After having watched a number of zombie movies these past few weeks, I’ve concluded that family comes before anything else. I write this with the firm image of a family running through the woods trying to elude a zombie army. Not only is family above everything and everyone, but it’s also the key to a stable society, regardless of the law of the land.
For this week’s Monday Mayhem, let’s explore this thing called family, and its importance in terms of the survival of a nation—specifically during a zombie apocalypse.
Humanity has fought many wars. Many of which could have been avoided. Of those wars, the ones who would emerge as victor would always be the stronger side. But is that true?
For instance, take the ancient walled city of Masada. Built on a natural plateau in Israel, comparable to a mesa, in 74 CE, 960 Sicarii rebels and their families repelled 15,000 Romans before taking their own lives in an act of defiance against the empire. Archeological findings, though, indicate as little as 28 rebels could have held off the great Roman army from captivity. This contradicts the historian Josephus’ account detailing the loss of life.
Imagine if this were also true in a zombie apocalypse. The undead wouldn’t have a chance.
Stable families create stable nations, which in turn, create strong armies based on loyalty and honor. Numbers are meaningless with strong armies. In other words, if families are in the midst of a siege, hundreds could defend against thousands.
Zombies could try to attack families, but zombies are stupid, they haven’t got a clue what a father would do if their son or daughter becomes the target of the undead. A mother would equally decapitate those who dared threaten her offspring. Have a look at the animal and insect kingdoms. The females tend to be the most dangerous gender of the species. Two cases in point are the praying mantis and the black widow spider. You can read about them coming up with your own conclusions.
I’ll now leave this open for discussion.
If there ever were a zombie apocalypse, I believe a nation built on a strong foundation can conquer anything—it doesn’t matter if it’s a foreign invasion or zombies. Despite domestic disputes, families will always win.
What do you think of stable families and their role in regards to the security of a nation?
11 thoughts on “Zombie Apocalypse: Family”
I always say ‘where there’s a will, there’s relatives.’
Reading your post I thought about the importance of the family unit in Germany, 1939-1945, and we all know what happened there. Sometimes a war is won because the enemy’s leader is insane.
The strength of the family can be exploited. A dodgy leader can create all kinds of imaginary threats and play on the emotions of families, using that bond as a means of enforcing an agenda. (Can’t blame the families for that), but it shows, I think, how that bond you’re describing can be harnessed in different ways, for good or bad.
Agreed. There is always the other side of the equation that acts as the wildcard to the positive aspects of family.
Familial bonds, a sense of community & preparation trump hordes of undead stumbling about randomly, driven by vestiges of primal instinct.
Stable families and groups in general can definitely help improve survival. It allows for more defenders and you end up bringing in more skills to overall group. One thing I find interesting about the zombie stories that happen after the initial shock is that you see the rebuilding system. The basis for that tends to be family. For example, ‘Warm Bodies’ had a focus on Julie and her father who was the leader of the humans. Does seem like many survivor leaders have kid, doesn’t it?
Though I think there is a danger in non-familial groups because there always seems to be that one person ready to save their own skin at the cost of everyone else.
That one person ready to save their own skin at the cost of everyone else. Selfishness doesn’t always work well in circumstances like a zombie apocalypse. You’ll have to see The Walking Dead episodes with Eugene & Father Gabriel – One’s a liar & one’s a fish out of water.
I’ve caught a bit. I’m thinking of the guy with glasses in Shaun of the Dead too. The thing is that I wonder if fiction actually downplays the effect such a person would have on group survival. We want to see the selfish person get punished with minimal damage to those who are more noble. So I wonder if a real world scenario would have the selfish person living longer. What if there was a zombie apocalypse world that gets to a point where every survivor is the selfish opportunist?
Such a situation would cull the wheat from the chaff, but would a selfish person be considered truly fit for survival in the Darwinian ( I know, a lot of people DO tend to invoke Darwin when talking about such situations ) sense ? ” Every man for himself ” works, but only up to a point.
It depends on how they operate. Those that manipulate and use others to survive would probably make it longer than one who went entirely solo. The problem is that such a person is less likely to think long term, so they’ll eventually run out of people to use as resources. I want to say scavenger is a good term to use, but parasite might be better.
& ” dead weight ” for some who take but don’t give anything significant in return, exceptions being children & the physically infirm / challenged, IMO.
I would hate to see what happens in a real world zombie apocalypse when a selfish bastard tries to use children. I know one or two people who openly claim that they would use kids for decoys. By ‘know’, I mean I was Facebook friends with them and now I’m not.
Family is your legacy. As long as your family survive your memory will live on. Sapier than I normally like haha 😀