The unsettling Language of War
For a word that's composed of only three letters, War sure is a strong one. Something human beings supposedly would work the hardest at avoiding, yet paradoxically seems to be the one most commonly used method to resolve conflict. Even more unsettling is that humans seem to be very comfortable doing this.
What do the words, "We are at war." mean to you? What does it stand for, what does it change? It's frightening how thousands of years of progress and intellectual evolution can be erased in the blink of an eye once war is declared, instantly turning humans into primal beings that can only understand basic me=good, you=evil train of thought.
Who hasn't noticed this unsettling trend over the course of history? Once a country goes to war, there's no external (oftentimes no internal either) compromise or middle ground. If you are not with us, then you are the enemy and should be ridiculed and treated as such. Even the anti-war protestors tend to be aggressive and violent (at least vocally). Next time you're at one, listen to their voices. Sometimes, you can't tell them apart. It's frightening.
What's ironic is that nearly all of the world's predominant philosophies and/or religions preach against war, yet their followers tend to be fond of it. It's disturbingly popular among us.
Technically speaking, the *cough* beloved dear leader *cough* George W. Bush was correct when he announced on a aircraft carrier that war was over. That is, if you stand by the standard definition of war; a state of conflict between two sovereign nations.
Does that make the situation in Iraq any less than the 7th layer of hell? No. Why is it failing so badly? And why did the administration not foresee some of the obvious and inevitable problems that they are facing now?
Once the American Army's role changed from "Liberator" to "Occupier", they granted themselves legitimacy that should only be granted to the government of a country. They were allowed to call anyone who fought against them anything but enemy soldiers, instead preferring to call them insurgents and terrorist. Semantics aside, basically what this means is that they don't need to be treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention regarding fair treatment of POWs captured in conflict. Very convenient.
But I digress.
The heart of the matter is that being kind and considerate doesn't get you the recognition that beating up a burglar would. War is strong and peace is weak. Regardless of how anti-war we as a society are, until we learn to change the manner in which we think and speak, war will still be a strong emotional force in our society. We live in a society that is constantly angry and unfulfilled, a place where we utilize the language of conflict and war until we are desensitized by it all, until words mean nothing to us. It's not good for us, or our children, or for the entire world.
What do the words, "We are at war." mean to you? What does it stand for, what does it change? It's frightening how thousands of years of progress and intellectual evolution can be erased in the blink of an eye once war is declared, instantly turning humans into primal beings that can only understand basic me=good, you=evil train of thought.
What's ironic is that nearly all of the world's predominant philosophies and/or religions preach against war, yet their followers tend to be fond of it. It's disturbingly popular among us.
Technically speaking, the *cough* beloved dear leader *cough* George W. Bush was correct when he announced on a aircraft carrier that war was over. That is, if you stand by the standard definition of war; a state of conflict between two sovereign nations.
Does that make the situation in Iraq any less than the 7th layer of hell? No. Why is it failing so badly? And why did the administration not foresee some of the obvious and inevitable problems that they are facing now?
Once the American Army's role changed from "Liberator" to "Occupier", they granted themselves legitimacy that should only be granted to the government of a country. They were allowed to call anyone who fought against them anything but enemy soldiers, instead preferring to call them insurgents and terrorist. Semantics aside, basically what this means is that they don't need to be treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention regarding fair treatment of POWs captured in conflict. Very convenient.
But I digress.
The heart of the matter is that being kind and considerate doesn't get you the recognition that beating up a burglar would. War is strong and peace is weak. Regardless of how anti-war we as a society are, until we learn to change the manner in which we think and speak, war will still be a strong emotional force in our society. We live in a society that is constantly angry and unfulfilled, a place where we utilize the language of conflict and war until we are desensitized by it all, until words mean nothing to us. It's not good for us, or our children, or for the entire world.
Comments
Post a Comment