I was quite disappointed to not see the example of Pikachu in the First Movie. I still remember that scene to this day...
Removed the following:
- The Bible reference above is technically a subversion. In Biblical times, "turning the other cheek" was basically telling the guy who hit you he didn't have the guts to do it again. While it was not responding with anger, it was basically telling him he wasn't worth your time.
- Some other examples set up a humiliation or punishment from the perpetrator's boss, such as giving thy pants too or walking another mile with the soldier.
- Also, it's worth remembering that in Biblical times, it was considered normal to be right-handed and someone left-handed was always specially noted as such. Bearing that in mind, if a "normal" person were to strike you on the right cheek with his dominant hand, it would be a backhand slap: an insult, not an assault. This changes the meaning from "do not resist violence against you" to "do not allow others to provoke you."
- Except none of these interpretations make any sense. Allow me the full quote and the immediate next passages: 'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.' You might try to interpret the (abbreviated) passage as something else, if presented without context, but when it says do not resist an evil person, let him have your cloak as well or go with him two miles, and it's difficult to see how to interpret it any other way...
- Actually that's exactly what they mean as well. First century Jewish law forbade taking the shirt off a debtor's back, so by volunteering it you'd embarrass someone trying to harm you economically; walking a second mile with a soldier was a form of passive resistance because Roman military regulations only allowed soldiers to requisition locals' help with carrying baggage for one mile so as not to be seen as oppressing the populace. Both cases are likely to make the other person look bad while simultaneously not doing anything to them directly.
I'm one the people debating here and I think it's quite fair that the first point of view be presented, but to avoid unnecessary Natter I'd like to change the text to the following:
- With a heavy dose of Your Milage May Vary, as different people <will> interpret this passage differently, it's possible to see the Bible passage as technically a subversion. In Biblical times, "turning the other cheek" was basically telling the guy who hit you he didn't have the guts to do it again. While it was not responding with anger, it was basically telling him he wasn't worth your time. Or that instead of "do not resist violence against you", instead "do not allow others to provoke you."
What does everyone think?
Edited by Vert Hide / Show Replies
It's all popped up again. Now it reads;
- This is one of the stories told by Jesus, telling someone that just got slapped on the right cheek to offer his slapper his left cheek, making this Older Than Feudalism. The Trope Namer, obviously. Jesus then goes on to show us how to do it by saying "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," as he was being tortured and crucified. Nothing like begging your divine father to spare the ones who kill you. The ultimate Doomed Moral Victor of course.
- A better explanation of "turn the other cheek": if a man considered someone to be inferior, he'd use the back of his hand if he decided to strike him, if he considered him equal, he'd use his palm. Basically Jesus was saying that if someone gave you a backhander, turn the other cheek to force him to use his palm.
- There is also the interpretation that offering someone the chance to slap you again is a way of showing them that the original insult didn't work, and the slapper has failed in his attempt to embarrass the slappee. As this is usually the fastest way to take the wind out of a bully's sails, turning the other cheek is probably a much better idea than slapping back. Certain Christians interpret this as an endorsement of nonviolent resistance (i.e. civil disobedience).
- Another facet to this: In that period, the left hand was still looked upon as unclean, and one could only slap anyone, even the lowest of the low, using the right hand. Turning one's other cheek was essentially to dare them to slap you using the unclean hand, which, being unthinkable, left only one other option, to take it as a dare to backhand the victim, which arguably would be just as big of a shame tainting the aggressor if he "accepted" the unspoken dare. It was essentially a wordless taunt of "go ahead and hit me again. Show everyone watching what a cruel monster you are." So in some regard it's simultaneously an endorsement of nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience and a display of being a Badass Pacifist. Cool!
Considering one of these interpretations confidently states that backhanders were a mark of authority, and another states that it was a shameful thing to do, it looks an awful lot like people are pulling these explanations out from between their other other cheeks. When you take the quote in context (next to lines like "if a man takes your coat, give him your cloak" and "if a man forces you to walk a mile, go two"), it's pretty clear that it means Exactly What It Says on the Tin.
Edited by johnnye
Actually it is not "pretty clear".
To the "walk another mile": Laws were in place such that a 'Jewish servant' could only walk a mile a day. The primary purpose of this law was to not give any reason for the Jews to rebel. If the Roman let the Jew continue walking then he could be punished. Yet if the Roman confronted the Jew he would admit that the Jew was a person and not an object.
Likewise, the "give your cloak also" was to the Jews, who would have most likely had little more than a coat and a cloak. This meant they went naked. Which meant the other person, the person who took their coat and cloak, had to look at the nakedness. Which in Jewish ideology shamed the person who took the coat and cloak. Remember Canaan in Genesis 9? How he unintentionally saw his grandfather naked? And hence was ostricized? Exactly.
— Source, predominately Walter Wink, "Jesus and Nonviolence".
Edited by AbraSliver
Would "Turn the other cheek, but remember you've only got two of those!" i.e. "give people who wrong you chances, but **NOT** unlimited ones" be a Downplayed Trope variant?