most of the
context of her writing is based on circumstantial archaeological
findings.

[Sinai Y.]

Navy Traditions. 25 April 2006. Retrieved 12 January 2009 from Naval
History and Heritage Command. Website: http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/trivia01.htm

Ehrenreich, B. 1997. Chapter 1, The ecstasy of war. Blood rites: the
origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Henry Holt.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/ehrenreich-rites.html

A)One point I liked about the information in the book was all the
different war rituals written of to give an example of support for
Ehrenreich in her point of the sacralization of war. Though some were
a bit gory, I find all the differences and similarities in the diverse
rituals absolutely fascinating

B)If there is one thing I don’t like is that the majority of the
examples Ehrenreich uses are ancient history. Talks of Tahitian Rauti,
or “exhorters”, ancient Greek hoplites, Aztecs, Chinese troops of Sun
Tzu’s era, the Amazons Yanomamo Indians, ancient Scythians, 17th
century Europeans, and Maori yet nothing about the proud traditions
and customs of modern military, like the US Navy. In the Naval History
and Heritage Command, www.history.navy.mil, one can find the
traditions and customs of our nation’s Naval command. From the naming
of the ships to the official Navy colors; the officers duties which
includes who shines the bell. The Navy starts in what can be
considered, for me anyway, ancient history. In fact the website tells
you the birthday of the US Navy: October 13th, 1775.

C)One point I did not understand was the ritualistic combat Ehrenreich
writes of. Maybe it was Sun Tzu’s troops and their “gyrating sword
dancers” who performed this ritualistic combat. I would like to know
more of the types of “sword dancing” they have done. I would also like
to go more in depth into the variety of militaristic rituals of
ancient times.

[Eliad Dorfman]

Einstein, A. & Freud, S. (1931-1932). Why war?
Correspondence About Peace and War.
Retrieved From http://www.zionism-
israel.com/Albert_Einstein/
Einstein_Freud_Why_War.htm


a) I liked the idea that two of the most influential minds of the 20th
century, Freud and Einstein, decided to put down their “weapons”,
psychology and physics, and discuss about the reasons nations and
human beings go to war in an objective and humanistic points of view.
b) I dislike the idea that their ware no further discussions about key
subjects such as violence, struggle for power and nationalism. It
seemed like Einstein was asking questions about the reasons of war and
Freud was “dictating” him his philosophy.
c) I don’t understand the rational behind Freud’s philosophy about
war, and I would like to know if Freud and Einstein had more articles
about war.
Finally I would like to know the philosophy of Karl Marx, the third
most influential mind of the 20th century, about war.

[Connie]

Jose J. and Connie C.

Ehrenreich, B., (1997) Blood rites: origins and history of the
passions of war, 27.

[Elli]

Analysis of Instructor Notes on Blood Rites Forward

Edward Gately and Liliana Palacios

Ehrenreich laments the lack of academic, scientific study of peace.
Professor O’Connell provides a link to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill, H.
R. 808, to establish the formation of a Department of Peace as an
example of a proactive attempt to rectify the lack of redress on the
subject of peace.
We like the fact peace is certainly an easy and agreeable concept to
embrace. Who doesn’t want to want to see a peaceful world? Certainly
no sane person wishes to witness continued suffering and death in the
guise of war and there has been no lack of human catastrophes over the
last century and a half. The bill proposes to “strengthen nonmilitary
means of peacemaking” and “promote the development of human
potential;” these are laudable goals and ones with which few would
argue.
On the negative side: do we really need another unwieldy, over-
staffed federal agency or matter how admirable its intended purpose
may be? We have seen how often inefficient these large government
departments can be. One could also argue that the mission is a bit
“fuzzy” in this particular case.
Finally, it’s difficult to understand how the Department of Peace
would implement its charge in the real world. Any entity truly bent on
violence and aggression is unlikely to be swayed by mere rhetoric and
cajoling. Peaceful nations don’t need the intervention of a Department
of Peace and despots would be loath to take it seriously.