I read an interesting piece on a friend’s Facebook page that caught my attention and spoke to the rather complicated and sometimes absurd quality of the gun debate. I must admit that it is more than a bit surreal in that it relates his conversation with a black snake named Fred. I have printed it in its entirety. Perhaps, it will help you think about this serious issue and bring a smile as well.
Oh, Lord, it was bound to happen. After a year of the most acrimonious political infighting ever in American history, Fred the Black Snake has decided to get involved in the political discussion surrounding guns. Listen up, and I will tell you exactly how it happened…
Fred met me on the way to the office early this morning. I could tell he had something on his little mind because of the way he issued his customary greeting—sort of drawn out and downcast! “Wassssssup?”
“Damn, Fred,” I responded, “that’s the saddest, most melancholy greeting you’ve ever offered. It sounds like you’re preoccupied. Wassup?”
“Boss, I took a slither down the street and I saw one of your neighbors has an unusual flag flying—two of them as a matter of fact. A black-and-white American flag with a blue stripe and a yellow flag with a snake on it. I don’t have a snake flag, particularly one that says ‘don’t tread on me.’”
“Yeah, so what? As far as I know you don’t need either one. You don’t even know what they stand for, do you?”
“Not really,” he responded, “but I like the sentiment of the yellow flag. What do they mean?”
“Well,” I started, assuming my long ago abandoned professorial voice, “let me educate you. The yellow flag is called the Gadsden flag, and it was designed by Christopher Gadsden in 1775 as a symbol of American resistance to British colonial policies. It has since become the symbol of individuals who want limited government and unlimited gun rights. So, when you see someone flying that flag, you know automatically that they belong to the far right of politics. The other flag is symbolic of support for police officers, many of whom have died in pursuit of their profession. It, too, has become a symbol of the far right in our nation.”
“Far right? How does that work?”
“Well, in American politics we have degrees of political activism, ranging from the far right (anarchists, QAnons, Fascists, racists) to the far left (Socialist, Communists, Libertarians). In between, we have more middle-of-the-road people—Democrats, Republicans—and within those organized parties, we have gradations of left and right. Confusing, isn’t it?”
“Yeah, but I still like the Gadsden flag. I’d like to be able to have an AR-15 or some such gun to protect myself and other Black Snakes. Maybe I’ll have to pick a political party. Which side likes guns?”
“Well, Fred, it’s not a matter of liking or disliking guns in general. It just depends on what kind of gun you have, how you use it, and how it makes you feel. Some people have guns for personal protection, some people have guns to hunt, and some people have guns to hunt people. Once again, gradations.”
“Sure gets complicated fast!”
“Sure does, Fred. That’s only the beginning. There’s the question of concealed weapons versus openly carried weapons; single shot versus magazine fed; single shot versus semi-automatic or automatic; or registered versus unregistered. Then there’s the question of who should be able to own a gun—anybody or only individuals who have been checked for safety training, criminal activity, mental stability, or extreme political views. Who gets to have a gun and who doesn’t?”
“Damn,” Fred’s eyes were beginning fog over. “I think I just want a gun, period.”
“Fred, you are a snake, in case you haven’t noticed. You don’t have hands, hips, shoulders, or a broad back. If you had a gun, where would you carry it? Where would you carry the ammunition? How would you fire the gun—you don’t have fingers. It seems to me that the only reasons you’d want a gun is why many people want guns. You just want to show what a macho person you are—male or female—you don’t know anything about guns, have little or no training in how to handle a gun, have never fired a gun, and just want it to frighten anyone—real or imagined—you think might ‘tread’ on you!”
“But, but, I think I need a gun,” he was all set to argue with me.
“Before you get started and wind up in a tizzy, Fred, let me tell you this—I’m the Boss, I run this Wildlife Corridor, and I have a permanent ban on guns in the possession of any of the Corridor’s inhabitants. I’m telling you—NO GUNS!”
“But, but, but…my rights!”
“Fred, you’re a snake. You don’t have rights. No guns!”
“Well, can I get a Gadsden flag?”
“Only if you can afford the $30.00 the flag makers want. You’ll have to pay cash!”
Fred thought and thought about that, frowned a lot, but then he brightened…
“Wassup?”
Animals in Satire: An Anthology
From early history, satirists have used depictions of man as animal to critique the tendencies of humans to exhibit savage behaviors, but cover them up with society’s gloss of civility. It is not surprising that satirists would pick society’s tendency to be animalistic while distancing itself from nature, as satire is intended to criticize the greatest of follies with the hope of also enlightening humans to the truth. Thus, analogies comparing humans to animals exist to reveal to society that its behaviors are lowering humanity to the level of beasts, and perhaps open people’s eyes to the fact that the acts they are engaging in (whatever they may be in the contextual time of the satire) are wrong. Because people seem to be particularly offended at being depicted socially equivalent to an animal, these satires become a strong critique of our society.
Depiction of animals in satire can be seen all through history, from the time of the Greeks, through the Renaissance, and into modern day. George A. Test comments that in Greek plays, animal satire was “used for mockery and ridicule, animals and animal-like figures [coming] to represent freedom to the point of chaos.” So, even in the time of the Greeks, animals were a representation of wildness or nature, and seemed to be a satire for human society choosing to suppress its wilder tendencies and conform to a civil norm. In the eighteen hundreds comparing humans to brutes was one of the lowest analogies one could draw. In his paper “Satires on Man and ‘the Dignity of Human Nature’” Bertrand Goldgar explains that responses to the satirization of human nature in the first half of the eighteenth century “fell into general disfavor” as the implication that human beings were inferior to brutes particularly offended the public. Works such as Gulliver’s Travels, were particularly offensive for degrading mankind and were criticized as being insults on the “’dignity of human nature.’” It is important to note, however, that although criticized, these works received a multitude of attention from readers and critics, as in the example of Gulliver’s Travels. Perhaps attention was the desire of the satirists. Even negative attention is attention nonetheless, which is what these satirists desired to do. Though being degraded to an animal might offend some, satirical degradation has allowed and continues to allow satirists to criticize events in human history as being brutish and cruel, making the satirization of humanity a particularly useful tool for inspiring change.
While animal satires continue to be used in the present, it seems that our society is less offended by animal comparisons. It may be possible that it is not the society, but the form of satire that has changed. While most satirical pieces in the 1800’s took a direct approach to criticism, taking a look at the satires that are popular today, it is noticeable that they are less direct in their criticisms. Kathryn Hume, in her paper, “Diffused Satire in Contemporary American Fiction,” explains the term “diffused satire” to be a new satirical genre. She argues that while the old, more direct form of satire that we saw in the past is still present today, it is less popular. Therefore, most of the popular satire we see today is likely to be “diffused satire.” Hume explains that the main difference between satire and “diffused satire” is that “diffused satire […] lacks intensity.” Hume describes “intensity” to be “the clarity and directness with which a subject is targeted.” So, although in its nature to target and criticize a particular aspect “diffused satire” remains the same as regular satire, the targeting of its object is less direct, and thus the result may be less offensive. We will see this example in many of the newer works within the anthology, including the movie Fantastic Mr. Fox, where the satirization of the animals still makes a claim on human society, but does so in a light and playful fashion.
Perhaps by being less direct, “diffused satire” actually accomplishes more. When people are offended, it is likely they will respond defensively rather than critically and logically to the satire. However, since all satire aims either to bring certain features to attention or actually inspire change, offending people may not be the best way. Therefore, by diffusing the intensity of satire satirists are able to accomplish more by offending less. As a result, this new satirical genre has become so wide spread that it seems to have forced itself into every crevice of our lives. Thus, we have become an entirely satirical society.
I have missed Fred. Glad he survive winter. Haven’t heard him talk so much. Hope he follows the rules that the owner set down. A good discussion.