![is homer pro war or anti war is homer pro war or anti war](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/07/a6/f2/07a6f26fb7da94811571d1431d343c1a--herb-lubalin-graphic-design-typography.jpg)
![is homer pro war or anti war is homer pro war or anti war](https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTgxMTMyMTE2Njc3OTYxMDY0/anti-war-protests-gettyimages-513683677.jpg)
In each case, civilians militarized to take part in domestic conflicts predicated on ethnopolitical tensions. The former combatants hail from Indonesia, Cambodia, and Lebanon-countries with distinct histories of political violence but which remain linked by several key factors. 2 In what follows, I turn to three case studies of moral injury in civilian combatants who tortured and massacred fellow citizens during civil conflicts. In other words, were we to shift our geopolitical focus, our parameters for identifying signs of moral injury would also have to expand. We might therefore expect differing expressions of moral injury in different cultural and political contexts. The resulting feelings of guilt and shame were thus highly determined by on-the-ground cultural and political realities in the U.S. With often understaffed Veterans Affairs facilities, veterans were left alone to process civilian hostility, the life-altering experience of wars that had not been “won,” and bitter disappointment in politicians who now denounced the wars they once supported. veterans of wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have often encountered considerable opposition to the war when they returned home and a newfound hesitation to grant the soldier the status of a “hero.” The soldier had become the symbol of intractable, unwinnable, and expensive wars-and increasingly, abuse, torture, and atrocity. This shift has irrevocably confounded our understanding of the rules and ethics of military engagement, a key factor likely to influence moral injury. military has been involved has shifted from “conventional” warfare in the age of the World Wars, to “unconventional” and often guerrilla warfare. The nature of the conflicts in which the U.S. conflicts and our attitudes toward war in the last half-century. 1 However, these particular emotional expressions, I argue, are intimately connected to the geopolitical specificity of U.S. In academic literature, verbal expressions of guilt and shame are the most widely cited primary indicators of wartime moral injury. Recuperating an original formulation of moral injury suggested by Robert Jay Lifton in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and interpreting it alongside a close-reading of documentary cinema featuring perpetrators of atrocities in Indonesia, Cambodia and Lebanon, this article proposes that we broaden our criteria for perceiving moral injury beyond the filters of guilt and shame if we hope to arrive at a more universal understanding of the phenomenon.
Is homer pro war or anti war how to#
war in Vietnam, and to some extent those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as conflicts which left veterans with a sense of “all-encompassing absurdity and moral inversion.” What happens to our understanding of how to recognize moral injury, this article asks, if we expand our investigation of moral injury beyond the framework of an increasingly anti-war United States populace, and consider wars that are civil in nature as opposed to waged on foreign grounds? Focusing on non-US geopolitical sites where cultures of impunity have taken root post-conflict, this article finds that guilt and shame suddenly become considerably less productive tools by which to identify the moral cost of war to combatants. Scholars of moral injury point to the U.S. Guilt and shame are understood to be the emotional responses to the a soldier’s realization that they have taken life (or witnessed the taking of life) especially in an atrocity such feelings tend to be amplified in the face of hostility to recent military missions (and, implicitly, military actors) on the part of the American populace.
![is homer pro war or anti war is homer pro war or anti war](https://manuals.plus/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Greek-Wars-Manual-IGW.jpg)
Contemporary research gestures principally to expressions of guilt or shame as the primary mechanisms by which one can discern moral injury in a soldier. Social scientists in the United States have published extensively on the concept of moral injury among soldiers in the past decade.