Conscientious Objectors, Vietnam, War Essay, Research Paper

The Hero of Our Cause

Extended Essay 1

How will we be remembered once we die? This has been an age-old question, often times lingering in the minds of both the simple and the ambitious of heart. As the twentieth century came to a close this past year, we as a society were left to ponder what legacies the past one hundred years have left to us. One of those legacies was a century of war. Many young men and women are remembered not as cheerful fathers and mothers, or promising scientists or politicians. They are remembered as promising youths, forever immortalized as names on war monuments. They are names that bled to death on shores unknown to most people, names that answered the call to duty. It is perhaps with some scorn that we also call to mind those individuals who did not heed the call of the battle drum. The conscientious objector is one such individual. The conscientious objector is in essence one who on the basis of religious or moral principles refuses to bear arms or participate in military service. This ideal is seemingly noble, yet all together rejected by society during the heated and ancient sport of war.

Karl Shapiro?s ?The Conscientious Objector? is a poem that conveys the sensibilities of those few who chose consistency of heart over the passion and terrible allure of war (1062). In a society that is often times best united and prosperous during moments of war, those who choose not to fight are deemed deviant and criminal. Shapiro offers a different perspective, one that is all the more curious being that Karl Shapiro was once a soldier in World War Two himself. His language implies an empathetic, reverent sentiment towards those who stayed behind whilst he and his comrades went off to war.

?The gates clanged and they walked you into jail? (1063). From the beginning of the poem, Shapiro paints a picture of an oppressive environment where ?they? put conscientious objectors in prison. ?They? are the conscientious objector?s fellow citizens. Society has impressed upon many people the importance of patriotism, while at the same time attempting to promote a greater sense of humanity. Seldom do the

by-products of these two ideals compliment each other. Realizing this, the conscientious objector preserved within himself a sole humanitarian spirit, and thus remained less susceptible to wet his primal thirst for conquest, blood, and adrenaline.

For the conscientious objector, there are but two sides during moments of war: those who kill, and those who maintain the fires of humane consciousness while the nation is away participating in another episode of temporary insanity. War was seemingly insane?a blood sport. In Shapiro?s poem, flags that dripped from every windowpane were like morbid, yet colorful, banners for the home team (1063). Mothers supported the march to war, authority figures stood ready to direct young men towards the valley of death, and sleepy, belligerent impulses awoke in a moment to find a roosting place?if only for a moment. Mothers sent their sons to find their deaths, and leaders instilled in their youths a sense of obligation to warfare. This behavior was contradictory to the role that mothers and leaders were naturally expected to fulfill. It was a violation of social contract, and a testimony to the madness that war tends to spawn both on and off the battlefield. The conscientious objector was aware of the reflexive nature of war. When deciding to abstain from warfare, the conscientious objector sacrificed his liberty, and spread the blood of his soul over the entrance of his world to ward off the encroaching Angel of Death. ?A sense of quiet, of pulling down the blind possessed you. Punishment you felt was clean? (1063). With this statement, Shapiro expresses the sincere desire of the conscientious objector to hold fast to a greater humane ideal, even in the face of imprisonment. The conscientious objector was not complete in his deviance; he merely believed in the greater potential of mankind to resolve matters through peaceful means.

In ?The Conscientious Objector,? Shapiro likens the prison where the objectors were caged to the Mayflower (1063). A ?mutinous? crew they were. The winds of idealism filled the sails of their conscience and brought them to the forefront of public opinion and ridicule. Such a destination brought no peace, for there was never a solid Plymouth Rock of public support for them to land upon. Shapiro states: ?Prison and personality were your fate? (1063). The conscientious objector contributed the elements of unwavering idealism, individuality, and innocent faith into an equation that never equaled the sum of war. Being that these elements were an integral part of the conscientious objector?s self, they could never be so manipulated by external influences to conform to a temporary requirement of a frenzied society.

Shapiro briefly opens a window into the very essence of his poem when he writes: ?The opposite of all armies, you were the best? (1063). In this line, the battlefield is transformed from one of conflict into one of greater noble intentions. In stating that the conscientious objector was the opposite of all armies, Shapiro implies that the conscientious objector lies at the opposite end of the spectrum from armies and all that armies reap. Armies at war, no matter what their motives, enter into a contract of destruction while resurrecting basic primitive rage that all together jeopardize the stability of the human race and the blessing of a greater progress towards an ultimate sense of humanity. Both warring armies are encompassed within a dark sphere of mutual turmoil, while the conscientious objector stands on the outside, keeper of humane ideals to which both warring armies will inevitably come out to embrace once they have cleaned their wounds and collected their dead.

What great reward was there for the conscientious objector, the keeper of humane thought? His only payment was ?Maltreatment, hunger, and ennui of the mind? (1063).

The conscientious objector had not the appreciation of society for his convictions. He hungered not for freedom, but for his fellow man to realize the grave futility of war.

The conscientious objector no doubt shared the pain of his fellow man who absorbed bullets and denied lives with perplexing remorse. This sentiment is clearly acknowledged by Shapiro when he states, ?Yet you who saved neither yourselves nor us are equally with those who shed the blood? (1063). The conscientious objector, although free from superficially incurring harm from the implements of war, lay deeply wounded in his heart at the human price his fellow man so readily paid.

?The Conscientious Objector? contemplates what will ever be one of the most controversial facets of our society during the phenomenon of war. Not unlike ?The Red Badge of Courage,? ?The Conscientious Objector? plays a unique role in providing a greater understanding of those who neither take up arms nor hide from the summons of those in power. Karl Shapiro?s poem proved ever more relevant throughout the twentieth century, particularly with the advent of the Vietnam War, in presenting an empathetic case for one of the most misunderstood creatures in the jungle of human nature. In standing and suffering for the belief that we as a society are ultimately each other?s keeper, the conscientious objector may one day come to be remembered as a true hero of our cause.