Discussion about this post

User's avatar
PAUL NATHANSON's avatar

Excellent essay, Tom. I call your attention to only one passage, the very first line. You refer to "the men and women who have given their lives in military service." I'm not sure that women fight in combat even now, and they certainly didn't in earlier times. Some women did dangerous jobs near the front line, to be sure, and were sometimes wounded or killed. But that was not the expectation of either the women or their commanders, let alone of society. It was the expectation only of men. Personally, I don't approve of that distinction, but I also don't approve of rewriting history for political purposes. You surely didn't intend to do that. You merely used an expression that has become so conventional in this age of "equity" that few people actually notice it.

You could just as easily have referred to "the soldiers who have given their lives." Even that wouldn't be good enough for me, however, because it's still a euphemism. Conscripts don't and can't "give" their own lives. By law, the state takes their lives (whether they are willing or unwilling).

This euphemism originated in Western countries, because of the religious assumption that every soldier who dies in battle is symbolically Christ who dies on the cross. But Christ sacrificed himself for the salvation of others. The state, however, sacrifices soldiers in the name of society, including their parents. There's a huge difference between sacrifice and self-sacrifice.

Expand full comment
Sadredin Moosavi's avatar

Amen

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts