Crappy drive down from Nashville… terrible rain, slow vehicles, and the wrong kind of sunset. But I’m here… in Marietta that is.
On the way down I listened to talk radio and heard several discussions of one the political cartoons that has brought about some degree of controversy today. As usual, I will try not to be too political on this, but I was made angry on several occasions.
The cartoon depicts a soldier in a military hospital who has been rendered limbless in battle. Our Secretary of Defense is standing next to the service member, and in attempting to classify his status says, “I’m listing your condition as ‘Battle Hardened.’” The arguments against the publication of this cartoon have basically argued that the cartoon is parodying the soldier or making light of his injury. I think their objections are being misstated.
I suppose it could be argued that placing anything in a cartoon should automatically be considered parody. This is the only argument of which I can conceive that justifies that outrage being expressed. I strongly disagree with this, however. Though I may not like the statements that some cartoonists make, cartoons are their medium. I see this as no more or less dignified than photoshopping the same scene.
I think the real issue is that lots of people are horrified by the brutal results of war.
They should be.
Regardless of how you feel about our conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan, you must realize that war is horrible. It ends lives, destroys families. It sometimes renders the future existence of those who survive it unspeakably miserable.
I wish that men and women didn’t return from battle with no limbs, but it happens – and when it does, it sucks… bad… way worse than any cartoon could ever portray.
Just as the doctor says, “You’re going to feel a little discomfort,” right before he jams a needle in your arm, those responsible for communicating what is happening use language to describe the casualties of war in a manner that makes our emotional response to them more neutral. In so doing, those who communicate those tragedies can seem cold, callous, and without emotion. I would agree with the cartoonist in that out secretary does sometime seem that way, whether he really is or not. I don’t find making that statement to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t find it to be disrespectful. I don’t find any attempt at humor by the cartoonist.
So it’s a cartoon. I understand that. Everyone who wishes to express disgust at this cartoon has the right to do so. They can scream that its publication is irresponsible, boycott the newspaper, write letters, protest, have a bake sale… whatever.
But before they do so, I hope they will ask themselves if what’s really bothering them is the cartoon, or the fact that this situation is very, very real. I, for one, hope that those who make the decisions in this war are profoundly aware of the misery that results from it when they make those decisions. In fact, I hope everyone realizes that, and never forgets it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
For my part I agree with you on all points, cartoons are a medium for espousing ideas, even if the idea is just humor. The war sucks, not because of the reasons behind it, but because the very nature of war sucks. People fight, people die, at the end of it all you just hope that you can build something better with what’s left. What I wish for the people of this country is that someone somewhere would show the realities of this war, as they happen, not as someone’s political agenda filters them, not as the government filters them. From things I hear from people on a daily basis it would seem that many in America have forgotten or choose not to remember that it took a much bloodier, nastier war than the one we’re in right now to free us from a tyrant 220 years ago, so that today they can draw cartoons of whatever they want and publish them for everyone to see. Selective memory breeds hypocrites.
Great post man. Keep it up.
There's not much I can say to add to that, as it was, in my opinion, pretty spot on.
The only thing I would say is that I think the administrators of this war, and any previous war for that matter, get a raw deal for their "cold, callous" and emotionless communications.
Say what you will about the war, the conduct of the war, the people conducting the war, etc. But I'm just not cynical enough to believe that the Secretary of Defense, or anyone else conducting the war, is truly that callous.
Being in the position to make decisions that literally cause pain, suffering and death is not an enviable one. The guilt associated with such decisions is likely more than any normal person can handle, so it would seem to me that the cold, callous exterior is necessary them to function.
If they were unable to compartmentalize, and if they reacted to each casualty the way most people do, they would never get anything accomplished. Some might argue that that would be a good thing, and to a certain extent I agree.
There are times, however, when the atrocity of war is necessary to achieve a greater good. In such cases, we cannot expect those executing the war to have the same emotional sensitivity as the rest of us.
Though I would suspect that many of those responsible for the execution of this war are privately distraught over the casualties, regardless of their public persona.
I typed a longer response, but I'll just go with "Well said."
Good comments, and keep them coming if you like. Thanks especially for not presuming that my recognition of the horrors of war precludes me from thinking that there are things that are worth fighting for.
There are, and whether or not that applies in this situation is an entirely different discussion.
Post a Comment