Frenchman crying - June, 1940He cries as he watches the German soldiers marching down the Champs Elysees. The glory of France has been ground underfoot by Hitler's goose-stepping legions. In a matter of weeks, the vaunted French army, the Maginot Line, and all of France's pride has been destroyed by the Nazi blitzkrieg. He is a middle-aged man, maybe in his mid Forties. Look at his tears, his tie, his nice suit. He survived World War One and looks like he has since prospered. And now? The night has fallen over France, and soon, all of Europe. He cries for the Twentieth Century. Picture and caption: http://www.acepilots.com
My wife and I took our kids to a museum here in town on December 7th a few years ago. While there, we had the good fortune to meet a WW II Navy veteran who had survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We also encountered the famous WW II picture of the Frenchman crying. These two contrasting encounters taught my family a lesson that I want to share with you.
At the beginning of our tour I spied the aging sailor wearing a veteran’s garrison cap emblazoned with the words “Pearl Harbor Survivor.” I crouched down and quickly tutored my children on Pearl Harbor, WW II, and the man’s significance upon that historical landscape. Fortunately, the kids grasped the meaning of the moment and we approached the gentleman. A mellow, unassuming man, he treated our questions with kindness and received our thanks with humility.
At the end of our museum tour we came face to face with the elderly veteran’s polar opposite: the picture of the Frenchman crying. Many of my fellow Americans would probably enjoy hearty anti-French belly laughs at this picture. But I feel only a profound, heart-tugging sadness when I gaze upon that pitiable countenance. This is the face of a people who lacked the will to defend their freedom. This is the face that traded war and its attendant violence for subjugation and humiliation.
I felt just as compelled to introduce my children to the Frenchman crying as I did to the aging hero. I directed my kids’ attention to the picture and asked them to describe it. “He’s crying,” and “That man is sad,” were the answers I got. They could see his distress and wanted to know what had caused it.
I told them this is how you end up when you're unable or unwilling to fight for your freedom. I told them that if they were not prepared to risk their lives for their country, they had better be prepared to stand on the street crying as the conquerors march by. I insisted they study the picture some more, observe the pain on the man’s face, notice the tears running down his cheeks. “Remember that face,” I told them, “and may you never experience his misfortune.”
Reliance on Maginot Lines and international organizations provides a sense of security--up until the inevitable failure of such contrivances. Then, alas, it is back to blood and steel. Sadly, we are all too human after all.
The veteran and the Frenchman stand in stark contrast. Taken together, they remind us of two unyielding truths: The opposite of war is not necessarily peace, and freedom is never free.
26 comments:
I'm sorry, do conservatives all have ADD? Why do you write such short articles?
brevity is the soul of wit,
and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes...
-- William Shakespeare
Oh, did Shakespeare say that? Well, then it must be true, and he must have been refering to your blog when he wrote that.
You're an idiot.
Why don't you actually justify conservatism or libertarianism at some point in time. You write as if you assume all your readers already agree with you.
Fighting against the Nazis isn't exacly contentious, but it's great to see that your already indoctrinating your kids, how old are they, 3, 4 months?
Relentless: You lose. Ad hominem is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt...
As Apu would say, "Thank you, come again!"
Where'd you get that from? A philosophy professor? Ad Hominum is a proper argument if you're disputing a persons character.
I think you're something like Hemingway; except not a good writer. You make up for your insecurities about your masculinity with pro-war rhetoric, too tasteless even for Hitler himself.
I could argue circles around you you stooge. You're articles just have no real content in them to argue:e.g. premises or conclusions for me to dispute. I can't call a statement, or rhetorical question argumentively flawed.
Make an argument for any position, and I'll turn it upside down for you.
""Make an argument for any position, and I'll turn it upside down for you.""
Mark Stein said it best. Debating a liberal is like playing tennis against someone who says "Yea...but your Ace is just a social construct".
Relentless wrote:
You make up for your insecurities about your masculinity with pro-war rhetoric, too tasteless even for Hitler himself.
Actually, you just described Nietzsche perfectly, although Hitler actually found his ideas quite tasty.
Your assertions are weak and bereft of substance and I don't even see the reason for your attacks on my character.
You can't refute what I say so you sink to the bottom and start calling names. I think you're the one who needs a lesson in logic and rhetoric.
You say you can turn any argument upside down? Then do it and stop talking about it.
Anon could be right on this one...
The fact is that no intellectual believes that Hitler read Nietzsche. Mussollini problably read Nietzsche, but not Hitler, that you think that Hitler read Nietzsche shows your complete disregard for historicism.
Heidegger, if any philosopher, porblably had the strongest influence on Hitler.
And again, once you make an argument... So far, you're just asserting your position without giving any reasons.
I believe you're the one with ADD. You can't even stick to one point.
You're the one that falsely asserted with no evidence that Hitler found Nietzsche, 'tasty'.
Wasn't it Hitler who famously observed, "We are all Nietzscheans now"?
I've only read "Mein Kampf" in reference to Hitler. If you'd like you can look through its index. You'll find "Jewification", "Karl Marx", "Napoleon", "Christian Social Party", etc... but not Nietzsche.
If Hitler ever mentions Nietzsche in his speeches, it is only because of Nietzsche's popularity among Germans at the time. Most of what Hitler said was propaganda.
Some Nazis did read Nietzsche, but so do some Christians. It really doesn't mean anything.
Some have tried to blame Nietzsche for what the nazis did. I am not one of those.
Many ideological schools including Christianity and different strains of philosophy have been used and abused by many for their own ends.
The last post was a joke. It was a takeoff of the the "we're all Keynesians now" quote from RN.
You've discovered the danger of philosophers and non-philosophers trying to have a discussion.
Aside from crack-pot pseudo-intellectuals, who have tried to blame Nietzsche for what the Nazis did; whom blames Nietzsche for the Nazis?
What I wonder is why his name is on the title of your blog, and what it could possibly mean. "God is dead" is something. It has echoed through the years from people other than Nietzsche (take for instance Hegel).
Nietzsche is literally dead, but he was not an ideologue. His insistence was for people to think for themselves. His problem with Christianity was its escapism. Instead of trying to gain wealth the bible says "it is easier for a fat man to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" and instead of trying to overcome your shyness the bible says, "the meek shall inherit the earth", etc...
These are not solutions. Pretending that not having money, etc... makes you good is an absurd thing to resort to.
Instead of actually reading Nietzsche and trying to understand him, you have falsely accused him of being your ideological antithesis. Nietzsche is someone who thought war was often necessary, and so did one of Nietzsches favourite writer, Macchiavelli. Christianity is vehemently antiwar though, and they also don't like people who drink or shoot guns. How do you reconcile yourself with your faith. It must be a profound sort of cognitive dissonence.
You paint religion with too broad a brush. Christianity is vehemently anti war? Ever heard of the just war doctrine or read Exodus? Drinking? There are passages in the Old Testament speaking of God giving us wine to make the heart glad.
I have nothing against Nietzsche. He wrote some excellent lines about how to man up, when he wasn't getting all pissy over Wagner.
Anyway "Hegel is Dead" just doesn't have the same ring to it..
Exactly, you can interpret the bible to mean anything you want it to. One line contradicts the next.
Just war is a catholic notion, and certainly doesn't apply to Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, you haven't responded to my critique of Christianity yet. The escapism, and now the incoherence and contradictions of its holy books.
This post is about defending what you've got because bad people want to take it away from you. It is a Hobbesean world.
There are inherent contradictions in all human endeavors, science included. Just because you say the "Holy Books" are incoherent doesn't make it so.
I learned everything I needed to know about Nietzsche by reading comic books.
Easy...
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.
vs.
James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son.
Genesis 22:2
Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.
vs.
Genesis 16:15
And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
Genesis 21:2-3
For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac.
Genesis 25:1-2
Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
Galatians 4:22
Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman
Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Hebrews 13:4
Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
vs.
Numbers 31:18
But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Hosea 1:2
And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms....
Hosea 3:1
Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.
Thomas Hobbes was an atheist, although he dare not say so, to avoid being burnt at the stake.
The thing about Hobbes was that he was a coward, and that shows in his politics. One way it shows is that Hobbes was fine with having a monarchy. He thought that a monarchy was better than having no government at all, or having a revolution to overthrow the monarchy.
Also he was alright with paying people to go to war for you, if you did not want to during a draft.
I happen to agree with your post, but would not put people of another country down when America was quite late in helping England and others defeat the Nazis.
Romans -vs- James: Two different subjects. Romans contrasts faith (a teaching of Christ) and the law of Moses. James discusses how faith is dead without works (telling someone to go and peace and be warm is no good; give them a coat!)
Abraham had one son, Isaac, if you count only of his wife. With Hagar, he had Ishmael. Ancient Semitic culture would routinely not recognize such children as the legitimate offspring of the father. This was before he had heard the word of God. Note that this was also before the time of Moses and the ten commandments.
Numbers 31:18. This could mean to take these women, which was routine in those times. The text says nothing of sex or adulterous relationships. Probably, they were given in forced marriage.
Hosea is a metaphor for the relationship between God (the prophet Hosea) and Faithless Israel (Gomer). I can't believe a man of your intellect didn't know that.
So you've twisted and tortured God's word, plucking and contrasting phrases which have nothing to do with one another. You have every right to do, just as a child makes fun of serious literature when a funny sounding word like titmouse or bamboozle is used.
You've proven nothing.
I still can't understand how someone can believe life started on its own (something science cannot prove or explain), but then dismiss the idea of an omnipotent deity as too fantastic.
You've forced me to repost an earlier article. I am not qualified to discuss religious philosophy, so I bring in some Kantian help. Stay Tuned.
I don't think we can know how or by whom the universe began.
Even if we knew by whom the universe began we would still be oblivious to how he/she/it began or was created, or how it created the universe.
Some explanation God is.
Also, I don't buy your refutations of the contradictions of the Bible. There are still so many more. I'm sure I can find one that you won't be able to bs away.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5
Life spans of the people in the bible (hundreds of years)
Noah is called a just and perfect man, and yet he is naked and drunk in front of his sons, one of which sees him, and is suppossed to feel bad for seeing his father naked(9:20-21. 6:9, 7:1).
God asks Noah to make an 18 inch window in the 450 feet long ark for ventilation (6:16).
A boring genealogy that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim.1:4 and Tit.3:9. ("Avoid foolish questions and genealogies.") Also note the ridiculously long lives of the patriarchs. 11:10-32
Do you want more, or should we just discuss the arguments for and against God. I'll warn you, I've read Kant. I was impressed by his wordsmanship and some of his ideas, but on God, he is quite weak. You'd do more to impress me if you cited Kierkegaard or Hegel.
But of course, you're not just trying to impress me. This is a spiritual journey for you. When had you decided to be a Christian? When you were, 6-7 months old?
One last thing. Address free will. Kant as well as I see that as the biggest problem to confront the christian understanding of the world. If you skip free will/determinism, your next post will be lacking.
N.B.
I expect your next post to be extremely long. I don't see how you can justify free will and God in the modern world at all, but I certainly don't see how you can do it in a few measly paragraphs.
Good luck. I hope you take quarks, etc... into account when you write of free will, or you'd risk writing an out of date article.
relentless said...
I'm sorry, do conservatives all have ADD? Why do you write such short articles?
It looks like Silverfiddle is in good company:
“I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”
Blaise Pascal, (1623-1662) Lettres provinciales.
Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short.
Henry David Thoreau
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.
Marcus T. Cicero
You know that I write slowly. This is chiefly because I am never satisfied until I have said as much as possible in a few words, and writing briefly takes far more time than writing at length.
Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855)
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.
Nietzsche
The more you say, the less people remember. The fewer the words, the greater the profit.
Felelon
No one who has read official documents needs to be told how easy it is to conceal the essential truth under the apparently candid and all-disclosing phrases of a voluminous and particularizing report….
Woodrow Wilson
“If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today. If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare.”
Mark Twain
Relentless perhaps you could learn a thing or two about effective communication. ; )
Mr. Beardsley: I love it! Especially the quote from Nietzsche
I actually regretted writing that after I had already posted it. The reason for my regret is that I should have explained exactly what I meant (written more). The thing about writing is that if you can explain the entire context of a story and illuminate every essential detail in a few words, that would be preferential (so I do agree with you and the others you have quoted Mr Beardsley).
The thing about these articles (blog posts) is that they are superficial. Expounding only on details that suit the authors own ends (defending free markets, Christianity etc...).
I agree that if everything that needs to be said can be said clearly and concisely in only a few words, it would be to the author and the readers benefit.
That is heterogeneous to writing in a short, but yet empty (shallow)way.
N.B.
I'm sorry for being to discerning, but philosophers are known for making even more suttle distinctions.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.