Bonnie and Sara stop a tank

The picture is clear. The tank was stopped. There were a handful of police bicycles stopped, too. In front of the tank. There is no doubt that the tank was stopped.

I had received the press packet a few hours before the Parade of Roses event in Portland. It was the 150th anniversary.

And a tank. The Army thinks that people will see tanks as more friendly if they see them more often, on the streets. Like in parades, for example.

There are really only two different basic reasons why there would be anyone in the tank to drive it in the first place:

First reason would be that some relative youth had figured out the basic conflict of existence, and determined that the proper place to confront it was driving that tank.

The second reason would be that someone else had induced that same relative youth to be there driving it.

That is the complete universe of possibilities as to why that relative youth would be driving that tank. Either way, we have a problem.

The actions of Bonnie, Sara, and the handful of police bicycles with their officers, are all derivatives of the actions of the driver of the tank.

Many may think that the tank itself is prior, even before its driver. I refuse to quibble about that. But Bonnie and Sara were there to stop the tank, and they wouldn’t have been there without the tank. Whether the tank might have been there without the driver, I cannot say.

Personally, I do not think the tank looks good on city streets. I do not think that it looks good anywhere.

2 Responses to “Bonnie and Sara stop a tank”

  1. copyexchange Says:

    “First reason would be that some relative youth had figured out the basic conflict of existence, and determined that the proper place to confront it was driving that tank.”

    “[T]he basic conflict of existence” could be something like yin and yang, or matter and dark matter, or life and death, or many such things, depending on what a person “figured out” for themselves (usage is intentional). More likely a person driving a tank would be viewing a conflict between Judaic-Christian and Islamic faiths, or between Western and Arab races, or perhaps just good and evil in a JRR Tolkien sense, or other such dangerous thinking, all of which needs to somehow be dispelled if we are to have a better world.

  2. John Says:

    Yes. I think that “conflict” is a central term, and that people will populate the slots surrounding it with whichever entities culture and personality derive for to populate those slots. Mainly, I see a structure, pre-existent, though the contents do vary among us.

    When the dominant culture was pushing East/West conflict, or Capitalist/Communist, I was perceiving a Civilian/Military conflict. Now the central conflict is, if not Islam/Judeo-Christian, then it is something (in the dominant and dominating culture) like Terrorist/GoodPerson. Which of those is the most bigoted may be debated. They are so shallow, that they can’t last long.

    The tank driver was – me guessing – thinking in some kind of GoodPerson/BadPerson paradigm. That’s pretty basic, and pretty old. So much so, that there is little current context.

    For keeping abreast of current events, I think Civilian/Military is a durable analysis. When it stops being so, so much the better.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.