The Traitor
Despite the episode's title, The Defector is a story about a traitor. I can not agree that Admiral Jarok is any way but parenthetically defecting to the Federation -- he demonstrates love for his country and his people on several occasions. Instead I feel that he is a reluctant traitor motivated by personal rather than political reasons. The difference between the terms is subtle, but important: the term 'defector' should not imply traitorous crime, nor should the term 'traitor' imply defection.
The term 'defector' is used to describe a person who has joined another country for ideological reasons. Defection is a political term and is only used to describe knowing and voluntary relocation due to ideological motivations. Someone's ideology is their overall view of or attitude toward life: their outlook, credo, or philosophy. (Nisus Dictionary.) A group of Zendik socialists, for example, defect from the United States when they move to Canada in protest against the market economy. A traitor, on the other hand, actively and knowingly participates in a decision or event that will harm his or her country. There are two important differences between these terms. First, the definition of traitor is non-specific when it comes to motivation. A traitor might betray his country for money, for love, for fame, or, certainly but not necessarily, for ideological reasons. Second, a defector is explicitly choosing to change geographical location in harmony with his ideals. The definition of a traitor does not include any reference to location, although a traitor may be exiled or he may -- additionally -- defect. (Kidder.)
Since a defector is motivated by his ideology -- that is, an intellectual apprehension of his concepts of Right and Wrong -- his rejection of his country is both fundamental (starting at the most basic levels) and (therefore) complete. This understanding of the term can not include Admiral Jarok. Throughout the episode Jarok expresses love for his country in poignant ways. He shares reminiscent thoughts about Romulan Ale and the Romulan landscape with Data. More importantly he expresses his approval for at least one of the warlike maneuvers of his government. When he is brought into sickbay at the beginning of the episode Dr. Crusher makes obscure references to a previous medical situation following a Romulan military conflict. Obviously angry, Jarok interrupts her to place the blame on the Klingons, a Federation ally. (The Defector.) If Jarok were truly planning to defect it seems reasonable that he would be bitter, cynical, and disapproving of his country, not wistfully longing for it or defending it.
...he rifle. He will always remain a jarhead. And all the jarheads killing and dying, they will always be me. We are still in the desert."
either be because they want to get away from the violence going on in their country, or because
Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking German officer who was one of a few top-ranking officials responsible for the "legal work" of the extermination of millions of Jews. He was a wanted Nazi war criminal because he escaped just before the end of World War II. He was not immediately captured and thus evaded the Nuremberg Trials as he fled to the country of Argentina where he attempted to fade into history. Israeli secret service agents somehow managed to track Eichmann down, kidnap him, and bring him back to Israel to face the consequences of his past. Throughout the trial, Eichmann's defense was simply that he was basically a puppet of Nazi Germany saying that he was "a tool in the hands of superior powers and authorities."
The Civil War was the bloodiest, most devestating war that has ever been fought on American soil. It began on April 12, 1861, at 4:30 in the morning. The main reason that the war was fought was because Southern states believed that they should have the right to use African-Americans as slaves, and the Northern States opposed that belief.
others for the violence of the war, and summarizes his view on revenge perfectly: “I joined the
Support: The film Jarhead is about newly recruited young men joining the marines in order to protect and serve our country. However, the film’s main focus will be on Private Swofford’s decision to join the United States Marines Corps
Taking all of these motivations into consideration, there were also differences between certain groups in the military. It can be argued that groups of people who did not experience enthusiasm for the war since its beginning were those that did not have these motivations to continue fighting. For example, unlike France and Great Britain, Italy entered the war at a later period with the state’s war aims of gaining territory from Austria-Hungary. However, most Italians did not know the true reason for the declaration of war and were not supportive of entering conflict, compared to the soldiers from countries such as Germany and France who were excited to fight and express patriotism.
... towards the goals of the country from a sense of nationalism (McEnaney 21; Orwell n.pag.). The resentment the people hold for the enemy comes from the government’s war which distracts the people from the government’s actions towards themselves. The ploys the government uses the war for help them achieve their goals by controlling the citizens.
Illegal immigrants, from their point of view are not deviant at all; a person has the right to want better for themselves. If most of your family members or friends are in America, you’ll find a way to join them because of your strong attachment to them. America provides better job success and better education. If a person’s goal is to achieve higher status in the job market and the only way to do that is with better education
...ven in these circumstances, such as during the Mexican-American War, these soldiers are considered good citizens who fought for their country. This is similar to how lawmakers and politicians also do not value their moral sense first, because if they base their statecraft on morality, they could be considered traitors for not thinking of the greatest advantage and benefits of their own country first at all times.
Initially, the chapter begins with the narrator?s mind-boggling confusion and his grandfather?s last words. [He=somewhat ambiguous. His grandfather] describes himself as a traitor and wants the narrator and his father to ??overcome ?em with yeses, undermine ?em with grins, agree ?em to death and destruction ?? (2359). The narrator doesn?t quite like this idea. He prefers conformity to revolt, because he thinks that ?? someday they would look upon me as a traitor and I would be lost? (2360).
The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, is a cult classic. And with good reason. Anyone who simply believes that the title of this book just signifies that the protagonist wears a scarlet “A” on her dress in punishment of her adultery is ignorant. Obviously this paper would not be required if such were true. Instead, The Scarlet Letter is extremely ambiguous. One can argue that the scarlet letter is a character itself. I intend to flesh this out in literary, historic, and symbolic terms.
The Scarlet Letter illustrates that the illumination of self-deception gapes open after one like the very jaws of hell. This is apparent through all the main characters of the novel. Although Hawthorne's work has several imperfect people as the main characters, including Hester Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale, and Roger Chillingworth, the worst sinner is Roger Chillingworth. Chillingworth commits the greater sin because of his failure to forgive; he has an insatiable appetite for revenge; he receives extreme pleasure in torturing Dimmesdale. Hester Prynne, however, has committed sins of almost the same magnitude.
Crime happens every day. Some of the most common reasons people commit crimes are child abuse, drug addiction, mental health issues, and repetitive crime history. Many criminals have a logical reason for their crime and believe they are doing the right thing. That is the case with a man who calls himself The Puppet Master. The Puppet Master makes a solid argument against the government, but uses the wrong methods to show it. He is supporting a cause he believes in, but manipulating the situation, and threatening people’s lives.
The concept of written laws and their place in government is one of the key points of discussion in the Platonic dialog the Statesman. In this philosophical work, a dialog on the nature of the statesmanship is discussed in order to determine what it is that defines the true statesman from all of those who may lay claim to this title. This dialog employs different methods of dialectic as Plato begins to depart from the Socratic method of argumentation. In this dialog Socrates is replaced as the leader of the discussion by the stranger who engages the young Socrates in a discussion about the statesman. Among the different argumentative methods that are used by Plato in this dialog division and myth play a central role in the development of the arguments put forth by the stranger as he leads the young Socrates along the dialectic path toward the nature of the statesman. The statesman is compared to a shepherd or caretaker of the human “flock.” The conclusion that comes from division says that the statesman is one who: Issues commands (with a science) of his own intellect over the human race. This is the first conclusion that the dialog arrives at via the method of division. The dialog, however, does not end here as the stranger suggests that their definition is still wanting of clarity because there are still some (physicians, farmers, merchants, etc…) who would lay claim to the title of shepherds of humanity. For this reason a new approach to the argument must be undertaken: “then we must begin by a new starting-point and travel by a different road” (Statesman 268 D.)