Happy women’s history
month, I don’t think the USA is quite doomed yet!
This was going to be a post for the end of Feburary, at which point it would
probably have been rather more relevant. But stuff came up in real life, this
got really pretty long, and so it was later. Ah well, it's not as though I'm often relevant.
Oh, and you might end up wanting to skip the italics. They’re not that
important, really.
It is a melancholy object to those,
who walk through the towns, or travel in the country, when they see the
streets, the roads and doorways crowded with women begging, surrounded by
three, four, or six children, all in rags, and crying to each passerby for
money. These mothers instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood,
are forced to employ all their time in begging to afford sustenance for their
helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or
leave their dear native country, to try and find greener pastures in another
land into which they have unlawfully entered.
I think it is agreed by all parties,
that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the
heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present
deplorable state of the country, a very great additional grievance; and
therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these
children sound and useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of
the public, as to be hailed around the world as a preserver of the nation.
But my intention is very far from
being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars: it is of
a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a
certain age, who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them,
as those who demand charity in the streets.
As to my own part, having turned my
thoughts for many years, upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the
several schemes of our projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in
their computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam, may be
supported by her milk, for a solar year, with little other nourishment: at most
not above the value of one thousand five hundred shillings, which the mother
may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging;
and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a
manner, as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or upon the charity
of others, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall,
on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing of many
thousands.
There is likewise another great
advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, alas!
too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I suspect, mostly
to avoid the expense, a state which should move tears and pity in the most
savage and inhuman heart.
The number of souls in this country
being usually reckoned thirty four million and half, of these I calculate there
may be more than four million couple whose wives are breeders; from which
number I subtract seven hundred thousand couple, who are able to maintain their
own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present
distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain almost
four million breeders. I again subtract one-and-two-tenths million, for those
women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the
year. There only remain two and three-quarter million children of poor parents
annually born. The question therefore is how this number shall be reared, and
provided for? Which, as I have already said, under the present situation of
affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can
neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses, (I
mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a
livelihood by violence till they arrive at thirteen years old; even where they
are of the most prodigious sort, although I confess they learn the rudiments
much earlier; during which time they can however be properly looked upon only
as probationers: As I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the district
of Moroto, who protested to me, that he never knew above one or two instances
under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the
quickest proficiency in that art.
I am assured by our merchants, that a
boy or a girl before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when
they come to this age, they will not yield above forty-one thousand shillings,
or fifty-six thousand shillings at most, on the exchange; which cannot turn to
account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriments and rags
having been at least four times that value.
I shall now therefore humbly propose
my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
I have been assured by a very knowing
American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed,
is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether
stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally
serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to
public consideration, that of the two and three-quarter million children,
already computed, one half-million may be reserved for breed, whereof only one
fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or
swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage,
a circumstance not much regarded by these savages, therefore, one male will be
sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining two and three-tenth
million may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and
fortune, through the government, always advising the mother to let them suck
plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good
table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when
the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish,
and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth
day, especially in winter.
Do you think I’m a horrible person yet? Assuming that you don’t know the
context of that piece*? Here’s the thing – It’s hard to say how many deaths Swift
can be held responsible for, but I certainly put the number at well over five
thousand. Probably well over double that. Why? Well, Swift, along with everything
else he ever did, caused the Irish war of Independence. And hence the treaty,
the parting of the ways, the Troubles, the civil war, and whatever other
nastiness has happened to the Irish recently**. Okay, he wasn’t really the only cause. There may have been some
other stuff to do with intolerably bad government by the British, reactions
against the loss of Irish independence by the acts of union, and even other
Irish thinkers, but… well, let me quote an obscure 19th-20th
century editor named Temple Scott: ‘for the first time in Irish History, a
spirit of national life was breathed into an almost denationalized people.
Beneath the lean and starved ribs of death Swift planted a soul.’ He’s not the
beginning of the Irish argument for independence (I think that would probably
be Molyneux), but it was he who lit the country on fire (a metaphor with some cases
of unfortunate literality). He was the Hibernian patriot, and he was the one
whose birthday was celebrated throughout Dublin. He was the birth of Irish
nationalism amongst the common people of Ireland, and, in my opinion, a massive
part of the cause of it success***.
Someone with a good knowledge of Irish history could probably say I’m
overplaying this – but I don’t think they could really argue that he had no
influence. They might argue with me about my decision to pretend the Drapier's letters never existed, but including them wouldn't change my argument, just make it a lot longer (the assertion that I might simplify or overplay specific aspects of
something for the sake of narrative is, of course, absurd). The point is, humour,
used well, is massively powerful, and
it can absolutely change the world. It can galvanise those who support you,
convert your opponents to your cause, and make everyone who still does oppose
you look like an idiot.
Why the Irish history lesson? Well it’s always a good time for an Irish
history lesson – I’ve been meaning to get around to the Pavee for ages. But
yeah, satire. There was a… thing… a few days ago. With a writer for the Onion
Tweeting an insult at a nine year old girl****. Thing is, I think I have to
defend it, and not just in the ‘freedom of speech is awesome anyway’ kind of
way. I’m not really looking forward to doing this, so I decided to waste a
thousand words on boring rewrites of the works of much better authors. Plus,
everyone’s left by now. I can say whatever I want!
Here’s the thing. The Onion is… well, the Onion. When it says something,
taking it entirely at face value is really not that good an idea. It seems to
be generally agreed (and this is how I read it) that the whole point is that
said actress is not, in fact, someone who you’d normally wish to insult, and
that the intent was to draw attention to how badly women are, in fact, treated
in society, or in the acting profession in particular. In our outrage at a
sweet little nine-year-old being attacked this way, we are supposed to question
when other people are attacked this way. Just as how Swift’s complete disregard
for the Irish is meant to shock people into realising that, y’know, maybe we
should actually do something about the whole crushing poverty of the Irish
thing. I think that’s all pretty straightforward, so moving on.
The use of adorable children for this purpose is pretty effective technique,
too. That’s why Swift used them. That’s why Dickens used them. Adorable children
are always a good way of heightening
the emotional response to something. They’re innocent, they don’t deserve
whatever it happens to be. That’s why Dostoevsky’s Ivan mentions only
children*****. Had the Tweet been about an older actress, it wouldn’t have had
the same impact – in fact, even the fact that it was the Onion posting it
wouldn’t necessarily have got it recognised as satire.
So, it is, in my opinion, a fairly effective bit of satire. Yes, there is an
argument that it’s not extreme enough – that some people will agree with it,
and others won’t realise it’s† satire. That it’s the Onion posting
it should really help with this, but, personally, I’m of the opinion that it
really doesn’t matter that much. Certainly, satire might be a little more
effective in causing social change if someone actually recognises it as such. But
it must be noted that the Modest Proposal wasn’t really recognised as satire at
the time††. A lot of people objected to it because, whilst it might be a good
idea, it was really going a little far. Satire, as Swift knew, is a distorted
mirror in which people see every face but their own. That some people actually associate
themselves with a satirical statement, even if they don’t agree with it in the
end, makes them look rather stupid. So some people not realising that it’s
satire can actually make the satire stronger. It’s a more little problematic if
the people on the same side as you don’t recognise you as satirical, but that’s
less likely – people really do seem to recognise satire more easily if they’re
not associated with the target. The problem here certainly isn’t that the
people objecting to the tweet ‘just don’t get it’ – I don’t think any of what I’ve
read in objections isn’t at all about not understanding
So what is the problem? There’s apparently a racial issue, but that’s
another reason I wasn’t entirely sure about talking about this. I fully admit
that I’m really not good at race relations, spotting racism, that sort of thing,
and I’d really prefer to avoid it. So I will! The important thing is that I see
no reason to assume that the author was being racist, or that racism was in any
way a part of their thinking – certainly it’s possible that they were subconsciously
more able to say that kind of thing about a black person, but, well, innocent
until proven guilty. And the entire point of the satire only works on the basis
that it is utterly unacceptable to say that kind of thing to the actress
concerned. Which I would argue suggests most clearly that the author wasn’t racist, and simply didn’t notice
that there could possibly be any racial implications. I would admit that that
probably suggests that the author was white, but, honestly, I personally don’t
see any reason here to assume racism of any kind on the part of the author. So
let’s move swiftly onwards.
There is, though, one major problem here, and that is this – that,
unfortunately, a real person was used. Here’s the thing: even if she wasn’t the
target of it, that tweet is rather famous now, and she’s probably going to be
associated with that particular insult. Forever. That seems like it could, just
possibly, have a slight negative impact on her life, especially if she learns
about it before she is old enough to recognise it as satire. This is why every
real name you ever see on here I will have spent some time thinking about
before typing (every fictional name, too, but for different reasons). If it’s
reasonable to do so, I’ll probably try and avoid using it. And that’s the problem
I have with supporting it. It damages a person, and I really don’t like the
idea of saying that it’s OK to sacrifice the individual in order to benefit
society as a whole. That seems like a bad precedent.
On the other hand, I ALSO dislike the idea of putting ‘precedent’ above
results – that’s the kind of thing that leads to ‘don’t lie to the axe-wielding
murderer, because lying is wrong’. In other words, what if the benefit provided
by persuading society to re-examine its interactions were to be greater than
the damage done to the girl in question. I mean, it’s rather questionable to
prevent one person from getting hurt by allowing many others to be hurt more
instead. It is, surely, downright insane to prevent one person from getting hurt
by allowing even more damage to be done to many others and that person seems downright insane. This logic, incidentally,
has led to the death of many theoretical Native Americans. It’s all very well
to say that they should just have used a different brand of humour, made the
same point without using a real person, and thus avoided all this, but that’s
really not how this kind of thing works sometimes.
So can I really say that the Onion shouldn’t have published their tweet that
definitively? Can I even say that they should have apologised? Well the answer
to the second question is easy: my entire defence of this as the right thing to
say is based on the power of humour to be a force for social change. In which
case, the instant the Onion sees it as having done more harm than good, then of
course they should apologise. ‘I failed and hurt people in the process’ is a brilliant reason to apologise, and all
the ethical issues I just raised can be neatly sidestepped if the Tweet didn’t
work. I’m still a little uncomfortable with the idea of withdrawing the tweet,
since I’m always uncomfortable with that kind of thing, no matter the surrounding
circumstances, but that’s a minor problem really, as long as they don’t start
denying they said it in the first place.
But can I say that they should not have published the tweet at all? Well…
no, not really. I said that I thought I’d have to defend this, and I stand by
that, I absolutely defend the publishing of that tweet by its author, and by
the Onion. In fact, my conclusion is that it was the wrong thing to do, but
that they still should have done it. Would I have done it? Absolutely not. But
in my view this tweet is entirely fine save for one single flaw, which is that
it uses a real person, a flaw from which every single complaint flows. And I
would say that this is a case of them having the idea, knowing that using a
real person would make it powerful, and overlooked the complications that arise
when ‘[9-year old girl] is a horrible person’ becomes ‘Quvenzhané is a horrible
person’ – the damage it could do, and the unintended implications there might
be. It all comes down to whether you think that that’s understandable or
forgivable, and, personally, I have to say that I think it was both.
*All credit goes to Jonathan Swift, who wrote fairly well, and the real
Modest Proposal really deserves a read if you don’t know it already. Also, I
was prioritising fidelity to the source over accuracy, so there are probably
some problems. Finally, apologies to the actual district of Moroto, which I
have no real reason to disparage.
**Although I must admit to some difficulty in finding a way to blame him for
the famine.
***Swift himself would probably have been horrified – his relationship with the
Irish Catholics who actually ended up being the main supporters of independence
was rather… complex.
****The word itself is not one I wish to type, which might make this a
little awkward. I’ll probably be ignoring the whether the word itself was too
extreme, though.
*****I don’t really want to reproduce the passage here – the whole thing is
rather long, if you want the full impact, but it also deserves a read
regardless. I’m sure it’s on the interwebs somewhere. The whole of Brother
Kramazov deserves a read, actually, but it’s bloody long, and some people find
it difficult to get through, too.
†I believe this to be the only sentence I have ever written in
which ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ are equally acceptable words.
††Some people still think it was serious. These people worry me.
No comments:
Post a Comment