A Governor, a Goose, and a Mob

            This story from the Tales of Juha is about a dishonest governor who forces a baker to give him the goose he is cooking for another owner. When the true owner comes to collect the goose, the baker says the goose flew away after being cooked. The rightful owner becomes outraged and starts quarreling with the baker. Becoming scared, the baker flees; as he is running from the owner, the baker punches a man in the mouth, kills a man by jumping on top of him, and causes an abortion in a pregnant lady walking down the street. In the end, the baker takes refuge with the corrupt governor who defends the baker by saying that the baker was in the right, and that the injured folks were to blame for crossing paths with the fleeing baker. In each situation, the blame is reversed upon the injured party, and it is determined that the injured party must inflict the same harm unto the baker. The injured party never chooses to follow through with the ruling of the governor and so is fined for wasting the court’s time.

            Although that was a rather long summary for a not-so-long-but-jam-packed story, the part I want to focus on is the ruling of the governor. In each instance, he decides that the injured party is to blame for crossing paths with the baker at that particular time. To allow the injured party to seek justice, he orders that each would have to do unto the baker as each had done unto him. This type of revenge is found in the Bible (and I presume is also in the Koran) and is termed “eye for an eye.”

            In actuality, the premise of this type of revenge is really dumb! In this story, the baker, while running wildly from the owner and the mob, punches a man and causes him to lose a tooth; therefore, the governor rules that the man who lost the tooth must punch the baker in such a way that he loses the same tooth. But all that this creates is two men each with a sore hand from the punch and a missing tooth. By taking revenge for the literal offense done in the first place, violence is just perpetuated and more people end up hurt. At least if the baker was fined or punished by some other means, the violence can end there and not continue to spiral out of hand.

            But isn’t this the way our military tends to work? We even take the extreme and not only do we seek literal revenge for action done against us, but we seem to go one step beyond that. Pearl Harbor was bombed; so we bombed Japan, but we used nuclear bombs. On 9/11, a couple people came into our country and caused a lot of harm to a lot of people. What did we do in response? We sent thousands of our troops into their country and a lot of harm has been caused there. But by causing this harm on others in order to seek revenge for what was done to us, we are always also hurting ourselves. I would assume (since I wasn’t alive nor do I know a ton of historical details) that we had American troops or at least P.O.W. in Japan when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; American troops have died in the Middle East through both military attacks and friendly fire. I am not denying that revenge and punishment should never be taken against those who wrong or harm us, but I do not think that the “eye for an eye” approach to revenge is ever a good idea; both sides end up hurt, and no one likes a toothless smile.