The massacre article interested me the most this week. Its hard to imagine the situation that occurred during the Massacre. I don't see how these people could have thought it would be alright to just kill all of the protestants. What if our leaders just one day decided to kill everyone that was pro choice (or vice versa)? Could you only imagine the types of violence that would follow a suggestion like that?
Another part of the reading that really struck me had to do with the way the reading began. --"So it was determined to exterminate all the Protestants and the plan was approved by the queen."-- It seems so un-excited. "So it was determined..." and "exterminate"? I guess the wording of the reading is irrelevant, it's not an artistic piece of fiction or anything, but it just seems so un-emotional or neutral. If I had been the one to write this, even if I was trying to bracket any sort of bias I might have, I still would have had to use the word "murder"--at least.
I wonder if there were many non-protestants that had a problem with the plan. Did they even know it was going to happen? Did the queen ever suffer any punishment for being so unjust?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with you completely. Especially in the sense that the writter was a witness to the event. So the question is raised, if he witnessed this horrific event, what side was he on, and is that why it is recounted with so little emotion. Could he possibility have been one of the "children" involved in the attempt to throw his body into the river? And people talk about how cold an unfeeling some of our murderers are.
Unfortunately in today's society, people think that if through quick negotiations that a problem can't be solved, they immediately turn to violence. I fear that what you stated about leaders killing either for or against pro choice could be a reality.
I'd imagine there were at least a few non-protestants that didn't agree with the plan. Unfortunately most people will often never step forward with such comments toward a government without fear of punishment.
The plan was executed so quickly that there was little time for anyone to raise objections. Moreover, many of the actions were mob actions.
As for the tone of the writer, that certainly can be relevant. The historian has to look first at the literary form--is it a poem? An essay? A letter? A diary? Certain forms have a certain rhetoric? Then, where we can, we find out what we can about the author. If we're lucky, we gain some insights there.
Finally, wrt the violence itself, it was both condemned and celebrated, depending on which side you were on. Most folks in the 16thc, though, felt that killing heretics (for that's how they were viewed) was not only all right, it was even necessary. This didn't mean they rushed right out and killed their neighbor, but it did mean they might stand by while it was done, or join in during some frenzy.
I think I've made this point before: killing over religion made sense. Killing over politics was just politics (and in this era, was largely the concern of the aristocrats, not the common folk), but killing over religion concerned immortal souls and the fate of God's church in the world. Surely that was the higher cause. If killing could be justified at all (a separate argument), then no greater cause can there be but religion.
That was the view at the time, anyway.
Thanks for all of your great commenting! I got interested in this reading and your commenting was a wonderful bonus.
Post a Comment