Trigger Warnings, Fictitious History, and the Stupidity of Mankind -Will Brady
So Pericles' speech was good. Really, really good. An explication-worthy type of good. I could write a decently-long paper about Athens and its culture with how much material there is to unpack in that thing...
...Then Burrow busts in and tells us that Thucydides probably made most of it up himself, and suddenly this whole thing becomes a complicated mess. How much of "Pericles'" speech accurately resembles an Athenian funeral oration, and how much of it is Thucydides' private view of Athenian culture? Pardon me whilst I slam my head into a wall repeatedly.
Let's not talk about history, then, let's talk about philosophy. Regardless of where the ideas in this speech originated from, there are still quite a few noteworthy things--particularly those revolving around the fallen soldiers and how to assure people that they're being portrayed accurately. "For it is hard to speak properly on a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearer that you are speaking the truth," the speaker says (I'm looking at you, Thucydides). You can't speak too lightly of the fallen dead or the people who think they deserve better will be positively irate. On the other hand, you can't speak too highly of them or people will think you're exaggerating because people are butthurts who can't stand to accept the fact that a soldier who bled and died for his country might be more praiseworthy than the guy who sat at home during the battle and only showed up for the speech. Either way, if this speech were delivered in modern times it would need an official trigger warning as a precursor, because that's just where society is today. I, of course, will side with the people who think the soldiers deserve better any day; if you can't accept the fact that there are people better than you in the world, especially soldiers who just laid down their lives, get over yourself. That's putting my thoughts lightly so as not to trigger people, but I'm aware that I just triggered everyone who thinks I should be harsher. Thanks, society.
After this there's a lot of stuff about how great Athens is that's probably just as accurate regardless of who wrote this speech, but let's skip that and get back to the good stuff about the fallen soldiers at the end. The speaker tells the people that grief for the dead is natural, and that it's not a desire for something more but a desire for the way things used to be. This has all the empathy and understanding that's necessary for this situation and I love it. He then immediately says that the people should have kids to replace and forget the loved ones who just died.
...WHAT?
"Yet those who are still of an age to beget children must bear up in the hope of having others in their stead; ... they help you to forget those whom you have lost." There's a life lesson for you: when the family member whom you've loved all your life is suddenly taken from you, just replace them with somebody else and scrub them from your memory. THAT IS NOT HOW LOVE WORKS. Or grief. Or mourning. People can't just be replaced, and forgetting them to ease your mind is a somehwhat-selfish way of killing them a second time (though we've talked about life through memory and killing by forgetting enough in Gilgamesh and Night last semester, so I won't get into that too deeply). The speaker mentions that having more kids is the duty to the state next, so this part is straight propaganda; the comment that the kids will carry on their fathers' legacies sounds pretty cheap compared to what was just said before it.
I could keep going, but this entire blog has been a long, spontaneous, unstructured rant from the start, and I'm sure the ladies in the class would like me to allow them the first jabs at the speech's remark about how the most glorious women stay quiet and out of the way and are never talked about by men in public, "whether for good or for bad." Y'all go crazy, I'm too hungry to keep talking.
P.S. I commented on Breanna and Kayla's posts.
...Then Burrow busts in and tells us that Thucydides probably made most of it up himself, and suddenly this whole thing becomes a complicated mess. How much of "Pericles'" speech accurately resembles an Athenian funeral oration, and how much of it is Thucydides' private view of Athenian culture? Pardon me whilst I slam my head into a wall repeatedly.
Let's not talk about history, then, let's talk about philosophy. Regardless of where the ideas in this speech originated from, there are still quite a few noteworthy things--particularly those revolving around the fallen soldiers and how to assure people that they're being portrayed accurately. "For it is hard to speak properly on a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearer that you are speaking the truth," the speaker says (I'm looking at you, Thucydides). You can't speak too lightly of the fallen dead or the people who think they deserve better will be positively irate. On the other hand, you can't speak too highly of them or people will think you're exaggerating because people are butthurts who can't stand to accept the fact that a soldier who bled and died for his country might be more praiseworthy than the guy who sat at home during the battle and only showed up for the speech. Either way, if this speech were delivered in modern times it would need an official trigger warning as a precursor, because that's just where society is today. I, of course, will side with the people who think the soldiers deserve better any day; if you can't accept the fact that there are people better than you in the world, especially soldiers who just laid down their lives, get over yourself. That's putting my thoughts lightly so as not to trigger people, but I'm aware that I just triggered everyone who thinks I should be harsher. Thanks, society.
After this there's a lot of stuff about how great Athens is that's probably just as accurate regardless of who wrote this speech, but let's skip that and get back to the good stuff about the fallen soldiers at the end. The speaker tells the people that grief for the dead is natural, and that it's not a desire for something more but a desire for the way things used to be. This has all the empathy and understanding that's necessary for this situation and I love it. He then immediately says that the people should have kids to replace and forget the loved ones who just died.
...WHAT?
"Yet those who are still of an age to beget children must bear up in the hope of having others in their stead; ... they help you to forget those whom you have lost." There's a life lesson for you: when the family member whom you've loved all your life is suddenly taken from you, just replace them with somebody else and scrub them from your memory. THAT IS NOT HOW LOVE WORKS. Or grief. Or mourning. People can't just be replaced, and forgetting them to ease your mind is a somehwhat-selfish way of killing them a second time (though we've talked about life through memory and killing by forgetting enough in Gilgamesh and Night last semester, so I won't get into that too deeply). The speaker mentions that having more kids is the duty to the state next, so this part is straight propaganda; the comment that the kids will carry on their fathers' legacies sounds pretty cheap compared to what was just said before it.
I could keep going, but this entire blog has been a long, spontaneous, unstructured rant from the start, and I'm sure the ladies in the class would like me to allow them the first jabs at the speech's remark about how the most glorious women stay quiet and out of the way and are never talked about by men in public, "whether for good or for bad." Y'all go crazy, I'm too hungry to keep talking.
P.S. I commented on Breanna and Kayla's posts.
The part about having more kids to forget the ones that died in battle really just... That part really got me going. I was able to find it comical for a second, but then I realized that this was an actual speech that a person actually gave in front of a lot of people, who listened to it and possibly even agreed, and then I got really mad and confused. I also liked the mental image you gave of Pericles standing in front of a crowd and just announcing, "Okay, first things first, here's a trigger warning. You have been warned." It really would be super hard to give a speech commemorating those who have fallen in battle without upsetting somebody.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the whole replacing people thing not being probable, when I started coming here to school my mom replaced me pretty easily with a dog. Haha, jk ( but not really she totally loves the dog more than me). Anyways, yes, that idea was sicking. The idea almost implies that the men themselves were as individuals unimportant and only worthy of their fighting and being a physical soldier in the war. Plus, it treats the women like they are baby farms! He acts as if having a baby id the easiest thing when at the time it was very life threating. Oh Pericles... why must you be this way?
ReplyDeleteI, like everyone else, was disturbed by the fact that Pericles is just telling families to just replace a loved when they die. I am 99.99% sure that is not how it works (there could be family or two that could actually do this, I don't know). I have seen many documentaries and known people who have lost a child, and they cannot just replace the child with more children, no matter how old the child was. Even if they do decide to have another kid, they will always feel a pain from the loss of that child. Also, I moved just an hour away from home and my mom acts like I just left the country. She got a new pet and lets my siblings' friends stay over more, but that doesn't replace me in her heart. She still calls and texts me worrying about me. What I'm trying to say is I don't think a parent could just move on and forget after just losing a child.
ReplyDelete