On the Nature of War

This being Memorial Day, I am dedicating this blog to ruminations on the nature of war, and the source of violence. I have just spent the last three days having been exposed to the Fox Channel on TV.  Since it is the Memorial Day long weekend, the majority of the content involved the honoring of various soldier's heroism, and the glorification of this country's past wars.

The origin of the holiday itself, is based on honoring the war dead; usually along the lines of: "that they shall not have died in vain."  In other words, to question the reason they died, is to dishonor, not only them, but the Country as well.  To suggest that any of them was not justified by prior events, is to be unpatriotic, (a traitor).  (During WWII, such questioning could get you killed by your neighbors in a mob action, with impunity.)

In those broadcasts, a fair amount of attention was paid to the fact that the veterans of the Vietnam War, on returning home, were not honored for their participation in that war.  In actuality, it was not until the later part of our time there, that that war lost the support of the populace.

This hostility, toward the military, of those, "on the home front," was contrasted with talking about and treating all soldiers as "Heroes" and, "defenders of freedom."  There was also much talk by the families of these men, about how proud they had been of what they were doing.  Shown, also, were images of soldiers shooting off weapons, and such, in battle, (but no, "blood and guts").  The term, "home front" for civilians, was, I believe, introduced as a way of making those not overseas feel a part of the war effort, and promote patriotism.

The primary reason for this later hostility, shown by citizens toward the Vietnam Vets, in my opinion, was that the Vietnam War was the first war that was broadcast live on television for those on the, "home front" to see in all its horror; all its ugliness and brutality. Eventually, it became too much, especially after revelations of the slaughter of non-combatants by the soldiers.  The military learned their mistake in allowing this too late, but they learned it well.  In none of the wars since then has the Military allowed the press uncontrolled access to their wars.

Another major difference in these two wars was the wholesale introduction of the prosecuting of war from a distance, keeping the blood and guts off the soldiers.  In the Iraq War, it wasn't until the "enemy" had been, (technically) defeated, that the real nature of war was brought home to those who, "won" the war by the, (technically) defeated.  Those carrying on that war in gorilla fashion have, of course, been condemned, for the brutality of their ways.

Let us be clear here, "war" is a word for what is, in actuality, cold-blooded slaughter.  It is, for all practical purposes, an excuse for unrestrained violence of men against other men and the women and children. 

Philosophers have given much thought, and, more recently, written many words as to why humans seem prone to violence.  Much of this philosophizing about the supposed violent nature of the human, ancient and modern, has as its underpinning the scientific belief that humans are the evolutionary descendants of animals--in particular the larger apes.  I have yet to see any evidence that the great apes are violent in their natures.

Philosophers seem not to have considered the possibility that aggression by males might have been introduced after societies became patriarchal; Philosophy itself only arose after most societies had been patriarchal throughout most of known history.  Aggression and violence may actually have begun as a way of dominating the recently subjugated women.

In material on ancient man, much attention has been given to the importance of Early Man's hunting and killing animals as a major way of providing food for the group; such groups being called, "hunter-gatherers."  A number of years ago, research regarding the way early man actually provided food for the group, revealed that, in actuality, these early peoples should be classified as, "gatherer-hunters," due to the evidence that in modern groups of, "hunter-gatherer" societies, the food that was gathered, (by women) was actually the predominate source of nutrition for the group, while meat, provided by men, was only an occasional source of food.  It would appear that the "hunter-gatherer" designation, rather than the opposite arose out of the male-centric thinking of those researchers, rather than the evidence.

Perhaps, as an outgrowth of the new male dominance, competition with other males was introduced as a major aspect between males of social groups.  I do not recall, however, any such emphasis in the anthropological studies I have read.

Until recently, the major role cooperation plays in the natural world, as well as in social groups, has been ignored; not, in fact, just ignored, but outright denied any role in animal or human interaction by noted modern authorities.

Due to the patriarchal nature of modern societies and cultures, other, possible, explanations for the existence of violent behavior, particularly on the part of males, is not considered.  The fact that many early civilizations were matriarchal--societies governed by women--has only been revealed by recent archaeological evidence.  That evidence has not, however, been generally accepted.  It has been argued that women are also violent, in actuality, it is only recently, (the later part of the 20th Century) that Western women, who have strong personalities, have chosen to emulate men in competitiveness, violence and conflict.    

I am concluding this blog entry with a poem I wrote in the mid-70s relating to this topic.


EXCEPT

THOU SHALT NOT KILL---
except,
when ordered to by a powerful superior,
(if not, you have committed a greater offense)
THOU SHALT NOT KILL---
except,
when that which is yours is being taken,
(you must uphold your divine right of property)
THOU SHALT NOT KILL---
except,
when you have sworn to uphold the law,
(to not uphold the laws of the powerful leads to chaos)
THOU SHALT NOT KILL---
except,
when a husband, and your wife is unfaithful,
(a wife is the sacred property of her husband)
THOU SHALT NOT KILL---
except,
when that killed is not labeled Human,
(for ours is the right of domination over the earth)
THOU SHALT NOT KILL---
except,
When an individual has killed another in passion,
(for this is murder and a sin against God)

Shirley Gallup