|
|
It is the Soldier
It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
In Flander's Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
He Died at his Post
A soldier had fallen! 'Tis well that we weep!
O soft be his pillow, and peaceful his sleep!
Far, far from his home, and the friends he loved most,
He fell in the conflict, and died at his post.
When brave ones were summoned their country to save,
He hasted war's perils to share with the brave,
And proudly he stood in the van of the host,
And, like his Great Captain, he died at his post.
No more shall earth's conflicts disturb his repose,
He has gone where the weary are free from life's woes;
There covered with glory, on Eden's bright coast,
'Twill be sweet to remember he died at his post.
Farewell youthful soldier! we ne'er will forget,
The life thou has offered, the death thou has met!
Of thee may our nation in history boast;
And tell the whole world, thou didst die at thy post.
A soldier has fallen; but long shall remain
The star-spangled flag which he died to sustain;
For, sooner than let our loved country be lost,
A nation of freemen will die at their post!
An excellent reminder of what it is we have, and the price it comes at.
Posted by: Jason at November 11, 2003 11:14 AMI've never liked that "It Is The Soldier" poem. It somehow implies that protecting the freedoms is much more important than actually excercising them; this is, inicidentally, the stance of the current administration as well. Smells too much like Starship Troopers for my liking... satire made manifest.
Posted by: Bugmaster at November 11, 2003 02:03 PMI'm glad you are able to commemorate Veteran's Day all the way in St. Petersburg. I just wish my work wasn't too cheap to let me have the day off. More importantly, happy birthday! It's always fun to spend your birthday alone in a foreign country. Splurge at both McDonald's and KFC. And lastly, don't listen to Rob. Stay away from clubs filled with Russian girls! Stick with nice Chineese guys.
Posted by: Riva at November 11, 2003 10:36 PMI actually forgot it was my birthday, thanks for reminding me.
And Stas, the military is not supposed to excercise freedom. Though they protect democracy and liberty, they can't operate like that, and they understand why.
Posted by: Owen at November 12, 2003 01:16 AMHey ! This makes it two birthdays that I missed. Damn it... Sorry Owen, and happy belated birthday.
Anyway, poem-wise, the military does not excercise freedom -- duh. However, look at how the poem is structured. In every verse, it says, basically, "the soldier is more important than X", where X is a person whose life calling (or, at least, whose job) it is to excercise some particular freedom. This is what irks me about the poem. I respect the soldiers, and I'm happy they're here to cover my ass, but I cannot agree that they are vastly more important than reporters, poets, activists, scientists, etc.
Come to think of it, activists have actually achieved many things that soldiers did not, such as the end of segregation, women's right to vote, etc. Let's see: "It is the campus organizer, not the soldier, who has given us the freedom to vote". Does that sound wrong to you ?
Posted by: Bugmaster at November 12, 2003 01:36 AMactivists have actually achieved many things that soldiers did not, such as the end of segregation
Segregation was enforced by the military. Who stood by the school doors as the first black kids were admitted into the first white high school in the south? United States paratroopers.
"It is the campus organizer, not the soldier, who has given us the freedom to vote".
Well, no. It was soldiers (minutemen) who enforced the whole "no taxation without representation" thing. And specifically about women, I can claim that one in two ways. First, it was the soldiers who started the whole "common person should vote" that eventually got to the women. Or, advancements in social liberties often come at the end of wars. In this case, sufferage was ushered in by the lax atmosphere of the 20's that was the direct result of the soldiers coming home from war.
Posted by: Owen at November 12, 2003 08:05 AMI think I have proved my point. The idea that activists might be vastly more important than soldiers is so repugnant to you that you start grasping at straws such as "soldiers coming home" and forget important historical figures such as Rosa Parks, MLK, and (Mike's favorite) Ghandi.
The bottom line is, soldiers are important, but they are not vastly more important than other professions (and neither are activists). In fact, our particular system of government is explicitly based on the assumption that there will be poets, activists, and journalists, who will maintain the system and drive it forward, so that all these soldiers will have something worthwhile to protect. There is a different system of government that does place soldiers above all; it's called "fascism".
Posted by: Bugmaster at November 13, 2003 02:48 AMBut you didn't actually disagree with my refutation of your two examples.
Look, I didn't want to be forced into a position to defend soldiers above all else, but I see it has happened thus. What I wanted to convey, and I think most people agree, is that we sometimes forget who puts themselves on the line to ensure that we live the free, comfortable, wealthy, and happy lives that we do.
That being said, I think a position of soldiers are more important is logically tenable, especially when viewed through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
1. No stage of development can be realized without the completion of the stages below.
2. Self-Actualization is at the top of the list.
3. Physical safety is at the bottom.
4. The freedoms which we are discussing are in between safety and self-actualization.
Therefore, those who safeguard safety are more important than those who safeguard the stages above. Simply put, it is possible to have safety without freedom, but it is impossible to have any sort of useful freedom without safety.
This is Hobbes' justification of the social contract. Seeing how in the natural state human life is "savage, short, and brutal," even an oppressive state is better than none at all.
Another way to show that the soldiers would be more important is simply that you can't enjoy freedom if you're dead.
Posted by: Owen at November 13, 2003 10:53 AMBut you didn't actually disagree with my refutation of your two examplesI didn't disagree because there was no point. But, if you prefer, here we go:
Segregation was enforced by the military. Who stood by the school doors as the first black kids were admitted into the first white high school in the south? United States paratroopers.This is true, but it took many protests and public demonstrations by the "campus activists" to even get the paratroopers there. Without them, the soldiers would have nothing to do.
In this case, sufferage was ushered in by the lax atmosphere of the 20's that was the direct result of the soldiers coming home from warThis example no longer supports your point, because the soldiers coming home from war were acting as civilians, and not in their military capacity. They can vote too, after all.
Anyway, back on topic. I find it kind of ironic that you chose to use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (tm), since it's about as valid as Freud's "all your dreams are really about having sex with your mother" hypotheses: it sounds really cool, and it might even be internally consistent, but there's very little evidence to actually back it up (BTW, your link leads to some lame "under construction" page with no actual data).
You say that "even an oppressive state is better than none at all", but this is really a misunderstanding. There is no such thing as "no state at all", as long as there are more than two people involved. All human cultures have some sort of a state; the default is outright dictatorship, or some sort of a tribal system, where the strong oppress the crap out of the weak. Any kind of power vacuum will be filled faster than you can say "Soviet Union collapse". Democracy is an anomaly. Thus, our choices aren't between total anarchy and dictatorship -- instead, we have to choose between dictatorship and basic freedoms. I personally prefer freedoms, because, while it's true that "you can't enjoy freedom if you're dead" (or merely imprisoned, at least), it it doesn't really matter to me personally who kills or imprisons me: my own state or some foreign power. I am screwed either way.
Thus, I still stand by my original point: soldiers are essential to protect the state, but there has to be something worthwhile for them to protect, otherwise they're worse than useless.
Posted by: Bugmaster at November 13, 2003 03:00 PM