On 15 Sep, doug@isishq.fidonet.org (Doug Thompson) wrote in "Re:
Peace (long)":
> To be war it would have had to have had, as a motivating factor,
> the idea of permanent expulsion of the invader, permanent
> conquest or liberation of territory or people.
I agree with his 'oranges and apples' analysis of the different
intents of European and Indian wars. Indeed, in view of the variety
of terms which have been used in (european) studies of Indian
ethnography (raids, feuds, etc), it seems likely that even those
writers could sense there was a difference. I think Doug has likely
put his finger on it: territoriality.
Before the topic recedes into e-oblivion, however, I note that
his definition, in terms of motivating factors, is very carefully
devoid of emotional terms. While this might only reflect his personal
attitudes, I find this 'materialist' element surprising, especially
on this list.
I would not like to find an emotionally distinct tone for every
term that has been used to characterise conflict - invasion,
incursion, intrusion, for instance, might as well all mean the same
thing - but I wonder if it might not be useful to identify 'hatred'
as a significant element in war? Doug's description of Oka as an
"angry backlash against abuse" then becomes entirely parallel.(*)
I also find intriguing the comment that:
> the white men they were dealing (and treating) with in fact had
> very little authority, and were accountable to higher
> authorities
Is it too much to suppose that these same white men were resentful of
their own oppression, and, knowing that their treaties were as likely
as not to be overturned or ignored by their "boss in Whitehall,"
didn't always care to take what they were saying seriously?
Likewise:
> Think of the German invasion of France in 1941. The 'war' lasted
> for a few weeks, after which organized large-scale resistance
> was crushed. That was the end of the war.
What do the current events in Eastern Europe mean, if not that the
*emotional* values which accompanied war were not crushed at all?
"The end of the war" only means the *expression* of emotion
suppressed (read, the hatred was internalized).
I recognize that a likely response to this is "War produces the
hatred, not vice versa." But, just as the medicos are beginning to
realize that perhaps osteoporosis causes a person's leg to break
first, whereupon they fall down the stairs, I am only trying to help
get the priorities straight. If it makes sense that any (all?
perhaps; I don't know) human activity flows from the emotional plane
to the material, why not - at least - conflict?
(I'm also prepared to find the argument that "of course, war is
produced by hatred, but hatred comes from fear, and fear from
ignorance. So education is the only solution to the problems of
mankind." - but perhaps theres a Buddhism thread somewhere in which
that can be taken up.)
By way of encouraging a new topic here, I'd like to see some
more exposition on
> the problem of the idea of history, and concepts of time.
> The European linear concept of time and continuity was not
> shared by most native cultures who had more of a circular and
> cyclical idea of time.
Is there a formal analysis available along these lines?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-
* At the risk of precipitating another new thread, I should add that
the term 'liberation' seems to me to be inappropriate, unless the
people being liberated are doing the liberating. Granted, it
reflects war from 'the other side' (the phrase taught when I was in
school was "wars of subjugation") but where it might fall on the
emotional spectrum is not clear to me. And, personally, I'm not sure
what "liberated territory" might legitimately mean. If we're talking
about human affairs, what is gained by bringing in geological
affairs?
************ |{hm kerry miller <ASTINGSH@KSUVM.BITNET>
"We are all prisoners of our own conceits."