Rendition

The movie Rendition truly brings to light the issue of illegally obtaining "intelligence," and it can very easily be connected to the theme of "nature versus nurture." After 9/11, our country became a product of society's fear-constantly labeling anyone who looked foreign as a terrorist. For example, in the movie the mayor(?) criticized Alan's wish to rescue Anwar from the unfair treatment that he was suffering, and he said that he did not wish to be called a "Bin Laden lover." This rendition program, that was electrocuting, beating up, and stripping Anwar naked, seems to make those who are anti-terrorist feel okay, but the fact is this: many of those innocent people had no information yet were tortured anyways. This nurture argument that is forming is clearly illustrated in the way that one man would torture a prisoner just because another man "found him" to be guilty. There was no evidence!
In addition, Khalid's actions were all based upon his environment. Because his brother had died as a result of this rendition program and its leaders, and because Omar, Khalid's friend, had been captured and beaten as well, Khalid set off the bomb that killed so many. This was all to prove a point. He would never have done that if it hadn't been for the past unfair treatment and torture of those he loved.
Another great example of the "nurture" argument appears when Alan gives up Anwar's wife's "case." Due to the pressure from his job and society to keep quiet about the details of the rendition program, he stops helping out a friend!
There are obviously many more examples throughout the movie that reinforce the "nurture" argument as well.
At the end of Rendition, everything comes together to make a very big impact on the viewer and to prove the point of the whole movie. Post 9/11 society corrupted the minds of those who wished for power, and they went about their "security measures" in such a way that many innocent people were humiliated and/or killed. Those affected by the killings and such lashed out in other ways to try to combat rendition. These attempts to stop or impede rendition usually only caused more serious problems. The cycles formed because of rendition ultimately destroyed many different communities and societies. And this all started because of society's impact on "a" human being.

3:10 to Yuma

The movie 3:10 to Yuma definitely has some kind of connection to the "nature versus nurture" theme. In my opinion, Ben Wade's character is strongly representative of the "nurture argument." He was probably not initially a killer, a cheater, or a coldhearted person, but because of the people and events that surrounded him, he succumbed in order to fit in and in order to survive. His bad behavior may also be a result of his mom abandoning him when he was younger. When Ben Wade, at the beginning of the movie, states, "I hate Pinkertons," he seems to be going along with what his environment is reinforcing. One example of Wade's behavior is showcased when he kills Byron. It is obvious that Wade lives defensively, and at one point in the movie he even speaks of how good deeds are contagious. And for that reason, he stays away from the good deeds. Although Wade and his comrades show their extremely societal-based behaviors throughout the entirety of the movie, the environment, once again, molds Wade's character at the end-this time in a positive way. After he was "escorted" (haha) to the train station and after William watched his father get shot by Charlie Prince, Wade was deeply affected. Because of this environmental change, Wade shot his former friend, Charlie Prince, and rather than escaping, rightfully locked himself behind bars on the 3:10 train to Yuma.

"Dead Teen Walking"

"Dead Teen Walking" is very similar to White Fang in that they both discuss society's influence on events, people, and reality in general (the "molding" concept). In "Dead Teen Walking," the unfair imposition of the death penalty on minorities and on others who are undeserving of it is discussed. It tells the story of one boy in particular who had a bad childhood and who made poor decisions. This very much reminds me of White Fang in that both the boy in the article and White Fang had very rough childhoods. Despite this fact, those who made up a part of their environment did not care or take that into account when questioning their bad behavior. It seems that these kinds of things (past experiences, etc.) are never taken into account. In White Fang, it appears as if his past was not taken into account until he came upon Scott, a man who truly looked at how the past had molded White Fang's character.
I do not believe that teens should be put on death row at all! As I discussed above, those teens' pasts are not taken into account when making these decisions. Maybe if each case was dealt with individually, then the legal process involved with youth punishment would be more fair. I also did not like the part of the article that states that valuable evidence that could be used to prove a minority innocent is often passed up or ignored. This is very discriminatory! Everyone should have the right to a fair trial. In addition, I do not agree with the fact that these youth trials are put off until the youth are of age (this makes age appear to be an uncontroversial issue). Who knows how many innocent people have died by means of capital punishment? I believe that youth should be given a chance to prove themselves. Why should they not be allowed to prove themselves? This would be much better than learning one's lesson by dying!
Reading White Fang impacted my viewpoint only in that I noticed the same "nurture" stance in which I had agreed with (and still agree with). Both pieces definitely had a lot in common!

Abu Ghraib/What Makes Us Moral: Makeup for Missed Seminar

The atrocities that happened at Abu Ghraib prison and the content of What Makes Us Moral both directly tie into the nature versus nurture theme that is prevalent throughout White Fang. They both support the "nurture" philosophy-that one's environment molds one's character accordingly.
At Abu Ghraib prison, the soldiers who were put in charge of interrogating "terrorists" or keeping order became so accustomed to the inhumane torture that, although they originally strongly opposed it, they began to get carried away. They allowed the people who were "in charge" to mold their character into an uncaring, savage beast-all for the purpose of interrogating those people, ninety-percent of who were innocent. The U.S. government, for example, also got swept up in controversy due to its external environment. After 9/11, the government became so angry that it was willing to go against the Geneva Conventions at all costs just to get people to confess something that they usually knew nothing about. Prisoners were humiliated, ridiculed, sexually harassed, and beaten, all due largely in part to the negative impact that other people and society had on the guards' characters. Anger turned into savagery and embarrassment on the United States' part.
What Makes Us Moral also offers great insight into the "nurture" argument. For example, the "shunning" concept basically says that one will succumb to the expectations of some kind of group to avoid abandonment. This clearly illustrates the "molding" concept. In addition, it is discussed how one tends not to sympathize with those whom they know nothing about (e.g. specific races, religions, or cultures) and therefore, one will be less likely to help those kinds of people out or to connect with them because their environment has never supported acceptance or even acknowleged those specific groups.
As in White Fang, both What Makes Us Moral and the story of Abu Ghraib prison tie directly into the nurture theme, in which one is continually molded and remolded to the satisfaction of society and its evil wrath.

What Makes Us Moral

While reading the magazine article "What Makes Us Moral," I noticed a strong connection to the debate of "nature versus nurture." The article explains that one is born with an innate moral code, or a kind of "moral grammar." However, one tends to switch up that code based on different environmental factors. One may know right from wrong, but he/she may not act upon these values because their "membership" in the group would be threatened if they did so. I see this as saying that nature only goes so far, and after that, nurture kicks in. Society's influence molds our, otherwise morally correct, character. The information in the article definitely supports my view of White Fang's stance on this topic. As in the article, White Fang demonstrates that character is shaped by one's surrounding environment. It supports the nurture argument completely. For example, the article discusses how one tends to show empathy towards those who he/she can relate to, but when it comes to outsiders, one has a difficult time showing empathy or acting based on their moral code. One is "programmed" by society to feel as if certain groups of people are very different from them. These specific groups become alienated to the point that one feels as if he/she has nothing in common with them. It is nurture at work!
The article "What Makes Us Moral" has, as I previously mentioned, a strong connection to White Fang, but also a connection to Lord of the Flies as well. On page 196 of White Fang it is stated that, "...according to the clay of his nature and the pressure of his surroundings, his character was being molded into a particular shape." In addition, White Fang acted only for the "gods" a majority of the time (this reinforces the "shunning" concept discussed in the article). In Lord of the Flies, the "two regions battling in the brain" concept is illustrated with every killing performed on the island. In addition, the fact that everyone kept joining Jack's group for the purpose of survival, says to me that all of the kids were trying to avoid the "shunning" as well.
The two summer reading assignments, White Fang and Lord of the Flies, truly reinforce the statements expressed in "What Makes Us Moral!"

Summer Reading Assignment: Senior Social

Between the two summer reading assignments, I enjoyed White Fang a lot more than I did Lord of the Flies. I enjoyed White Fang more because I love animals and stories about them, I truly enjoyed the transformation from heartless to loving on White Fang's part, and I was eager for each new page because of the uncertainty of what would come next. I agree with White Fang's view concerning whether man is inherently evil or not. As opposed to Lord of the Flies, White Fang supports the "evil people and circumstances mold character" point of view. I definitely agree with the "nurture" position as far as the books are concerned. I did not like the portrayal of the savage nature of man in Lord of the Flies at all. It implies that we all have it in us to kill and to be dangerously instinctual, which I do not believe. We are not born to kill!