Why has there been so much war throughout human history?
Just like animals, humans have an instinct to survive and are willing to fight if their life is threatened. It can also be proven that some humans are naturally aggressive and may fight for competition or power. Conflicting ideas and opinions between human beings create an umbra of disagreements which inevitably lead to war. These wars don't always have to be fought violently with weapons since wars can be fought with words instead, but most wars do involve violent fighting because it has proven to be... "more effective". By saying "more effective", I mean that if one side of a war doesn't promote physical violence while the other side does, those who aren't going to fight back obviously won't survive as long as the physical and competitive side. For example, a soft and fuzzy bunny is not going to fare well against a vicious lion with a lust for the blood of the bunny, and this is why humans tend to be aggressive toward each other -- ultimately resulting in the outcome of war throughout their history. Another factor that feeds into human aggression is a feud, or permanent war which can last for centuries. In feuds, each entity involved follows the rule of "an eye for an eye", and every act of killing requires a retaliation of killing. You can see how this type of fighting would cause many wars throughout human history due to its see-saw balancing of retaliated attacks. Any war with direct actions is called a "hot" war, and any war without direct actions is called a "cold" war. To describe a cold war, it's best to look at the two superpowers of Russia and the United States. While the United States was in Vietnam, Russia supplied the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong with arms such as the infamous AK-47 and RPG. Hence, the action is not directly taken by Russia so it is labeled a cold war. Cold wars are generally fought due to fear of the retaliation of the other side if there were to be direct contact with that enemy on a battlefield.
What is war?
It may sound very pessimistic of me to say, but war is the only option for humans when large conflicts arise. It's highly unlikely that we will ever see the day when two beings of rivalry will ever shake hands and pronounce peace because peace is much more complex than war. To describe exactly what war is, I'd like to refer to a quote by Thomas Mann -- "War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace". The problems of peace will always be present due to natural human aggressiveness and willingness to avenge or defend their beliefs. It's quite ironic that old politicians used to use the saying Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori to convince young men to enlist and fight for their country. Even if it is "Sweet and Honorable to die for the fatherland", I don't believe that these politicians even needed to employ the saying because a human's existing willingness to survive will more than likely always prevail. In the end war is inevitable for the "civilized" human race. Besides technology and some physical capabilities, how different are we from animals?
Works Cited:
Nouri Arif, . "Why humans fight each other." Helium. Web. 17 Sep 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/401442-why-humans-fight-each-other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your argument is very interesting, Austin, but is war really the "only option?" What about passive resistance? And in terms of our difference from animals I would say we are worse, because as humans we can reason and understand the ramifications of our actions. And what other animals have committed mass genocide?
ReplyDeletei must say i didn't expect it but Austin hands in the most interesting view on war. while i agree with Mrs. field on the opinion that war is not always the "only option" i can think of many situations in which country must fight or flee much like an animal. France, 1940, the french government is left with very few choices. go to war or admit defeat and suffer a drastic change to totalitarianism. much like a elephant France swung its tusks then retreated to the heard from the vicious lions. does this show our animal nature though? id propose that at closer inspection that we are the worse. not only do we as animals follow the rules of Darwinism, the concept of survival of the fittest; we also must put this up against our own morality. we inevitably come up hypocrites. While the European enters the Congo to "civilize" as they exploit, the near animalistic cannibals of the region only eats to live, understanding outright what he does. i'm not here to contest Austins opinions but merely to propose that the fact that our conscious lies to us in order to make sense of these animalistic endeavors makes the brainwashed soldier a much more savage and violent animal.
ReplyDelete