Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7540038.stm

With the passing of Alexander Solzhenitsyn I got to thinking about how people can get through things, and how in awe of them I am.

I've just started today, reading 'But I survived', Tadeusz Sobolewicz's account of being in the concentration camps and I am almost moved to tears in parts. It really does put many, many things into deep perspective and is makes me think about who I am, and what I could do, and what I would do in similar situations.

Because I know I'd be one of the first to go.

So, go to library and read.

Ach. The world is full of depressing books dealing with mankind's love of war and the truly horrendous things we do to each other. Birdsong is depressing enough, as are so many books that deal with WWI. I don't mind, no scratch that, I actually quite like books that make me think or reappraise stuff in my life, but depressing books - nah, not a fan of those as the affect that a book has can be lingering and life is shit enough without being reminding what a bunch of spectacularly selfish cunts we're all capable of being under the right circumstances.

I would be more inclined to read a book on the group psychological effects that causes man to behave in such a fashion in the circumstances around these events.

Or failing that, read Catch 22 to smile at the absurdity of it all.

War and man's inhumanity to man is indeed a depressing thing - always has been, always will be. The difference between the 20th/d 21st century and, say, 4th century BC in Thermopylae, say, is that back then the Spartan kids didn't read books about the cool weapons the soldiers used. Our fascination with war these days seems to be largely driven by a sort of military-kit-porn fascination. Something I, with my massive thing about military aeroplanes, am entirely guilty of as well, but there we are.

Still, it does seem odd that we, as kids and then as adults, can be hoplessly fascinated by things which have no purpose other than killing other people. Or perhaps not that odd.

I expect that the kids back then heard tales of war and played games emulating their heroes. This obsession with fighting and vanquishing foes has to be one of our most basic evolutionary traits. But try telling that to an insufferable hippy who thinks that everything natural is good and everything to do with mankind is bad.

IF YOU LET YOUR KIDS PLAY WIHT TOY GUNS YOU'RE A MURDERER AND WORSE THAN HITLER.

If you don't let kids play with guns, they make them out of sticks or rocks and pretend.

Yes, I think you're right - it seems to be something hardwired into boys.

A broom handle, chopped in half, combined with 2 BMX grips, makes 2 excellent 'swords' for yourself and your brother to twat the fuck out of stuff/each other.

Ah the carefree days of youth

For about ten minutes and then we're back to - "Like FUCK is that fair spawning that blue SHIT all over me right next to a black hole. CUNTS"

No weapon of childhood is as deadly or repulsive as a stick dipped in dog shit.

Given that man's nature has been shown to be a constant vying for resources, power, enforcement of ideology, and control, "man's inhumanity to man" is a bit of a nonsensical concept. War and killing are hardly 'inhumanity', as much as we'd like to believe otherwise.

Concentration camps are horrific, but they are an extension of an attempt to enforce an (abhorrent) ideology on a populus by force, which is nothing new.

When you're young and idealistic, it's perfectly easy to think that all 6 billion of us are just one big bunch of bunnyhuggers. When you realise that we aren't, and that force is something necessary, it becomes a big shock to a system. Frankly, I'm happy that at the current time we can rely on others to do our dirty work for us, and for that at least we should be greatful.

I think the left in particular has problems with the military and the fact that by necessity military life and norms are different to civilian ones. Most people I know who are into politics, myself at one time included, tend to concentrate on domestic matters and either disregard or show open contempt for defence matters.

I know someone who is heavily involved with pacifist organisations. Whilst I'm sure his forthcoming trip to a certain unstable South American will be a great oppurtunity for him, at the back of back of my mind I wonder what he plans to rely on if things go awry. As the old joke has it, God made mankind but it took Sam Colt to make men equal.


Dam it my 14 year old self would be most disappointed with how I've changed....

War is like so whatever.

I see what you're trying to do, but it depends how you define "humanity", of course. Most peopls define it by reference to humanity's good points.



True, but so what?

"Say what you like about national socialism, Dude, but at least it was an ideology".

Well indeed - but they shouldn't. Humanity is acting like a human.

I like to think normal, baseline humans act like nice people, not like Pol Pot.

However, I appreciate you may have a different view on this, what with living in London and all.

Look at the last 2000 years of our history. If you can name a century without a war in it somewhere across the globe, I'll concede that humanity doesn't refer to being agressive, selfish, and warlike. It's not necessarily an offensive description, it's an anthropological observation.

Wars are started by a dozen or two people, not by everyone. Germany didn't invade Poland because the entire of Germany rocked up at the Reichstag and asked Hitler to declare war for them. He did it by himself, with the counsel of a handful of people.

Most people who end up fighting in wars would rather they hadn't happened.

You're defining "humanity" on the basis of the actions of a tiny number of people.

We are, of course, not including people who post in YouTube comments as part of "humanity" for the purposes of this discussion.

Humanity in that sense perhaps refers to our species' possibly unique trait of self-awareness and the ability that this gives us to act in ways not consistent with our instincts, to exhibit true altruism for instance. That is why certain acts are described as inhumane because they are a denial of the responsibility that this trait carries with it.

And the support of millions.

"Support". Yes. "Disagree and we'll kill you" is a good way of obtaining "support".

And besides, remember that the German people were lied to about why Poland was invaded. It was spun as a defence of the German ethnic minority. What did not happen was:

Hitler: "Let's invade and kill those sub-human Polish motherfuckers and steal all their land!"
German populace: "Aroo!"

If there was a crisis and the call went up for 100,000 to join up, could you resist? As you went about your daily life, saying farewell to an increasingly number of your peers as each day passed, would you stay long out of uniform, even if the cause was rotten?

And if I did answer the call, out of a concern for my fellow countrymen, would that make me the evil warmongering bastard that Craster thinks we all secretly are? Or someone risking his life for the benefit of others?

Indeed, MrChris - you have mentioned a desire to join the TA, have you not?

We are a people that desires to protect our own, and increase our own. Civilisation merely provides a formal structure around those desires, and warfare is part of that.

You are confusing evil warmongering bastard with person acting in accordance with basic desires to protect and acquire. I haven't mentioned evil once.

Mr Chris, thanks, not MrChris, you irritating little so and so.



Indeed, out of a desire to help protect people. But that's not the point. What I was disagreeing with is your assertion that:



Which is wrong.



No. 99.999% of the people in a country wouldn't suggest that they invade a neighour to nick their iPods.



You've implied it:




Declaring war is the act of, as I've said, a handful of people. Not the country as a whole. And whilst I agree that "humanity is acting like a human", it's erroneous to use the fact that we've had lots of wars as evidence that part of the characteristics of the entire human race is to wage war on one another. It isn't. That's the act of a few. And once you're then in those wars, the people actually fighting them didn't have a choice about it - so you can hardly say that countries being at war with each other and people being in the army is evidence that "fighting and killing and acquiring etc etc etc" is part of "being human". It isn't. And those people fighting in that war are not doing it out of some supposed basic instinct to "acquire". They're there because they were told to by the man at the top, and all that soldier in the army cares about is not getting shot.

So - acting like a human != wanting to invade other countries and have big fights and potentially get shot and maimed.

I think you two should have a fight about it

I may invade Stroud. For altruistic reasons, natch.

So you are saying that wars are started by evil people, without the support of the populous? That's an interestingly naive viewpoint. Tell me the Vikings were dragged along by force on their conquests. Tell me the people fighting the crusades didn't want to be there. Tell me boxing is a popular spectator sport because it is an impressive display of athletic ability.

What you are saying though is a bit like saying that because people cheat at sports that the term "sportsmanship" refers to cheating. The term humanity is to some extent based on what should be, not what is.

Why should the word humanity be aspirational, when the words animalistic, bestial etc are insulting? It's incredibly arrogant of us.

The words "animalistic" and "bestial" only very rarely apply to things you'd find any non-human animal or beast doing, though. Which might actually be your point now I think about it.

Yes, largely. The Germans weren't all gunning for the death and destruction of their neighbours. Once you've got the apparatus of an "evil" state, everyone lives in fear of everyone above them in the civilisation's structure, and so will do whatever the people at the top tell them. People go along with what they're told out of fear for their safety.

Ultimately it's the man at the top making the decisions, so it's them that's doing the war waging, not anyone else.



Quite possibly the threat of force, but there we are. But they didn't have this "apparatus of civilisation" you're talking of. They had a boss man, who said "we go rape and pillage". The boys did as they were told. I'm sure a number of them enjoyed it, but you can bet your ass that the larger number of people who were the rapees and pillagees didn't enjoy it, and would be massively unlikely to have decided to go off and do some of their own at some point previously.

There have always been far fewer people who willingly commit violence than those who don't. They're always the exception. That's why we have these notions of what it is to be a "good" person. Because it's the norm that's civilised.

Again, you can't use the tiny minority from history who have willingly chosen to wage war or commit violence as evidence that the majority are cunts too and that it's actually that the well-behaved people who are the unusual ones who aren't acting according to what you think their default state is.

By that logic we're all criminals who haven't gotten round to it yet.



Robin Hood didn't. Most of the people fighting the Crusades were conscripts, remember. Given the choice between going off to the Holy Land and staying at home growing interestingly shaped turnips almost all of them would have chosen the latter. But they had no choice

Look, There have been a lot of wars, but to use that as evidence of some ingrained characteristic of every single human being on earth wanting to get into a fight to nick their neighbour's stuff is crushingly stupid and shows a massive lack of understanding of how the apparatus of the civilisation you're on about actually works.



Consensual fisticuffsmanship is not at all analagous to war, you utter tool.

Possibly not, but it's a demonstration of a prediliction to violence.

2000+ years of war just doesn't wash to me as 2000+ years of people being gulled. I'm sure the majority of people don't freely wish to engage in killing all the time, but those instincts are still there, it's just the degree of resistance to acting differently to those instincts that we call civilisation.

Still, refer to war as inhuman, and I'll once again laugh in your face.

That's the point, they're not instincts. If they were that would be the default, surely? As it is people have to be convinced to join the army and kill people. And convinced hard.



And I'll laugh back at you, but mournfully and in pity for you having such a sad, cynical view of the world.

Humanty is "what it is to be a human", and humans as a rule don't want to be in wars. Sorry, but that's pretty much a TRUFAX, right there. Go do a random survey of any number of people and the majority would rather stay at home eating crisps, whatever the reason for the war.

It's been mentioned here before, but the jolly book entitled 'On Killing' discusses the psychology of war. Can't remember the author, though, and should actually be working rather than musing on death.

No we don't.

We do if you believe the hand-wringing lefties who read the Guardian.

One of the few things I like about the Grauniad is that they do publish stuff by people who aren't exactly in with the editorial line there - Simon Jenkins, for instance.

But Brooker certainnly thinks that all sun readers are racist thugs, though, so I win. But then he's a writer rather than a reader.

I'm not sure what your point was.

That you just called yourself a hand-wringing lefty. And it amused me.

Aaah. I see.

I'm not, though. I'm a big fat Tory, as well you know. Except that I'm in favour of lots of non-Tory things too.

I like to read a good variety of papers, so I can read opinion columns that reinforce what I think but also stuff that challenges me. Or that I can just get annoyed at by how wrong they are.