In Harmonium

Posted By Marc on November 13, 2009

One of the things that is often forgotten these days is why people fight – not nations, not governments; people.  All to often, especially during long conflicts with not actual “fighting” in a homeland, we forget and dismiss the conflicts and blame those who go to do the fighting as being “war mongers” and “myrmidons” who fight for vested interests.

I am not saying that one should, or must, support any given war or conflict.  What I am saying is that one who blindly assumes an attitude that anyone who fights is a “war monger” and, hence, “less than human”, is a) morally equivalent to a racist, sexist or religious bigot, and b) is, at the level of social movement tactics, a complete and utter fool.

Such an attitude, which I have heard all too often, is both facile and, quite frankly, extremely insulting in the same manner as racial, sexual and religious slurs.  It involves exactly the same dynamic as underlies racism, sexism and religious bigotry; an attitude of “If you do (or are) X, then you must be less than human”.  Such an attitude may be excusable in small children who don’t know any better, but I find it inexcusable in people who should know better.

At the level of social movement tactics, this type of attitude can work and I will point to several examples where it has worked, at least in the short run.  Consider the Rise of the NAZI party in Germany in the 1930′s.  This tactic was used extremely successfully to equate a segment of German society with a social “cancer”.  Another excellent example lies in the use of the same tactic by the Pol Pot regime.  If the historical record has anything to show us, it is the social and ethical costs of using this tactic.

While the tactic itself may have “worked” in the short run, why do I say that holding the attitude at the level of social movement tactics marks one as a fool?  That is simple; consider who carried out the logical conclusions of that attitude?  Are the same people willing to become the stereotypes they despise?  Much as it grieves me to say it, all too often they have been historically, and they are not bound by the same moral codes of those they “replace” (usually by massacre).

No democratic society can survive the fervent application of such an attitude, and individuals who get “swept up” in it on either side pay the price.  And yet, that can be avoided by the application of two simple, yet powerful, ideas.  First, agree to disagree.  Second, see individuals and not collectivities and listen to them.  You will not always agree with them, but the very act of listening and talking will help you to avoid abrogating “perfection” to yourself.  As Cromwell once said “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” (3 August 1650 to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland).

Let me return to where I started, which was why people, not nations, fight.  I won’t try to give you any answers to that, but I would recommend a video that, in my opinion, exemplifies the attitude I believe should be taken (with a hat tip to John Fishel).

Category: Ethics, Social Theatre
Tags: attitudes, remembrance day, why people fight