A Tad Bit ‘Bout Life

Recently, I finished the book What If?, which is made up of a series of essays on what could of happened in certain military campaigns. It describes how a single death, a split-second decision, or an action can affect the outcome of history. It is written by some of the most famous military historians, such as Stephen E. Ambrose, John Keegan, David McCullough, and James M. McPherson, among others. It mentions very interesting points, such as what the outcome would have been if the Romans had successfully repelled the ambush at Teutonberg Forest, where the Romans lost 18,000 men to the barbarian Germanic tribes, as well as questioning what would have happened if D-Day had failed.

 In the matter of Teutonberg Forest, it goes on to describe how one battle could change the history of the English and German-speaking world. It states that had the battle been favorable to the Romans, they would have continued to advance into Germany, bringing with them culture, amphitheatres, public baths, and libraries. The author of this essay believes that had Germany (the tribes at the time called the Furor Teutonics) not defeated the Romans, conflicts such as WWI and WWII, would most likely not have occurred. The explanation is complicated but logical. The Romans would have had all of Europe under their command, and when/ or if the empire collapsed, all the lands would have a relatively constant culture, that of the Romans. This would leave fewer things to argue and quarrel about.  

What If? is a brilliant and scholarly book, yet fit for general reading. It is extremely interesting (otherwise, I, as a 14-year-old, I wouldn’t have read it). It answers many (20) questions, all related to diplomatic and military “what ifs.” A must-read for any avid history reader.

In the Crusades, Christian knights set forth to eradicate and kill the pagan Muslims and recapture the Holy City of Jerusalem, all in the name of God.  Besides braking God’s Will (violation of the 6th Testament “Thou Shalt not Kill”) they are killing innocent (bloodthirsty and armed) Arabic peoples. Is the slaughter involved justified by the fact that they are acting on God’s behalf?

Another example that shows this was the American Revolution. Is it justifiable that thousands of British and Rebel soldiers, as well as innocent bystanders were killed, in the name of liberty?

 It is all a matter of personal morals as well as values. The first example was, I believe, a miserable idea, in almost all senses. On the other hand, fighting for Libertas, if the cause is genuine and fair, is (to a certain limit) justifiable. An example of this, as well as the American Revolution, is of the Hungarian rebellion against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This is an excerpt describing just that, from Wikipedia: 

“The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the Stalinist government of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until 10 November 1956.^[3] It began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast their demands was detained. When the delegation’s release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police (ÁVH) from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital.

The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police (ÁVH) and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the Communist Party, and demanded political changes. The new government formally disbanded the ÁVH, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and pledged to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, fighting had almost stopped and a sense of normality began to return.

After announcing a willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Politburo changed its mind and moved to crush the revolution. On 4 November, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest. Hungarian resistance continued until 10 November. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died, and 200,000 more fled as refugees. Mass arrests and denunciations continued for months thereafter. By January 1957, the new Soviet-installed government had suppressed all public opposition. These Soviet actions alienated many Western Marxists, yet strengthened Soviet control over Central Europe, cultivating the perception that communism was both irreversible and monolithic.Public discussion about this revolution was suppressed in Hungary for over 30 years, but since the thaw of the 1980s it has been a subject of intense study and debate. At the inauguration of the Third Hungarian Republic in 1989, 23 October was declared a national holiday.“ As you can see, this event was tragic, but the uprising was justifiable (even though the Hungarians lost). The Hungarians stood up for a noble cause: that of freedom, democracy, and nationalism. The Hungarians are proud and patriotic peoples, and were the only Russian client states that rebelled and temporarily expelled the Russians.  Violence is an unpleasant factor, but it is justified by a good cause. Of course, a different way must always be at least attempted, for example, diplomacy. This isn’t always possible, as has been demonstrated innumerable times in the past. Strangely, war has always been attractive to most humans. “Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war.” – Homer.  

I have included a few quotes related to war that I have found interesting:

“We kind o’ thought Christ went wagin war an’ pillage.” – James Russel Lowell

“I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war.” – George W. Bush

“You can’t say civilization don’t advance — for in every war, they kill you in a new way.” – Will Rogers

“We make war so that we may live in peace” – Aristotle

Is it Mother Nature? It must be, as she unleashes storms, droughts, tornados, hurricanes, and all those cataclysms on us. Well, sorry to say this, but…Wrong. We, as humans, are our own biggest enemies.

How eccentric. Why should we be our own greatest enemy? That makes little sense. Unfortunately, though, every bit reflects truth. We fight wars against each other. We kill ourselves for politicians, intolerant religions, and plain, pathetic prejudice. Look at Ireland. The peoples of Ireland have been killing each other since 1155, when the English annexed them, forming Great Britain, along with Scotland and Wales. Why? Over squabbles of Protestant and Catholic religion. It is, I believe, a shame, that the Irish Protestants and Catholics must fight amongst themselves, rather than keep away from each other. Ireland could be a much more beautiful place (It already is), and the hatred among the people wouldn’t exist. Another example is Africa.

I have lost all my respect for Africa because of the ridiculous wars being waged. They have no resources, yet they easily manage to slaughter each other. Africa could be a developed continent, with brilliant people, incredible architecture and excellent government-systems, but instead, it is a war-ravaged region, with little other than death, dying, and the hungry. This proves that mankind’s biggest enemy is man. Africa has delayed or maybe even completely destroyed its development because of the yapping of a few political heads. I would think that the people are sick of fighting, but definitely not the political leaders. They will have a go at each other for the next decade.

We are supreme as humans. We are the top of the food chain. Nobody snacks on us (in exception of a few sharks, crocs, and maybe a lion or two). Yet millions of people die every day. We kill each other in subtle forms, such as cigarettes, drugs, food poisoning, unhealthy ingredients, and through our reckless treatment of our host, Mother Nature. Alone from tobacco-related products, 5 million people die every year worldwide (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL0987501220071109?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews). Imagine-in ten years, 50,000,000 people will die. That is 5/6 of the UK’s population (60,776,238). Deaths due to cigarette smoking excede the combined killing power of alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs. It is clear that smoking needs to be eliminated. Adding to that, it proves my rather glum point. 

I think it is time for us to negotiate a ceasefire.

Violence is a terrible, yet universal thing. Is it inherently a part of you? Are you naturally driven to violence? Many sources (including myself) believe that yes, it is part of human nature. Why? There are several answers to this rather puzzling question. Look at animals.

Animals’ lives revolve around violence. Dogs, cats, rats, bats, horses, giraffes, lions, and all other kinds of animals fight amongst themselves over food, mates, social status, and everything or anything they might jointly encounter. As an example, I have selected a situation to which I can easily relate.

I happen to have six dogs at home, and my household is always on edge because of these hairy beasts. There are four rottweilers, a boxer-rottweiler mix, and a labrador-street cross. Of the four rottweilers, two are males, and must be kept apart. To solve this problem, we now have two garden sections: front and back, split apart by a tall fence. The next problem is on side A, in which there are two rottweilers, a castrated male and a female. These always quarrel over insignificant things, and one of them, the female (named Stasi, after the East German secret police, in an attempt to make her an intimidating creature) crowned herself Queen, and is highly restrictive to the male, forbidding him to bark at certain passer-by’s, and to eat without her “royal” permission. On the other side, though, things are quite different. The senior rottweiler on that side is called Baloo (after the bear in the Jungle Book), and he is extremely friendly with both dogs and humans, a rather rare combination. The junior rottweiler is Grunter, an absolutely hyperactive pest, who spends her life bugging others. Her constant “bugging” of others resulted in a quarrel, and one of the dogs (Mutt, a rather fierce canine, yet full of dignity, which we picked up at the dog shelter, was the outcome of crossing a labrador and a street dog) residing on side B needed to be given protection from the little devil. Our dogs, as well as all other dogs, are constantly engaged in violent activities, whether as play, or in serious “social” grabs to canine power. We humans, according to the Theory of Evolution, hypothesized by Charles Darwin, are related to animals, though in a rather vague sense. This makes us animals, though civilized and advanced, but nevertheless animals.    

     Another addition to the theory that humans are inherently violent is the idea that all humans (yes, you, me, and the world) are violent, but the difference that makes a person “non-violent” (not theoretically or practically possible, but by modern means true) is with what power he suppresses his violence. People with flaring tempers are, according to this theory, weak-minded. To have the ability to control and release one’s temper might not be an easy thing, but it is absolutely possible. Some people cannot be provoked or offended because they learn to control and cover their emotions. This is, I believe, becoming a thing of the past. It seems that swallowing pain, honourable as it is, is “out.” It seems to be all the rage to weep and scream, and to allow the testosterone to erupt into an angry ball of fire. Physicians say this is “healthy”, but I believe that it is nonsense. I admire the people that control their feelings. People like this have a strong character, as well as very effective emotional defences, allowing no insults to seep through.           

     Some philosophers believe that violence is a due part of evolution, that we fight for survival as beings. Without violence, we (humans) wouldn’t have survived. This is basically “Survival of the Fittest.” The potential of violence is in everyone, states this theory, but it is in certain circumstances where that violence is released, whether permanently, or temporarily.            

     There are many theories that support the idea that violence is part of human nature, but on the other hand, few that oppose it. The only one I could think of or find was the Christian viewpoint on the subject. It is as follows.            

     According to Christian belief (which I ironically happen to belong to), we are all pure when we first come to Earth. It is Satan who provokes acts of violence, and it is our choice whether we listen to him or not. Most people, unfortunately, listen to Satan, and therefore fall in sin. The following matter is indeed highly complicated, and highly ironic. In 1095 A.D., Pope Urban II rallied all those of Christian faith in Europe to drive out the pagan Turks, as a reward promising instant redemption of sin. How could those of Christian faith do exactly what the Christian and Catholic Church were formed against? How could Pope Urban II, the absolute top of the Catholic religion, contradict his position to God, and listen to Satan by engaging in violence, and war? Readers, those of you that are Christian, or know of the Ten Commandments, recall the Sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill…” This is hard to understand. The text itself is clear, but why did the Crusaders kill in the name of God if killing was a mortal sin? They manipulated the words of the Bible, saying that they weren’t killing, but that they were rooting evil, Satan, out of the world by decimating Muslims, and recapturing the Holy City of Jerusalem.

At that time, the Roman Catholic Church was, shamefully, corrupt. They sold pardons, which redempted sin. The funds went into building the Basilica of Saint Peter, the largest Church in the world. Rather shameful, but those times were filled with corruption, pain and death. The Dark Ages were times that are best forgotten, or maybe used as a remembrance of the anarchy of the time, and a lesson to future generations. It is an ironic thing that I, writing of all these atrocities, am Catholic. I am a firm believer, but I am open to other reasonable ideas. It is said that religion is a controversial matter, and therefore, I wish not, and will not get into it any further.            

     This all , I hope, has given you (other than a cracking head-ache) an insight of the controversies of the world, and of why I believe violence is inherent to human nature. If you have anything to argue (please not about religious technicalities if you could), please do. Thank you.