Ignatieff's Last Point Of The Book example essay topic

The Warrior's Honour The Warrior's Honour by Michael Ignatieff conveys the harsh realities of ethnic war to the reader. It opens a window to pictures and experiences that most cannot, and do not, think of on a daily basis. Michael Igantieff has experienced there realities as he travelled around the world in his work as a journalist, and it is in this book that he shares with us his thoughts and ideas about these war torn countries. In this paper I will review the book and discuss major themes and arguments, as well as the downfall and shortcomings of it. Very early on the in book makes it very clear why he wanted to embark on his journeys and also what he wishes to tell us through this book. He writes of his journeys purpose on page three: "I wanted to find out what mixture of moral solidarity and hubris led Western nations to embark on this brief adventure in putting the world to rights" (Ignatieff 3).

He is speaking of the sudden surge of "interventionist internationalism [that] had swelled during the gulf War... ". (Ignatieff 3). He also states: ". ... what, if anything, still connects the zones of safety where I and mot readers of this book are likely to live, and the zones of danger where ethnic struggle has become a way of life?" (Ignatieff 4). Ignatieff clearly maps out the direction of this book by stating: My Concern here is with moral obligation, beyond our tribe, be-yond our nation, family, intimate network.

The Warrior's Honour is about the impulse we all feel to "do something" when we see some terrible report on television from Bosnia or Afghanistan (Ignatieff 4). Ignatieff does not get to these points and arguments until late in the book but leading up to them there are a great deal of arguments and theories made. One of these such arguments is captured in the title of the first chapter: " Is Nothing Sacred? The Ethics of Television".

Does the media only display a shallow unfeeling report of the developing and warring world's strife? Or do they open our eyes to that strife in order to make us reach out. The first chapter of The Warrior's Honour deals with these questions. Ignatieff first presents a strong case for the side of the media, outlining the facts that it has done a "good deed" by opening the eyes of the Western world and not to mention their pockets (Ignatieff 10).

With the advent of television Westerners can now no longer deny the fact that there are hungry and tortured people in this world. But there is another side to the media's relationship with pain and suffering. The Media is accused that's they wait until the strife is at an extreme before they call upon the West with their gut-wrenching pictures and video clips (Ignatieff 11). Ignatieff solidifies his point by stating: "The medium's gaze is brief, intense, and promiscuous. The shelf life of the moral causes it makes its own is brutally short" (Ignatieff 11). A further argument made by Ignatieff in this same chapter is that these "strangers" on the television screen are not always in the forefront of our minds.

We will help those who we know and can see before we help those who we merely see a 30 second clip of on the six o'clock news (Ignatieff 15). The question could be asked "Why do we watch shows such as World Vision?" Ignatieff says that: "Millions of people look to the screen for signs of their collective identity as a national society and as citizens of the world" (Ignatieff 27). Maybe some of us in the West have a hard time seeing those on the screen as our brothers because they seem so far away, but to some their now enemies were once their brothers, neighbours, and friends. This brings us to another central argument of the book, essentially what would provoke "brother" to enter into was with each other? Ignatieff tells the story of the war between the Serbians and the Croatians. They considered themselves equal before the death of their leader Tito, and the collapse of communism.

The only difference between that they recognised was religion, the Croats Roman Catholic, and the Serbs Orthodox (Ignatieff 35). When Ignatieff asked a Serbian soldier why he thought that Serbians and Croatians are now so different he started of strong stating that they are so different that they even smoke different cigarettes, but then he falters and let it slip out that he thinks they are really the same (Ignatieff 36). Ignatieff now asks that after we are informed by the media and after we see brothers, neighbours, and friends fighting, what will we do about it? Ignatieff says that we stepped thought the television screen "not only to save others, but to save ourselves, or rather an image or ourselves as defenders of universal decencies.

We wanted to show the West "meant" something" (95). But what happens when we discover that we cannot do as much as anticipated? This is another of Ignatieff's posed questions. He makes a powerful statement in response saying on page 96: ". ... we may be able to stop horror, but we cannot always prevent tragedy - we might have been more responsible and, just possibly, devised strategies of intervention that would have stood more of a chance of success" (Ignatieff 96).

Ignatieff is saying that we did not do enough, and we also did not use the right approach to be most beneficial to the countries we tried to help. He points out that what war torn countries need is states, and this is something we cannot force them into (Ignatieff 106). In perhaps the most interesting chapter of the book, for which the book is named Ignatieff tell of the founding of the Red Cross, The International Committee of the Red Cross. This organization first saw war as "moral violation, and, between the war maker and his victim, human rights activists cannot remain neutral" (Ignatieff 119). But in 1948 the I.C.R.C. established four treaties known as the "Geneva Conventions". They now sought "only to ensure that warriors conform to the certain basic principles of humanity, the chief principle being to spare all civilians and medical personnel" (Ignatieff 120).

One of the main points Ignatieff makes about the I.C.R.C. is that "The Geneva Conventions are not about justice but about good treatment" (Ignatieff 153). Throughout this chapter Ignatieff struggles with this fact that the I.C.R.C. is unconcerned about justice. When there is no justice it is not easy to forget the atrocities done to you or your family. In Ignatieff's last point of the book he puts it plainly: "For it is and elementary certainty that killing will not bring the dead back to life.

This is an inheritance that can be shared, and when it is shared there can be that deep knowing that sometimes comes when one wakes from a dream" (Ignatieff 190). While I have found this book to be very enjoyable there were some major shortcomings. Ignatieff is obviously a very smart man and I believe that sometimes throughout the book he is writing to an audience that is as well experienced as he. He does not explain everything clearly and writes things which the reader is expected to be well versed in. I also found that he sometimes uses many more words then called for to illustrate a point. It reads as though he is just writing things for the sake of writing them.

Ignatieff makes many more points in this book then could be counted and he is very passionate and descriptive about each one so it is hard to narrow down what his exact points were, so it was helpful at the beginning of the book to have him list his goals and main themes. He did seem to accomplish all that he stated in the beginning except for one part. He stated that he would talk about the war mongers, militias and paramilitaries "who are tearing up the failed sates of the 1990's?" (Ignatieff 6). Nowhere does there seem to be a full point about who these people re anywhere in the book. This book was challenging to read not only because of the way in which it was written but also because of the content which challenges the reader to look at the world and evaluate for yourself what, if anything, you can do for those caught in the midst of ethnic war.