“It’s the soldier -- not the reporter -- who has given us the freedom of the press.
It’s the soldier -- not the poet -- who has given us the freedom of speech.
It’s the soldier -- not the politician -- who ensures that we live freely and peacefully.
It’s the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is eventually draped by the flag.”
------------
Again let us read on the above, what would one interpret of it? I mean literarily? Perhaps poetically?
DJB interprets it or merely a part of it as
"It is soldiers who die for what reporters and journalists only make a living at whilst attacking soldiers for obeying the Constitution."
As for my poetic interpretation coupled with logic reasoning or whatever one may call that permit me to ask a question however on why would a reporter or a journalist even attack a soldier? Or how does DJB define attack per se?
Did they desecrate them, or blindfolded them and summarilly murder them? the only weapon they can use whether poetically or literarily is the sword of the pen and I really don't see the point of making that statement "attacking soldiers" by DJB.
Correct me if I'm wrong but again does attacking journalists and randomly killing and harrassing activists equitable to "obeying the constitution?"
When does an activist or a journalist in the middle of being tortured attack a soldier? It is this that boggles me for as far as I'm concerned there is no amount of neither literary or literal definition of that ordeal to be suffered under the hands of the "constitution fighter"
Until now there is no anti-torture law, and most of the torture or murdered victims are brought about by the military while carrying their God-given duty of protecting the constitution.
I can even stomach the idea that it is a "PROTEST POEM" by them dead soldiers against reporters, politicians and even poets.
But the question is who are the soldiers protesting against? The reporters who write because they are being indiscriminately murdered and the government can't give them the protection they want?
And where did the idea of "reporters, politicians and even poets, often do not appreciate their sacrifices or their heroism, for none of these others are themselves at any real risk of having to defend the freedoms they so cherish, unless the soldiers themselves become derelict in their duty." came from?
Is being critical of a system that is corrupt and murderous meant not being able to appreciate their heroism?
Now on the question of "WHY would they write stuff that can so easily be attacked on the literal level."
By just being able to digest de-constructively a statement in the literal sense does not merit giving that option that perhaps they wrote it in the poetic level.
That is where I honestly at a loss for DJB's logic.
For all we know they wrote it as literal, only they could know for sure. It is like trying to interpret the bible and opening up more questions than answers.
Their statement as I see it can also be interpreted as being not open to attacks. Perhaps they wrote it as it is as they see fit and as arrogant as most of them are towards the people they "matter-of-factly" torture and dispose of any chance they get.
Therefore the whole argument of DJB all boils down to personal opinion and interpretation and if DJB feels that it should be interpreted as such then it should be interpreted as such. he left no room for any discussion as could be compared to a decree of a 13th century Roman Catholic Pope.
Please don't get me wrong I admire them and their valor but please let us afford them the righteousness of their deaths by not using them as a smokescreen for the misdeeds of their organization.
I know for a fact that they are just following orders and whatever that may be may it be good or bad as long as it comes from the top that's how it usually works isn't it?
anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Shine on!
It’s the soldier -- not the poet -- who has given us the freedom of speech.
It’s the soldier -- not the politician -- who ensures that we live freely and peacefully.
It’s the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is eventually draped by the flag.”
------------
Again let us read on the above, what would one interpret of it? I mean literarily? Perhaps poetically?
DJB interprets it or merely a part of it as
"It is soldiers who die for what reporters and journalists only make a living at whilst attacking soldiers for obeying the Constitution."
As for my poetic interpretation coupled with logic reasoning or whatever one may call that permit me to ask a question however on why would a reporter or a journalist even attack a soldier? Or how does DJB define attack per se?
Did they desecrate them, or blindfolded them and summarilly murder them? the only weapon they can use whether poetically or literarily is the sword of the pen and I really don't see the point of making that statement "attacking soldiers" by DJB.
Correct me if I'm wrong but again does attacking journalists and randomly killing and harrassing activists equitable to "obeying the constitution?"
When does an activist or a journalist in the middle of being tortured attack a soldier? It is this that boggles me for as far as I'm concerned there is no amount of neither literary or literal definition of that ordeal to be suffered under the hands of the "constitution fighter"
Until now there is no anti-torture law, and most of the torture or murdered victims are brought about by the military while carrying their God-given duty of protecting the constitution.
I can even stomach the idea that it is a "PROTEST POEM" by them dead soldiers against reporters, politicians and even poets.
But the question is who are the soldiers protesting against? The reporters who write because they are being indiscriminately murdered and the government can't give them the protection they want?
And where did the idea of "reporters, politicians and even poets, often do not appreciate their sacrifices or their heroism, for none of these others are themselves at any real risk of having to defend the freedoms they so cherish, unless the soldiers themselves become derelict in their duty." came from?
Is being critical of a system that is corrupt and murderous meant not being able to appreciate their heroism?
Now on the question of "WHY would they write stuff that can so easily be attacked on the literal level."
By just being able to digest de-constructively a statement in the literal sense does not merit giving that option that perhaps they wrote it in the poetic level.
That is where I honestly at a loss for DJB's logic.
For all we know they wrote it as literal, only they could know for sure. It is like trying to interpret the bible and opening up more questions than answers.
Their statement as I see it can also be interpreted as being not open to attacks. Perhaps they wrote it as it is as they see fit and as arrogant as most of them are towards the people they "matter-of-factly" torture and dispose of any chance they get.
Therefore the whole argument of DJB all boils down to personal opinion and interpretation and if DJB feels that it should be interpreted as such then it should be interpreted as such. he left no room for any discussion as could be compared to a decree of a 13th century Roman Catholic Pope.
Please don't get me wrong I admire them and their valor but please let us afford them the righteousness of their deaths by not using them as a smokescreen for the misdeeds of their organization.
I know for a fact that they are just following orders and whatever that may be may it be good or bad as long as it comes from the top that's how it usually works isn't it?
anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Shine on!
There are two levels at which we can analyze the Soldiers' Poem: literal and literary.
I've tried to defend it primarily at the level both CDQ and Upoytao have attacked it: the literal.
But Blackshama's comment made me realize the power of the poem lies not in its literal meaning but its poetic level, which we can access by asking this question:
WHY would they write stuff that can so easily be attacked on the literal level.
I believe upoytao and cdq both express genuine surprise and rise immediately to contradict a claim like the soldier defends freedom of speech more than reporters.
I said earlier it was because the reporters are merely users of what the soldiers do not use and make a living of off, yet they lay down their lives to protect the Constitution from which such freedom flows.
But there is a deeper meaning to it.
They are saying something like this because they think reporters and journalists do not appreciate that very fact, that reporters and jounalists like de quiros attack them, even when they are ready to die for freedom of speech.
So I will rephrase:
It is soldiers who die for what reporters and journalists only make a living at whilst attacking soldiers for obeying the Constitution.
It is in short a PROTEST POEM from dead soldiers painfully but proudly complaining that reporters, politicians and even poets, often do not appreciate their sacrifices or their heroism, for none of these others are themselves at any real risk of having to defend the freedoms they so cherish, unless the soldiers themselves become derelict in their duty.
I think a defense of the constitution necessarily implies a defense of its defenders, especially those whose job it is die for the Constitution if need be.
Reporters, politicians and poets can all LEGALLY avoid the battlefields whilst taking potshots at those taking real sniper shots to the head.
If they tried to live and work like that, they get courtmartialed.
Defense is the soldiers work, attack and collect, defend and collect is what LOTS of reporters do, whilst pretending to be poets.