ipl-logo

Nature Of Conflict In Langston Hughes's 'War'

414 Words2 Pages

Argumentatively, there is no right or wrong in war, only perspective and opinion. When reading Langston Hughes “War,” Hughes portrays the nature of conflict as one of two sides. Where outcomes can vary depending on which side you’re on. Where one nation gains something and another nation loses another. Be aware that the cause of war is not just one person, it is a magnitude of people; “The face of war is my face. / The face of war is your face,” (Hughes). It is the outcomes of every person's actions and is never solely one individual's fault, there will always be a chain of events leading to war. Furthermore, Hughes describes how human beings blame others for the outcomes of their actions- when they too are a cause of it. It is human nature to seemingly never accept an event as one's own fault, there always seems to be a scapegoat. …show more content…

“I dip my broom in blood, / my mop in blood– / And blame you for this, / Because you are there, / Enemy. / It’s hard to blame me, / Because I am here / So I kill you. / And you kill me. / My name, / Like your name, / Is war.” The word ‘there’ is italicized in Hughes work to demonstrate that the blame of conflict is put onto those who are even somewhat present, the whipping boy. That all problems arose as a result of the ‘enemies’ mere existence. How if the ‘enemy’ was not present, nothing bad would happen and that there’d be no bloodshed. In spite of the beliefs, it takes two to tango and as such there can never just be one person or nation at fault. Humans find it difficult to hone their actions, they find it difficult to see themselves as the reason and fault of conflict. Consequently, these thoughts transfer onto the opposing side. Hence, his words accurately represent human

Open Document