"China, 3000 years ago. General Song, an old 80+ man, under the strict orders of the Emperor of China, led an army consisting of 12 different Chinese ethnicities, into Nangan, for a takeover. He and his men sounded the trumpets and as soon as the trumpets were heard, the men shouted, then they charged straight into Nangan and took it. They utterly destroyed all in Nangan, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, asses, etc. with the edge of the sword. Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Emperor."
Do you think General Song and his army acted rightly or not?
A. I approve. Totally.
B. I partially approve/disapprove.
C. I disapprove. Totally.
This was conducted by a psychologist on children from 8-14 years. Please pick an answer and give a reason for your answer as comments. Please do not Google or look for this test or in anyway do anything that can affect your honest answer.
The collected results will be my next post. Yay!
7 comments:
wow! there's a partially approve/disapprove option! i like this poll, very much.
i'd go for approve. totally. general song and his army acted rightly.
it was very, very barbaric, what with the slaying of all men women, young and old, oxen, sheep, asses, etc. AND the burning of the whole city and everything in it and all, BUT reasons why i approve:
1) it was 3000 years ago. give them a break. the rule that day was Conquer or Be Conquered. Destroy City or Have City Destroyed. kind of thing. general song was just doing his thing and following the emperor's orders.
2) he had an army consisting of 12 different chinese ethnicities. i don't know if that counts as 'multi-racial'. maybe more like 'multi-ethnical'. why this is good is because it taught people of different um ethnical origin to work together as a team (even if it was to destroy cities). you know how difficult some people find it to work with others who are different from them.
3) they obeyed their emperor, who is effectively, The Man. they plundered and pilaged simply because The Man said so. also! they made sure that all the silver and gold and all were kept aside for him before burning the city, because they put him first in their priorities. which goes to show that they either know that the emperor is mucho important and would be pleased by the shinies or they were just big ass-kissers (as in, people who tend to show higher tendency of ass-kissing. not people who like to kiss big butts).
yep . those're my reasons.
now that that's said and done, the emperor of china back then was a total masochist and were it 30 instead of 3000 years ago, he would've been shot by john lennon.
Goodness Jal! Demanding much, but since miz sibuk post comment banyak. i must beat her. so i will post too.
I disapprove totally. Violence should not be overanalyzed and then justified. It should be plain and simple- what they did was CAPITAL W-R-O-N-G.
Reasons?
If these people were really NOT mindless murderers (making their feat somewhat excusable) they would have spared the children, women, the old, and the livestock. What is there to gain from slaughtering innocents?? You probably could argue that he did it on the command of his Emperor, but puh-lease, couldn't he THINK for himself. Goodness he's an old 80+ man for Christ's sake! You'd think experience would have trained a general to be anything but mindless.
also! they didn't have to burn the whole city. why not leave it behind to be consumed by nature and discovered / studied by archaeologists. how inconsiderate of them!! Not only did they wipe out the entire Nangan, they also killed Nangan's only chance at being remembered. Shitholes.
to top that, general song... global warming much???? thanks for contributing to the melting of the poles.
i swear, people of the ancient times are supremely un-fab. thank God we live in a time where Vogue exists. if it had back then, i promise this would NOT have happened.
why wage war, when you can be buying rm5000+ Louis Vuittons and show off to neighboring countries. it's a much much fabulous way to dominate!
xoxo!
it was THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO. they didn't even have shavers!!!!
and if song hadn't listened to the emperor, he would've died, and so would've his army, for pengkhianatan. also, if they didn't slaughter the children, they would grow up to hate the emperor and then overthrow him and where would they be without an emperor?
although, i do agree with the violence should not be overanalyzed and then justified thing.
s'cuse me. are we turning this into a personal debate girlfriend!
fine. they didn't have shavers, i'd give you that. that fashion outburst was a little uncalled for.
BUT...
WHO THE HECK NEEDS AN EMPEROR ANYWAY?
Song should've died for the sake of the people! he sooo should have done that whole "i won't do it" drama and die a totally glamorous and dramatic death ( i think it's very glam to die for the sake of the people, unlike how one member of the Carpenters did)
and the children SHOULD grow up and rebel against the emperor. it's called nationalism (Form 5 Sejarah kickin'in!) Standing up against a monarch that is unjust and violent is a social responsibility, a little like voting (except it's SO much less violent)
It's the only way to have a better life. I for one am extremely grateful my forefathers fought for our independence, else i wouldn't be so liberal and watching gossip girl every tuesday night.
the same theory applies to the story. they DIDNT need an emperor!
and srsly. had Louis Vuitton bags been around then, tentu no war.
i had to add the last bit xD
love and peace! support it
xoxo
i disapprove totally! haha jit yang you should already know my answer actually but since you ask me to post a comment, so i will!
why?
i just think that no one deserves to die because of greed.
i dont have a supper long answer like the two above laaa. haha im very simple.
I disapprove also.
I think the emperor should have spared the people's life. Thats what i think. I dont have a long answer. Basically its almost the same answer as my sister's.
B. I disapprove. Totally
Well, you mentioned that he was 80+ and under STRICT orders from the Emperor for a TAKEOVER. Unless takeover in your context means the total destruction, I think its an old-fashion case of nyanyukness. His act of keeping all the loot was probably just a big kiss-ass attempt.
I agree with Ming (except the Vogue part, wth?). What they did were mindless. I can never comprehend how one man can bear killing another. I don't think any movie or storybook can mirror how it really feels like. *shivers*
Oh well that's my thoughts on the whole poll thingiemajiggy. Rock video bro!
Post a Comment