War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges

[Combanitorics]

Over he past few weeks I've been reading the book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges, a New York Times war correspondent.  He talks through several major modern conflicts in this book, including WWI and the Falklands War. 

One of the major threads in his work deals with conflict in the former Yugoslavia.  He states that the conflict was manufactured by people who wished to become national leaders by exaggerating the ethnic differences between Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs, which he describes as being in fact minimal.  In essence, Hedges is stating that the Yugoslav war created the very ethnic groups who fought in it, even as the leaders used ethnic rhetoric to motivate the continuation of the war.  A cycle of cause and effect.

From an evolutionary perspective, what is your view of this take on the Yugoslav conflict?  It is most commonly thought that war is caused by nationalism, but here, the author is definitely asserting that the ethinic groups in conflict are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable, and that even the languages they speak are so alike that the leaders who advocated the conflict needed to force the languages to evolve in order to make them actually different.

Do you think that war is caused by nationalism yourself, or do you think that perhaps nationalism is caused by war, and that war is simply the group proactively practicing the survival of the fittest?  Do you think that the Orthodox and Muslim religions in the area may have more to do with it than the author seems to believe?   Knowing what you know about the communist history of Yugoslavia, how do you think that the relationship between race and nationalism, and the philosophy of Karl Marx may have influenced the events in the former Yugoslavia?

Finally, do you believe that war truly "gives meaning", in the sense that there are things about people, national groups, and times in history which simply cannot be explained except in the context of humanity's wars? 

I was in my early 20's when 9/11 occured, and I grant that character was still being shaped at that age.  I would be different had there been no war, but I don't feel that there has really been a war which "gave me meaning" in any positive sense of the word.

You?

[Minimalist]

I think Gibbon nailed it.

“As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.”

― Edward Gibbon

[Combanitorics]

I think Gibbon nailed it.

“As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.”

― Edward Gibbon

I seem to remember reading that quote in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is basically a Tory polemic against the revolution, written at exactly the same time as the revolution was being fought.   Where do you stand on that?  Were George Washington and co. "exalted characters" thirsting for military glory, or was the race of English people competing amongst itself to see who constituted the fittest part to survive.  Did the American Revolution bring about a split in the race of English people, as Churchill states in The History of the English Speaking People?  Did it create new ethnic subsets?  Did the war in Yugoslavia effectively create new ethnic subsets where there were none before?

[abaris]

At some time, roughly when the Iraq madness started, I read about Americans naming their idols. Generals. Not people like Gore Vidal, Truman Capote or any other writer, artist or philosopher. Says a lot about people identifying with war. I'm pretty sure, a similar poill wouldn't turn out that different in France, Britain or Germany. Personally I find that pukeworthy, since every nations has brains. Identifying with brawns is declaring intellectual bankrupcy.

[Combanitorics]

At some time, roughly when the Iraq madness started, I read about Americans naming their idols. Generals. Not people like Gore Vidal, Truman Capote or any other writer, artist or philosopher. Says a lot about people identifying with war. I'm pretty sure, a similar poill wouldn't turn out that different in France, Britain or Germany. Personally I find that pukeworthy, since every nations has brains. Identifying with brawns is declaring intellectual bankrupcy.

I'm not sure I would name anyone as my "Idol".  One of the people I identify with is Everiste Galois, the French mathematician who proved that there is no formula with which to solve the quintic equation.  Galois died in a duel, possibly related to his participation in the French Revolution, at the age of twenty.  What do you think of people who would name as their "Idol" some pop star or dancer such as appears on the show "American Idol"? Are such people also intellectually bankrupt?

[Minimalist]

The American Revolution substituted one propertied aristocracy for another.  Yes, I do think Washington sought military glory and was shocked out of his mind when he finally got to see his "army."  He worked long and hard to get them into shape and still if not for French assistance would have failed.

Oddly, or perhaps not, the argument used by the Founding Fathers to get the commons to fight was basically the same as that used 80+ years later by another propertied aristocracy in the Confederacy to get them to risk their lives to benefit the slave owner class.  Humans always seem to fall for that shit.

[abaris]

What do you think of people who would name as their "Idol" some pop star or dancer such as appears on the show "American Idol"? Are such people also intellectually bankrupt?

I would call them ignorant. But not as repugnant as someone taking a general as their role model. A general is only needed when some society already has declared intellectual bankrupcy.

[Combanitorics]

What do you think of people who would name as their "Idol" some pop star or dancer such as appears on the show "American Idol"? Are such people also intellectually bankrupt?

I would call them ignorant. But not as repugnant as someone taking a general as their role model. A general is only needed when some society already has declared intellectual bankrupcy.

One evening as I was watching some TV I saw Brittney Spears giving a USO concert to the Navy.  I regret to report that the affair did not appear cerebral.

[Anomalocaris]

At some time, roughly when the Iraq madness started, I read about Americans naming their idols. Generals. Not people like Gore Vidal, Truman Capote or any other writer, artist or philosopher. Says a lot about people identifying with war. I'm pretty sure, a similar poill wouldn't turn out that different in France, Britain or Germany. Personally I find that pukeworthy, since every nations has brains. Identifying with brawns is declaring intellectual bankrupcy.

Real war is hardly merely brawn. In many ways it can systematically broaden and heightens the performance of the brains to some level considerably above what the brains can attain in ordinary circumstances.

[Combanitorics]

The American Revolution substituted one propertied aristocracy for another.  Yes, I do think Washington sought military glory and was shocked out of his mind when he finally got to see his "army."  He worked long and hard to get them into shape and still if not for French assistance would have failed.

Oddly, or perhaps not, the argument used by the Founding Fathers to get the commons to fight was basically the same as that used 80+ years later by another propertied aristocracy in the Confederacy to get them to risk their lives to benefit the slave owner class.  Humans always seem to fall for that shit.

How do you think that the new aristocracy formed?  Was its location in America more important, given natural resources and the ability of the colonists to gain more money in that place or at that time, or was the intellectual formation of the revolutionary ideal the paramount factor?