While studying for the humanities test and reviewing the Ottoman
Turks, I thought of The Hunger Games when
looking over the “blood tax” that had to be paid. In The Hunger Games, each
district must send two teens as tribute to the capitol to compete in the hunger
games. Similarly, each community under the Ottomans had to send their best
young men as tributes to join the army. Except, this was much more humane and
effective than in the hunger games. At least the Ottomans would send the most
qualified men rather than any teen at random. The Ottoman’s system also
promoted loyalty and support, whereas the hunger games’ led to an uprising.
Also, these young men in the Ottoman Empire had to work together rather than
kill each other off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting correlation. I see the parallel too. Similarly, in the Hunger Games the tributes would undergo horrible obstacles to advance to "victor." Yet I'm sure the Ottomans weren't entirely "humane" towards their young soldiers - how else would they have such an excellent elite? They were supposed to be loyal to the sultan, or like in the Hunger Games, the Capitol. They didn't necessarily kill each other in the Ottoman empire to advance. I think of it as the "victors" from the Hunger Games protecting President Snow.
This is a really great comparison. When you think about it, both the "Capitol" and the Sultan required the children from each region or the "blood tax" for the essentially same reason. Basically, they both wanted to show their citizens "who's boss." The Capitol required the Hunger Games to take place as retribution to the Districts for their original uprising, and to make sure they remain under the control of the Capitol. The sultan required the blood tax to make sure each region of the Ottoman Empire remained loyal to the sultan, seeing as it was rather decentralized.
Post a Comment