Excerpt from "Trey's Relatives" by Trey Spadone

Excerpt from Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie 

“Oskar died,” Ilse told him, sipping fresh lime water on my mother’s takht.

“Like a comedian. He went to talk to the army and tell them not to be pawns. The fool really thought the troops would fling down their guns and walk away. We watched from a window and prayed they wouldn’t just trample all over him.

“All right,” Naseem conceded, “so you’ve got a good chance landing a good job. Agra University, it’s a famous place, don’t think I don’t know. University doctor!...sounds good.”

“I’m in love,” Aadam Aziz said to Ilse Lubin. And later, “...So I’ve only seen her through a hole in a sheet, one part at a time; and I swear her bottom blushes.”

“Watercress sandwiches,” my grandmother said to me, whilst eating my mother’s famous mashed potatoes.

“It was so silly. We hadn’t been dating for very long and so we were both still nervous. For some strange reason I thought those would be adequate for an evening picnic. We sat down in the park and I nervously took the sandwiches out.

“That’s excellent,” my uncle affirmed, “sounds like this school is working out well for you. International relations, that’s a credible career, don’t think I don’t know. US ambassador!...sounds good.”

“I love it,” my cousin said with a grin. He paused, “There are some logistical issues that need to be worked out, rent and other such things; but it’s going to be great.”

“After the picnic we were surprisingly not full at all,” she laughed.

Strong and Sly Speeches

World War II is remembered because of the bombing in Britain, the bloody battle of Stalingrad, and the infamous D Day. However, it’s also remembered because of the speeches it gave birth to. Winston Churchill’s promise to Britain, Joseph Goebbels’ total war cry to Germany, and Emperor Hirohito’s condolences to Japan all had a tremendous effect on the audiences who heard them. However, as persuasive as they all were at the time, all three speeches boast claims that are ridiculously untrue. Churchill, Goebbels, and Hirohito attempt to justify their actions by leading their people to believe that their respective nations are the victims, and that without action on their part, Eastern or Western civilization will cease to exist.

Each of the three leaders presents their nation as being innocent victims. Churchill expresses that Britain’s purpose is “to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime.” He uses the word “monstrous” to emphasize the fact that the other nation is most definitely the bad guy and England needs to defend itself. In order, to put Bolshevism and Jewish people in the worst light possible Goebbels says that “they want to bring chaos to the Reich and Europe. We could see, if the danger were not overcome, the specter of hunger, misery, and forced labor by millions of Germans.” He portrays them as imperial hungry mongrels who want to take over Germany. He does this to be able to say that Germany’s attacks back will simply be out of self-defense. Emperor Hirohito says “the enemy has begun to employ a new and a most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable.” He wants his citizens to know that Japan’s surrender was not dishonorable. It was necessary to keep the nation from being annihilated.

Besides playing the victim card, all three leaders justify their actions by harping on the “fact” that if their nation doesn't do something whole civilizations will fall apart. Hirohito justifies the attacks on the West by saying it was out of Japan’s “sincere desire to insure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia.” Hirohito wants to convince his people that if Japan hadn't fought the Western powers then East Asia would have been at risk of being destroyed. Churchill does the same thing by saying “no survival for the British Empire, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward toward its goal.” He aims to convince his people that the human race depends on Britain’s success. Goebbels is probably the biggest culprit of this either-or scare tactic. He explains that Germany is the only country that sees Bolshevism for the danger it is. Then he flat out states that “only the German Reich and its allies are in the position to resists this danger.” He wants to infuse this “defender of the world” mentality into other Germans so that they will comply with his “total war” plan. The sense of urgency and duty that stems from these claims is the reason why these speeches were so effective. The Germans and the English were spurred into action, while the Japanese were comforted and consoled.

Dinner With The Greats

What do you want to talk about? Influential people? That’s perfect, let’s talk about Henry David Thoreau and Niccolò Machiavelli. Both men are unfortunately not with us, but their writing still is. I like going out for dinner so let’s pretend that time machines exist and that I can have dinner with them. Just close your eyes…

Oh, good morning! Sorry you couldn't join us last night, it was an incredible experience. Do you have a minute? Great, I’ll tell you about the conversation.

First off, let me say that I think Thoreau was probably popular in high school. He’s a people person. He believes in power to the people. The government should make people’s lives better, not be an anchor dragging them down. On the flip side is Machiavelli. Machiavelli believes that leaders are entitled to do whatever is necessary to maintain power. It’s perfectly fine for rulers to be cruel and ruthless because that’s what helps them be successful. In his mind, exhibiting those traits is just part of the job.

I wanted to pick their brains so I asked questions about rebellion. I told the two gentlemen about Egypt’s revolution, and asked for their opinions on it. Thoreau was thoroughly thrilled. He said, “a minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority, but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.” Then he proceeded to express his pleasure in the Egyptian people’s drive and determination to change their situation. People can’t be afraid to take a stand, even if their opinion isn't the popular one. However, Machiavelli was not so happy. He told me he thought the Egyptian leader was weak. He quoted his writing when he said, “let the prince pretend to be whatever he needs to be--as long as he effectively maintains his position of power.” He concluded that the Egyptian leader had not been following that logic, which is why he was overthrown.

Later on I posed an ancient question; does the end justify the means? Just as before, I received two very distinct responses. He said, “power is the end or goal, and whatever means are necessary to acquire and preserve that power are entirely justified.” A well-maintained nation comes at a cost, but that cost allows the nation to be prosperous. Thoreau was pretty upset about Machiavelli’s opinion. He brought up the topic of slavery in America. The purpose of bringing in slaves was to increase productivity in American homes. However, while that’s all fine and pretty, that doesn't justify the enslavement of thousands of human beings. It was still unjust and wrong, no matter how prosperous it made America.

That dinner changed me. After I went home I sat for a long time reflecting on what Thoreau and Machiavelli had told me. On one hand, successful leaders are vital in maintaining a strong nation, but the happiness and well-being of the people has to be taken into account as well. What would really be successful is some sort of combination of the two. That made me truly consider the last thing Thoreau said, “is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?”