Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
The sheep, the sheepdogs, and the wolves.
If you persist in an environment such as academia and don't venture out into the real world, your view will be skewed such a way in that you confuse the sheepdog with the wolf..
|
Very nice twist on a speech by William J Bennet given to the Naval Academy in 1997:
http://www.combat.ws/S4/LIBRARY/SHEEPDOG.HTM
You've gone farther than his view of the sheep toward the sheepdogs. He says even though the sheep consider the sheepdogs heroes when they're saved by them, they, generally, being in denial about the real danger of wolves, have an innate distrust of the sheepdogs because they look a lot like the wolves.
But you've clarified a more influential subset of sheep--academia, which molds its view through its influence on the schools and the various print and visual media. And a subset which is even farther removed from reality than most of the sheep. It believes it has a morally superior view than the rest of the sheep of how life works, even though they are sheltered from most of the evil aspects the rest are heir to. So it goes beyond merely distrusting the sheepdogs, it actually equates the sheepdogs with the wolves.
So our sheepdogs, to them, are just as much wolves as wolves are. And to be vilified, even punished as much as the wolves should be. In their view, if their must be sheepdogs, they are expected not to bite the wolves. Rather, they should protect the sheep by the superior example of respect for life. This would teach, by moral example, that it is better for the wolves to respect the sheep, and to live by the sheep's example. Perhaps, to eat grass rather than sheep meat. A sort of turning of the other cheek. Not that the sheep should turn a cheek, as they tremble with fear, but that the sheepdogs, standing between them and the wolves, should represent such a gesture by treating the wolves with kindness, generosity. The sheepdogs should display the values of all the world's sheep by gesturing towards the wolves with the various treaties and conventions on the proper treatment that wolves, or at least other sheep gone astray, should be accorded.
Unfortunately, in the real world, the vast majority of wolves don't care about the treaties that various sheep have agreed to. Like all smart wolves, if they learn to game the sheep system, and they know that the sheepdogs won't bite, they can wave a friendly tail, move along, and come back later with the knowledge they have gained, and feast on more sheep.
And sheepdogs, indeed, are like, in many ways, the wolves, with a major exception, as noted by Bennet--they will bite the wolves but never harm the sheep. It is that distinction which not only separates them from the wolves, but which makes them such an effective protection for the sheep against the wolves.
I suppose, others with a more progressive nature than I, would say that such parables don't really apply to humans. We are not really sheep or wolves. We have a "higher" status on the evolutionary scale.
But we have not yet evolved to the higher state of existence that our superiors demand. For instance, they depend so much on genetics to equalize cultural disputes. Our genetics, to them, basically makes us who we are. There are genes that dispose some to this or that. To a particular sexuality. Or to love or criminality. To dominance or subordination. But is there an acknowledgment that some are genetically inclined to be warriors--the warriors Bennet speaks of in his speech? And that, as the genetic makeup supposedly cannot be overridden in sexuality, that neither can the warrior makeup. Throughout history, warriors have been brutal in war, and they must because they face each other with their inherent will to win, to defeat an enemy and protect their homes. Some warriors, as Bennet points out, are more or less so in the continuum of war behavior. It takes the consummate warrior to face the enemy in the most extreme circumstances. Asking the warrior to play nice in the face of intractable enemies, enemies who have no agreement nor inclination to play by the rules of sheep, is asking for defeat.
Are interrogators warriors? Who would have the genetic makeup to be an interrogator? Have we isolated such a gene? Until we do, who do we depend on to interrogate? Aren't the CIA a branch of the warrior class? And when they go into the interrogative battle with an enemy, do they act as the sheepdogs they are, or should they act like a university professor?