posted
First I have to say thanks OSC for giving me a word I couldn't find in my computer's widget dictionary:
pusillanimous \pyoo-suh-LAN-uh-muhs\, adjective: Lacking in courage and resolution; contemptibly fearful; cowardly.
Of course I had inferred the obvious meaning, (well, almost, I had though: refusing to move) but a little searching made me feel efficient and smarter all at once.
On the Question:
You mention in the article that you are upset by the use of dead soldiers by "Christians" to protest the Military's policies on gay soldiers. I agree of course on your points about the rights of families and the obvious contradiction in allowing protests at funerals.
In reading your article, I started thinking about your fiction and taking your argument one step further. You write about "speaking for the dead" as a noble and honest undertaking of self-sacrifice and self-discovery, both for the listeners and the speakers. So I want to ask you how you feel about people on both sides of the war issue (or any issue actually) using the specific names and faces of the dead to further their "side" of the issue, or to promote themselves as being connected to the nobility of the fallen ones; a nobility that you attest to passionately.
You keep the name of the soldier and the name of the man who shared his story with you private, and you don't use his story as a point in favor of the war, or against anything but the simple fact that he deserves a little respect as a human being. This feels honest to me, because you are advocating someone personally as a representative of personal dignity, so the personal story makes sense. But imagine if you were one of those pundits or politicians (on all sides of many many issues) who invoke the names of the dead as support for their causes. Often these politicians or pundits also invoke the living support of the families of the dead, who almost "speak for" their lost ones, in support of or against an issue.
It has always filled me with the most profound hollowness, emotionally, to hear such testimony from the families of the departed. It feels like cheating to come around and explain what someone's life was worth to them when they can't tell you how it feels to actually die for something, or because of something, or someone's actions. In a way too I recognize how we all generalize fallen soldiers and their general motivations, which may be unknowable to us until our own deaths. Maybe a soldier died not for his country, but for a friend he wanted to save, or because he wanted to die, or for some even more noble purpose than national pride, or for a purpose that was not at all good.
We don't know the thoughts of the dead, but we project many things onto them as symbols, and I want to know how you feel about all of that, as it has always gone on, and probably always will.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking for the Dead as Card conceived it is to discover and share how the departed viewed himself, as the hero of the story of his own life. I don't think any of the soldiers lived their lives in hopes of the day their name and face would appear at the end of the News Hour. I don't watch the News Hour anymore because of their "Honor Roll". It can't be faulted with reason, but it feels wrong to me since I believe they are saying with each picture that the war isn't worth it, rather than the opposite.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't it be nice to hear someone speak for one while one was still alive, and for them to get it right enough that you learned something about yourself in time to make a difference, instead of someone who knows nothing about you getting it all wrong and just pissing you off. That would be an amazing gift. Not quite the same thing, obviously as speaking for the dead. But it could be an incredible gift. Not to mention almost impossible to do well...
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I bet some of those soldiers did want their names up on the News Hour. Not that they wanted to die for it, but that's probably a big part of the soldier thing, in the backs of some minds. Look at somebody like "Lt. Dan" from Forest Gump, who's only function in life is to serve his destiny- surely he represents at least a few.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soldiers are willing to sacrifice, but I don't think any of them do it for 15 seconds of fame on the side, as if they were winners of a technology award at the Oscars. Also, I believe Lt. Dan was a fictional character, and that it would be difficult to have a family line made up of people who had all died in wars.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh he's a ficitonal character? I need to do some hard thinking.
That's a farsical illustration of the part of American life that the movie was trying to portray- not realistic per se, but interesting.
I don't think we're talking about realistic ideas of glory and the limelight- 15 seconds of fame, though perhaps realistic, is not what runs through people's minds over and over again. You can easily show how stupid the notion is, but I don't think that stops people from going out and hoping, somewhere in their hearts, that they'll die and be immortalized as heros. Saying that this definetly doesn't factor for any of them strains my imagination- I've known too many people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't just that he's fictional, it's just as you said, that he's farcical, as if anyone can live soley for the sake of dying. The entire meaning of death in battle, the thing that makes it heroic rather than just stupid, is that you weren't just there to get killed, you were fighting for something more important than your own life (or loss of same).
Soldier's don't want to die, they want to win, badly enough that they're willing to risk death to achieve victory. Sure, the glamour of giving one's all for that cause is appealing, it has to be for significant numbers of men to overcome their fear of death. But the cause itself has to be more appealing still.
And no soldier wants his death to be the straw that breaks the cause he fought to promote. Since every instance of "memorializing" soldiers on the News Hour is a deliberate attack on the entire purpose of the war, I very much doubt that any soldier who is actually fighting on our side has any desire to be so used. Perhaps the network could verify this by only memorializing those who left instructions explicitly saying that they wanted to be thus memorialized.
Nobody needs to speak for the American soldiers who die in this war. They've spoken very clearly through their actions. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar. Perhaps we could wish that they'd said a little more before they died, but if that's how you really feel, then you should listen to them while they're still alive and able to say something. Anyone that regularly dismisses the living soldier's adventures can hardly be called honest when showing an interest in the dead.
Speaking for the Dead, as portrayed in Card's works, is never a political activity. Nor is it an activity that is undertaken out of anything other than a deep love and appreciation of the individual, and how and why that individual lived, rather than died. It has less than nothing to do with those who put words in the mouths of the dead as a means of exploiting them.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well we can talk about speaking for the living too, I guess. You seem to agree mostly with me on my point about glory being a subconscious motivator right? Not the end all, of course, but something that does linger in the psyche- I know if I were a soldier it would have occurred to me more than once.
But what about all those living soldiers who are cherry picked by the media (or do they present themselves?) as examples of this or that belief. The anecdotal soldier stories, of which I have my own from family members and buddies in Iraq, of which I have several, are so often presented as evidence that the military thinks this or that, or things are going a certain way over there. It's so often biased or disingenuous or just plain dishonest!
I don't tell people (until now) that I had a short email correspondence with an uncle in Iraq who stopped writing me when I expressed my own feeling about the war. I don't think he was wrong, because he's over there and it's hard to hear things that make what your doing seem less worth doing. I wasn't wrong because I was being honest, but that stopped us from communicating, and I feel bad about that. This was not at all vitriolic or even hurtful to our relationship, he just stopped emailing me with updates.
I have never used his opinions or his stance on the matter as an example of anything (that I can recall), because he is alive and can speak for himself. If he died I don't know what I would say about it. But there are plenty of people in the media, on all sides, who either simple source their comments and anecdotes to faceless soldiers in Iraq, or who, I suspect, manipulate and "handle" soldiers into presenting a favorable viewpoint, or serving a political purpose. It happens all the time and I both hate it and understand why it happens- that may simply be the trade off we get for being able to communicate at all, and I don't want to cut these people off- I just think that if they really want to talk, they should get blogs so that everyone can read all their thoughts. Those that do I admire the most.
Speaking for the Dead does not have "less than NOTHING" to do with exploiting them- if only in the sense that exploiting them is the polar opposite of the thing that speaking is supposed by most people to be. Still, the fact that exploitation is the exact opposite of the point means that speaking is also speaking against those who would exploit. It IS relevant to the point of speaking in that way, because plenty of people would want you to believe that they hold the power of the opinions and lives and sacrifices of the dead, when they really hold nothing but contempt for those that they would convince.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen to him now, or shut the hell up forever, kid.
And your "the fact that it has nothing to do with it means that it has something to do with it" argument would be funny, if the rest of your post weren't so sad.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an old solider I will say something here. I have seen the honor roll people talk of naming the dead soldiers but keeping them faceless. To me the request to parade the caskets of the soldiers is so wrong, and so is this need to scroll their names. A soldiers job is not die for his country, but to make the other bastard die for his (Patton said that I think) As a soldier we rarely thought of the politics, but we focused on the mission. Each of us that joined did so for one reason or another, and the majority of the reasons where not patriotic or political. The patriotic portion was a bonus for some, but not the main reason. Our military is mainly comprised of people seeking a better life, through an education provided by the GI Bill. Some are seeking personal growth that they heard could be gotten from the military. I even knew a few that where doing to escape a life that they didn't want anymore, either because of a threat of jail, or unhappy family life. A soldier that joins in this day and age for the glory of combat, or a sense of glory in war, are not welcomed readily, and most of them get themselves or others killed or seriously injured. Soldiers that stay on in times of war usually do so because they either do not see any other option or they do not want to leave their friends behind. To be a soldier on the front, is a simple job. It is hard and risky, but in essence it is simple and has its appeal at times. The risk of death though is not something through around all willy nilly like the Lt Dan character. In retrospect this concern for life, and modern technology has change the face of war forever. 58,226 American soldiers also died in the Vietnam or are missing in action, compared to the 3020 in Iraq. Soldiers do not want to die, but if they do it is even worse for them to think it will be in vain. I do not support anyone that would use a soldiers death to degrade their actions. Our soldiers are fighting a very difficult but necessary war in Iraq right now. What ever reason brought us to that sandy sea does not matter anymore. What matters is that we finish what was started or the risk is far greater then loss of 3020 VOLUNTEER soldiers. I support the troops, and their mission. I see what they have to do, and why. I think this would be the best way to honor them, not some twisting mockery that serves political gain the tea totaling bastards trying to struggle for power in this country. Even though they are on foreign soil, fighting in a war you may not believe in, you need to respect them. It is through their actions, and sacrifice that ignorant jerks are allowed to have an opinion. It is because of their blood that we can gather in public and bash our system, burn flags, and speak out against the government. If you don't like it, you could try living under an oppressive regime like the Iraqis had under Saddam. You would have been executed for saying he had a funny mustache if they felt like it. You thought you felt terror when the towers fell? Imagine living like that every day of your life. Imagine trying to live life looking over your shoulder and afraid to speak your mind because you or your family could be imprisoned, injured or killed. Speaking out there is a death sentence. Yes there is fighting there now, and it is more unstable then it was before, but if we finish the mission it can and will be much better. Right now whats slowing it down is arguments from short sighted morons that can not see the big picture, or do not want to see the big picture because they have something to gain by defacing those in power now.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Survivor: Listen to him now, or shut the hell up forever, kid.
And your "the fact that it has nothing to do with it means that it has something to do with it" argument would be funny, if the rest of your post weren't so sad.
Ah, ok, you don't care about this thread or about sharing your views with anybody in any kind of respectful manner.
Well that's fantastic. I didn't stop listening, you don't seem to have picked up on that. I wasn't willing, and will never be, to stop sharing my own views- but I didn't stop listening.
If you want to have any kind of dialogue, please remember that I'm not your kid. Thanks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "teetotalling" means "abstaining from alcoholic beverages." I never understood why it meant that. Though you think I would. I guess I'll go ask Jon Boy.
And sorry if I missed your point, O.
So do we know anyone who supports the war who likes the honor roll? Anyone who does not support the war role who does not like the honor roll? I'd be interested to hear from such a person, it may help me clarify my thoughts on the matter.
I used to be of the opinion that the News Hour tried to be balanced. I guess it had to do with when Paul Gigot was still on.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support the war. I would support an honor roll if it was not being used the way it is. Memorials are grand, and you can feel it in some. You can almost hear the voices of the dead in places like the Vietnam War Memorial. You can see it in the eyes of veterans in Veterans day parades. If was really meant to honor the soldiers and not a tool of political gain I would be all for it. I do not think anybody hates war more then a soldier, but a solider also understands the reasons they fight. This honor roll on the news reports demeans their sacrifice, and has no honor. In my eye the use of the words tea totaler describe narrow minded elitist that see only their point of view because they are the enlightened and privileged so they must be correct in all actions. The evolution of those words became teetotaling, during prohibition. I am sorry if I misused it. I am also sorry if I can not convey my opinions here with as much clarity as Mr Card can. It is a subject I am very tied to emotionally. I know many of the men on this "honor roll". I know many of the soldiers that have lost limbs and life in Iraq. It is hard for me to put these feelings into words that other people can relate to. This is an issue many others have when they return home from war or service. I am attempting to put this in my book to better explain this unsaid change to people who have not been through it. It maybe something larger then I write in this thread. I seem to be able to talk with people at the local VFW much easier then I can with others. I can try to explain it better, but it will take some time for me to find the proper words. For now though I will say as a soldier, I see this as a dishonor and misuse is insulting to those that have put their life's on the line. I do not agree that it should be banned, because that would also be a dishonor. In essence I and many of my brothers put their lives on the line to give people the right to express themselves in such a manner, whether we agree or not. Human rights mean nothing unless they are shared by all, and tolerance is the only way to peace. A true warrior only steps in when human rights are in need of protection regardless of the politics that brought him there. Who cares if it was oil, Haliburton, or just GW trying to finish what daddy started. We are there, our troops have the chance to protect the human rights of other people, and we should see it through. If we don't those on the honor roll are not honored and they died for nothing. To use their deaths as a banner to the cause against this is an insult and to call it an Honor roll shows it more shame. It is similar to those people mentioned in the article throwing eggs at the hearse of a fallen soldier. We have to let them do it, because that is America, and that is what the soldier died for. We do not have to like it though, and those throwing the eggs show their ignorance of that mans sacrifice for them. In principle it is much like the flag burners, they mock the very symbol that gives them the right to do what they are doing.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This honor roll on the news reports demeans their sacrifice, and has no honor." But why is it that we feel this way? I don't dispute that I feel this way, I just don't understand why.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are not listing the dead to honor them, they are listing the dead to state oppostion to the war and to further their ratings and/or own political gain.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, they were anticipating tens of thousands of dead. Not that three thousand isn't to many, it just isn't resulting in the virtual boycott of the airwaves they were hoping for. And so they redefined success of the war.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One is two many, but you are right. They where hoping for tens of thousands, it was like they where waiting for a soap box of dead warriors to stand on to preach from. All hail the ratings gods!!
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen it (watch very little television), and it may be that the purpose is a political one. Yet it seems dishonest to ever allow 3,000+ people to become a statistic to the people who do not have to fight and die. Every death leaves behind friends and loved ones. Some leave children. I would hope that such a thing would encourage people to support active military and their families, and to push to make sure they get the best treatment we can give them.
Whether the operation in Iraq is worth the cost is something I think people will decide for themselves.
My fear is that the notion that we shouldn't consider "abandoning the mission" to avoid disrespect to those who have fallen is that it creates a closed loop. Every fallen person becomes a reason to allow another person to fall. Will it be less horrible to withdraw with 10,000 dead and the concrete proof that civil war is in full swing and matters are completely out of our hands?
Saddam is gone, and perhaps we should be proud of that. But we don't know what will replace him. And now instead of being killed for being considered a political enemy, one can be killed for being a Sunni. Or a Shiite. Or being in the wrong place at the wrong time when a car bomb goes off. Or being a family member of someone who tried to take part in the political system.
It would be a grand thing to make Iraq a place where this no longer happened. Perhaps it would be worth the deaths of all the American troops, all the Iraqi civilians, the contractors, the newscasters, the police.
But it is absolutely vital that each death ask the question, without rhetoric or illusion, "Can we do that? Can we, really, do that?" Beyond that question, everything else is shadows.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course you can't do it. Of course you're doomed to fail. But the reason you can't do it is because you're a bunch of cattle ripe for the slaughter, and your enemies know it.
If you weren't so determined to avoid dying, you might have a chance at survival. Ironic, isn't it?
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look we can succeed, there are things that need to be done to do it, but we can succeed. The majority of people in Iraq and not bomb making psychopathic extremist. We need to secure the borders of a sovereign nation, we need to give them a chance to stand on their own feet, even if only for a moment. If we can keep Jordan, Iran, and Al Queda out long enough it can happen. We nave to give them peace first so they can see what it taste like.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
