I was driving through my neighborhood a couple of nights before the 4th of July. It was 9 o'clock at night and rockets were going off everywhere--fireworks, firecrackers, fizzing sparks arcing over my car, through clutches of young children. I was thinking that if in this country a war is ever fought between the rich and the poor, the poor will win because they are better armed. But then, perhaps, the war has already been fought, has already been won.
---
This morning when I woke up I took out a book on the "Dark Ages." The first chapter was on a subject dear to me: Boadicea, "Boudicca" really, the queen of a British tribe who led a revolt against Roman rule. While Nero was the emperor, she burned the Roman town of Londinium--London. Her tribe had surrendered to the Romans when the invading army first appeared; her husband had been made a "client king," a puppet ruler. His name was Prasutagus. The Romans had left them to themselves, mostly, but when Prasutagus died, some Romans decided they'd be a bit more, well, "hands-on" and seized the property of the tribe. They beat Boudicca in public and raped her daughters. So Boudicca gathered members of her tribe, the Iceni, and recruited other tribes as well, and they went on a rampage, killing Romans, burning their houses, destroying their towns. Though this revolt was eventually put down, the Romans probably saw it as one more good reason not to expend too much energy in conquering Britain. The Roman historians that recorded it (we don't have any Icenian points of view on the subject) tended to be sympathetic to the Iceni. This is how one historian, Tacitus, said Boudicca addressed her troops in the final battle:
"If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves."
---
This evening I'm probably going to go to a backyard boxing match where there will be, besides combat, bellydancing and a pig roasted on a spit. Oddly enough, when I've told people of my plans, one of the aspects of this event that bothers them most is the eating of a pig roasted on a spit. They'll eat ham, pork and bacon without moral compunction; they just don't want to see the animal their food comes from. Or, as one friend put it, "It's like me and fish. I only like fish when it's breaded squares."
Personally, I think we'd all be better off if we had to see where our food comes from. I also think we'd be better off if, when we fought wars, all combat had to be done face-to-face. We should have to watch the deaths of who and what we kill.
The thought that bothered me the most was that there was going to be boxing... How barbaric!
This has to be my least favorite holiday. I know that we're supposed to be celebrating the freedom won, but it seems that people focus more on blowing shit up. I see so little celebrating and so much re-enacted warfare.
Maybe it's just me. I've been bitter the last few days.
Hope you had a better holiday than I did!
Posted by: Pollux at July 5, 2002 12:28 PMI have to agree with Pollux. Personally, I don't eat pork products anymore whether the pig is roasted in front of me or not....however, I am not a vegetarian, and I certainly don't have a problem with other people eating pork. I have eaten it in the past, and it tastes good.
I have eaten lobster several times where the whole lobster was on my plate, and I had to break open the shell. And my first taste of raw oysters was on the dock in Baltimore, Maryland. I knew they were fresh.
I haven't had to do it, but I wouldn't hesitate picking out a live lobster at a fancy restaurant. (Even if I ended up hearing it scream from the kitchen.)
I'm not sure how I would handle a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy type scene, where the cow I was about to eat actually introduced itself to me before the meal, asking me which part of its body I wished to eat. That might feel strange, but at least I'd know the animal wanted to be my meal.
But I don't like boxing as a sport. It makes no sense to me. I don't see the sport in watching two people punch each other. Similarly, I don't like wrestling much as a sport either. Though I see more strategy in that. (And the professional, staged version has a lot of drama too. I've heard it termed Rope Opera, and it's appropriate.)
I don't have a problem with fireworks. They're rather fun to watch...and as long as those who set them off do it safely...
However, I have heard that in some sections of the country...including portions of St. Louis... people actually fire off guns in celebration of the holiday. That bothers me. Beyond the danger, that's just making noise, for the sake of noise....or firing a gun for the sake of firing a gun.
Posted by: John at July 5, 2002 04:05 PMJohn... I LOVE the term "Rope Opera!" GREAT!!!!!
The problem with fireworks is that it's usually a bunch of kids who have no common sense, or an adult who has killed all of his common sense with alcohol.
And I just resent picking up all of those bottle rocket sticks in the backyard.
Pollux
Posted by: Pollux at July 5, 2002 06:39 PMI'm probably about to put my foot in my mouth, but I worry less and less about the results of that these days..
If I were a decisive person, I'd say I see nearly everything in infinite shades of gray. How's that for being decisive?
Boxing turns me off on many levels, yet I got a weird sort of high out of watching men on skates knock the snot (and teeth) out of each other at the one and only hockey game I attended. I'd go to more games now and then, as long as someone else buys my ticket. I could count on one hand how many times I've watched it on TV...
Oh my, how varied the hues of gray become when I think of war and who and what I would eat and the circumstances involved.
#1 the world would fare wonderfully without war.
#2 Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
#3 My definition of murder is subject to frequent change, tho I used to think I knew what it meant.
#4 The world would fare wonderfully without the killing and eating of flesh.
#5 Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
#6 My definition of participation and sanction of acts that repulse me confuses the living shit out of me.
I was a vegetarian for a long period of time. I don't think it saved any lives or reduced suffering and it complicated my life immensely. So I eat meat now. not much, but the amount has no bearing on the guilt level. I grieve about the unnecessary slaughter while enjoying the taste.
Hunting as a sport enrages me.
There are certain animals (includes humans)I'm not sure I could eat even if I were literally starving. but this area is VERY gray.
I AM certain that if I'm not starving, I can't select an animal to be killed, listen to it scream and then eat it. I'm also positive that if I visited a slaughterhouse I'd be unable to eat ANYthing for quite some time. (this happened many times as my family drove past these places when I was a kid. I saw nothing, but I could hear and smell..)
I'm certain that if I'm not starving I can't kill an animal to eat. I can however kill an animal to end its suffering (from whatever cause).
I need to go eat dinner now...
Posted by: Jane at July 7, 2002 04:09 PMwow, I never realized how tasty my foot was! *sluuurp*
Posted by: Jane at July 7, 2002 04:13 PM