Sunday, September 23, 2007
Life and Death
A few months ago, a friend interested me in listening to audio books while commuting, rather than listening to the radio. Given the choice of inane local news or tripe on NPR, I had chosen tripe, and it was wearing on my sanity.
Right now I am listening to The Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang. It is a non-fiction account of the atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces in and around the Chinese city of Nanking in 1937.
I found the evolution of my thought processes while listening to this book very interesting.
Towards the beginning of the book, there were very few specifics given. There was much debate over how many Chinese were actually killed, with credible numbers running in the 200,000 to 300,000 range. The majority of that number were not military casualties, but civilians and POWs. My thought was, between the firebombing of Tokyo, and two atomic bombs, we’ve exceeded that number. By raw casualty counts, we are worse than they are. As General Curtis LeMay, commanding officer of Bomber Command, said, “I suppose if we had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” He’s probably right. War happens, right? People get killed. Why the outrage about Nanking?
Then toward the middle of the book, I started to learn more about Japanese military culture, institutionalized racism, and specifically what the Japanese did in Nanking and why.
Torture. Gang rape. Mutilation. Random decapitation. Wholesale slaughter of civilians. Mass killings of POWs because they ate too much. Killing contests, to see who could kill the most people in the shortest time with a sword. All of this happened in the 6 weeks after the cessation of hostilities, mostly to the civilian population.
I listened to that part while eating my lunch. I literally became physically ill.
That’s when the difference hit me. The Japanese in Nanking were killing for no reason other than sport. We bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to destroy a culture that would kill several hundred thousand people for sport.
It’s the wolves and the sheepdogs all over again.
Given my close brush with moral equivalence, I started thinking about how anyone could possibly consider those acts equivalent. There are two options: ignorance and moral bankruptcy. Ignorance, while not exactly excusable, is at least understandable. Moral bankruptcy is deeper, and more dangerous.
One thing that farming has done is made me think a lot about death. I have killed and butchered a large number of animals with my own hands. I’ve faced and conquered my own squeamishness. I’ve watched others face it, some overcoming it and others choosing to stay away for good.
Death is a part of the human existence. Besides the obvious cliche that “we’re all going to die sometime”, the vast majority of us are omnivores. Meaning that we pay someone to kill something for us. Only extremely rarely are we conscious of that fact, that a death occurred to bring us this meal. Several people I know have built walls in their minds with the sole purpose of keeping this distasteful fact out of their consciousness.
Being a farmer, I have to deal with death on an even more personal and difficult level. Killing and eating an animal that is raised purely for food is one thing. Choosing when and how to end the life of a sick animal, or a surplus animal, is something else entirely.
I hold the arbitrary power to extinguish a life, forever. Not just the power, but the duty in some cases. Neither that power nor that duty are things to be taken lightly. Rather, they cause me to think long and hard about whether or not I’m doing the right thing. Each and every time.
One thing that was lost in the urbanization of America is this close contact with death - the physical, moral, philosophical, and spiritual aspects of it. Very few want to think about it, and even fewer want to have any real contact with it. It is in this sort of environment, where there is no thought given to the moral aspects of taking a life, where moral equivalence, the kind that would hold the actions of the United States equal to that of Japan, takes root and spreads. It is this sort of environment where pets are given the same rights as people, where animal testing labs are burned down, where PETA compares factory farms to the Holocaust and has a $25 million annual budget. It is the sort of environment where causing harm becomes the greatest evil, even if that harm comes to bad people in the process of protecting good people.
It is spilling over into an unwillingness to fight. For anything.
The population shift from rural to urban had consequences to our national psyche far beyond what is superficially apparent. This aspect, however, is turning us into a nation of cowards. I fear it is having far reaching consequences, as it impacts our foreign policy and military recruitment.
I offer no answers, as this is not a trend that I see as being reversible in any meaningful way. I can do nothing more than raise my kids and teach them right from wrong, while exposing them to tough choices and the moral thought processes that go into those choices.
I am raising sheepdogs.
Comments
-
I’m convinced that this separation is also partially behind the incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome in Viet Nam vets. In World War II, most of the soldiers came from farming communities, and they were considerably more stable than the randomly-chosen recruits in Viet Nam. Of course, having recruitment come from the draft made some of that difference, but I don’t believe that it can explain it all.
WayneB | 9/24/2007 08:06 AM CDT -
A few points occur to me as I read your essay. In no particular order:
A. I find it interesting that the move toward animal rights, environmentalism, and such seems to spring from a separation from animals and the environment. Ironic, eh?
B. The Japanese’s very strong sense of their own racial superiority seems to have led to a number of excesses. Public television has just started a series on WWII. In the first installment, they discuss the Japanese’s Bataan “Death March,” wherein the Japanese sometimes emptied prisoners’ canteens to deny them water on the march. A strong sense of one’s own superiority combined with a contempt for others’ lack of humanity leads toward tragedy. I see a parallel in jihadi’s sense of religious superiority and liberals’ sense of moral/political superiority. It never leads to anything good.
C. Thinking about death - I went through some of the same thoughts as I decided whether I wanted to hunt or not. I was raised a city boy, and I had to come to grips with the fact that if I couldn’t kill dinner because killing was “wrong,” then I shouldn’t eat meat because in doing so, I’m paying someone else to kill an animal it’s “wrong” for me to kill. What hypocrisy! I must admit that I think hunting merely for trophies is wrong - it’s killing for pure sport. But I don’t get seriously worked up about it either. I still need to sort that one out for myself.
A partial solution? Take kids hunting and discuss these aspects of death with them.
Weetabix | 9/24/2007 03:55 PM CDT -
I was raised a city boy, and I had to come to grips with the fact that if I couldn’t kill dinner because killing was “wrong,” then I shouldn’t eat meat because in doing so, I’m paying someone else to kill an animal it’s “wrong” for me to kill. What hypocrisy! I must admit that I think hunting merely for trophies is wrong - it’s killing for pure sport. But I don’t get seriously worked up about it either. I still need to sort that one out for myself.
Exactly the same thing I came to, Weet. Well, besides the “boy” part.
I am not interested in hunting (that requires being in the woods/nature and I HATE that), but I did have to come to terms with it with respect to killing farm animals.
If I could not kill the animals myself, then I had no business eating animals. It is wrong to delegate that (completely) to someone else. I think we should be willing or able to do almost everything we delegate to others (even if others are better suited/able to do it than we are). We must understand it enough to delegate properly and be fully informed.
It damages our psyches to do otherwise, I think. It makes the people who we delegate the killing to sort of like the old hooded executioners.
I had to do it myself. I was scared. I have always been squeamish in some respects, and didn’t want to embarrass myself by vomiting or gagging.
The interesting thing, with American Farmer’s help (and the help of his wife) was that it wasn’t icky at all.
In fact, it was very clinical and humane… almost like harvesting veggies.
It made me feel better about eating meat, knowing that I had a hand in the humane killing. It is kinda strange to say it, but I felt I had a more intimate connection with the food/animal, too. I certainly didn’t waste any of the meat when I had a hand in killing the animal. It makes you more appreciative of it, I think.
I had the same type of realization about having to learn to use a gun. If I couldn’t do it (or wouldn’t) then I had no business delegating it to a cop or a soldier. I can’t ask of others what I am unwilling to do for myself.
Mrs. du Toit | 9/24/2007 04:15 PM CDT -
What a great touchstone for judging actions/delegations: Am I willing to do it myself? If not, I shouldn’t pay someone else to do it.
Oddly, that’s probably how the people American Farmer writes about who are unwilling to fight for anything come to their conclusion: “I’m not willing to fight for anything, therefore War Is Not The Answer.” I disagree completely with their premise and with their conclusion, but I can’t fault their logic, since I use it, too.
Weetabix | 9/24/2007 04:38 PM CDT -
thought provoking letter and comments.
“Making us cowards” I can see and understand, yet that doesn’t ring quite right for me. Distance does allow us to dwell in a state of psychological denial, for sure. I agree that close encounters with death are important.
My childhood encounters with death made a big impression on me: pulling heads off of doves which had been shot, and downed, but were not yet dead; seeing a dog hit by an auto; watching, at age 6, from the truck bed, as my grandfather’s pick-up dragged a dead mule into the woods for burial. I can still see that mule’s head twisted, and it’s tongue hanging out. About age 9, I watched a farmer break the necks of diseased chickens in his big chicken house. I have lots of Uncles and Aunts who have died: open casket viewings the night before, plus open casket funerals - me staring into the caskets for long moments.
Leftists “want to change the world” because they neither understand nor accept the design of all existence. This is also why normal life occurances seem so unfair to leftists. I think our distance from death hinders our embrace of the design of existence. It is not enough to intellectually understand certain things. We need interaction. We need tactile.
gcotharn | 9/24/2007 11:29 PM CDT -
I am at a bit of a loss here. Will you not drive in a car because you can’t weld or make glass? Death is not a big deal to me. How something or someone arrives at the destination is important, but we are all going to the same place.
dbltap | 9/25/2007 11:20 AM CDT -
Will you not drive in a car because you can’t weld or make glass?
Posted by dbltap on 09/25/2007 at 11:20 AM
No, of course not. You miss the subtlety.
We must understand it enough to delegate properly and be fully informed.
I do not believe, AT ALL, that you have to know how to do everything. You should understand it enough to make sure you aren’t getting ripped off. I can’t and do not want to learn to do my own electrical work. I don’t want to perform surgery on myself. But I need to know enough about those things to be able to hire a good person to do it for me.
That is entirely different from refusing to kill an animal that I want to eat because I can’t bring myself to kill an animal myself… In that case, I’m delegating my conscience to someone else. That you can’t delegate. I think, perhaps, a better way to describe it is that you can’t delegate some things. If you eat meat you ARE responsible for the death of the animal, even if you don’t kill it yourself. If you can’t do that, or think it is something above/beneath you, then you have some soul searching to do regarding what you ask of others.
Mrs. du Toit | 9/25/2007 12:03 PM CDT -
I guess I just don’t understand why the big deal or any sort of moral dilemma about killing a farm animal.
Grow another damn cow, pig, chicken whatever. We are higher up on the food chain they loose.
The only thing I have ever felt bad about killing was a beautiful old cedar tree that had to come down so it would not endanger my house. 350 years old. Will not grow back in my life time, my kids life time, or their kids life time.
THAT is something to agonize over. A cow or a pig?! Please…
Dbltap | 9/25/2007 12:15 PM CDT -
I am at a bit of a loss here. Will you not drive in a car because you can’t weld or make glass?
I don’t think anyone said don’t ask someone to do something you CAN’T do, but something you WOULDN’T do. I think people are saying you should not appease your conscience dishonestly.
Weetabix | 9/25/2007 12:42 PM CDT -
Am I willing to do it myself? If not, I shouldn’t pay someone else to do it.
I think the problem here lies in willing vs. moral issues. Are most people “willing” to run into a burning building to save a stranger? Nope. Are most people “willing” to look down the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger sending a metal projectile at high velocity into an 18 year old mans head? Again nope. Is society rather glad that there are people that are? Yes. I have no problem with the above.
Commercial fishing, mining, running the night shift at a gas station/convience store are all really really dangerous jobs. Glad someone wants to do them cause I do enjoy metal, fish and beer at 3AM. With one exception (fishing) I am not “willing” to do those jobs. But I have no problem enjoying the fruits of their labor.
To go to the village green scenario am I “willing” to let small kids starve to death? No. I have a moral issue with that. If I was to employ someone to remove the corpses from my front lawn, yes that would be a problem that I could relate to.
Gitmo is another good example. I have heard and read any number of people saying that “Hell do WHATEVER you want to those bastards, I have no problem with torture”.
Well then if you are willing to torture a person then you have every right to say that. However the number of people that are “able” to inflict damage and fear on a person who has not recently harmed them is quite small in this society. Most are not willing or able to torture. Then there is a moral issue.
But to get wrapped around the axle over meal preparation seems a bit hysterical.
Dbltap | 9/25/2007 01:25 PM CDT -
But that’s how you approach, Dbltab. There are tons of people who will say “I could NEVER kill an animal to eat it” yet they eat meat. They seem to think they are keeping their hands clean, and fool themselves into thinking that “no animal died in the creation of this steak dinner” if they don’t do the killing themselves.
Trust me. You may not feel this way, but plenty do.
Mrs. du Toit | 9/25/2007 01:34 PM CDT -
“There are tons of people who will say “I could NEVER kill an animal to eat it” yet they eat meat.”
There are people that think the world is flat too, I point and laugh at them too!
I think vegetarians are silly, but I do admire the warrior like devotion to a cause, if I actually heard someone say something like “I could not kill a cow and then saw them eat a steak” I really don’t know how I would react.
How the same race that put people on the moon, produces physicians that can operate on a living persons brain and split the atom can also produce people that freaking stupid never fails to amaze me.
Dbltap | 9/25/2007 01:45 PM CDT -
You’re thinking that meat eating/inability to kill animals is the exception.
What American Farmer and I are suggesting (from our anecdotal experience) is that it is the norm, NOT the exception.
Meat comes in nicely wrapped packages from the grocery store, not from animals!
Mrs. du Toit | 9/25/2007 01:50 PM CDT -
I will have to take your word for it.
I must do a better job of selecting people I talk to than I thought!
dbltap | 9/25/2007 02:03 PM CDT -
But this extends out in every direction, doesn’t it? It’s not only about killing mean/eating meat--it’s about our increasing separation from an understanding of the value of anything.
We don’t grow our own food, so we have no idea what food is worth, other than some price arbitrarily set by a store or restaurant. We don’t make our own clothes, furniture, toys, or much of anything else. And god knows, we don’t want to have to make everything for ourselves. But because we don’t make ANYthing, we can’t even compare the value of our work with the value of someone else’s work.
And I think there’s a connection here to raising moral children. Teaching kids the value of things--and therefore the care needed to maintain them--becomes so much harder in a culture in which everything seems instantly accessibly and instantly--effortlessly--replaceable. And how can they avoid having those ideas about things slide over into their ideas about people?
Andrew | 9/27/2007 01:12 PM CDT -
Just to add another variable to the equation…
I’ve wondered for a long time just how much our removal from dealing with cash affects what we perceive the value of things to be.
Thoreau said, “The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.”
Used to be (how’s that for good grammar?) people got paid in cash and took the cash to buy stuff. Now they have direct deposit and credit cards that you just swipe with no signature. Kids have credit cards with no job.
Do any of those people have any idea how much life they’re exchanging for that latte or that movie ticket?
Weetabix | 9/27/2007 03:11 PM CDT
