Hunger Games II: What does it take for coal to catch fire?

Anthracite coal miners - Hazleton, PA
at the time of the coal strike of 1902

I've been reading the Hunger Games trilogy because I think we need to pierce the veil of popular entertainment culture and figure out how to use it to change the world we live in.

When I started Book II -- Catching Fire -- I thought this was going to be an "action" tale -- all about combat and weapons. But what really got my attention was the depiction of oppressed coal miners.

Of course any Hunger Games fan knows District 12 is the coal mining district, and that coal mining is a terrible job: "The claustrophobic tunnels, foul air, suffocating darkness on all sides. . . . [A]fter my father and several other miners were killed in an explosion, I could barely force myself onto the elevator." (II, p. 5)

What's really interesting is the way Book II depicts people becoming aware of their own oppression, including the forces of state repression, and developing consciousness of the need to resist.

It first jumped out at me the protagonist wonders if she should've acted differently -- if that would have allowed everyone in her coal mining district to remain safe. Her friend sets her straight:

"Safe to do what?" he says in a gentler tone. "Starve? Work like slaves? Send their kids to the reaping? You haven't hurt people -- you've given them an opportunity.  They just have to be brave enough to take it. There's already been talk in the mines. People who want to fight. Don't you see? It's happening! It's finally happening! . . . " (II, pp. 99-100)

When I read this, I thought, "Oh my gosh -- Germinal!"

Emile Zola, Germinal

Way back in the fall of 1978, when I was a sophomore at Harvard, I took a wonderful course on 19th century European history with a visiting professor -- Simon Schmama. I wrote a paper on the forces of repression depicted in Germinal -- Emile Zola's novel about an uprising in the French coal mining region in the 1800s. I wrote pages and pages about it -- I remember the moment when I handed in the overdue term paper and Prof. Schama said, "It's very late . . . and very long!" -- and I wish I still had a copy of it. But I also know everything I learned in doing it can be summed up in one sentence: the police are here to keep us in line; and that it begins with "subtle" hints, and by stages becomes full-on suppression of rebellion.

Sure enough, Catching Fire explores this exact phenomenon. As the rumblings of dissatisfaction in the mines increase, the state responds:

"The square has been transformed. A huge banner with the seal of Panem hangs off the roof of the Justice Building. Peacekeepers, in pristine white uniforms, march on the cleanly swept cobblestones. Along the rooftops, more of them occupy nests of machine guns. Most unnerving is a line of new constructions -- an official whipping post, several stockades, and a gallows -- set up in the center of the square." (II, p. 128)

"Justice" Building. "Peacekeepers."

And it is from this point that the rest of the plot of Book II develops . . . .

Coal . . . on fire . . .

Now, I'll admit that Catching Fire does also contain "action tale" plot elements -- combat and weapons -- but what I think is really valuable to all of us in the peace and justice field is how it is exposing millions of young people to questions like:

* Is the way that many people are treated fair? Is it acceptable?

* What does it take for people to stand up and resist their own oppression?

* What does the state try to do to stop them?

(Okay . . . off to buy Book III!)


More on the Hunger Games - Germinal connection: 

‘Suzanne Collins on the Books She Loves’

"Comparons Germinal and Hunger Games"


Related posts

Granddaddy Melker probably would have been proud to have mined any kind of coal. But he was especially proud to have been an anthracite coal miner.

(See "I was an anthracite miner . . . . ")














People in Illinois are standing up against the attempt by Governor Bruce Rauner to gut services in the state.  Courageous people are demanding change in "Moral Monday" protests.

(See PROTESTS IN ILLINOIS: Do these people look like they're gonna back down? )





When will more people begin to ask about the connections between inequality and the military-industrial complex?

(See WHERE'S MINE? Inequality in the US and the Military-Industrial Complex )

Two themes -- hunting vs. healing and the socio-economic underpinnings of war culture -- are just a few of the many that have leapt out at me as I've ready Book I of The Hunger Games.

(See Hunger Games: Hunting vs. Healing)

I recently wrote that "the means available to us today for eliminating war vary greatly from those available from those working to eliminate war in decades past." One of those means is popular literature and film!

(See War Resistance: Is "The Hunger Games" Laying the Foundation That We Want? )








The outstanding aspect of the "global hibakusha" phenomenon that I learned about at the World Nuclear Victims Forum in Hiroshima was that in situation after situation, great harm is done because someone has the attitude that "these people don't matter."

(See GLOBAL HIBAKUSHA: The Result of the "People Who Don't Matter" Mindset )

TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: United States v. Bin Laden

Official photos to go with the official story. ("Must-see TV!")

On Sunday, I read the article by Jonathan Mahler in the The New York Times Magazine about two competing versions of apprehension of Osama Bin Laden.

Mahler makes the point that we are so far from being able to know the truth of the matter that we might benefit more from what we are able to know, namely, the fact that we are being presented with several different stories.

In other words, what are we to understand about our situation from the fact that our government told us the story that it told? (Put aside the question of what's true . . . . )

So, for instance, the Mahler article made much of the question of whether the SEAL force entered Pakistan undetected, as opposed to whether, in fact, Pakistan was told in advance that the SEALs were coming (and that Pakistan had better not interfere).  What might lead us to think one case is more likely than another? And what conclusions might we draw from the fact that the story got told one way or another?

I keep having to ask myself a question: Was the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden carried out principally for our entertainment? Or did it have something to do with governing?

The film version: Zero Dark Thirty

I fear that most people are so caught up in the excitement and intrigue -- Zero Dark Thirty! -- that they don't stop to ask the sobering question: what would the story be like if our government took seriously the job of governing?

In particular, though it might be a dicey entertainment proposition, and certainly carry the risk of loose plot strands, it would have made for a very different story if the US government had arrested Osama Bin Laden and brought him to trial. It certainly would emphasize certain US values related to governance.

A very constructive thought exercise is to try to imagine a trial -- United States v. Bin Laden -- for the crimes committed on 9/11.

* What kinds of facts would be brought out in such a trial? (What would we be reminded of about the difference between facts established in a court of law and "according to reliable sources . . ." ?)

* What would be the legal issues that would be tested? (e.g. crime? act of war?)

* What, if anything, would the defendant say?

* What effect would holding such a trial have on US society?

Wouldn't the US government have so much to gain by playing out that story -- at least, if it really cared about Constitutional governance?

We should be grateful to Jonathan Mahler for reminding us that our government is so powerful that it can tell us just about any story it wants to.  But we still get step our of entertainment mode and into governance mode and ask: "Why?"

Update: October 29, 2015

By reading Charlie Savage's article in today's New York Times ("How 4 Federal Lawyers Paved the Way to Kill Osama bin Laden"), you can understand the outlines of the "show" the White House planned. According to Savage, there were four legal justifications that the Obama administration prepared:

* Entering Pakistan without the country's consent. (What if the Pakistanis responded by offering to bring him in alive?)

* Killing Bin Laden -- no matter what (with the exception of "if he [was] naked with his hands up"). (Because: who knows what he might have said if were in a position to give testimony?)

* Not telling Congress in advance. (Don't give them a chance to ask questions.)

* Burying Bin Laden at sea. (Physical evidence just gets in the way of a good story.)

In other words, the administration made sure there was no one left to naysay their narrative.

Can you imagine how different this report might have been? What if it were about four lawyers being asked to advise the administration about the "right" way to apprehend Osama Bin Laden? What if the question had been, "What would be most consistent with the rule of law? And with promoting the kind of due process that we claim to desire for the world?"


Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)

The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))








The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?) 

HOMELAND is ... (fill in the blank)

From NPR: "Artists say they took jobs painting graffiti on the set of Homeland
to leave subversive messages. They say this one reads, 'Homeland is racist.'"

ITEM ONE: This past week it was disclosed that activists "hacked" the show Homeland by inserting Arabic graffiti saying "Homeland is racist" on one of the show's sets, so that the message was seen by millions of viewers. (See "The latest twist in Homeland’s racist plot: the realistic graffiti episode" in The Guardian.)

The official response from the show? "As Homeland always strives to be subversive in its own right and a stimulus for conversation, we can’t help but admire this act of artistic sabotage." Hmmm . . .. 

ITEM TWO: By some miraculous coincidence, today's New York Times "Style" section features a long interview with the star of Homeland, Claire Danes, together with (!) the actual Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. (See "‘Homeland’ Times Two: Claire Danes and Jeh Johnson")

("JJ: It's through movies and TV that social issues become norms. . . . Bu more people havelearned about targeted lethal killing from Claire than me." More on this later . . . . )

What are we supposed to think about this?

*   *   *

There couldn't be a better illustration of the way our pervasive entertainment culture dominates our apprehension of the reality of our times.

Many of us who consider ourselves activists for peace and justice frequently criticize mainstream media, particularly mainstream news reporting. But I think that misses the point. Most people are floating on far more escapist clouds of entertainment.

What would it take to connect our entertainment culture back to reality? (Just a little?)

*   *   *

What would it look like if large numbers of people used their knowledge of the world, and of ethics, and their critical faculties, to think about and discuss and write about the questions raised by shows like Homeland?


Related posts

I recently wrote that "the means available to us today for eliminating war vary greatly from those available from those working to eliminate war in decades past." One of those means is popular literature and film!

(See War Resistance: Is "The Hunger Games" Laying the Foundation That We Want? )








What are the 2 or 3 -- or 5, or 10 -- biggest lessons about "collaborating in peaceful mode" that we might be able to witness if we were to seek the answers in Minecraft worlds?

(See Go dig up the solution to world peace in a video game environment )

I often refer to how important the films of Iran have been in helping me open my mind to the possibilities of a peaceful relationship with that country.  I have been fortunate to be able to go see some of the best films from Iran every year at the wonderful Siskel Film Center in downtown Chicago. The will be another Festival of Films From Iran showing there in February, 2016.

(See A Force for Peace: Getting to Know Iran Through Film)