Militarism, Pacifism and War?

Post Reply New Topic

Why? I am not entraping anyone, just interested in how he sees it.

Notice my very correct behaviour with regard imnotaparokeet?

peace j

There are very strong indications that the activity in Libya is more concerned with oil than altruism.

Well, I approve of all of the interventions on the list that actually occurred.

In the case of Rwanda I believe we could have acted. We chose not to. If we had acted and created pockets to protect refugees I believe that many lives would have been saved. But we weighed the costs and chose to let ~ 1 million people be massacred with machetes.

Whether you act or not there is still a cost.

At the risk of a digression I would agree there is little altruistic in the Libyan intervention, just as the ignoring of a great tradgedy in Rwanda was due to a lack of [self interested] motivation on the part of France and the UN.

I am interested in the 'ideal' behind the UN in averting war and facilitating intervention and mediation in disputes, however the extreme partisanship shown by it's main movers and shakers and it's inherently undemocratic structure have made it little more than a convienient rubber stamp for capitalism inc and it's military/industrial subsidaries which is why much of the developing world is dissilusioned and forming new structures that better serve their own needs.

peace j

Thank you for the reply. I wish I had more time to write a more comprehensive one of my own right now. The coming weekend I'll try for sure. But in any case I do see violence as part of a social structure. In fact some societies in the past used violence and war not necessarily for direct expansion or genocide but for 'social' purposes- a classic example being the 'Flower Wars' of the Mesoamerican civilizations (this is of course a debated topic* but what isn't, right? ) whereby there was an institution of warfare established in order for differing sides to appease their gods with sacrifice. So violence/war was seen as a necessary part of life and wasn't necessarily done out of malice. Though you have a good point later about the span of recorded Human history being a short time indeed. However you see 'wars' even in other species. I think ultimately war hawks and peace doves or whatever are usually the least informed parties as representatives of extreme viewpoints

* I'm just posting the commonly held view on the 'Flower Wars', clearly this isn't a thread to debate the exact nature of them, though I am probably up for a discussion via PM if anyone feels so inclined

We don't have a clear understanding of the years; you are just presupposing a wide exception to what is the established theory of human grouping for the purposes of defense. The evidence actually points both ways, the Norte Chico would support your view while the Zapotec show huge amounts of warfare. By the time of the preclassic era, warfare was very commonplace as was human sacrifice. So it is pretty fair to say that on average Hobbes was right and life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.



A huge sweeping statement. Pitched battles between tribes were common and the events were bloody but protracted warfare was rare. I put a link on the previous page with my source for this.



Not true, warfare was part of normal state function in Polynesia and was common. (The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms By Patrick Vinton Kirch Pg 216, available on google books)

I take a complete absolute stance against war. Even in the case of WW2, I think it would have been better to have defeated the Nazis non-violently.

Plus, can you really defend supporting the Soviets to take out the Nazis after the Gulags etc? What if we sided with the Nazis against them - would that be any worse than siding with the Communists against Hitler?

How would that have even been possible to non-violently defeat the genocidal self-obsessed Nazis? Or the Japanese then?



The only defense is that the war would have lasted longer and been even bloodier if we didn't have an ally sending wave after wave of tanks on the Eastern front. Stalin stank so bad that not even the Russians prior to the end of the Cold War liked him. Heck, they even left his body to rot in a museum for people to gawk at while it disintegrated.

You asked for examples of warfare being continuous throughout human history, I provided.



Alright, let's pretend that war isn't evil. It just is a circumstance, a fact of life. It's going to happen anyway, so it needs to be prepared for rather than treated as though it will never happen again.

I concede that my statement concerning some of my australian ancestors is 'sweeping' however not invalid and one link is not a comprehensive rebutal, merely one representation and interpretation of some facts and anecdotal evidence. One of the problems with using pre-literate societies as examples [and this includes the americas] is that we only have the word of the colonist as a contemporarily 'acceptable' representation of history prior to colonisation, on the ground indigenous anecdotal evidence is readily dissmissed often on dubious grounds. This is the case here in NZ with regard perspectives on pre European Maori history and more broadly polynesian history.
The coloniser has a vested interest in portraying their arrival as ultimately beneficial to the place of colonisation, when one has used force to assert ones wishes one needs to justify it, therefore we have a contemporary perspective on Maori culture as inherently war ridden and savage "they were cannibals god damn it!" which is a skewed and selective interpretation of the facts.

I have no intention of romanticising the ideal of some 'noble savage' however I have maintained a long interest in the development of different human societies values and belief systems and while quite happily acknowledge our ability and a limited tendency towards violence and, as groups, towards warfare it is not our default mode of problem resolution. Most humans for most of the time for most of history have pursued peacefull and co-operative existences, but I guess we will have to just agree to differ.

However and I appreciate the 'ad hominem' quality of this argument but, I find it interesting that those peoples from societies that indulge in and profit from warfare the most are more likely to hold the 'man is naturally warlike' point of view, whereas none of my arabic or african associates hold to this, very few of the asiatic peoples I know hold to this, and similarly among the 'warlike' and 'savage' polynesian peoples I know - very few, they see it as an aspect of human nature but not the dominant aspect of human nature, most civilised peoples actually see war as some indicator of their failure to be fully humane.

peace j

This is not evidence that warfare was continuous merely that it occured and was of noteworthy character, people seldom write gripping yarns about communities of farmers existing peacefully and co-operatively for generations, but once something dramatic happens like an invasion or a shift towards a martial stance it becomes noteworthy and written down or inserted into the oral tradition. Sometimes observing the spaces in history is all that gives context.

Again I think you and I disscussing this any further is pointless and we will have to agree to differ. To use a martial arts analogy you tend towards a well armed Seido Karate while I choose Tai Chi and Aikido which in real terms develop fitness, skills and philosophy that transfer more broadly and offer me peace of mind as opposed to heightening my aggression levels and increasing negative presumption.

peace j

Okay, so let's say that there has been a time in human history where there has been peace. How long does it take for such a situation to change? Playing upon the meaning of the word continuous does not change the necessity of preparedness for warfare. In the Indus valley they had peace amongst themselves for a while, yet only to be conquered by invaders who were bellicose.

@ iamnotaparakeet.

'Lets say?' What do you think most of the human race is engaged in right this moment? peaceful activities, sure some nasty bugger is plotting to hurt someone and some peoples are engaged in violence with another but it is not the dominant mode of behaviour or even of conflict resolution, can you not understand that? This is the core point of my entire enquiry and given that what level of preparedness and what terms of engagement are optimal for humans as a species. You seem overwhelmingly preoccupied with humanities worst moments and attributes and seem blind to all that goes against that - why?
Is it like the whole humans - altruistic or individualistic? - debate, most of those who deny altruism are really only speaking for themselves as time and time again altruism is demonstrated every single day, it is the backbone of our societies functionality and even in times of duress such as war/disaster individuals behave altruistically even to their own demise. so again - why?
Is it cultural, is that specific to only a minority of people and specific to their cultures? Why are some countries constantly at war with someone yet others almost never and never the aggressor?

peace j

Peace may last for a while, and certainly not everyone is fighting perpetually day and night. However, what happens when one group does attack another with intent to steal, kill, and destroy? Is it not better to be prepared for such an eventually rather than be unprepared when such an event occurs? Is it better to be armed in preparation for protecting oneself and one's family than to be unprepared when such an event necessitating the ability to defend happens?

Well obviously to some extent, but when does that preparedness merely intensify the problem by making your neighbour paranoid and extend their 'defensive' capability, which in turn makes you more paranoid and extend your own capability etc... At what point does sanity prevail, at what point is in not better to give the surplus energy you have for militarism to your neighbour to satisfy their very real or percieved needs in relation to yourself?
Remember the cold war? well maybe not as you are too young, notice how sabre rattling makes people develop offensive potential in the way that Iran feels compelled to do with it's intensified sense of insecurity, or China, India and Pakistan? To what extent is this 'preparedness' actually rational.
Your own country has between 1/5 and 1/3 of it's ecconomy tied up in/dependent on, the military industrial complex [estimates vary], as your nation consumes about 1/4 of the global ecconomys resources [again estimates vary] this means you have tied up somewhere between 1/20 and 1/12 of the planets productivity in destruction, what if this effort went into development, likewise imagine the improvements in quality of life for Indians, Pakistani's, Iranians, Russians... if their own governments did the same? and the lessening of domestic paranoia and possibly even improvements in civil rights? It is no coincidence that governments who fear their neighbours also fear their own citizens, how is this more extreme end of the militarist spectrum sensible?
Most people don't want war, most people do not seek violence as their first option even under duress, so how much longer will the minority get to dictate the terms and initiate wars and hatred for their own personal agendas?

peace j

Sanity prevails every moment that one has a weapon at their disposal and yet does not use it wrongly. Mexico and Canada also have weapons and armed forces that they've built up, and not for aggression upon the United States. They do not used their weapons upon us and we don't use ours on them even though such ability exists. There is no reason to do so, and thus sanity prevails there at the least.

What point though at which somebody has armed themselves too much? Possibly when they are carrying around rocket propelled grenades and fire them at people they racially or religiously hate. In such circumstances they have demonstrated a lack of sanity and have thereby necessitated the removal of their "defenses" from them.



Get real numbers if you want to make a quantitative argument, please. Yes, I do remember the Cold War, and the Space Race between us and the Russians. I wasn't alive at the time of the events but I have every bit of access and exposure to the information that anyone then had, also I was alive for the last few years of the Cold War as well which you would have known if you had bothered to calculate out that detail. My memories only began to be fully consecutive when I was 4, but even still I remember the news towards the end of the Cold War as well as about Mikael Gorbachev. As for being prepared for war now, Iran is a very real threat - whether they attempt to deliver their nuclear weapons as cargo or in missile form - and the entire world needs to be ready to rapidly assess the situation and respond cautiously when Iran attacks (or sells nuclear weapons to private whackos to attack for them) so as to not allow them to trigger a doomsday scenario. Thankfully Russia is an ally and China is amicable also, even after the Cold War, possibly because they're actually rational.




Probably for as long as there are those who behave irrationally and seek the extermination of others based upon their religious affiliation or heredity.