Quote: (06-15-2014 05:15 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
Lizard of Oz makes some convincing points, but I think he dulls his message by not placing his thesis in historical perspective. He leaves himself open for misunderstanding in the way he has phrased his points.
I concur with some of his opinions, but with some strict qualifications.
It was war that made the modern state. Societies are ruled by two forces: in peace by the law, and in time of crisis, by force (organized warfare).
In old Samoa, for example, the tribal chief had complete power during wartime, but in peacetime nobody paid much attention to him. During peacetime, it was the head priest or shaman who wielded the power. The same was true of the Dyak people of Borneo, and of the Romans during the pre-republican period.
Primitive societies fought wars for many reasons: for hunting grounds, pasture, women, foodstuffs, and vengeance. I'm sure they also fought wars to relieve the monotony of life, for the joy of plunder and rape, and for the exhilaration of slaughter. Man can be a bestial ape.
The act of organized warfare helped form the modern state. We must admit that war acted as a ruthless destroyer of weak or unfit peoples. It stimulated the human race (to what degree it is difficult to say) to advancement in courage, organization, violence, cruelty, and directed skill.
It also (I have to admit) stimulated invention and innovation, but to what degree we cannot say with certainty. War made organization and discipline possible on a grand scale, and assisted the upward progress of civilization.
But Lizard forgets that war also led to the enslavement of prisoners, the permanence of slavery as an institution in the ancient world, the subordination of social classes, and the massive growth of state power and regulation.
War birthed the modern state.
Where Lizard stumbles a bit here is that war is only once facet of the human experience. Yes, it has catalyzed human innovation. But many other fields of human endeavor have catalyzed innovation also: commerce, art, religion, government, and trade.
Why single out war for special praise, Lizard? If we were to draw up a list of the most influential 100 inventions in history, how many of them can be said to be directly attributed to war? A minority, I am certain.
And even though war may have been a stimulus, has it not also just as often been an anti-stimulus? Does it not more often retard the growth of societies? Does it not deaden the sensibilities of a people, and stop their forward progress? Assyria, Sparta, and the old Soviet Union organized their societies around the principle of warfare, and neglected nearly all else. And in the end, both of them collapsed from having too narrow a focus on military affairs.
And finally, Lizard, I think you may be overlooking something else.
Let's put all this abstruse theorizing aside for a moment, and speak as human beings. Let's drop the bullshit and speak as flesh-and-blood creatures whose hearts aren't pumping Kool-Aid.
It's all well and good to say how war has done this or that. It's quite another thing to be confronted with the reality that modern warfare has little or nothing to do with anthropological theories (or does it?). Modern war means some brutal tribesman pointing a pistol in your face; it means blown up buildings, ruined resources, wrecked societies, lost opportunities, and wasted lives. Anyone who has seen these things up close has a hard time taking an academic view of the matter.
Modern war is a nasty, brutal business, and it certainly needs no encouragement directed in its favor.
It will be with us forever, of course. It is an elemental force of the human psyche. Its power is fundamentally irrational. But to give it praise or stimulus, even if that was not your intention, seems to me folly. It is strong enough on its own; it certainly needs no encouragement from us.
Q
Modern war on the other hand consumes only the cream of the male sex as they are the only ones that qualify for war. While weak and unfit people are left behind enjoying their peace. Likewise wielding firearms nullifies on the whole the Athletic prowess of fit men as the physical attributes that normally wielded advantage on the ancient battlefield makes very little difference in the killing power of the gun. A weakling can pull the trigger just as easily as the strong man and the gun powered by gunpowder kills just the same. Likewise airstrikes also nullify the advantage of fitness.