Loyalty to Mankind

Abstract

New Perspectives on “The War-Prayer” Essays on “The War-Prayer” Loyalty to Mankind Mark DONIG Now perhaps more than ever, our politicians have convinced us that empathy for cit- izens of other countries is unpatriotic. It should therefore come as no surprise that the American public today does not celebrate Mark Twain’s “The War-Prayer” to the same extent as his other works. In “The War-Prayer,” family members of soldiers gather at a church to pray for their victory, only to have a messenger from God explain to these peo- ple that they are truly praying for agony and death—for the opposing side. It seems truly unfortunate that this short story has not reached the same mass audience and level of fame as the better-known Twain classics, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. For just as a novel like Huckleberry Finn serves as a searing critique of racial inequality, “The War-Prayer” offers a dark satire on society’s willful blindness to the ramications of jingoistic patriotism. With “The War-Prayer’s” truly timeless mes- sage—that we too commonly lack the empathy necessary to allow others the same good life that we wish for ourselves and our loved ones—one cannot help but wonder how our history as Americans might have changed had “The War-Prayer” been as popular as the Twain classics. At its core, “The War-Prayer” is a story about empathy, and understanding the situa- tion from another’s point of view. As the church members pray to God to “crush the foe” and “grant to [the. . . ] country imperishable honor and glory,” few seem to care that their prayer, should it be answered, would result in the annihilation of other individuals. Even those who do step forward to question the war’s merit receive “such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly [shrink] out of sight.” As far as superpowers go, America has a supercial history of empathy toward other countries. Supercial, because it seems the United States acts with empathy when it serves in the United States’ best interests. We did not enter World War II to combat dictatorship or hateful ideology; we joined the war only after we realized that American lives were in danger. We came to Kuwait’s aid against Iraq in 1991 under the pretense that we had a moral obligation to do so; yet it was no coincidence that Kuwait also happened to be a pri- mary exporter of our oil, and that Iraq had formerly been a chief ally of the Soviet Union. And more recently, our government claims that we have brought democracy to the Middle East and liberated oppressed civilians through our efforts in Iraq, but one could make a compelling case that our purpose there is as much economic in nature as it is humanitar-