You know, there are only two basic types of people on earth--only two--and don't let anybody tell you different.
The fighter and the peasant.
The fighter fights. It doesn't matter what he or she's fighting. The issues vary, what matters is that the fighter reacts. The peasant takes care of farm and looks after the chickens and sometimes cheers (or jeers) when the fighters go off to a war.
Being one type or the other does not imply success (however one defines success), merely two divergent worldviews. Some fighters fight all the way to the top and become kings and lords; and some just bleed to death on a nameless battlefield.
Some peasants, for their part, build fortunes by working hard with what they have and generally staying close to the ground. Some farm the same little patch of land all their lives to sustain an existence.
Fighters are marked by resistance. Peasants are marked by acceptance. And sometimes it is better to be a peasant than a fighter. Because fighters are often frustrated by the system, having no idea how to work it--there is no sadder sight than a bitter, lonely, thwarted, aging fighter. Peasants, on the other hand, are more comfortable with the system because they instinctively know how to work within the framework and flourish within it.
But sometimes it is better to be a fighter. To stand up and call it the way you see it. To not compromise, even against the seemingly inevitable. To push the boundaries, to stretch the limits of the possible. To fight for an unreachable ideal. To fight for a hopeless love. To scream your lust into the bitter, acrid wind of a lost battle.
Both are valid worldviews and there is no value judgement that I'm making here. The world needs both types. A world full of fighters would be chaotic. A world full of peasants would be dull. All I'm saying is that maybe one is born a certain way, with a certain "type-ness", if you will, encoded into them at birth, and you can no more change this "type-ness" later on than you can change your blood type.
The fighter fights. It doesn't matter what he or she's fighting. The issues vary, what matters is that the fighter reacts. The peasant takes care of farm and looks after the chickens and sometimes cheers (or jeers) when the fighters go off to a war.
Being one type or the other does not imply success (however one defines success), merely two divergent worldviews. Some fighters fight all the way to the top and become kings and lords; and some just bleed to death on a nameless battlefield.
Some peasants, for their part, build fortunes by working hard with what they have and generally staying close to the ground. Some farm the same little patch of land all their lives to sustain an existence.
Fighters are marked by resistance. Peasants are marked by acceptance. And sometimes it is better to be a peasant than a fighter. Because fighters are often frustrated by the system, having no idea how to work it--there is no sadder sight than a bitter, lonely, thwarted, aging fighter. Peasants, on the other hand, are more comfortable with the system because they instinctively know how to work within the framework and flourish within it.
But sometimes it is better to be a fighter. To stand up and call it the way you see it. To not compromise, even against the seemingly inevitable. To push the boundaries, to stretch the limits of the possible. To fight for an unreachable ideal. To fight for a hopeless love. To scream your lust into the bitter, acrid wind of a lost battle.
Both are valid worldviews and there is no value judgement that I'm making here. The world needs both types. A world full of fighters would be chaotic. A world full of peasants would be dull. All I'm saying is that maybe one is born a certain way, with a certain "type-ness", if you will, encoded into them at birth, and you can no more change this "type-ness" later on than you can change your blood type.
No comments:
Post a Comment