EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
Give Peace A Chance — And A Name
Now that Congress has failed - once again - to call a halt to Bush's Blunder in Iraq, conventional wisdom attributes the inaction to political stalemate and the arcane rules of the U.S. Senate. We reassure ourselves, moreover, that everyone wants peace: It's just that reasonable people disagree over how best to obtain it.
But here is a disturbing thought: Maybe this isn't true. Maybe lots of people, deep in their hearts, like war. Maybe peace is boring.
This may also help explain why the Bush administration has done such a miserable job of "winning the peace" in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as opposed to its earlier and far more enthusiastic waging of wars in both countries.
Maybe our leaders just aren't very interested in peace. More troublesome yet: Insofar as those in power find violence especially compelling, they aren't that different from the rest of us.
It is said that the Inuit have about a dozen words for "snow" (distinguishing between blowing snow, drifted, wet, powder, icy, etc.), and that among the Bedouin, there are more than a hundred words for "camel" (ornery, pregnant, easy-to-ride, male or female, and so forth).
Similarly, in English - and most other languages - there are numerous terms referring to specific wars. We distinguish between the Vietnam War, Korean War, World Wars I and II, etc., but have only one word for "peace."
It's as though wars are so important and so interesting that we pick them out for special attention, like a gourmet selecting a rum-soaked raisin from a cake, whereas peace consists merely of a tedious, familiar, homo-geneous matrix, not even worth naming.
Although the peace that obtained, say, between World Wars I and II was quite different from that between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, we don't even have a word for either. Unlike wars, we don't usually speak of "peaces."
Maybe when - or if - peace becomes as important to English-speaking people as snow is to the Inuit or camels are to the Bedouin, we'll distinguish as carefully among the different varieties of peace as we now do when it comes to wars.
To be sure, most people give lip service to peace, but my point is that perhaps at some level, they haven't really desired it as wholeheartedly as they claim.
The upshot of all this? The current administration can and should be criticized for being much better at destroying countries than rebuilding them, and - worse yet - for being more eager to do the former than the latter.
"Nature ... ," said Katherine Hepburn's character in "The African Queen," "is what we were put on Earth to rise above."
It may be asking too much for Bush et al. to rise above the "natural" human tendency to affirm the virtues of peace while secretly adoring war. But that is precisely what we must demand that they, and our elected members of Congress, do.
David P. Barash is professor of psychology at the University of Washington.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show Allthere's no money in peace.
how's that halliburton stock doin', dick?
By definition, peace Is BETTER.
War is the child of avarice. Peace is defenseless against those who love war.
Perhaps war is the more natural state of affairs. A few years back, a "Frank & Ernest" cartoon depicted a TV anchorman broadcasting that "There was peace today in London, Paris and Rome. Elsewhere . . . the fighting continues."
Given their track record, is it too cynical to suggest that this administration knows all too well that if there was peace in Iraq, American troops and enduring bases (not permanent ones, mind you) would NOT be required, ostensibly to maintain order and stability, so the fragile, fledgling (or is that quisling?) Iraqi "democracy" can be established and oil can be harvested for the benefit of the multinationals (I mean the Iraqis)?
It is a big bad world out there and one of my conservative friends used to remind me of this from time to time. I agree, the world can be a bad place from now and then. The peace dividend was an interesting idea, but that idea came and went quickly.
This is why I think that liberals are more for a strong defense. It could be that the DLC has had an effect on this as well, but I would like to believe that some of us have seen the wisdom of this.
A strong defense does not mean that we go to war. It does not mean that we declare a proactive doctrine of preemptive strike to bring about regime change. That used to be called aggression.
Yes, we need more context for what peace means--what was peace after l870 war, WW I, after WW II, etc? What were the world state systems, systems of power alliances which got the wars started in the first place? Let's ask ourselves what is the context of why we want peace in the Middle East. A number of factors: control over the production and distribution of oil resources, search for a just solution of the Israeli-Palastanian search for mutually respected statehood, and the development of a common recognition of principles of human rights, so that we can negotiate without choking. The current context for peace in the Middle East? Recognize what the conflicting parties want, in terms of political participation and membership--(not label insurgents and terrorists for folks who might be asking to be part of the political game, and go after them with military, death dealing actions) Military "security" actions and war is not the answer. We might just find that the Sunni "insurgents", and the various factions of Shiite militias, want some kind of representation to the table and work out how a unified Iraq can be obtained. Iraq does not need the US military, nor the policies of the Bush Administration to obtain peace--The US doesn't have a clue, which is evident now after six years of Bush's war. (eg. recent polls among Iraqis say they do not want the US imposed Oil Law, which even the Iraqis (who are on vacation, do not want to have to decide). I am not sure that the Iraqis are all too happy with our huge embassy, and maintaining of many military bases in their country, either. I think that they would like to be able to govern themselves, and manage their own economy, oil resources without US conditions of privatization to foreign oil conglomerates. Nationalized resource management organizations have done quite well, thank you, such as Pemex, and Chavez' Venezualan oil resources. The search for peace in times of war, and afterwars, understanding the overall contexts, and considering what the people who are searching for peace, is what David Barash is suggesting.
Dream on, pal.
Can't you hear the refrain of the newest new and latest latest grand design...
Now everyone.....
"All we are saying, is give War a chance...."
... then again, in English there are few alternative words for 'people' -- we have 'folk, citizens, persons, individuals' and a few others, but that fact has often intrigued me.
_______________________________
As to PEACE, well, I believe that that this most ESSENTIAL state is often found to be 'boring', --but not by those ordinary human beings who just want to get on and live their lives, - attending to raising their families, their work and generally surviving, -they are quite happy with peace, but who DOESN'T like a peaceful state of affairs?
Who has a vested interest in wishing for wars ~ and then more war yet?
Answers:
1. Politicians.
It seems as if many politicians upon gaining power, don't really feel like they are truly statesmen (or women) until they have flexed their military muscle and wiped a certain quotient of their fellow human beings off the map. That way they make a bit more of a splash in the history books.
2. The Media.
What sells newspapers? Not a sudden outbreak of peace in some part of the world! No. What sells copious copies of their rags is when disaster strikes, -be it man-made or natural.
For the TV companies and print media, 'bigger is better' - recall the revelling media excesses around 9/11, and the Shock&Awe War, and many another event; - scared people, fascinated people, ghoulish, voyeuristic people in their droves tuned-in to radio, TV, and bought extra copies of journals to view such new events.
= Great for media profits!
3. Hollywood really dislikes peaceful human relationships! TV and movies rarely produce stuff which depicts placidity and beauty. They have successfully led people to expect 'excitement' and 'action' in movies and DRAMAS!
This, -coupled with sex, violence, morbidity, the sordid and squalid, and loads of depictions of human beings *behaving badly* towards one another is the very stuff of 'the entertainment industry' today.
4. And then of course there are then the immoral devils who stalk this planet and are so crazed as to have lost all sight of sanity.
--> We call them ARMS DEALERS and the MILITARY.
Arms dealers would *hate* to have severe outbreaks of peace occurring all over the planet, their profits would slump and they might then have to seek employment in some useful, helpful, socially beneficial activity.
But until that terrible day dawns, they can continue to sell their vile equipment to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, - regardless of the pain and suffering it causes their fellow beings.
They are the very scum of this earth.
*Profit through pain* is their daily contribution to this already suffering planet and it's peoples.
Then... the MILITARY:
Phew! What a *drag* it would be, if they had ALL those expensive toys just sitting around in hangars, bunkers and store rooms, but never getting used!
= BORING!
They would doubtless feel terribly depressed and emasculated if they couldn't get to play with their nice shiny hi-tech toys now and again. It spoils their fun if they can't get to SHOOT and BOMB living targets once in a while!
-Oh yeah, it has a BIT of a downside, -in that we aren't supposed to REALLY be killing people without any true cause, but hey, --if the Big Daddy of your government says "It's okay to go out and kill lotsa people today", -then who are we to argue? We have a JOB to do! Our job is [-snicker] *defence*! (spelled: O-F-F-E-N-C-E).
So, -many human beings who have seriously 'lost the plot' are drenching the consciousnesses of their fellow beings (especially children) with daily depictions of violence and gore and deadful nastiness, and basically saying: "It's quite natural and acceptable that anyone kills anyone for whatever pretext we feel like inventing."
~ What a bunch of barbarians! This is the credo of the Neanderthal, -with the ethics of Lucifer, -it is the actions of the dangerously psychotic.
And the sheeple viewers / consumers drink it all in and become saturated with the gore and lack of reason, lack of morality, lack of ethics, lack of sanity... and if there isn't a goodly quota of addictive death and destruction, brute violence and *UGLY* human behaviour served up with their TV dinners, then they feel quite cheated! - "Man, this is so LAME! Gimme that remote control, -what else is on?"
=======================
Obviously this ruinous downward spiral cannot continue.
This depraved mess has to stop before we all descend into a hell-on-earth of our, and our leader's making.
And if it doesn't stop through our own volition, then Nature and 'the Gods' will pull the plug to some degree or another, and the naughty children who are very much hearing-impaired when it comes to living in accordance with what humanity's Teachers have always taught, will then learn through some rather painful lessons instead...
But happily this is not a fait accompli as yet.
We still have enough time (and the means) to change it all around.
We DO have the ability and will to help shift human consciousnesses away from the cul-de-sac of empty material excess and sordid, immoral, lies, decadence, cynicism, and UGLY human behaviour...
~~~~ and towards the creative, the beautiful, the loving, the uplifting and inspiring, the true, the spiritual, the harmonious and sustainable ways of living.
Whatever some dismal cynics (and vested interests) might say about that outlook, I believe it IS, (actually) very much achievable, - but only when we pull our fingers out and decide that darkness will NOT win out over Light, and that this Earth and the people on it, really ARE worth saving, --just at the expense of a little self-sacrifice, therein lies an important key to all effective, beneficial change methinks.
I'd not be too quick to ascribe war or the love of war to "human nature," any more than it's "human nature" to eat junk food.
Certainly, conflicts seem inevitable. But how you deal with those conflicts varies culturally.
I believe all healthy human beings seek pleasure and life-enhancing joy and it is only when positive/constructive means of experiencing pleasure are thwarted, that human beings can LEARN to derive pleasure from destructive behaviours.
(If you'd like to delve into this a little, have a look at THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS by Eric Fromm. He states the case better than I ever could.)
In any case, I think people are TAUGHT war. I think they can be taught peace, too.
Just my opinion.
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
US capitalism views the commoner as a human resource to be exploited or as consumers whose only value is to gobble up the crap advertisers tell us we need.
In a world run by cutthroat scumbag businessmen do you think the word peace should even be in the dictionary?
SPARTACUS JONES & UNCOMMON DREAMS: Righteous points! Whenever the media's focus on violence, or a superficial analysis of history leads so-called experts to the "conclusion" that human nature is inescapably violent, it's bull shit. Since 80% of a population are veritable sheep, then what they are fed in the way of programming significantly factors into the behaviors expressed. Media could lift awareness by depicting dramas that demonstrate problem solving through new initiatives of a cooperative nature. How often are such items seen? Taste is conditioned to the Roman Arena level of brute force, then too often society reflects those "values" and the vicious circle continues AS IF it accounts for a true testament of what and who we are.
Sjc if you think "liberals" are less likely to go to war then Repigs you are kidding yourself, Madeline Albright Clinton's Secretary of State said "What's the use of having the best military in the world if we don't use it."
http://www.google.com/search?q=Albright+what%27s+the+use+of+the+military+ifwe+don%27t+use+it&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
One day hopefully "liberals" we will wake up and realize both parties are puppets of the war mongering military industrial complex. Remember it was "liberals" that brought us Vietnam, aid to Suharto's murderous regieme in Indonesia, etc.