|
|
|
|
Usually violence is the quickest method to resolve controversies. The war is certainly "the noblest" way to act, the most total; it is universally considered as the mother of all disasters and is, without doubt, the most "effective" method to resolve problems: why? It's obvious: we are accustomed to "have" always something more; so this pushes us to get more (some time with any means). This is probably not just a cultural problem or an issue of our mentality - it may be just a naturally inherent in us. (think everybody ...just think). But let's go on and look for understanding of what can push us to war, not necessarily covering all the reasons, but simply to give it an element of consideration.
The dear professor knew more than all of us! With his critical approach he aroused our curiosity for a new subject be it a current event or historical or philosophical argument in the way a housewife is attracted to her favorite soap-opera (no offense to housewives)! Dear Mike we will be always grateful to you for your teaching! But let's come back our problem and let's think about:
To use a coloured expression we can say that they are the classic two "cockerels in the same hen-house"; in this case, as you know, it's never morning (imagine if they are more then two cockerels). This is the first consideration!
They may never be the same. You can have a territorial claim or the expropriation of goods; somebody may want to preserve or acquire economic interest or affect the political or economic environment and so on to Agamemnon and Hector who caused a war over a woman or Abel and Cain who competed for God's "attention". In all cases there is always somebody who has something and somebody else who attempts to take it away.
It's life's eternal competition ... I don't think it can be attributed again to a problem of pure survival as we have done the basest things in the name of ... every thing that can strike one’s imagination. In this way Hitler sold myth of the master race and Germans drank it easily. The USA is fighting all over the world to defend freedom as nobody understands that under this guise, they can sometimes hide less noble political/economical interests. Some people maintain that war strengthens race meaning that just the weakest die (but these people need to explain who will survive a nuclear war) and so on. The earth is full of stupid people and unfortunately for us: mothers have not decided to stop their production because they retain, rightly, that every child should have a chance.
But if this normally happens ... it does not make it acceptable! In fact if you accept this "filthy beast's" motivation you will end up being an accomplice as you will also have to accept and/or justify slaughter and genocide; in the end, war only produces destruction, extermination and loss of culture (entire civilizations have disappeared and today we don't know anything about them!): this is another fact!
Understanding the relationship between the driving forces and their context usually gives "Neutrals" a idea of which side to stay. In fact, swindlers proliferate in the presence of similar noble figures. Neutrals - they are ready to profit from a situation or, perhaps, don't want to face ruin. Neutrals always slant towards the strongest contender partially as they do not want to see their homes taken over and partially as they search for the maximum gain. Neutrals constitute fruitful breeding grounds of help for the strong to suppress the weak as they offer an helping hand (obviously with payment). Stronger people also think they have nothing to fear from neutrals. Let's assume now, excluding for simplicity sake the more complex situations (as considering a complex situation will not add value!), that the strong attack the weak for gain. In this case the problem is: how can the weak defend themselves? Here there are some examples:
2. They can offer no initial resistance, be quiet and wait for the right moment so that the strong pay the price! In fact there is a Chinese proverb which says: ... sit on the river bank and wait for the corpse of your enemy: it will pass !!". 3. The weak can fight heroically until the last and hope not to disappear off the map. 4. ... I trust your intelligence and imagination to find many more possibilities. Anyway you look at the problem, all contenders will suffer (some will gain, others will lose... but this offers little satisfaction) and everybody will commemorate their dead and put all the blame on others. In fact, whoever wins is right; he is "good". Whoever loses is bad. In this way the question is closed with lasting peace for all: this is another fact! But to go further, we need to also ask: what are internal conditions necessary for People or Nations to justify or accept a war? Here the problem grows more complex as it goes beyond the relationship - Strong versus Weak. We have think beyond the particular interest of a group or a nation; this touches individual conscience and become a problem for entire humanity.
Whoever accepts war
perhaps has no conscience or, anyway, not of the strength that we consider
normal today. If we take for example the Second World War, because historical
analysis is now unanimous, we realize that the events were possible because men
had:
In extreme synthesis : they have produced conditions by which some slogans were plagiarized as opinion and trends of thought. In this case we cannot talk of conscience and people immersed in universal values and filled with a sense of justice and well being. This is the other fundamental fact!
We can probably answer this question with other questions: Why are we prepared to lose every thing? why do we accept the loss of our dearest? I think that the first answer is very simple: Becouse we have nothing to lose or what we are losing is nothing compared to what we can gain! It will seems banal, but just think, for both
the attacker and the attacked, the sentence is true. Think of the motivation for
a German butcher to became a concentration camp director; what does a butcher
lose and what does he gain: he loses his shop but he can gain riches and power:
he can have in his hand the destiny of thousands of people!! Think, on the other
hand, of the Maya people who fought against the Spanish: why did they accept
war? Because they understood that it was a matter of their own survival!
Then, perhaps, this boils down to defining the value
between what we put at risk and what we think we will gain.
But men do not have the same measuring rule!
There is no international standard which measures
value of life "some value per inch"! And we can't force humanity into a
homogeneous enclosure. Well, very probably the answer is:
So we need transform ourselves into searchers of the Peace being afraid of nothing; we need ourselves be peasants who sew the seeds of Peace so that will became a luscious plant; we need became Peace's policemen in order to uncover swindlers and "Warlords" who increase their bank accounts on the tears of many sufferers Anyway, my dear sirs, here we are all sufferers and sooner or later we came back to be what we were: dust in the wind. So the questions ask ourselves is: do we want continue to tear ourselves apart or, on the contrary, to set a new direction to our life? This is the basic question!
As we have seen by now we can attempt a first answer: Experience, in fact, shows that in a competition few profit but, surely, everybody loses something; why? for a very simple reason: nobody stops to think how much humanity would gain if everybody became allies instead competitors! Is this the secret or the prescription to eradicate human stupidity? Perhaps. But nobody has tried it. On the contrary, everybody who has preached this concept ... has met an unfortunate end: crucified, disliked, slandered, imprisoned, ignored or left to die a dog's death ... So History continues in the same way; usually to the benefit of arms vendors, profiteers asking for regional "stability", the oligarchy who satisfy their thirst for power, dictators, who increase their bank accounts and satisfy their greed for ... Only a few people, less than half a billion, own 60%-70% of the planet’s resources (how we can laugh!). If these unfortunates profit the other five billions lose! But not all together as we presume! Because in these unlucky five billion there are those who think they will be on the other side some day and be distinguished as "less poor". These unfortunates yearn to climb rather than to construct the barricade. These people lose anyway in a conflict. These are the people who pay the highest price in terms of loss and who, at best, pick up some little crumbs from swindler's table. History teaches us so!
If nobody makes a full profit (I mean without a loss) from war, this means that Peace may not be just a "hope" or a "trend" but can be considered a real life PROJECT for all people! What does this mean?
or "think that a better life means to have much more"; We can't conceive that relationships mean a "continuous fight". We have to say stop it to a culture, a school of thought, a philosophy ... an ideal that hinders conscience to competition and to the powerful.
The heart of the matter is here! Summing up:
P.S. Dear surfer you read up to here because you have a great courage and surely think peace is important. You have obviously had time to think about the problem so please send us your point of view on the article above. Our opinion is not the only one. Thanks and looking forward to seeing you again soon.
|
|
