The Illiad: A New Translation
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160110-homer-iliad-ancient-world-alexander-ngbooktalk/
Is it time to put away the rose colored glasses?
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Is war in our genes? Is peace a mirage?
The Illiad: A New Translation
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160110-homer-iliad-ancient-world-alexander-ngbooktalk/
Is it time to put away the rose colored glasses?
That’s a very interesting article you post, and very interesting questions you pose.
I have listened to the Iliad thrice now — once in the Lombardo translation (which @BKMarcus loves but I deplore) and twice in the Butler translation (which I love). The story and the poetry get better every time.
But war — war never changes. Even in places where there’s really no wealth or land worth fighting over, men fight to gain prestige or to capture women.
But that doesn’t mean that, on the margin, we can’t increase peace in the world (via freedom, and market exchanges, and writing of the sort that @antiwardotcom excels in).
“Every adjective evokes the destruction and tragedy of war,” So why not just get rid of the adjectives?
Agreed that war is unable to be completely eliminated, but I think Mike Reid is fairly correct. We can limit it greatly, it just requires the enlightenment of as many as possible.
How does one enlighten a bully? I think the war exists because someone didn’t stop a bully on the school playground. That bully becomes an adult without anyone ever placing a limit on what is considered acceptable behavior in a society. Some of the bullies become criminals others find their way into leadership positions which fuel the causes of war.
The world is never going to revert to some peaceful state, and the decision to go to war will always bring with it multifaceted tragedy.
But you don’t necessary have to go along with such decisions You can decide to detach yourself physically or mentally from such conflicts. Only States use warfare as a means to achieve their ends. This collectivist conformity and thinking may not be present in all individuals, though perhaps it will always be too low of a number to have any direct influence.
The theory is that the human being is a monster. Through nurtureing and education the monster can be tamed. In the end each individual has the power of the choice.
The Bible suggests that the only lasting peace will be after Satan (and his evil influence on people) is thrown in the lake of fire, and Jesus rules the world for 1000 years.
As long as there are people who want power over how others live their lives, there will always be war. Most folks don’t like the idea of being a slave. They don’t want to be responsible for themselves, but they don’t want to be a slave either. By shirking responsibility, it opens the door up for the power hungry folks to try to take over, which results in a war when folks realize they will end up slaves.
I concur with the Bible. People will always be drawn to power. The only way to achieve lasting peace is to remove evil influences, and have non-corruptible divine leadership (God) running things here on earth. Personally, I would not look for any human to bring about lasting peace. And if you don’t believe in a God, I’d propose that any hope you have for lasting peace is unrealistic.
The claim about money being evil is often misquoted, for it is the love of money that is the root of evil not the money per se. That which has to happen is for the love of the God to become first and foremost in the hearts and minds of mankind. When that happens there will no longer be any reason to “act” any other way other than in sync with the rules of the God. Peace
Frank, I’d suggest you start studying ‘the rules of God’. Firstly, which God’s rules are you talking about?
Secondly, many gods teach that followers should kill off unbelievers/infidels/those who threaten their religion in some way.
In short, the ‘rules of God’ require going to war and killing off everyone who is not one of the ‘preferred’ followers. More wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other reason.
“Firstly”, if you are with the faith of a Christian you wouldn’t even have to ask the question. Secondly if you are going to use ‘ ‘ to refer to something that I said please quote correctly, otherwise please don’t twist my word-choice into something that I didn’t say. God gave us a messenger with the only rule that counts: LOVE.
I would like to hear of these religious wars that weren’t really about strengthening or expanding a state. It could be a coincidence if God is a statist, though. Oh…
Do some research on the Crusades. They weren’t about strengthening or expanding a state. It was, we have to rid the world of Muslim tyranny. The Pope was the driving force behind the Crusades. (If you go fight, all your sins are forgiven. Plus, you can have everything you steal. Nice pay package, huh?)
Vatican City did not become an official State until 1929, by way of the Lateran Treaty. At the time of the Crusades, the Vatican was not a nation.
You may be thinking of the Papal States.
The Crusades were not about strengthening or expanding the Papal States.
Your spin tactic does not go unnoticed. At first, you wished to know about wars that were not about strengthening or expanding a State, and then you throw spin tactics about ESTABLISHING a State, which is completely different from expanding or strengthening a State.
The Pope is also the reigning King over an official State, even to this day. The Crusades in fact strengthened his State by nixing a potential threat. Converts at the edge of a sword hardly strengthen a Church.
Even the genocides carried out by the Israelites in the book of Numbers were expressly carried out to establish a State. That’s always been the reasoning which ‘justifies’ their actions, to this day, as expressed in the Torah and sermons around the world.
Everywhere you look for religious wars, you will find statist wars dressed up in religious garb. The Islamic State is the obvious modern example. That some soldiers kill for guaranteed salvation and loot (just like the Crusades) takes nothing away from the fact that the wars are actually conducted by the leadership to establish or strengthen a State.
Brian, I don’t see the need to be rude (“Do some research…”, “your spin tactics”). You have diverted the question twice.
1. I never suggested that people don’t kill for salvation or other selfish reasons, only that wars are *actually conducted* for reasons of strengthening, expanding or establishing a state.
2. How does typing ‘expanding’ instead of ‘establishing’ in my first comment (oh, the spin!) take away from the fact that warring to establish a State makes it as statist a war as one to expand a State?
I would still like to see a ‘religious war’ which was not conducted by a wannabe or soon-to-be or current leader of a State.
Shamus, you are the one being rude.
1) It appears your only argument that religious wars are statist is because they are fought by a state organized military.
2) A war to establish a state can be a defensive war, such as a civil war. A war to expand an already existing state is an aggressive war, which is a totally different thing.
Was Osama bin Laden a wannabe or a soon-to-be or current leader of a State? Nope.
Are Hezbollah or Hamas leaders of a State? Nope.
What about the Irish wars between the Catholics and Protestants?
Personally, I fail to understand your argument that religious persecution is somehow statist. Religious persecution is not done to give the State more power or territory to control. It is war waged for the purpose of killing those who believe differently than you.
1) It appears your only argument that religious wars are statist is because they are fought by a state organized military.
Absolutely correct. They could not be fought without the State. Ergo, state is the dangerous aspect. Separation of Church and State spelled the ‘end’ of religious wars (until recently) not because it took religion out of the state, but because it took guns (State) out of the hands of the Church.
Was your reply meant for something that I said? During the time of the Crusades I wouldn’t be surprised if the “Church” was not in effect the ruling body in a lot of communities.
Hey Frank, if my reply was meant for something, it’s just to find out if there has been a so-called ‘religious war’ which was not actually conducted by a wannabe, soon-to-be, or current leader of a State. The leader of the Church in times of war (and even today) has also been a King. My position is that all wars are statist wars, no matter how they are dressed up or who soldiers think they are fighting for.
Unless we define the State as a compulsory civil religion, which can be argued quite convincingly.
I think we might be seeing the result of centuries of blurred lines. Misuse of religion by royalty and also religious leaders compromising principles to justify a desired goal.
Somewhere along the decades it seems things flipped from where rulers used religion to incentivize and rally support to a point where the state is the religion. Its hard to tell where one is not the other in many ways.
Getting back to the question: I don’t know if there is evidence to show that war is a genetic propensity of man or not, but it seems that one could not conduct a war without leadership skills. War is a broad term. How many soldiers does it take to make an army? Does one have to have an army to conduct war? Tribal wars? Would the supply of natural resources effect the motive for war as much as some genetic trigger?
“all wars are statist wars” All is a word used a s really big adjective – all = each and every one. I can see calling the “war on drugs” a statist war, because we hear the state’s propaganda all of the time. The “war on drugs” isn’t really a war on the little round things made by the Drug Companies. The “war on drugs” is really a “war” on drug-dealers, drug “lords” and suppliers of the illegal-drugs, so are the drug dealers and lords at war with the state”? If that is the case does that make them statists as well? Is a soldier a statist just because he is trained to fight without asking questions?
All wars are started by wannabe, soon-to-be or actual State leaders. I have been asking but still haven’t received a counter claim to that — aside from the Crusades, which was rebutted by pointing out that he was King of the Papal States (and is today King of Vatican City state). Because war in itself is unprofitable, it must be financed through theft. Because of the scale of theft required, this theft must be legitimized in the minds of the victims. Does that help?
It seems that such a narrow focus on the state or statism tends to ignore the criminal elements all over the world which don’t have flags flying in front of the UN. There are probably enough men in some of these organizations to consider them small armies and I would find it hard to believe that they don’t consider what they do as conducting war on the part of society that isn’t part of their group.
There go the goalposts, again. But that’s cool, just now topic was shifted away from claims about ‘religious war’ on to ‘drug dealers’ with an expansion of the definition of ‘war’ to include the ‘War on Drugs’. Before we shift away to the ‘War on Cancer,’ let me first point out that gangs wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for the State making things illegal. Gangs of all kinds only deal in goods and services which are artificially restricted by the State. Al Pacino came to the US to bootleg alcohol only because of Prohibition laws (the state’s War on Alcohol). Back to the state’s War on Drugs (assuming the goalposts are there), drug dealers never started that ‘war.’ My claim is clear: “All wars are started by wannabe, soon-to-be or actual State leaders.” I’ve been very specific about this claim and haven’t seen an example which shows otherwise, only implications that there are.
There is a lack of the specific about the claim: “All wars are started by wannabe, soon-to-be or actual State leaders.” Because All is inclusive of the each and every. And when all is used for the qualification of the word war you have the description of conflicts between two groups which is only limited by the imagination. The point is that there is a flaw in the construction of the Languages which permits such sweeping-generalizations on any topic and is also what enables your “wannabe, soon-to-be or actual State leaders” to start and perpetuate the conflicts you call war. There is a lack of the goal-post-concept by the use of the adjective all.
It’s obvious from this thread that I am responding to the claim that “More wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other reason.” If it makes it more understandable for you, let me clarify my position as such: All the wars which we casually refer to as ‘religious wars’ were and are actually waged by wannabe, soon-to-be or actual State leaders, for the intended purpose of establishing, expanding or strengthening a State.
It is (sadly) true that war is unavoidable. Until the dawn of civilization, humans were basically in survival mode where your neighbor is potentially your enemy because of limited food supply.
However with the dawn of civilization and commerce, war has become more and more expensive since peace brought unequaled wealth. But as long as government 1) exists, especially 2) this large, special interests will profit from war. But how to move from there to smaller /inexistent government…
War is enabled by TAXATION. Because war is so expensive, the people who start wars only do so when they can “socialize” the costs of war onto others, via taxation.
Without taxation, wars would be practically non-existent. Or, at worst, we’ll have very short-lived wars – because even the richest people on Earth can’t sustain the costs of war for long (without the blank check of taxation).
We’ve never gotten rid of war, only because we’ve never gotten rid of taxation.
Was the “civil war” conducted before the income tax”? Were all of the “wars” on the African-Continent based on taxation?
The Civil War began April 12, 1861.
The income tax was first instituted on July 1, 1862. The preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code traces its roots back to the 1862 income tax law.
So in this case It isn’t the income tax that enabled the civil war. To the extent that the Military-Industrial-Complex can get wealthy from the taxes that any government steals from it’s citizens i would agree that taxes fuel wars, but I think that the greed, thirst for power or shortage of resources have more to do with the cause of WAR.
Even before the income tax, the government (and early months of the civil war) was funded by tariffs (a form of taxation) and excise taxes.
And the first federal income tax statute was the Revenue Act of 1861 (August 5, 1861) – just 4 months after the start of the civil war. Without this new source of taxation, the civil war would’ve likely only lasted a few months before they ran out of money.
Harry,
Wars can also be financed through inflation, or debasement tactics like clipping coins. (Replacing US silver coinage with copper/steel clad coins is a form of debasement, or replacing large cents in 1857 with the penny of the size we have now, or in 1982 going from a penny with 95% copper to a penny that is 97.5% zinc with a copper coating.)
Abraham Lincoln financed the Union Army by printing paper dollars. The economic advisors believed they could counterfeit dollars to finance the war, and then remove those excess dollars from circulation after the war and the economy had recovered, and no one would be the wiser. When they tried pulling those excess dollars from circulation in the 1870’s, we went into a major economic contraction for years. To date, they’ve still never been able to remove those dollars from circulation. When they try, the economy contracts so bad they have to inflate even more just to get it where it was before. Whether people realize it or not, we are still dealing with the economic effects of Lincoln counterfeiting money to finance the North during the Civil War.
Good point. Debasement/inflation might not be as sustainable as taxation, but they are another way to fund wars (still, by socializing the costs to others).
I guess I should correct my statement, by broadening it to say wars are primarily enabled by governments. Without governments, wars would be short-lived because they’d soon run out of funds (without government-enabled socialization of costs e.g. taxation, debasement/inflation, etc).
I think the opposite. Narrow the claim so that the discussion leads us to the part of the government or individual who is the cause or the perpetuator of war so that we can examine what drives the war motive.
War is likely in our genes. Humans lived in conditions that selected for warlike behavior for thousands of years during the plesiastien period.
See, Altruism and Ethnocentrism Cause War, and War Selects for Altruism and Ethnocentrism,
Altruism and Ethnocentrism Cause War, and War Selects for Altruism and Ethnocentrism
Yet there has been a steady decline in violence for hundreds of years. So there is hope we are trending to a more peaceful world.
I tend to think that there is more practical influence on the tendency for war. We evolved from conduction war with sticks and stones to the point of destroying the whole earth with a nuclear-winter. I think that mutual-assured-destruction may have caused thinking to “evolve”. There is a lot more at stake when war means the end of the earth as we know it.
