Bombsquad, I occasionally comment on people’s sig lines. I’d like to do that with yours now which reads:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men then himself.”
-John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Martin Luther King, Jr, a pacifist, said: “If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Other pacifists have said similar things and many, like King, put themselves in harms way for the sake of their beliefs and what they believed was best for humanity.
I’m not saying this negates Mills’ statement. But I think it is only fair to point out that pacifism is not in any way synonymous with cowardice.
The more I look at both quotes, the more I feel they are remarkably similar. Perhaps I am looking at it in a different light then yourself. The quote by John Stuart Mill is saying, just as Dr. King’s is saying, that having something worth your own life is something worth caring about.
I am not sure if you were quoting Dr. King to show the similarities or the difference in them. Either way, please let me know. But I am quite tired and may be missing everything all together.
I posted that quote to show the similarities in them contrasted with the underlying differences.
Yes, they both believed that in the face of certain events one must be willing to sacrifice one’s life.
Mill thinks war is sometimes that way. When he poses the need for war against the contempt for unwillingness to disregard ones’ personal safety, then he creates the implicit impression that those unwilling to do violence are cowardly.
King’s quote taken in the context of his life and beliefs makes it clear that those unwilling to do violence can be equally noble with regard to their self sacrifice.
Just last night, I watched an episode of Kung Fu called “The Soldier”. In this episode, there was a young soldier who was trying to follow in the illustrious military footsteps of his father. Placed in a position of command, this young man saw battle for the first time and hid while the rest of his platoon got wiped out. He made up a story about why he was not also killed in battle.
Kwai Chang Caine happens upon the battlefield shortly after the battle and is taken prisoner, falsely accused of ambushing the platoon and then robbing the dead.
The young soldier struggles with his inner demons throughout the episode. He cannot bring himself to take a life. As such, he believes he is a coward and a complete failure as a soldier. Being perceived as a hero does not help his inner turmoil.
Ultimately, the soldier comes to realize that Caine is a good person, innocent of any wrongdoing. When the real bandits who had ambushed his platoon show up again, this time Caine’s life is in danger. The “cowardly” young soldier places himself in harm’s way, getting shot in the process, in order to save the life of Caine.
When Caine later remarks about the soldier’s bravery, the soldier says that it’s “not good enough for a soldier”. Caine says, however, that his bravery was “good enough for a man” (as a soldier, he was a failure, but he is still brave in other ways).
Well, I think I’m simply restating an example of what was said earlier in this thread… but as a Kung Fu episode! I’m not expressing a personal opinion. Actually, come to think of it (to balance things out), there was another soldier in the story who represented bombsquad’s view. This soldier served in the military and fought to make the West safe for colonization, a noble pursuit in spite of the dangers to himself.
I was simply recounting the story of a relevant Kung Fu episode. In the episode, the people the cavalry were fighting against (and thus making the West safe for colonization) were bandits – fellow Americans who ambush and rob the stagecoach and stuff like that. Not Indians. Perhaps the show sidestepped the larger issue in order to make a different point (which is similar to your point).
Once again, I’ll refrain from stating a personal opinion on these matters at this time. This is a very polarized and emotionally charged issue; thus it’s too easy to read between the lines or misinterpret (and I’m just not ready to tackle this complex issue). For example, I’m not sure whether you were trying to draw a parallel between our shameful past (genocide of American Indians) and the military operation in Iraq (you do seem to be universally condemning war and killing). Or maybe you just have a policy to never agree with anything I ever say.
