Balm in Gilead
18-04-2006, 17:56
I just finished watching a pretty cool DVD in which Howard Zinn talks about human nature and the urge for war. He argues a pretty strong case against the latter, despite the current climate and that of thousands of years past.
I'd be interested to hear from others regarding their thoughts on Zinn's perspectives.
Human Nature and Aggression
The Urge for War?
From Howard Zinn “You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train”
In any discussion on war, at a certain point, somebody will say, “Oh well, it’s human nature.”
People talk of the desire for young men and women to go to war. The thrill for young men and women to shoot their guns to kill. Zinn, a WWII veteran himself stated that if you were to ask veterans who shot or dropped bombs on the enemy, they’ll tell you, it did not come from inside. You don’t hear them saying, “Oh God, how good it would be to kill some people today!”
There was no spontaneous urge to kill, even though they were the enemy.
Where it came from, simply, was training. And people were told, “It was a good war. We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys. Bad if they won, good if we win. We gotta drop the bombs, so we’ll do it, and do it as well as we can.”
Zinn tells us that, “When you study history and history of wars, something becomes clear to you, and that is:
· Wars don’t take place out of a rush of a population demanding war. It’s the leaders who demand war. It’s the leaders who demand for it and prepare the population for it.
· In WW1, you didn’t have the American people clamoring for the US to go to war. Not at all. If anything, it was the opposite. That’s why Widrow Wilson, while campaigning in 1916 – the war was already on (1914-18) – and the question was, “Will the US get into it?”
· Wilson, knowing it would be a popular thing to say, said “No. We are not going to go to war.”
· He’s elected
· And then, almost immediately, calls upon the nation to go to war.
· But the nation doesn’t respond immediately. If there was a spontaneous urge to kill, why would we need a draft? Why wouldn’t we just take advantage of that natural desire of people to kill, and give them an opportunity? But no…
You have to do 2 things to mobilize an army for war…
1) You have to persuade them that this is a good thing to do. A noble thing to do. And you have to work very hard to persuade them, because after all, people are going to be risking their lives. So, in WW1 a massive propaganda campaign was mounted by the Wilson Administration. So 1 – have a propaganda campaign.
2) You have coercion. The Draft. And the punishment. If you’re neither seduced by the propaganda, or compelled to go by the draft, and if you resist, you go directly to jail.
Coercion: the act of compelling by force of authority 2: using force to cause something;
Propensity: A natural disposition, tendency or inclination. A disposition to behave in a certain way; "the propensity of disease to spread" [syn: aptness]
So, it takes very powerful individuals and threats to mobilize the young population of the nation for war. And if you had a spontaneous urge for war, you wouldn’t have to do that.
Is there any scientific evidence that can refute that? Is there an instinct for human aggression? If you talk about propensity for aggression, it is the environment that determines whether any kind of propensity for aggression is acted out.
And also the word, “aggression” – is a very ambiguous term. Because you can take out your aggressions in many ways. You don’t have to take it out by killing people.
(It’s all subject to environmental circumstances.)
What’s clear is that there was a very important political consequence of this belief in human nature as a basis for war and violence. Because the consequences of believing that wars come about as the result of human nature, is to place the blame for wars, on individual people – the citizenry.
And to take away the blame from the leaders of the nation who are driving the country into war. Which is why they use the term “human nature”.
This idea is so deeply ingrained in people, and it has this insidious effect, of turning their attention away from the policy makers, towards themselves.
It’s like telling the poor that, “You’re poor because of your own faults, not because you live in a society in which the wealth is distributed very unjustly.”
I'd be interested to hear from others regarding their thoughts on Zinn's perspectives.
Human Nature and Aggression
The Urge for War?
From Howard Zinn “You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train”
In any discussion on war, at a certain point, somebody will say, “Oh well, it’s human nature.”
People talk of the desire for young men and women to go to war. The thrill for young men and women to shoot their guns to kill. Zinn, a WWII veteran himself stated that if you were to ask veterans who shot or dropped bombs on the enemy, they’ll tell you, it did not come from inside. You don’t hear them saying, “Oh God, how good it would be to kill some people today!”
There was no spontaneous urge to kill, even though they were the enemy.
Where it came from, simply, was training. And people were told, “It was a good war. We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys. Bad if they won, good if we win. We gotta drop the bombs, so we’ll do it, and do it as well as we can.”
Zinn tells us that, “When you study history and history of wars, something becomes clear to you, and that is:
· Wars don’t take place out of a rush of a population demanding war. It’s the leaders who demand war. It’s the leaders who demand for it and prepare the population for it.
· In WW1, you didn’t have the American people clamoring for the US to go to war. Not at all. If anything, it was the opposite. That’s why Widrow Wilson, while campaigning in 1916 – the war was already on (1914-18) – and the question was, “Will the US get into it?”
· Wilson, knowing it would be a popular thing to say, said “No. We are not going to go to war.”
· He’s elected
· And then, almost immediately, calls upon the nation to go to war.
· But the nation doesn’t respond immediately. If there was a spontaneous urge to kill, why would we need a draft? Why wouldn’t we just take advantage of that natural desire of people to kill, and give them an opportunity? But no…
You have to do 2 things to mobilize an army for war…
1) You have to persuade them that this is a good thing to do. A noble thing to do. And you have to work very hard to persuade them, because after all, people are going to be risking their lives. So, in WW1 a massive propaganda campaign was mounted by the Wilson Administration. So 1 – have a propaganda campaign.
2) You have coercion. The Draft. And the punishment. If you’re neither seduced by the propaganda, or compelled to go by the draft, and if you resist, you go directly to jail.
Coercion: the act of compelling by force of authority 2: using force to cause something;
Propensity: A natural disposition, tendency or inclination. A disposition to behave in a certain way; "the propensity of disease to spread" [syn: aptness]
So, it takes very powerful individuals and threats to mobilize the young population of the nation for war. And if you had a spontaneous urge for war, you wouldn’t have to do that.
Is there any scientific evidence that can refute that? Is there an instinct for human aggression? If you talk about propensity for aggression, it is the environment that determines whether any kind of propensity for aggression is acted out.
And also the word, “aggression” – is a very ambiguous term. Because you can take out your aggressions in many ways. You don’t have to take it out by killing people.
(It’s all subject to environmental circumstances.)
What’s clear is that there was a very important political consequence of this belief in human nature as a basis for war and violence. Because the consequences of believing that wars come about as the result of human nature, is to place the blame for wars, on individual people – the citizenry.
And to take away the blame from the leaders of the nation who are driving the country into war. Which is why they use the term “human nature”.
This idea is so deeply ingrained in people, and it has this insidious effect, of turning their attention away from the policy makers, towards themselves.
It’s like telling the poor that, “You’re poor because of your own faults, not because you live in a society in which the wealth is distributed very unjustly.”