The pendulum swings back to the side of war. Has it ever really left? Do anthropologists have an example of a thriving culture that never resorted to state sanctioned killing?
deer season
the ricochet of gunfire
from a TV set
previously published in Frogpond XXX:1, winter 2007
That's a dynamite 'ku.
Posted by:Aurora | September 17, 2007 at 12:33 PM
That's great! The haiku struck me at the first reading...
Posted by:Andrea | September 17, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Striking, collin.
Posted by:Bill | September 17, 2007 at 01:48 PM
Aurora, Andrea, and Bill -- Thank you! Your comments are much appreciated. This is a slightly different version than the original.
Posted by:collin | September 18, 2007 at 08:19 AM
This is thought-provoking and well-said, Collin, and I also like the haiku. I just read the Frogpond version and it seems to be verbatim the same. Was there a pre-Frogpond version and, if so, what sort of changes did you make?
Of course, the issue you raise is a bit of a false dichotomy (beyond the fact that pendulums must swing or stay in a neutral position). I don't think any society could thrive/survive if it did not at least sanction defensive war. Surely, there have been defensive-war-only societies whose "pendulum" stayed in the peace zone for significant periods. [No, I am not going to try to define "thrive".]
Posted by:david giacalone | September 18, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Yes, striking is the word.
Posted by:Robert | September 18, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Thank you Robert, and David!
David, I hope you don't mind, but I emailed you the original.
Posted by:collin | September 21, 2007 at 09:03 PM