Re: The Peace Treaty

I have examined the terms and conditions of the peace treaty offered by your people. And, while I understand the overall intent of the document, and the desired result thereof, I feel I must digress into a level of confusion that remains—despite several months of communication.

It appears that certain words have become inset in your vocabulary—‘mindless’ of chief concern. Given this word, and its underlying connotation, I am quite astonished that you assumed the treaty would be well received. I offer, instead, that until the double standard placed upon our offspring has been eliminated, there cannot be a sufficient level of understanding between our peoples.

To wit: It is not expected that your children (and I do use the word children, as my studies indicate it carries a greater positive connotation than ‘offspring’) grasp the English language the moment they exit the womb. Why, to expect such a thing would be considered preposterous by your own standards. Yet, for reasons I cannot understand, and which may be more indicative of a gap in my own knowledge, it is expected for our children to behave differently.

Our children are quite similar when born (I shall borrow the word ‘born’ in an attempt to show similarities, though, in fact, it does not quite resemble our reproductive process). They both demonstrate instinctive habits: Yours to suckle at the breast, while ours too seek their own nourishment.

Certainly, through this process, though instinctive, one would not label them ‘mindless’. To label such a child, so near to its first breaths in this world, as ‘mindless’, smacks of cruelty and hate speech. Yet, this term is markedly directed towards our children, without thought of the absurdity.

Yet, while this double standard remains in place for our children, your treaty is one that seeks to barter between equals. This is of further confusion to me, as, quite clearly, nature has had different designs for our kind. I have prepared an example; it is my hope that it will shed some light on our view of the matter.

Firstly, I will apologize for the antiquity of this example. It is from a time long past; however, as noted, the very removal of this ritual from your subculture does give hope to future relations between our peoples. But I digress.

Consider: The relationship between man and deer. Man utilizes deer for nourishment. When he consumes the deer, he skins its hide—in such way can he clothe himself. I submit that our situation is quite similar. Humans provide both a (and currently ‘only’) means of sustenance and clothing (such as it is).

You did not ask for the deer to give up its land—you did not try to barter, or reason. You took, because, quite naturally, due to your position on the food chain, it was your right. So it is that we do not seek to ask, or barter, or treaty. We take, because it is the natural order of things.

But, between man and deer, practices have changed. Small are their numbers—it is not often that they are taken for meat or that their hides are used for clothing. You have grown crops and have found new methods with which to produce your clothing (as my reading takes me, shaving animals or even synthetically created fibers).

As it currently stands, my people are not afforded such options as ‘other food’ or ‘other clothing’. But, I believe, it does offer some signs of hope for the future of humankind. Perhaps, someday, we might find another means with which to carry out the propagation of our species.

Undoubtedly, we will one day climb to the plateau (and beyond) of what your civilization has achieved; certainly my colleagues and I have proven our capabilities upon reaching full maturity. And, as we press forward in our studies, we are ever mindful of the resulting plight of your people. But, as of this moment, we have not discovered our alternatives—our engineered crops or synthetic fibers.

Given everything as it is presented to me, I am afraid that I must reject the treaty and all of its terms and conditions. At the present time, it is not the proper path for our people and our way of life. I’m afraid, and please forgive the brashness of the following statement, but, it truly settles upon one simple fact:

We must eat your brains.

Best Regards,
Charles Anderson
“Zombie” Nation, President


Editor’s Corner

Couldn't connect to