Would I be taken to task
if I were to ask
if an arsonist would be shamed
by a candle's brief flame?
In a roaring bonfire,
what is another match?
The catch is that
the great act of
self-sacrifice is the
pyre of future action,
the dwindling of choices
to one final
kindling of despair,
to fare with the struggle
no more.
I do not think this is what
the great gift of our lives
was for.
It is not complicity to merely breathe
in a world of ashes,
and although I may grieve
(in my own way)
I would not make an ash of myself.
Burn not without, but within,
with motive pure,
go on with your life and yet fight.
Endure.
2 comments:
Thank you! I frequently say that while I'm not brave enough to set myself on fire, I have full understanding why someone would, and I feel badly sometimes that I can't take that step. This puts a better perspective on it. I still understand, but it's good to have a motivation to keep moving forward. I don't know if this is coming off correctly, so I'll stop, but this is a beautifully written piece, and I appreciate it.
I understand wanting to be brave enough to sacrifice yourself for something or someone--I mean, "no greater love exists than this, that a man lay down his life for his brother" is something we've all heard. It makes sense when someone takes a bullet meant for someone else, or offers themselves as a hostage instead of another person. Parents have prayed to die instead of their sick children. You hear of stories in war of someone, for example, blowing a bridge up knowing they can't escape the blast, but by doing so, prevent an oncoming army from attacking.
A protest immolation is so much less clearcut and it is so, so tragically final. It is a commitment, to be sure, but the likelihood of saving a life by it are remote, and as an example, what can one say? It isn't a path I would encourage another to take. I think a better protest in the face of tragedy is purposeful living rather than dying. To be a loud voice, a strong voice. But not to be a martyr.
Post a Comment