Creating a ‘Defining Statement’, wanna help?

[amicus]

Creating a ‘Defining Statement’, wanna help?



Just recently, today in fact, a friend of mine in Scotland, posted on her blog, one of those usual bemoaning writes about the futility of war, man’s inhumanity to man; an existence long compendium of unending wars and conflict between peoples. You know, the usual sort of thing that occupies the minds of a particular covey of political and philosophical savants.

So, I thought, as I responded, for perhaps the 500th time to such drivel, I need to create a, ‘defining statement’, so that I can just copy and paste it when I wish to comment, rather than thinking it all through again.

I usually begin by noting the quantum characteristics of war and conflict; the quantity of human history that is involved in such things. Even in present times, history is defined by references to the Gulf War, The Cold War, The Vietnamese War, The Korean War, World Wars 1 & 2. (a brief pause during the industrial revolution if you discount the war against Native Americans) The War of 1812, The Revolutionary War, The French and Indian War, the Millenium long conflict between England, France and Spain…and of course browse through medieval Europe, Rome, Greece and Persia…lotsa good stuff.

In other words, a long history of warfare and conflict should elicit a conclusion that ‘war’ played an important role in human history.

Instead, the effete hold their noses and look haughtily down upon human kind as being aggressive and warlike, violent and incorrigible.

I have a more simplistic and I hope more honest view of human conflict: Self Defense.

A herd of beasts or a school of fish either attempt escape or gather together when a predator comes stalking. They sacrifice the weak, the young and the old so that the rest of the herd/school can survive.

We will never know, for certain, when homo whatever, decided to protect himself from predators. We will never know when that human homo mind, decided that mutual cooperation with others would provide greater security; but rest assured, it did happen and just that way.

The tribe or the clan, however you envision early human history, rationally chose the virile, agile, strongest young males with courage and aggression, to stand fire watch during the darkness to protect the gathering.

Not too hard to agree with? Right?

Kinda nice and logical and rational and easily comprehended? I thought so.

Those young male guardians risked and sometimes sacrificed their lives to protect the tribe/clan, and those that survived, gained status from their actions. They became warriors and protectors and eventually, soldiers over a period to time and the ‘art’ of protection became somewhat institutionalized.

History, as it often does, branches off in many directions. One might postulate, almost as an absolute, that any direction that was possible, was followed by some tribe, somewhere in the history of man, for better or for worse.

I shall leave this for the time being in hopes of inspiration to continue; if not, I will pursue it on my own.

Thank you…


Amicus…

(edited to add, with the permission of the poet:

http://jackal.motime.com/post/603145#comment )

 

[elsol]

You'd probably need to include a few things about why:

Relieving population pressure is actually self-defense.

How 'clear cut' acts of pure agression can also be perceived as self-defense... Nazi Germany invasion of Poland, Iraq invasion of Kuwait are some examples I imagine will be brought up.

I think those will be the most common attacks because while the non-aggression initiator can be clearly seen as defending self... the aggression initiator, especially if they lose, are commonly portrayed as having no justification for their acts.

I.E. Most americans are taught that Japan had no reason to attack Pearl Harbor... yadda, yadda, yadda... and forget that we were a potential if not realistic limit to their expansion.

While I don't like positions papers to be immediately defend against attack, I do think some lip-service has to be paid to show why the other side interpretation of events is really taking your position and adding unnecessary layers to it.

Though, I feel I should warn you... using self-defense as a the focus of all wars can easily be interpreted as 'relativistic'.

 

[amicus]

Thank you El Sol...that is the kind of comment I think I was hoping to get.

Not quite sure I understood everything you said...the,'lip service' part and...relativistic?

I guess I would respond by saying that I think each human individual has a 'right' to his own life and to defend it, thus I would say an absolute approach, not a relativistic one...but...not sure what you meant.

thanks again...


amicus...

 

[Liar]

I usually begin by noting the quantum characteristics of war and conflict; the quantity of human history that is involved in such things. Even in present times, history is defined by references to the Gulf War, The Cold War, The Vietnamese War, The Korean War, World Wars 1 & 2. (a brief pause during the industrial revolution if you discount the war against Native Americans) The War of 1812, The Revolutionary War, The French and Indian War, the Millenium long conflict between England, France and Spain…and of course browse through medieval Europe, Rome, Greece and Persia…lotsa good stuff.

Not too sure about this. Yes, war is an integral part of the human history. But you I think you may be overstating it's importance, or rather the importance of outcomes of wars, in the grander scope of things. Wars are easy to remember, because they go boom and stuff. But do they contribute to the advance of humanity?

What normally happens with wars? They happen due to conflics of power and ambitions of different sorts, they are fought, winners or losers are defined, and power bases shift. And afterwards, people (those who are still alive) pick up their daily lives and progress, delayed or pushed back, and strive on with the advance of man. You cite the industrial revolution as such a non-war event. That's one of many cultural and scientific events that have IMO done more to shape the world and the human mindset (which is where advance crystallizes, when it comes down to it) as it looks today than any weaponry skimrish over geopolitical control.

But, to bemoan war as the big shame of the humar race, is to hold mankind to a very odd and unrealistic ideal. We're a pack animal, and we defend the interrest of the pack against other packs. It's in our nature, part of what makes us who we are. It's a sad thing almost every time it happens, because innocent people with no interrest in the fight gets sacrificed. But war as a concept? Deal.

 

[amicus]

Thank you Liar...all good points and interesting ones at that.

Although I did not state it...I do think that wars/conflict, have been largely instrumental in furthering human knowledge. If at first only for war weapons, then later with civilian applications, neither of which would have taken place without the impetus of the conflict and the funding of it by state bodies and conscription and forced labor...interesting...

I find I cannot separate the innocent's outside the conflict as you seem to. For if a war fails to defend the homeland, whatever and where-ever it may be, then the conquered people are subject to a new order. But I certainly see and understand the suffering brought about to children and other non combatants. That usually gives the defenders more reason to increase protection and possibly pre-emptive actions.

And for the last part of your post, thank you again...yes...imparting any deistic evil incarnate in man is just avoiding the issue, I think...

thanks again...


amicus...

 

[elsol]

Thank you El Sol...that is the kind of comment I think I was hoping to get.

Not quite sure I understood everything you said...the,'lip service' part and...relativistic?

I guess I would respond by saying that I think each human individual has a 'right' to his own life and to defend it, thus I would say an absolute approach, not a relativistic one...but...not sure what you meant.

thanks again...


amicus...

I could be misreading your position.

On a second read, it seems your stating something like:

"The phenomenon of war has an explanation other than man is inherently violent, etc... instead it a historically shaped condition that has it's origins the individual desire to defend his/her own existence."

In the first read, I thought you were stating a position more like "All wars are about self-defence, even from the position of the initiation aggressors."

 

[Liar]

I find I cannot separate the innocent's outside the conflict as you seem to. For if a war fails to defend the homeland, whatever and where-ever it may be, then the conquered people are subject to a new order.

Depends on how you define being "outside the conflict", I guess.

Through history, there have been numerous wars where the conquered people and the nations that do war on their behalf have very conflicting interrests. The peasant who don't really care if the über lord of the land is preussian or russian - it won't affect his crops and probably won't affect the taxation of the land more than marginally. What will affect him is a bunch of damn soldiers barging through, burning his barn and raping his wife and sheep, for reasons that does very little to protect HIS interrests. Demographically, the Leaders may have been protecting the People from the new order. But did the People want them too? Far from always.

 

[TheEarl]

I have to say that the reason the Industrial Revolution was so (relatively) war-free, was because everyone was concentrating on trying to overhaul the other militarily. Trade and warfare drove the industrial revolution, IMHO.

The Earl