October 24, 2007
Press from the conference...
Thought these links would be useful to see other press, blog, etc. coverage/observations from the weekend:
From the Brown Daily Herald: Bloggers, soldiers recount Iraq's front lines
The Providence Journal: Media feeds disconnect over Iraq
From SFC Toby Nunn, one of the conference participants and currently in Iraq: I Do it so can you!
From Milblogging.com: Milbloggers in the News: Bloggers, soldiers recount Iraq's front lines
From Fairer Globalization, a blog run out of the Carnegie Council on Ethics in International Affairs:
Blogging from the Battlefield: "Front Line, First Person"
Putting the "We" in "We Are at War"
Getting the Stories Out: Who's Betraying Whom?
Posted by Christina Kim at 02:49 PM | TrackBack
October 23, 2007
Convergences
so, this past weekend, Watson played host to a conference focusing on soldier voices coming from Iraq (and Afghanistan, a bit, as well): Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories. it was organized with the help of the Watson Institute's Global Media Project, Brown University's Nonfiction Writing Program and the Rhode Island Council for the Humanities.
it doesn't go without saying that you take one look at the list and wonder what kind of dialogue it's going to be--veterans and other members of the military, journalists, filmmakers, professors, students (at a supposedly left-leaning campus). it's a bevy of opinionated people and you're sticking them in a small room for two really intense and jam-packed days of conversation and presentations. something is bound to happen. I want to offer my comments and observations from this weekend with the caveat to the reader that I'm still trying to sort out my own thoughts and that, in a manner of speaking, the dust has yet to settle.
Friday commenced without too much fuss--Joukowsky was filled to the brim with plenty of spillover into the media space down the hall, where they were simulcasting the conference. the juxtaposition of the two soldiers in the first panel was really interesting. not only were they put on opposite ends of the table, but their very presence, styles of speaking, reactions to questions and comments were starkly contrasting. where one soldier remained virtually silent and almost disengaged with what was going on around him, the other was eager to share his stories, his background, his experiences. even this first panel, even just seeing two people who had gone to Iraq--there was the beginning of a certain dismantling of preconceived ideas of 'soldiers' (emphasis on the plural) and their individual/shared experiences while at war.
and so the conference progressed. it became clear that every single person had their own opinions about the war--whether or not they had gone, whether or not they had supported it. I mean--okay, obviously, right? but at the very least, the erosion of this unified 'military' front on the war was starting to take place. not in the sense that a full-on roast of the military or the war took place, but in the sense that you got deeper into what it meant to be in the military, to have been in combat. I don't think I speak only for myself when I say that the most memorable, interesting, and thought-provoking moments took place outside of Joukowsky: coffee breaks, meals, smoking breaks. it was when people were off the stage and were interacting one-on-one or in more personal instances that the human side of this war really began to come out.
and hence the title of this first post--convergences.
the OED defines the word 'converge' as such (took out the 'examples' for the sake of brevity):
converge, v. SECOND EDITION 1989(k{schwa}n{sm}v{revope}{lm}d{zh}) [ad. late L. converg-{ebreve}re (Isidore) to incline together (intr.), f. L. con- together + verg{ebreve}re to bend, turn, incline.]
1. intr. ‘To tend to one point from different places’ (J.); to tend to meet in a point; to approach nearer together, as lines do, which meet if produced far enough. The opposite of diverge.
b. fig. To tend to meet in a common result or point of operation.
c. Math. To approximate in the sum of its terms toward a definite limit: see CONVERGING 2.
2. trans. To cause (lines or rays) to approach each other; to cause to come together.
for me, as a former International Relations and Modern Culture & Media concentrator, studying wars, the military, international politics, and theories surrounding identity, culture, and the media has always been an academic endeavor. these were always topics of research, and it was easy and convenient to treat them as objects/subjects of purely academic inquiry, to maintain a safe distance, keeping myself from becoming personally involved or connected with what I was studying. sure, yes, I've met soldiers and veterans before. I've seen the long-term effects of war (from a Korean standpoint) on family and loved ones. but those interactions were by and large always separated from my personal life.
this past weekend, without turning this post into a weepy, emo, soul-finding mission statement, changed so much about how I saw the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. to find two separate but equally important parts of your life (the personal, the professional) converging over the course of what could be deemed an intensive seminar or workshop (for one weekend! one!) is unbelievably jarring and, for lack of a better word, distressing. to take something almost sterile and to have that be overthrown--I mean... wow. what do you say to that? for every personal bias or opinion I have/had about the war, suddenly there are these cycling questions that while perhaps I was thinking of all along--took on a much heightened importance and urgency. with one swift kick to the head, you're reevaluating and reexamining everything you have ever thought or taken to be true or honest or real. how do you even begin to address those issues? and even if you can stumble through them and turn them into coherent thoughts and semblances of formed opinions or statements, what then? do you go back to your old self--still cleanly dividing the line between you (the personal) and your work (the professional)--despite the emotions, the feelings, the irrational parts of war that you just don't get from studying war that you have now been privy to?
there was one participant from the conference who I will never forget--who, in a way where I know I'm projecting my own (newly-found) anxieties and worries on him, more or less became the catalyst for this unsettling of my preconceived thoughts and opinions. he told me he was going back to Iraq--not as combat, but as a medic. and nevermind all of the conversation and stories and other moments where we had connected--I don't think I can do them justice (as well as the minutiae of the conference)... but when I was saying goodbye to him, I told him to have fun, to enjoy his time at home, and to be safe.
'Be safe.'
and not to place such great emphasis on the stock phrases and words you pull out when saying farewell, but here was that sort of apex-ish moment when I realized that things couldn't, wouldn't (and maybe even shouldn't) be the same. in college you tell your friends 'have fun, be safe, etc.'--you know... don't do anything stupid, don't get too drunk, make good choices. but when it's someone you care about and not just the handshake after an interview or meeting, what does it mean when you're saying those exact same words to someone who the word 'safe' can mean life or death?
as I said earlier in this entry, I'm still trying to sort out these issues myself, still trying to attempt to start a new way to approach this war, the effects of it, its relation to the larger scope of international relations, and now, more than I can say it ever did before, its effects on humanity, on the people (both there and here, both American and not)... I can only offer these rambling thoughts and observations and welcome any feedback or observations from your own experiences.
--ck
