As we begin our Meanings and Myths of War class, we almost immediately begin to wonder why we start them in the first place. What encourages a group of people to initiate a conflict that ends in bloodshed? A good way of understanding is by observing past conflicts and the motives behind them.
One of the many conflicts we can look at is the First Crusade. The First Crusade was a war that began to halt the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks and to recapture Jerusalem. To help rally an army, Pope Urban II assured Christians that any who died fighting for such a noble cause would be forgiven for their sins. In this case religious belief is what seemed to be the driving motive for this conflict and the eight other ones that occurred afterward. But is it really surprising that men would voluntarily go to war time and time again and commit such heinous crimes after being promised a paradise after death? It's fairly obvious that if a person can be completely absolved of their guilt that they really wouldn't worry to much about the morality of their actions.
War isn't always waged on the foundation of a Religious belief. Other times they're waged on a moral disagreement. Take the American Civil War for example. One motive for the war, although not the only one, was the issue of slavery. The Confederacy, made up of Southern states that supported slavery, fought against the Union, Northern states which sought to halt the expansion of slavery. One side was trying to abolish a crime against mankind while the other sought to keep a comfortable way of life. Of course now we feel that it was definitely necessary to abolish slavery and begin paving the path to true equality, but is it wrong to question how different life would be if the Confederacy had won? After all, history is written by the victor.
Other times the motive for conflict can be out of a sense of competition. During the mid 1880's the European countries squabbled over African territory for the rich resources that could be found there. Although not a war, the Race for Africa turned out to be a competitive mess, leaving the Africans in a worse shape. While the countries were definitely out to get resources for themselves they also did it to deny other countries of the same resource.
The causes for wars are many. Regardless of whether or not we see them as justifiable or not, they always end up leaving someone in ruin and in discontent. Perhaps further on in our discussions we can begin to dig deeper into why humans are so susceptible to conflict as a whole.
7 comments:
i think a lot of people think of the Crusades as a separate type of warfare, in a way... Possibly because it was (i think) one of the only times that a "Western" church actually sanctioned/promoted some serious bloody warfare.
i love the phrase "competitive mess", by the way.
i think you bring up a good question about conflict, and i think part of the answer goes back to the "what are you willing to die for" question. Morality, ethics, belief, all that good stuff--it's something that most people hold very strongly. Often that stuff is stronger than ties to friends or family, and many of us said we would die for family. it says a lot about how much people care about their beliefs.
I like you how you were able to take the ideas we discussed in class and relate them to events that we had not discussed. I also agree with your assertions regarding the First Crusade but find it ironic that people were willing to commit such heinous humanitarian and moral crimes "in the name of God". I know this may sound cheesy, but as I was watching the Discovery channel's new show Warriors, I thought about the same irony of commiting horrible actions in the name of God. The episode was about Cortes, and his quest to spread Christianity in the city of Tenochtitlan. His quest of peacefully implementing Christianity into a foreign culture ends up as a war that completely destroys the city and its people. This made me question how ridiculous ideas and actions can cause wars.
I really like your ideas. One thing you write leaps out at me, "the motive for conflict can be out of a sense of competition." I completely agree with you. I think in most ways, the motive for any conflict is competition. In all the examples you use, competition is at the root of all the conflicts. Yes, the type of competition is different each time. War is the physical manifestation of that competition. Fighting to outlive an enemy is a competition. While the essence of your post is that there are many causes of war, which you clearly demonstrate, I think, more importantly, you point out that the motives of conflict/ war, and the act of war itself, is a competition. And, one side wins while the other loses.
I find it very ironic how often "morality" is used as a means to justify war. If you are able to convince soldiers that god wants you to kill the opposition, you can have a very successful and loyal army. God is the ultimate propaganda push to convince people that war is a necessary and honorable part of life. God has a great universal appeal that people seem to admire and respect above all else. If a man believes he is fighting for god, he is willing to die for that same god.
I thought god was supposed to create peace in the world, but it seems many wars and battles are fought in his name. Everyone wants god on their side in a war, because death can come at any time.
Religion can play a huge part in any war. Not so much in the Iliad, but a belief, which could be considered a religion back then, but they believe in gods and there powers, and they do play a part in the Trojan War therefore placing religion as a part of a war. You also have to look at why people are willing to fight in a war, or what they are willing to die for. Some people are willing to die for their religion so if they believe that their is religion is threaten then they believe that it is their responsibility to fight for their values and beliefs.
Nothing here I can really disagree on - I feel that your opinion is great and that these points are valid. I think that Religiously motivated war will actually decrease as time goes on, especially after the war on terror. I feel that every war is going to be political or economic motivation
Maybe I was wrong on some of my other comments, since there are so many causes - is war always going to be inevitable?
5000, the one thing that stuck out to me in your blog was when you said, "the victor gets to write history." About 99% of the time, that's correct. However you mention it in reference to the Civil War. I'm not sure if you had the pleasure of having Mr. Flemming as a teacher but he, on several occasions, mentioned that in the Civil War, the south actually got to write the history. He said that, for some reason, southerners have been able to tell their side of the story moreso than northerners. Just an interesting point I thought applied here.
Post a Comment