The book the movie was based on was written by Pierre Boulle, the same man who gave us Planet of the Apes. While the two projects may seem dissimilar, there is a common theme running through both: What makes a person civilized?
The Bridge on the River Kwai plays with this theme more subtly. By the end of the movie, in many ways the Japanese and Japanese commander seem even more reasonable--and thus civilized--than the British and Colonel Nicholson. Yet, the Japanese had conquered and enslaved most of Asia, and the Japanese commander was running what was essentially a death camp. No matter how sympathetically he could be portrayed, he and his men were animals. Whatever the faults of the British and British colonialism, there is no comparison between them and the Japanese.
If The Bridge on the River Kwai was subtle, Planet of the Apes hits you over the head with the same point. According to most definitions, the ability to speak and the ability to use technology are considered hallmarks of civilization. Yet, the apes had both, and were still nothing but animals.
The ability to form a coherent sentence, to use tools, and even to be genteel and polite, does not make someone civilized. Rather, the essence of being civilized is having a basic moral compass. Without this moral compass, it does not matter the eloquence of a person's speech, his mastery of his environment, or how convivial he can be--he is not a human, but an animal. This was true of both the Japanese and the Nazis in World War 2. And it is true of a lot of people today.
*****
Someone was irritated and deigned to judge me on the last post I made, because evidently I did not engage in polite discourse and I used some invectives. While a great many virtues are listed in the Bible, politeness is simply not one of them, and while I try to be congenial if possible, I have absolutely no patience with people that insist politeness is a virtue and who will only deal with those as congenial as themselves. Here's why:
- The Japanese are perhaps the most polite people on earth, and I am sure the Japanese prison camp guards and Japanese soldiers in the War could even be polite on occasion.
- The Nazis could also be very polite--Germans are known for being polite and well-behaved. Surely, many of the people carting the Jews off to extermination camps managed to maintain decorum. And within Nazi Germany itself, there was a debate over the extermination camps--not because Jews were being killed there--but over concerns that the guards and killers might somehow become coarsened by the experience.
- The slave owners in the American South were also among the most congenial people around--they absolutely lived for politeness and manners. Yet, they routinely raped their slave women (sleeping with a slave who cannot say "no" is certainly rape), and sold their own children into slavery. (Read the works of Frederick Douglass for more details on this point).
We need to speak frankly and honestly about things. While this does not mean we need to be hurtful, we need to understand who we sometimes truly hurt by our polite lies and social graces: Women and children being wounded and killed in warfare and fighting, prison inmates being tortured, people being forced to live as slaves and dying of hunger, a generation of aborted babies. These are real problems in the world today, and no amount of politeness and congeniality will change this.
"Oh, you're demonizing others! You're resorting to name calling! How uncivilized!"
If someone behaves like a demon, then it is just being honest to call him a demon--it is not demonizing. There are worse things in the world than calling people names, names such as white-washed tombs, sons of Satan, and a brood of vipers. And if this offends you, I can only say that I am trying to be Christ-like. Be offended.
Related Post: The Kind Face of Evil



6 comments:
Monsters often hide their true selves under a facade of politeness. For them, it is merely a tool to entice others, much like intelligence was a tool for the Unman in the book "Perelandra."
I enjoyed this article very much. You have made a very good point.
Thank you!
Matt
Haven't read the book "Perelandra", but thanks for the comments.
I also saw the movie, Bridge on the River Kwai, in fact I've watch it numerous times as I have Planet of the Apes. I have a slightly different view of Colonel Nicholson, as a major in the British army in the 1940's he is simply following a long tradition dating back hundreds of years in the British army forbiding officers to do manuel labor in front of their men. It was tradition and not high-minded principles that drove the colonel. Or one could say they were the same, but that would be a stretch.
As for the Nazi's I agree. But the issue of southern plantation owners is another thing. There I have mixed feelings and think the truth lies somewhere between Harritt Beecher Stowe's, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and Margaret Mitchell's, "Gone With the Wind".
I really like your site and will be adding you to my blogroll at Totus. Mine is a young blog but I've worked hard on it and gotten it up to a PR4 site. Found you via twitter. Following.
Thanks. I'll add your blog to my blogroll here.
Regarding Col. Nicholson, from my long experience working with Brits, I'm not really sure that a Brit of his generation would see civilization as something separate from tradition. He would probably see it all as part of the same cloth.
As a southerner, I know that many people will take issue with my understanding of the Antebellum South. I stand by my assertion though. I added the reference to Frederick Douglass in part to explain why I feel the way I do, but I realize that most people nowadays are not familiar to his work. I would direct you to the appendix to "The Narrative of an American Slave" (http://www.americanliterature.com/NARR/NARR12.HTML--since this comes at the end of his book, you may need to read the whole thing to get the full import of what he was trying to get at).
When I first read these words, they cut me to the heart, and I vowed that I would never romanticize the South again. Whether the slaves were treated well or not is immaterial. It still represented tyranny, and the slave owners were thoroughly hypocritical in their beliefs. I simply find it hard to reconcile--when one discovers all the facts--how people would be willing to fight and die to defend slavery, yet still think of themselves as Christians and honorable men.
Please note that some of my forefathers were slave holders and later members of the KKK, even while being ministers of the Gospel in some cases, so my indictment is as much against them as anyone else.
Anyway, I've no desire to refight the Civil War on my blog--I just added the comment by way of an explanation.
Thanks for your comment!
Excellent piece, thanks for the link. I am married to a working class Brit, she fits right in here in the sticks of Missouri.
Post a Comment