Hamill Response

When reading through the essay by Sam Hamill, “The Necessity to Speak,” I noticed that he had shown many emotions through the writing. One of the strongest emotions I noticed right away was an appearance of anger. This anger pointed to the abusers and rapists in our country. This also was pointing to the government and their willingness to fund what he considered to be “the bill for murder in Nicaragua” (547). Over the course of two years the U.S. government had given $67 million to help one side of the Nicaraguan civil war, so Hamill considered this to be a donation to murder of the other half. In a way, I can see where he gets this idea. The government, by giving the money it did, made it clear that it supports one side of the country but not the other, so they showed a fair amount of favoritism. The deaths caused by the money given would be enough to cause someone to be angered at the government, especially when they are anti-war activists or peace activists in general. With Hamill using this example to begin the essay, he did an excellent job on showing that the government is not out to help eliminate people from being abusers or murderers, but tells them that murder is acceptable in a way.
Hamill had a very unique perspective on abusers and rapists. He had some experiences while in prison and as a child that gave him this perspective. His elaboration on some of the different views of what society shows as acceptable have been determined by what he has seen and experienced. On page 548, Hamill says that “A man who is a man, when all else fails, asserts his “masculinity. It is easy to learn to be a man. I learned to be a batterer without ever thinking about it. That’s the way we learn.” This statement shows me that he never really had a good father figure, because, in my experience, I have seen men who didn’t have good father figures that had the same view as Hamill. I had a good father, and I was raised a lot differently than Hamill, as I never was orphaned, nor was I ever imprisoned as a child or adult. I don’t believe that a man would show his “masculinity” through being aggressive. I feel that a man who is compassionate is more of a man than someone who is aggressive. I understand this was used for the purpose of the essay, but it also is a view that I don’t agree with.
In the end, I see exactly what view Hamill had on this, as I can relate to the view of some of the thoughts he has on war. I don’t particularly agree with someone calling a weapon capable of severe harm a “peacemaker,” but I can see that the government thought that was the only way to keep peace, and using aggression was the way. I was very impressed with the fact that Hamill said that, even if you take the emotion and the words out of the poetry, the poetry is still there. I never thought about it that way. All the words and emotions are is a way to express it to the rest of the world. The real poetry is inside the heart and mind of the poet. This reading was very interesting, as it came across as angry to start, but had a good meaning in the end. I will most likely read this again just to get a better feel for his style.