That was an issue when Grim's Hall was young, way back in 2004. The Honorable Zell Miller had expressed regret that duels were no longer legal, which the media -- then as now dishonest -- chose to interpret as him having challenged a man to a duel.
There really is something to be said for a return to duelling [s.i.c. -- apparently in 2004 I didn't know how to spell a word I had nevertheless used many times. -Grim]. Even the reminder of the institution, though, is clarifying. Consider the "Go to Hell, Zell," John Kerry Infant creeper, for those who think that American life isn't sufficiently profane for children. This shirt allows those of a particularly cowardly persuasion to express obscenity without fear of retribution. No reasonable person would take the baby to task (the baby would be just as happy if the creeper said "Vote Bush, 2004," or said nothing and was decorated only with carrot stains). No decent man would engage the parent in front of the child, as anyone bent out of shape enough to dress an infant in such garb would surely cause a scene upsetting to the innocent....Like all of us, I was 15 years younger when I wrote that. I am sure I was hotter of head in those days, but I believe the younger Grim was right. "Liar! Liar!" has been replaced with "Traitor! Traitor!," and the hiding behind children is as prominent a feature today as then.
The image of the crossed pistols reminds us that men used to take responsibility for their words -- that the things they said were things they would risk death to defend....
How many times have I had to hear people toss around the words "lie!" or "liar!" in this election? It seems to be the very first line of defense, when anyone says anything you'd rather not believe. Not only do these people hide behind children, they sound like children. They spit deadly insults freely, knowing that they can never be called to account.
The end of the duel may have brought some good effects, but it has also ended the culture of responsibility that went with it. No one is called to account for their slander. That John Kerry of the VVAW is a candidate for the highest office in the land says this as truly as anything.
I'm with Zell. It is a shame that duels are no longer legal. Duels were private wars, and like wars they could be just. Like wars, for all the harm they did, they often did more good. In a world fallen from hope of perfection, that may be the best you can ask.
We should return to the duel. It would restore some manners around here, and drive the loud-mouthed cowards out of the places of power and authority they have so long now occupied.
It's a corollary to "an armed society is a polite society."
ReplyDeleteIn the days of dueling, I'm pretty sure that women were neither expected nor allowed to participate.
ReplyDeleteGiven the prominence of women today in politics and journalism, including among those who howl "liar liar" and "traitor traitor", I guess this would have to change.
That’s not true, actually. There were rules governing women and dueling from the Middle Ages. In Medieval Germany if they wished to fight in person rather than via a champion, the man was made to stand in a short pit to limit mobility and height advantage. He was also restricted to a nonstandard weapon to limit any training advantages.
ReplyDeleteWe have illustrations from a fighting manual of what this looked like.
https://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_man_and_woman_files/fecht1.jpg
Of course there are other options, but historically — at least in the parts of the world that have always taken women seriously, the Germanic and Celtic parts — it was long provided for by law.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what were the rules as to who could challenge whom?....For example, could a Harvard Law professor refuse a challenge from an ordinary citizen on grounds that he was nobility and the citizen was not?
As i wrote neat those years, it would overly benefit those with better champions but provide a fairer way to kill authorities. But would the government be immune? They have health private plans but you do not. They have armed guards while their citizen serfs end up dead at waco 1 for having a few pea shooters or ruby ridge. This does not avoid the fact that sstrological warrior benefits are not spread evenly. To the ancients, talents were a heavenly gift of the eternal gods or equivalent. But in the age of science, better guns is a manufacturing problem. This is why the ds keeps their serfs on obsolete tech. Their tech is hundreds of years in advance of lockheed s classified projects. Not black budgey projects tho.
ReplyDeleteFor example, could a Harvard Law professor refuse a challenge from an ordinary citizen on grounds that he was nobility and the citizen was not?
ReplyDeleteI can certainly see a man who was challenged adding to the insult that got him challenged by responding, "Duels are for gentlemen; you are not that."
Eric Hines
The 'gentlemen only duel among equals' rule was important at one time, although again rules changed over time and we could set our own. The duel is older than the concept of 'a gentleman,' and could in principle survive the collapse of the idea that there are unequal social standings.
ReplyDeleteOr, alternatively, we could acknowledge that we really do believe in unequal social standings. However, I don't think Harvard professors are likely to get away with asserting that they have a higher standing than ordinary Americans. They'd be better off asserting a lower one: they might be excused from duels by admitting that they are too cowardly to fight, but only likely (as Mr. Hines says) to heighten the challenge by claiming they are too good to fight.