Gregory Humphrey continues the apocalyptic tradition of the Marquette neighborhood with a post called "Madison Trees Do Not Need To Be Murdered".
So, when contractors are negligent and their digging destroys the root system of trees to the point where they have to be cut down, it's murder. But when we pull a head of lettuce out of the ground with malice and with forethought, it is just eating.
What makes this all the more grotesque is that in reply to a comment I made on his blog about how his support for the war in Afghanistan is also de facto an act of lending support to the deaths of innocent civilians, he pulled out a wonderful euphemism that Bush and his cronies would be proud of: he said that he was aware of the "realities" on the ground.
So this...
...is "reality on the ground" while this...
...is "murder".
Am I alone in thinking that there is something very wrong when a perfectly intelligent and well-meaning person can reserve the harshest of words for instances where trees are cut down but resort to euphemism which marginalizes and minimizes the suffering of people who are caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and NATO forces?
I don't believe that Humphrey is a cold-hearted war-monger but, when he writes passionate encomia in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death and then turns around only to euphemize the suffering, death, and misery of Afghan civilians into an abstract oblivion, I can't help but believe that something has been misplaced, something has gone terribly awry.
2 comments:
Interesting post, though not all the points seem well grounded. I think that the point to Humphrey's argument that was most lost on this writer has to do with the role that trees serve in our community. They are not just there for their beauty, but also serve a real function in an old Victorian neighborhood. They are very much a part of the heating and cooling system of these old houses built before modern insulation. In a time when we as a nation are trying to find ways to "go green" one can't discount the benefit of old growth trees. With that said, to compare the loss of trees which take a half century to grow to a head of lettuce which takes but a few weeks seems trite and a cheap comparison not readily understandable.
As a frequent reader of Humphrey's blog myself, one could hardly say that Humphrey feels that the ravages of war in the world are any less important than the trees. He often decries the lunacy of our national policy which has led us to these places on the globe, most often for very questionable reasons.
What it seems to me, in general, that Humphrey argues on his blog is that we are responsible for affecting change in the world where we can. With that said, to call out the irresponsible manner in which trees are treated is a local issue over which he can have a much greater influence than matters of war, over which he can help persuade public opinion through his writing. The two are on very different levels.
Hi jamesrwilson - I am well aware of the role that trees play. If you'll re-read what I wrote, nowhere did I attempt to discount the role of trees in providing shade. Indeed I live in the same neighborhood as Mr. Humphrey and I would certainly not like to have the trees on the terraces in front of my home cut down if it could be avoided.
Nowhere did I say that Humphrey feels the ravages of war are less important than trees. My point was that he favors the war in Afghanistan and, when he speaks of it, he uses very sterile language. It is completely irrelevant that the war is thousands of miles away while the trees are in his front yard. The point was to contrast how he talks about the deaths of children in an exceedingly detached manner while the deaths of trees warrants loaded language.
Humphrey, I think, argues that we can affect change in the world beyond our front yards - in this case, at the very least. His vote for Obama was a vote for the war in Afghanistan and a vote to change the political landscape of that country.
As far as they tree vs. lettuce bit, what do you not comprehend? Killing is killing. Is killing a 50 year old person somehow worse than an infant?
Moving away from the human-plant thing, why does providing shade warrant the use of a loaded term whereas providing sustenance does not?
Post a Comment