Asymmetrical Information

In England at that time, some convicts were drawn and quartered, that is, their guts were ripped out and then they were pulled to pieces by horses.
The English owned slaves, too. We've all made some progress since then.

Have we really made progress? Remember Abu Graib?

Doug, if you don't comprehend "drawn and quartered", rent Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" and watch the ending. It doesn't actually show the process, but it makes it clear enough.

If you do comprehend "drawn and quartered" and think that having to wear underwear on your head is in any way comparable, stop sneaking into the office and using Big Nurse's computer to comment on blogs.

In England at that time, some convicts were drawn and quartered, that is, their guts were ripped out and then they were pulled to pieces by horses.

Definitely a brutal style of execution, a horrible fate to contemplate, and we should be glad that the civilized world has long abandoned such practices. Nevertheless, there is still a crucial difference between 17th century English justice and the Native American atrocities detailed on the sign: the English had a judicial process, and the criminals they executed (however cruelly) were found guilty of a lot more than simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I may be wrong, but is that a Hinckley Bermuda 40 you were out on? I have chartered sailboats in the Penobscot Bay region of Maine in the past, and found it thoroughly enjoyable. Welcome back...

Rob,

Who says the natives did not have a process? The unfortunate James was an escaped slave (to them). Racist vigilante groups were torturing and burning blacks at the stake into the early 20th century. Then they went to mostly hanging, now it is the occasional murder by dragging them to death.

Civilized? Who is civilized? Man's inhumanity to man has not lessen over the years it has transformed and taken new forms, moved to new locales.

Who says the natives did not have a process?

I would guess most Native American tribes were ruled by men, not by laws, so the "process" probably consisted of doing whatever the chieftain ordered. You're right, though, I can't say for certain.

What type of crime would get you drawn-and-quartered in 17th-century England? Murder? Rape? While we both agree that the punishment was cruel and unusual, would you argue that these should not be punishable crimes?

now it is the occasional murder by dragging them to death.

"Occasional" is a massive overstatement. There was one incident in Texas five years ago, right? Also, torturing someone to death is a crime in modern America, not something that's sanctioned by society, so I see no moral equivalence between modern American justice and the sadistic orders of some 17th-century Indian chieftain.

I can't find anything definitive, but a form of "draw and quarter" seems to have been a British punishment for treason (variously defined). This does not actually involve any horses; not sure if Xboy's description was ever an official punishment in Britain. There's some history here (not for the faint of heart, or the recently-lunched).

The last official "hanging, drawing, and quartering" seems to have been in 1820, when five "Cato Street conspirators" were sentenced for conspiring to murder several members of the Cabinet. By then the sentence actually amounted to hanging; the bodies were beheaded after the men were hung for half an hour. Officially, the prisoner was supposed to be cut up after being hung, but while still conscious; the last time this was actually carried out looks to be 1782.

A minor point: the "escapees" involved here were not slaves in the modern or then-European sense, but prisoners of war. Not sure what British law prescribed for escaped slaves; slavery (as distinct from serf-dom) seems to be a vanishingly small problem in Britain proper by 1500, if not earlier.

Back to the original sign: so were there three people tortured and burned, or two, or one? Didn't they have any grammarians in 1692, or whenever this sign was last updated? I take it Giles and friend(s) were captured and enslaved by Madockawando and his tribe, then tried to escape, and because of this were tortured and burned at the stake.

I figure James, fully appreciating his new social position, decided to take it on the lamb. He was either seen abscounding with the property (himself) or it was noticed the property was missing. Perhaps, they saw James as a prisoner of war and he was "shot while trying to escape" as it were.

I am not trying to judge the punishment meted out to James by comparing it to the results a modern American justice system or even the contemporary English justice system would have issued.

It is an over simplification of issue. It is comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing a 400 year old orange to a contemporary apple. It is like saying that the chief should have used the modern system or should have used the contemporary English system even though it was foreign and/or the system of the enemy.

My point of view was from the position of humanity's treatment of humanity, and the plain fact of the matter is that it was probably moral to the chief or at least it could be justified as moral in his society. Just as Southern slave owners could justify their immoral acts or vigilante groups could theirs.

That is a constant, the underlying viciousness that human beings are capable of is the issue, not the efficiency of the system meant to hold it in check. We are not more civilized, we are better (at least in the U.S. and most "modern" countries) at keeping our uncivilized impulses in check.

I once read what efforts were made during Russia's great schism to get heretics to fall back in line; imagine being slowly impaled on a stake over the course of a few days. The truly unimaginable aspect of these horrors, however, was how many of the tortured refused to renounce their beliefs, and stoically endured their hideous fate until their eventual death.

We are not more civilized, we are better (at least in the U.S. and most "modern" countries) at keeping our uncivilized impulses in check.

j, I think I agree with the underlying idea here, if not your semantics. I would put it like this: human nature hasn't changed, and the brutal impulses that "Madockawando" and some of his tribesmen acted on (according to the sign) can still be found in modern society. However, such brutality is no longer sanctioned, encouraged, and rewarded, but is severely punished. Despite the fact that you say we are not more civilized, I would say this is pretty close to the very definition of civility. No point in arguing semantics, though. :)

Well, Rob, if you won't argue semantics, I will.
J Swift: here's an introductory lesson in logic.
IF:
"WE are better (at least in the U.S. and most "modern" countries) at keeping our UNCIVILIZED impulses in check"
THEN:
WE (at least the U.S. and most "modern" countries) ARE, BY DEFINITION, MORE CIVILIZED.
That's how logic works.
I can only hope you find it exotic enough to warrant further study.

Hey Doug,
I don't recall any prisoners at Abu Grab being forced to eat their ears and noses or even being executed. What newspapers are you reading?

First, I think you guys realy need to look up the word 'semantics' in a dictionary or encyclopedia... your disagreements are not about semantics- a good rule of thumb is that anyone who invokes semantics in an argument has no idea what the word means...

Second, if you think drawing and quartering is bad, you really need to read up on European methods of execution... drawing and quartering was merciful (if employed by itself- it rarely was), compared to other methods of execution. Think the wheel- now that must have sucked...

The point is not that European practices were humane- it is that the "noble savage" was just as inhumane. Rousseaueian ideals founder on these rocks... the noble savage is generally invoked as a magic bullet, to solve the woes of humanity- what Jane does here is remind us that there are no magic bullets (I made that phrase up myself- honest)

Tagore,

Look it up? Ok, according to my dictionary, one definition of semantics is "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form". Since "civilized" is a word, and some of us seem to disagree over the precise meaning of that word, how is it improper to call it a disagreement of semantics?

Also, Jane isn't reminding us of anything here, as the photos were taken by her co-blogger.

Comments are Closed.