But which isn't entirely true. The first grounder attack occurs because the 100 landed in there territory, sure... but then they started to talk.
This niggled at me as well. I remember thinking as Bellamy was stating -- "they've always tried to kill us" -- uh, no that's not exactly true. An example of how the human mind has a tendency to shift to extremes to justify emotional decisions. "Everybody does this," or "Nobody thinks that way" or " They always do that" or "You always do this" -- often seeing one pattern of events, but conveniently ignoring any exceptions or deviations. Doesn't mean that all decisions based on emotion are necessarily wrong or stupid - ad demonstrated by Clark and Octavia, and to a degree Abby and Kane -- who have begun to see the Grounders as individuals and care about them as individuals -- so their decision to push for peace over war is to a degree emotionally based.
But, Bellamy has to see that way. In a way, he's managed to demonize the Grounders in his head. If they were always trying to kill him, always a threat, and it was never the reverse -- then killing the 300 Grounders saved lives and was just part of an on-going war for survival. If, however, he sees it the opposite way -- then he aided in the massacre of 300 Grounders for no reason and escalated tensions between the two parties.
I see this a lot in historical and political discussions, where people will often conveniently ignore events that deviate from their argument.
So emphasis is placed on the first Grounder attack, ignoring the attempts at peace, the actions of the 100, and the blast that the Sky People set off to kill their opponents. Just like we ignore what we did during various wars, it was all the other guy's fault. We're the good guys. When it's really neither. And many of the actions that escalated the war really weren't rational but hotheaded emotional responses.
When I was watching the previous episodes --- I thought okay, why are they doing this? This makes no rational sense. But it does when you look at from the perspective...that it's not supposed to, and really how many wars were rational?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2016-02-21 02:45 pm (UTC)This niggled at me as well. I remember thinking as Bellamy was stating -- "they've always tried to kill us" -- uh, no that's not exactly true. An example of how the human mind has a tendency to shift to extremes to justify emotional decisions. "Everybody does this," or "Nobody thinks that way" or " They always do that" or "You always do this" -- often seeing one pattern of events, but conveniently ignoring any exceptions or deviations.
Doesn't mean that all decisions based on emotion are necessarily wrong or stupid - ad demonstrated by Clark and Octavia, and to a degree Abby and Kane -- who have begun to see the Grounders as individuals and care about them as individuals -- so their decision to push for peace over war is to a degree emotionally based.
But, Bellamy has to see that way. In a way, he's managed to demonize the Grounders in his head. If they were always trying to kill him, always a threat, and it was never the reverse -- then killing the 300 Grounders saved lives and was just part of an on-going war for survival. If, however, he sees it the opposite way -- then he aided in the massacre of 300 Grounders for no reason and escalated tensions between the two parties.
I see this a lot in historical and political discussions, where people will often conveniently ignore events that deviate from their argument.
So emphasis is placed on the first Grounder attack, ignoring the attempts at peace, the actions of the 100, and the blast that the Sky People set off to kill their opponents. Just like we ignore what we did during various wars, it was all the other guy's fault. We're the good guys. When it's really neither. And many of the actions that escalated the war really weren't rational but hotheaded emotional responses.
When I was watching the previous episodes --- I thought okay, why are they doing this? This makes no rational sense. But it does when you look at from the perspective...that it's not supposed to, and really how many wars were rational?