Edwardian Era Synthesis

In the Edwardian Period, the use
of violence was seen as a moral way as retribution, and was justified by the
rise of two of the main “-isms” of the era – imperialism and nationalism. As of
now, the use of violence through war is still justified by society because of
nationalism/patriotism, however support of war has been declining since the
second World War. This is due to the rising questioning of war as a moral tool
for solving world issues in society where there are hundreds of other
alternatives nowadays. The only case society still fully support violence is in
the case of personal wellbeing, aka self-defense. The use of violence in the
frame of self-defense is justified because society views it as the only course
of action to prevent a threat, or prevent harm from coming to individuals,
institutions, or ideals highly valued by society.
A
piece of literature that would be the midpoint between modern views and
Edwardian era views on violence would the short story “The Lagoon” by Joseph
Conrad. “The Lagoon” embodies ideas of the two eras, loyalty from the ideas of
nationalism and patriotism from the Edwardian period, and the idea of self-interest
from our modern society. The nationalism and patriotism aspect could be found
throughout the beginning of the story, for example Arsat, the main character of
the story, said the he wanted “a
country where death is forgotten—where death is unknown” (Joseph Conrad, 1897).
The aspect of self-interest is also seen in the beginning of the story when
Arsat said, “What did I care who
died? I wanted peace in my own heart” (Joseph Conrad, 1897). As the plot goes
on, he realizes the immoralities he had committed due to the veils of youth and
courage that blinded his logic. Arsat is symbolic of the views of society,
starting off hyped about imperialism and glorifying it at the height of the
British Empire, but in the end questioning the morality of colonizing and
“civilizing” the native people of these lands as authors such as George
Bernard Shaw who wrote out about the exploitation of the working class, and
actively spoke out in support of equal gender rights and abolishing private
ownership of land, which questioned the motives, morals, and values of the
Imperialistic British Empire altogether.

Edwardian (1901-1939): Synthesis

With the end of Victorian era, the Edwardian Era marked a new beginning for intense and bloody, political life style. The most notable fact is that war was regarded amoral rather than immoral, and violence was largely justified as righteous retribution. Nowadays, keeping the world peace is every country’s first priority and war is undoubtedly considered immoral. However, back in the Edwardian Era, the term “war” was taken differently due to World War I that came shortly after industrialization. Most European nations were involved with one of the most brutal violence for a long period of time, and the immense damage caused change in thoughts. Nationalism emerged throughout the society. Patriotic and eager citizens supported their countries and together they endured poverty and hardships in daily life. Slowly, violence, although absolutely wrong in logical sense, was conveyed as a justified act. Because the era was so absorbed in to the confliction, it reached to the point where war seemed normal. It might have even looked unpatriotic if the citizens don’t actively participate. Therefore, war was something that needed to be embraced in order to defend real, greedy and wicked reason for the bloody scene. This social change also affected the characteristics of art and literature of the era. In popular poems of the Edwardian period, The Everlasting Mercy (1911), and Dauber (1912), poet John Masefield emphasizes the boldness and masculine mind. He portrays cruelty as powerfully realistic, and embraces violence.

Edwardian Synthesis Question Ash.p3.t1

alex

morgan

jennifer

sarp

asher

After industrialism occurred in the previous era, there was a large focus on imperialism during the Edwardian era, which was a cause for much violence in that period. Due to these imperialist dominated thoughts of the time, the idea of violence as retribution for sins committed against ones self or one’s community was less and less considered as an immoral act but as the normal practice. This idea of retribution has been part of the zeitgeist of most eras since the Greek rule. The most prominent example of Imperialism in the Edwardian era is the British searching for ivory in the jungle of Africa. The novel, The Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, takes place during this time and the idea of violence as retribution is demonstrated extensively in the character of Kurtz and his tribal followers. Kurtz lost his morality as he grew to want more and more ivory and eventually became amoral as he began to kill off any African who would not give him their ivory. This idea of violence as retribution has always been somewhat accepted by society, even after the medieval era ended, we still justify it today in our times. The perfect example of that would be when former President Bush sent troops into Afghanistan in order to end the ‘war on terrorism.’ Through all the pretense and excuses, the reason for sending in the army was retribution for the attacks on 9/11 and to find the people responsible for them.

Edwardian Era Synthesis Asher P.3 T.5

Edwardian Era Synthesis

Morality is within every human being on this planet, but deep down inside of the heart. Everything we do on this planet requires some sort of thoughts that might involves morality, we have the selection choices between moral and amoral, but at the same time choosing amoral would consider to be immoral to the society. But everything is different and view differently during the war time, Edwardian Era began in the early 18th century and lasted until prior to World War II. This was the era of World War I and age of Socialism, violence was seen as a righteous movement or way to justify during the time, violence as retribution was the key mindset during the era. War brought changes upon society, human's dark side and immoral nature became more moral and righteous to the society because of the war. Enemies were dehumanized by the propaganda and media around the world, moral was no longer part of the thinking process when dealing with dehumanized beasts. People used violence as the stepping stone to handle situation, shifted away from the rational thinking and logic, instead, brutality and aggression played a huge role at the time supporting violence. Violence as retribution also had an impact on the artist and literature during the era, writers were writing more about the human's heart and the immorality of the human nature. For example, Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad fully portrait the darkness of human heart at the time. In the book, there was a part where Marlow encounter two native women knitting in a room, he felt uncomfortable and judged the whole population by the appearance of these two women. This show the prejudices within the human heart and the shallowness we human are.

Edwardian Era Synthesis ash.p1.t3

Violence as retribution is always immoral. Immorality means to violate moral principles or to go against what is right. Violence does not hold any morality; there is no justification for violence. However, society often views violence as tolerable when used in war. Violence in war is often looked at as more of a duty. The whole premise surrounding the concept of war is that men must fight one another to the death. Violence is an order. This can often lead to amorality. Soldiers subjected to constant and unceasing violence can lose their sense of right and wrong. Soldiers become accustomed to violence and therefore lose touch with their morals. If a soldier loses sense of morality due to a constant inundation of war and violence, it is possible that the soldier is acting amoral. The solider is simply complying with the violence that he is now living with. However, this does not make the violence acceptable in the grand scheme of things. Though the soldier may view the violence as something that is now commonplace in life, a general view would perceive violence as immoral.
William Orpen, a well known artist of the Edwardian period, depicted society’s justification for violence as retribution in his painting The Thinker. The painting depicts a young soldier alone sitting on a rock. The soldier represents the duty of men in war to kill their opponents. Soldiers seek retribution on behalf of their country by killing other men. Society holds this retribution as righteous; warfare has been an accepted form of settling arguments between foreign nations. A soldier can become so accustomed to violence, such as the soldier depicted, that he becomes almost immune to it and acts out of amorality. Society should see war as something that is immoral; it goes against basic human principles of life and humanity. However, the accepted violence and hostility allows for many to view war with amorality.


Asher
Period 1
Team 3

Edwardian Synthesis Ash.P4.T5

Violence was a widespread ideal during the Edwardian era that was reflected from the time period’s attitude towards imperialism to the arts. Following industrialization in the Edwardian era, Britain indulged in their successes with their advanced technology and new luxuries. They looked through the eyes of racism at Africa, in which they controlled colonies, with the belief of African people being inferior, primitive individuals. Atrocious brutality towards those people by the European colonists exemplified immoral violence that they thought as retribution with the inadequate justification of racism and hunger for more power. Waging war does not make this violence any less amoral, as technologically advanced Europeans fight with powerful artillery against relatively undeveloped tribes in African forests, showing the Europeans ignoring if their greedy violence is morally right or wrong. This aggressive colonization is portrayed in Heart of Darkness as one of the characters, Kurtz, does not think twice about his horrible and monstrous actions as immoral until near the end of his life. Acts out of racism were also done during the mid to late 1900s during the Civil Rights Movement in America, during which the color of one’s skin determined if brutal retribution was the idea looked to. Presently, we mostly justify our violence out of security and self-defense. A picture that represents that idea is “US soldiers during WWI,” which conveys the hardship during this time and exemplifies a war that was justified violence as a righteous retribution between nations’ alliances, in which the United States’ joined following the attack on its ship. Thus, violence was often looked to as the solution to disagreements, whether morally justified or amoral, during the Edwardian era.

Wyl.p6.t7 edwardian synthesis

aashrita mangu

christine yi

elaine hong

tiffany show

"Chamberlain's Charge" by Mort Kunstler is an example of justified violence because during the time of the civil war in America, the Union and the Confederates were at war each other. It depicts a man holding an American flag and charging toward some enemies. There are many dead and bleeding bodies lying around in the background. This is a symbol of justified violence in response to the abuse that African Americans faced because of slavery. The Union fought to free the slaves from the South and through this, "Chamberlain's Charge" depicts this as fighting for a good cause. War against slavery is not immoral because people are fighting for a good cause. War that sprouts from selfish wants and desires is considered immmoral because it only serves to satisfy the beliefs of oneself and to satiate hate for certain poeple or things. In addition, wars started out of anger and raw emotion can be extremely hazardous because there is no foundation of basis. An example of an immoral war would be the cause of the Civil Rights Movement. African Americans were abused physically and socially simply because of their skin color. The violence that sprung out between Whites and African Americans is very immoral because violence occured because of selfish close-minded reasons. The Edwardian era highlighted the importance of civil rights, especially with women's suffrage rights, and people had to sacrifice themselves in order to obtain those rights for other people. This itself is the most terrible type of violence because in order to help someone else, one had to sacrifice him or herself. The Edwardian era, although was the "Golden Age" before World War I, contained a lot of violence and sacrifices.

Edwardian Era Synthesis- Asher, Period 3, Team 8

The Edwardian Era Synthesis- Asher, Period 3, Team 8

Of all the controversial topics associated with the Edwardian Era, war is among the most intriguing. the topic of war, and whether it is justified, was debated not only from person to person, but from within this era's literature, current political events, and style.

George Bernard Shaw is known as a man whose plays, stories, and novels discuss topics which were very controversial (especially during his time period), while adding a perfect amount of relativity and humor. One topic he was particularly passionate about was violence, and its place in the fabric of society. In many of his works, such as Arms and the Man, he uses art and humor to highlight man's hypocrisy, and to reveal the futility of violence. this play clearly articulates Shaw's opinion that man justifies violence by creating political inspirations -- or capitalizing on international (or domestic) hostility -- as a reason to fight. His brilliant work attempts to persuade the audience of the fact that man has always longed to fulfill his immoral instincts through battle, but only recently has figured how to fool himself into believing it moral (through war). Shaw's characters in Arms and the Man never come outright and say "war is never justified!" Shaw simply presents the argument of man's futility through character dialogue and plot development, and leaves it open to the viewer to decide whether he is correct. Shaw was a somewhat liberal man for his time, and a front-runner in a n important Edwardian movement which forced those willing to listen, to question whether there is really any justification for destroying human life. Following one of the first performances of Arms and the Man, Shaw was beckoned onstage for a curtain call, and was booed by a single audience member. Upon hearing the man booing, Shaw replied, "My dear fellow, I quite agree with you, but what are we two against so many?" This story illustrates the fact that many believed there was little justification for war, and its place in modern society held to much power. The man booing from his seat helps juxtapose Shaw's position by symbolizing the traditional viewpoint, held by many, of war being justified.

Moving away from the artistic side of the Edwardian question of the justification of war, the political events occurring around this time period raised many points of discussion on the topic. The United States began hitting its strides in this era, with the election of Teddy Roosevelt as president. Roosevelt is known as a war-hero and an aggressor. He supported Panama's revolt against Columbia, although it turned out he had other investments in that particular conflict besides freedom of those residing in Panama (the construction of the Panama Canal to help in American trade across the Atlantic). As the U.S. rose in power, so did its military actions overseas. Several conflicts, such as the support of Panama, became tainted with ulterior motives which the U.S. fulfilled while helping "preserve freedom". While much progress and freedom came as a result of these efforts, it is hard to gauge whether it outweighed the suffering and elitism which accompanied it.

The Edwardian Era, and all of its facets, reflect a philosophical undertaking to prove whether violence is ever just. Men and women such as Shaw were inspired by current events to discuss this topic aloud through the use of art and literature. These artists left their mark on history by tastefully presenting their opinions to the world, and hoping their audiences had the sense to listen. Man's struggle is with his own intentions. Is war simply an outlet for humanity's frustration and hatred? Or is it a justified response to immorality and wickedness? We are all the audience, and we must decide for ourselves.

The Edwardian Era Synthesis Question

The Edwardian period in the early 18^th century, people saw violence as moral means of attaining justice. This was during the era of World War One, socialism and the Darwinism theory. War and conflict were very apparent during this day and age because religion was becoming weaker and Darwin’s theory of natural selection directed people away from the church. Atheism led to immoral beliefs and toward sinful actions. In addition, after the US success in the World War, violence became a preferred means of solution. Violence may not be the answer to most of the world’s problems, but violence has led great changes in the shortest amount of time. People believed that violence could be justified and evidence of this can be perceived in the art forms of this era.

The US has produced many works of art that portray this idea of justified violence during this period, such as the classic film The Birth of a Nation. This film takes place in 1915 where the Ku Klux Klan has a powerful influence over the south and its laws. When one of the characters named Gus, an African American, was killed by the clan the black militia went up in arms. Although the clan wins in its battles against the militia, one can argue that the violence that they committed was justified by the cruel and hateful treatment form the supremacy group. Violence was considered justified in this film and proper way of bringing an end to a conflict.

Asher.P4.T6: Edwardian Era Synthesis

Violence as retribution is always immoral. During times of war, many try to persuade themselves that acting out in aggression and brutality is a necessary requirement: that they need to do so to protect themselves from the identical aggression and brutality of the opposing side. In the spirit of war, all senses of cruelty and inhumanity are accepted, because the enemy is dehumanized, and simply defined as an entity you need to defeat by any means necessary. The majority of those directly involved in war decide to label the experience as amoral, because the opposing side is no longer human, and therefore doesn’t need to be treated with any humanity. An example of this is Ernst Ludwig Kirschner’s piece, Self Portrait as a Soldier. His oil painting depicts him in military uniform, with a cigarette in his mouth and a naked woman behind him. There also seem to be bloody and stained cloths around them. Kirschner paints himself expressionless, with no emotion, and his eyes black, dark, and with no light in them at all. The naked woman in the painting has her face turned to the side, to avoid any possible human connection to the soldier. Kirschner communicates the mechanical, senseless character that overcomes soldiers in times of war – persuading them to commit horrors of murder and rape to, in all senses, defeat their enemy. It seems as if the fictional rape of this woman in justified because through the lens of war, she is not even a human, simply an object and a casualty of war.

Wylie P.1 Team 2 Edwardian Era Synthesis

Violence tends to take on a different air when associated with war; an “amoral” rather than immoral association. However, violence as retribution is skirting on the fine line between the two, and when war is added to the mix, it is even harder to claim it as justified or not. The 1915 silent epic The Birth of a Nation, directed by D. W. Griffith, depicts violence during and after the American Civil War. In this film, two families from the north and south respectively are followed through the cruelties of war and reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan inflicts tragedies upon one family, and retribution results, yet happiness is not attained. We have come to justify violence as righteous retribution if it has an emotional attachment to someone. If motivations have a connection to someone we are personally invested in, such as a family member, or even a character in a film, the violent crime tends to become justified. In The Birth of a Nation, this is portrayed when Klansmen hunt down and lynch a man who caused the main character’s sister to leap to her death. This sympathy for the loss of his sister forces the audience to see the crime against the man as justified, even though the Ku Klux Klan is behind it. Violence itself is never amoral, but rather what it is associated with gives it a purpose that we are rooting for. Sympathetic emotions towards what violence is trying to achieve is what makes it and retribution seem justified and right.

Miranda Gontz, Tori Kause, Helen Lee, Sara Patterson

Asher.Period 1.Team 8.Edwardian Synthesis!

To differentiate, immorality categorizes a being that pursues dishonorable and loathsome activities. An amoral being chooses to disregard the stigma of morality altogether; he or she pays no attention to the so-called “right” or “wrongness” of their deeds. Violation as retribution should always be considered immoral. If one were to be wronged by another, does that automatically grant the wronged a chance for retribution? Fortunately, society today has highly evolved since the times of Machiavelli, and even Nietsche. Violence, in any shape of form does nothing but cause harm to those involved as well as to those associated, such as family. Although performed to create peace and settle arising conflicts, war is a never ending thirst for power. Can killing thousands and thousands of innocent people truly be considered amoral? Some may argue that war is another tactic for protection or defense. To some extent, war may be seen as a way for two opposing sides to save themselves and protect their nation. Today and for some time, the United States has been lodged in an ongoing battle with Iraq and other Middle Eastern Nations. This constant brutal violence shed onto both sides will not cease until either a peace agreement or total annihilation occurs. At this rate, annihilation may seem to be inevitable. We look at violence, or war, as a means of safety and as a mechanism for self-defense. Although we are killing the innocent, we justify our means by acting out of defense. In the well known novel, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, the monster ensues on a murderous killing spree, hunting everyone in connection to Victor Frankenstein. This monster’s act of retribution was because of the neglect he faced from his own creator, Victor. The monster felt as though Victor had condemned him; he was alone and abandoned. With his increasing feelings of isolation, hatred and anger came about. At one point in the story the creature threatens Victor and asserts his power. He declares that he can “make [Victor] so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to [you].” Before leaving the monster adds, “You are my creator, but I am your master; obey!” The violence inflicted towards Victor and his family was simply the monster’s way of coping with his dismal life.

Jessie Yen, Ruhi Sharma, Sidney Gerst, Rachel Clauss :P

Wylie. Period 1. Team 6. Edwardian

In our opinion, violence as retribution is always immoral. As far as history is concerned, violence has never solved anything. Ever. Of course wars legally “settle” disputes, but is retribution ever really reached? There are lives lost, and a permanent hostility between opposing parties despite the settlement. Society has made it so war is the “solve all end all” deciding factor, which, as many of Society’s enactments, is ridiculous. The only way violence is amoral is out of self-defense, because someone has brought violence upon you to begin with. Of course society justifies war by saying it is out of “self-defense”, but if both parties are acting out of “self-defense”, who made the first offense? And what is the definition of amoral anyway? As far as a dictionary definition goes, amoral is defined by anything that is “ethical”, or “based upon the judgment or best interest of the common man”. Gee, how ambiguous can you get? War, by no means makes violence as retribution amoral, let alone “the judgment or best interest of the common man”.

During the Edwardian Era, authors possessed unsure feelings on the subject. For instance in “The Lagoon” by Joseph Conrad, Arsat justifies sacrificing his brother in order for his own happiness and prospect of “true love”, but in the end was having regrets and second thoughts about the indirect violence he committed. The Edwardian Age was no doubt a time of war and lust for power and supposed “happiness”. So is this the “best interest of the common man” the dictionary was talking about? Arsat justifies his violence by saying how he would be miserable and unhappy without the woman he was in love with. In the end, the Conrad hinted how war comes with consequences as symbolized with the death of the woman. This realization of “consequence” starts off the next Era.

-Team Waka

Lillie Moffett, Lauren Wakabayshi, Sooji Hong and Nicole Lussier

Ash P4 T8 Edwardian Synthesis

Team Dragon:
Clair Fuller
Yee-Lum Mak
Alex Tranquada
Laurel Kitada
Jodi Shou
Per. 4

Edwardian Era Synthesis

            Violence as retribution is not moral except in the case of violence to prevent clear and present danger, such as in self-defense. Violence during war is viewed by society as justified—acts that would be considered atrocious outside of the context of wartime are considered grounds for a medal. However, the way society views violence during war fails to consider the morality of war itself. While violent acts within a war may be amoral, war itself is almost always immoral. Violence during present times is often framed as the only way to prevent a threat or to protect a person, institution, or ideal that is valued by our society. Whether the threat is real or imagined, and whether violence is indeed the only possible course of action, is highly debatable in most cases of modern “justified violence.”

            Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden is an example of the way violence was justified as retribution during the Edwardian Era, particularly with regard to the massive British empire of the day. Although written in 1899, two years before the beginning of the Edwardian Era, The White Man’s Burden has become symbolic of the imperialist attitudes of that were present during the Victorian and Edwardian eras. The colonization and “civilizing” of exotic lands during the height of the British Empire often came with tremendous cruelty towards the native citizens of the countries, but The White Man’s Burden presents these horrors as an appropriate response to the very existence of the “new-caught, sullen peoples.” Violence in this case is viewed as a justified retaliation against the native citizens of different races that lived in countries with traditions and cultures different from those of Western society. The White Man’s Burden frames violence against these peoples as a necessary response to their mere uncivilized presence on the face of the earth—the violence is provoked by their existence, less than any specific actions.

Asher. P2.T4 - Edwardian Era Synthesis

When people are faced with the question: “Is violent retribution for socially defined crimes right?” many things are brought to mind. Some may look at it through a set moral code, and others may see each individual case differently and may decide differently each time. An individual’s culture sets the laws and standards that they live by, what is a gruesome crime in one county or religion may be a passing thought in another’s mind. This shows that a question such as this cannot be answered without some form of prejudice. Our society’s ethics stipulate that we should answer: Yes, violence as punishment, revenge, or in any form is wrong. Yet we live in a time where our country has been at war for over half of my lifetime and one where our media extols violence.

It is within human nature to find differences that eventually lead to war, whether it is for riches or religion, we can easily persuade ourselves that what we are doing is right. War is the result of an amoral view on violence as a whole and as a means of vengeance. We use the same methods to justify violence as people thousands of years ago did, religion, greed, and survival are just a few. The multiple wars we are in now stem from, among other things, our need for revenge, and a need for a sense of safety both economically (oil) and physically (terrorism). We have justified countless deaths (by the same means we fear) because of our view of ourselves, our high moral horse, and our supposed needs.

One of the strongest influences and source of interest in our time is our cinema, and we have placed great meaning on violence and brutality. The most popular films have had violent premises, and within that scope we have glorified films that promote fatal vigilante justice. Man on Fire, Dirty Harry, Mad Max, Law Abiding Citizen, and A Time to Kill are some of the most popular of these films and all have a common thread of revenge. Movies have idealized vigilante justice and a life fueled by violence and revenge; they depict characters circumventing the law and even portraying government officials supporting these actions.

The film The Boondock Saints, written and directed by Troy Duffy, has reemerged as a cult classic and been popularized my generation. After a religious epiphany two bothers set out to rid the city of Boston of organized crime through ritualized execution. The acceptance and popularity of this movie goes to show how much we as a society view glorified gratuitous violence as reasonable and vindicated. Almost any film today, whether it is a Spy film or a family oriented superhero film, has a great amount of violence in it.

By: McKenna Johnson, Lydia Lim, & Penny Wang