It was just me and Doodle Boy, driving in the car, which I've come to learn is where we have our best conversations. Passing several Obama lawn signs (our is most definitely a liberal neighbourhood), I mentioned the presidential race and told him the name of the two men who are running.
"Who's stronger?" he asked. I had to pause. I knew I could say who was stronger as a candidate in economics or social programs, etc, but I was pretty sure that was NOT what he meant. And I wasn't sure how to bridge the two meanings. While i was working out some kind of answer, he grew impatient and decided to clarify his question "Who can battle?" he asked. Right.
Well, presidents don't really battle.
Why not?
Well, because they send their armies to battle for them.
The mention of an army piqued his interest. DB is playing a computer games these days (as is his dad) which involves building a medieval army to fight a variety of goblins and ghouls and what-have-yous. I explained that armies still exist but they look different now. No more archers, for instance. To which he asked, " But what about peasants?" Most of his medieval army consists of peasants.
And again, I had to pause. Another breakdown between his meaning and mine. Because no, literally, there aren't any more peasants. But more loosely? Couldn't we say the many of the people who do join the army today are the modern day equivalent of peasants? But how could I explain that to him? Or why? So I made it simple: "No, no more peasants either."
By that time we were home and DB went off to play his game where terms like strength and peasants are pretty black and white. And I was left, as usual, in the gray.
Love it! Thanks for posting.
Posted by: Jeni | September 24, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Very interesting point! Sounds like a conversation I would have with S.
Posted by: SianOna | October 05, 2008 at 08:16 AM