Archive for protect

Conscience, Law, and the Buffalo Hunt (Part One)

1 February 2012

From Seven Ox Seven, Part One: Escondido Bound, the first of three excerpts from pages 219-228.

Copyright © 2007 by P. A. Ritzer

Tom, for his part, still reflected as he rode along through the region in the dust of the trailing herd. One thing of which he was sure was that the slaughter was wrong. The hunting of the buffalo was not wrong. The skinning of the buffalo was not wrong. The sale and use of those skins for clothing, industry, or any other legitimate use was not wrong. Even the reduction of the vast buffalo herds to make way for other uses of the land was not necessarily wrong. What was wrong was the greed behind it all and what that greed had wrought.

What that greed had wrought was the waste of untold tons of meat (and even the waste of many of the hides for which the animals had been killed, due to hasty skinning, curing, or both). It had wrought a slaughter that, if it continued apace (and there was every reason to believe that it would), was sure to wipe out the species without due consideration of all the ramifications of that extermination. It had wrought further enmity between whites and the Plains Indians and the further reduction of those peoples to a pathetic dependency.

It had wrought all of those things and more, Tom could see. And yet, as disturbing as all that was, there was another work of that greed that encompassed all the rest, and that was the work of perverting freedom into license. Tom believed that such a large-scale perversion of freedom was detrimental to, and indicative of, the relative health of a nation, especially of one that had been founded with the security of the inalienable right of liberty as one of its central tenets and had recently fought a bloody civil war to preserve itself and abolish the singularly most glaring and festering contradiction to that tenet. Where freedom degenerates into license, he mused, man has already relinquished the mastery of himself to his passions, and it only remains to be seen who or what will succeed his passions as his master. In such circumstances, a free society is very much in danger.

There is no true freedom without responsibility. In light of that truth, Tom thought of some of the buffalo hunters he had met along the trail and before. Despite the common characterization of the buffalo hunter, some of these hunters were respectable people, some of them whole families, and many of them regretted the wasteful slaughter of the buffalo, actually lamented the part they were playing in it. Yet, they licentiously continued in it, killing as many as they could as quickly as they could, before there were no more to kill, because they were desperate to get as much as they could out of the slaughter, desperate to secure their part of the fortune that the buffalo hides represented. Had a law been passed to stop the slaughter and preserve the breed (and there were several attempts at such legislation throughout the 1870s), they would have gladly obeyed it and been glad for it, and yet, as long as there was no law, they would continue to play their part in the slaughter up to the very extinction of the animal.

Due to greed, and the pride behind it, these hunters were willing to reject their God-given stewardship of the earth. They were willing to relinquish their own judgment of what was right and wrong, as well as their freedom to act upon it, because they wanted to get all that they could get, and they did not want to fall behind anyone else who might be profiting from the same motivation and the same refusal to govern himself according to right and wrong. Tom thought about how that tendency was not so uncommon, how that tendency was, indeed, universal. Still, there were individuals, call them the conscientious, who, through prayer, reflection, or both, came to know such tendencies in themselves and to see the evil in those tendencies and, with the help of grace, to overcome or check those tendencies, to greater or lesser degrees. In doing so, the conscientious were forming their consciences, and in doing so according to objective truths, these individuals were subjecting themselves to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” cited in the Declaration of Independence, a subjection without which a free society must degenerate into anarchy or tyranny or the ugliest amalgamations of both.

A free society depends upon the will of the individuals in that society to take personal responsibility for their freedom, to govern themselves according to objective truths of right and wrong, Tom reasoned. When the individuals of a free society refuse or even just neglect to take responsibility for their freedom, when they refuse or neglect to form their consciences and to be ruled by those consciences attuned to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” then those individuals choose license over freedom, and they give in to a progression toward disorder or toward being ruled by something other than the self guided by conscience.

Tom saw just such a progression in this matter of the buffalo. He considered those hunters, not the lawless element of that occupation, but those respectable ones, call them the lawful, as they were willing to submit to the laws of the state. He considered those lawful, who would willingly and gladly stop the slaughter, and even feel relieved to do so, if only the state would enact a law requiring it. He considered how those lawful were passing on the responsibility for their actions to the state, and with it, they were passing on their freedom, their right of liberty, their right of self-government. He thought of all that it had cost in human sacrifice to establish and preserve a nation that had been founded to protect freedom and other human rights. Then he thought of how such shirking of responsibility and freedom and relinquishing of rights were unworthy of that sacrifice, and of how it would be better to have one’s freedom and rights usurped rather than to have them so carelessly discarded.

Interestingly enough, even the lawless element of the buffalo hunters (those apparently most opposed to being ruled by others), though they might refuse or neglect to discern the wrongness of the slaughter that the lawful had discerned, and, in fact, because they refused or neglected to do so, they too were passing on their freedom to the state, because they would not even accept responsibility for their freedom to discern. These lawless too were giving the state greater power with which to rule over them, even if they intended to defy that power. Both kinds of men, those who had some respect for the law and those who did not, were willing to let their freedom be overwhelmed by the dictates of the state.

(continued in Part Two)

Revisiting Dr. Seuss in Parenthood (Part Two)

22 January 2012

(continued from Part One)

The following commentary first appeared in Saint Austin Review, July/August 2005.  It appears here with some revisions. Quotations in quotation marks and block quotes are from the works being considered.

Copyright © 2003 by P. A. Ritzer

Still, though taken by the creative and enjoyable conveyances of multi-fold truths and values from these stories, the story that struck the deepest chord within me, by what it conveys, was one that I do not remember that well from my youth or any time since, and one that I was in no hurry to read, let alone embrace, but for the insistence of my son that we read it. And thus, thanks to that toddler–as is fitting for Dr. Seuss–I picked up and began to read Horton Hears a Who!, the profound theme of which is spelled out frankly in the first few pages with the words:

A person’s a person, no matter how small.

To this theme, this conviction, Horton the elephant remains true through great trial, hardship and persecution, which all begins when he believes he hears: “Just a very faint yelp / As if some tiny person were calling for help.”

Horton immediately commits himself to the welfare of this person, without knowing anything about him or his circumstances, or having any proof of his existence: “‘I’ll help you,’ Said Horton. ‘But who are you? Where?'”

It turns out that the call comes from a speck of dust, so that Horton reasons that upon the speck is “Some sort of creature of very small size, Too small to be seen by an elephant’s eyes . . . .” Based on this belief, without yet any proof of the person’s existence, Horton “gently, and using the greatest of care” carries the speck over “and place[s] it down, safe, on a very soft clover.”

As immediate as Horton’s commitment to the person is the contemptuous reaction of the nonbelievers in the “Humpf’” of “a sour kangaroo” and “the young kangaroo in her pouch” who “Humpf”s, too. She derides Horton for his unproven belief in the personhood of “the creature of very small size.” “Why, that speck is as small as the head of a pin. A person on that? . . . Why, there never has been!” To Horton’s belief that there may be even more than one life involved, the kangaroos call him a fool. Still, Horton’s conviction is not shaken, but rather deepened, as he moves beyond the initial saving of the persons to an unconditional commitment to them: “‘I’ve got to protect them. I’m bigger than they.’ So he plucked up the clover and hustled away.”

His commitment is unwavering, despite the ridicule of the inhabitants of the jungle and his own “worrying” about what to do:

“Should I put this speck down? . . .” Horton thought with alarm.

“If I do, these small persons may come to great harm.

I can’t put it down. And I won’t! After all

A person’s a person. No matter how small.”

And now, when he needs it, Horton’s commitment is validated with proof. The mayor of Who-ville, the town on the dust speck speaks out to him and expresses the gratitude of the Whos. The constant Horton responds as expected, “You’re safe now. Don’t worry. I won’t let you down.”

No sooner have those words left his mouth than the inhabitants of the jungle, not content to leave Horton alone in his beliefs and defense, snatch the clover and conspire to take it to where Horton will never find it, despite Horton’s painful pursuit. Finally, Horton, while still in pursuit, begs: “Please don’t harm all my little folks, who / Have as much right to live as us bigger folks do!”

And there it is, the profound truth at the heart of the matter, the right to life and safety of persons no matter how small, regardless of whether or not others believe in their existence and personhood. To this Horton is committed in a way that ought to inspire those of us who live nonfictional lives. And he expresses real concern at finding the clover after a grueling pursuit and search: “Are your safe? Are you sound? Are you whole? Are you well?”  And he reaffirms his commitment, “I’ll stick by you small folks through thin and through thick!”

And he does. Despite further ridicule and attacks on his sanity and after being roped and beaten and mauled and nearly caged, he stands firm to his convictions until he is finally vindicated. This vindication brings with it conversions:

“How true! Yes, how true,” said the big kangaroo.

“And, from now on, you know what I’m planning to do? . . .

From now on, I’m going to protect them with you!”

And the young kangaroo in her pouch said, . . .

“. . . ME, TOO!

From sun in the summer. From rain when it’s fall-ish,

I’m going to protect them. No matter how smallish!”

Yes, conversions from persecutors and potential destroyers of life to protectors of the right to life and safety of persons no matter how small, regardless of whether others believe in their existence and personhood–so ends the fictional story; and a good end it is, and a good lesson.

Still, part of the lesson of the story of Horton Hears a Who! is that which comes from comparing the fictional world of Horton to the nonfictional world in which we are graced to participate. In Horton’s world his heroism is vindicated by a means often denied to us in real life. Horton invokes the Whos:

You’ve got to prove now that you really are there!

So call a big meeting. Get everyone out.

Make every Who holler! Make every Who shout!

Make every Who scream! If you don’t, every Who

Is going to end up in a Beezle-Nut stew!

And the Whos do it: “And his people cried loudly. They cried out in fear: ‘We are here! We are here! We are here! We are here!'”

This is not enough, though. So Horton encourages them:

Don’t give up! I believe in you all!

A person’s a person, no matter how small!

And you very small persons will not have to die

If you make yourselves heard! So come on, now, and TRY!

And when one “very small, very small shirker named Jo-Jo” adds his “YOPP!” the Whos themselves make a loud enough noise and are heard by more than Horton, and they are saved. But in real life, we know that it is often the smallest and most vulnerable, be they the unborn, the sick, the elderly, the slaves, the mentally and physically challenged, who are not able to cry out and be heard, which puts a greater responsibility and burden on those of us who would wish to emulate Horton’s unconditional commitment to life and personhood. We must be their voice; we must make a big enough noise for them; we must be heard! And like Horton, we must not give up!

With these lessons in mind it would do us well to remember what the Grinch, in How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, learned in the failure of his dastardly attempt to “stop Christmas from coming”:

He HADN’T stopped Christmas from coming!

IT CAME!

Somehow or other, it came just the same!

.  .  .  .

And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.

Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before!

“Maybe Christmas,” he thought, “doesn’t come from a store.

“Maybe Christmas . . . perhaps . . . means a little bit more!”

A little bit more, like the Incarnation of the Son of God manifested in the form of a helpless infant, born in a stable, of an unplanned pregnancy, to a teenage mother and a foster father.  Their inconvenience included a flight into a foreign land to protect their child from the slaughter of the innocents by those who believed the birth of an infant to be a threat.  That is something to ponder on this 39th anniversary of the infamous Roe v Wade decision, based in ignorance and faulty reasoning, that stripped away all protection for the unborn and their mothers and fathers in an arrogation by the Supreme Court.