Come on, no kid would ever behave THAT horribly! Yes, I *had* read that theonion article already. But still... Even then, they're hardly more frightening than Michael Jackson.
To be really nasty, you need the educated, full-bloomed sense of cruelty of an adult mind. :-(
"but if it were children, we would see how insane it is." No need for children. Imagine History's most famous large-scale battles, if the same scene had been the doing of as many dogs (or cats) methodically slaughtering each other. And they say animals are savage beasts... PFAH! Laughable amateurs.
No, I was more thinking that the politicians who order wars and even the pilots, artillery officers and so on who fire weapons tend not to think in terms of the real people who will be on the receiving end. Terminology like "take out" or "surgical strike" is, consciously or not, designed to support this sort of compartmentalization.
In order to make wars possible it's necessary to dehumanize the enemy - hence the dismissive or worse nicknames often used. It's all about kidding yourself that you're not actually being cruel to real people.
A good read on this subject is Generation Kill by Evan Wright. It's his story of being an "embedded" reporter with a Marine Recon company during the invasion of Iraq. What I took away from this book is the care and worry not to cause avoidable harm to innocent civilians of the experienced NCOs and junior officers who'd seen action before and had understanding of the consequences of their actions vs the wild cowboy antics of some of the less experienced but more senior officers who had been moved up from essentially desk jobs. Though, at the same time as taking great care in sniper type actions, the junior soldiers could still cheer artillery strikes on towns - it seems to me because even though they abstractly understood the consequences they could distance themselves enough from what was really happening.
"In order to make wars possible it's necessary to dehumanize the enemy" You probably know you didn't come up with this one, right? I first heard about it in Ethics class, with the historical frame of nazi experiments.
This is so true. And so horrible.
Can any sensible being accept the very idea of deciding a war?
Not to mention that joint "pruning of the Truth" which is flimsy excuses to be the invading one.
"They [the mullahs] eventually admitted that the survival of the regime depended on the war." -- (Marjane Satrapi, Persepolis p116)
You probably know you didn't come up with this one, right?
Yes, of course. It's often said but also often forgotten including, I would suggest, earlier in this thread; cruelty or sadism, as such, aren't the root of the problem.
Sort of like when a cat plays with an injured bird or mouse, it's not being cruel though we see its actions are cruel.
11 comments:
And those adults are the leaders of our world. Scary thought huh?
There's a reason why so many atrocities are committed by child soldiers.
Talk to almost anyone in Africa - they'll all have horror stories to share.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_study_reveals_most_children
But they do behave that way, they just lack the weapons adults have. Behaviourally adults are no different than children.
Yeah, sure, but we allow adults to go kill strangers in another country, but if it were children, we would see how insane it is.
Come on, no kid would ever behave THAT horribly!
Yes, I *had* read that theonion article already. But still... Even then, they're hardly more frightening than Michael Jackson.
To be really nasty, you need the educated, full-bloomed sense of cruelty of an adult mind. :-(
"but if it were children, we would see how insane it is."
No need for children. Imagine History's most famous large-scale battles, if the same scene had been the doing of as many dogs (or cats) methodically slaughtering each other.
And they say animals are savage beasts... PFAH! Laughable amateurs.
To be really nasty, you need the educated, full-bloomed sense of cruelty of an adult mind.
No, you need the adult's ability to deal with abstract thoughts so you can distance yourself from the real consequences of your actions.
You mean, you need to have an adult ability to sadism and non-empathy, as opposed to a child's mere thoughtlessness?
No, I was more thinking that the politicians who order wars and even the pilots, artillery officers and so on who fire weapons tend not to think in terms of the real people who will be on the receiving end. Terminology like "take out" or "surgical strike" is, consciously or not, designed to support this sort of compartmentalization.
In order to make wars possible it's necessary to dehumanize the enemy - hence the dismissive or worse nicknames often used. It's all about kidding yourself that you're not actually being cruel to real people.
A good read on this subject is Generation Kill by Evan Wright. It's his story of being an "embedded" reporter with a Marine Recon company during the invasion of Iraq. What I took away from this book is the care and worry not to cause avoidable harm to innocent civilians of the experienced NCOs and junior officers who'd seen action before and had understanding of the consequences of their actions vs the wild cowboy antics of some of the less experienced but more senior officers who had been moved up from essentially desk jobs. Though, at the same time as taking great care in sniper type actions, the junior soldiers could still cheer artillery strikes on towns - it seems to me because even though they abstractly understood the consequences they could distance themselves enough from what was really happening.
"In order to make wars possible it's necessary to dehumanize the enemy"
You probably know you didn't come up with this one, right?
I first heard about it in Ethics class, with the historical frame of nazi experiments.
This is so true. And so horrible.
Can any sensible being accept the very idea of deciding a war?
Not to mention that joint "pruning of the Truth" which is flimsy excuses to be the invading one.
"They [the mullahs] eventually admitted that the survival of the regime depended on the war." -- (Marjane Satrapi, Persepolis p116)
You probably know you didn't come up with this one, right?
Yes, of course. It's often said but also often forgotten including, I would suggest, earlier in this thread; cruelty or sadism, as such, aren't the root of the problem.
Sort of like when a cat plays with an injured bird or mouse, it's not being cruel though we see its actions are cruel.
Post a Comment