| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2006 01:48:23 PM · #1 |
Jihad and the Crusades
Was doing some online research and came accross this piece. In it I found the following:
Phillipe Delmas, The Rosy Future of War
The same Europe that we are now trumpeting as a model of pacifism has been built by wars, down to the last stone. In the sixteenth century Europe knew only ten years of peace, in the seventeenth century only four, and in the eighteenth century sixteen. From 1500 to 1800, Europe was at war 270 years out of 300, with a new war every three years. Austria and Sweden - models of pacifism - were at war every three years during these three centuries, Spain every four years, Poland and Russia every five. But maybe we are going too far back in time. The two World Wars - only recently fought - caused 100,000,000 deaths including 60,000,000 civilians. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions caused at least 50,000,000 more deaths; actually, historians have recently revised this upward to 100,000,000. As for the 146 little wars since 1945, they have discreetly exterminated close to 30,000,000 people, three-quarters of them civilians, and most of them in the name of the world powers. The most distant of these places had histories no different from ours [France]: over the course of its first six centuries of existence, China knew only seventeen years without war. In the course of its last century, China has endured Western colonialism, invasion by the Japanese, liberation, and successive Maoist revolution: all told, china has suffered an estimated 30,000,000 to 60,000,000 deaths. -- p. 148
If this is accurate, then the current state of mideast conflict is miniscule comparatively. And to think that I thought the US was the war monger...
Message edited by author 2006-09-29 13:48:42.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2006 01:53:06 PM · #2 |
As I've said in other rants, war is as much a part of human nature as eating, sleeping and reproducing. Railing against it or dreaming about some utopia where all people hold hands and sing all day long is evidence of a complete misunderstanding of humanity and a total lack of insight into the history of our species.
Nice post.
Let the rants begin! |
|
|
|
09/29/2006 01:55:16 PM · #3 |
Yeh we all did it! From 1337 to 1453(known as the 100 Years war) the English and the French were beating hell out of each other!
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:55:37 AM · #4 |
It's an interesting viewpoint, but hardly a case for abandoning all hope of peace.
War is certainly very common in history. The Delmas analysis is misleading because it focusses on the regularity with whcih war happens in the world, without considering that peace was far more prevalent throughout the world as a whole at all those times (with the possible exception of 1939-45).
When was the last time that war broke out in North America (current "'war' on terror" excluded!)? If it is man's natural state, then how has each state avoided war against its neighbours?
Similarly, when was the last war between countries within the European Union? How has that been avoided?
If large parts of the world can develop relationships and systems that protect them from the ravages of war, then why should we abandon hope for the remainder?
There is a helpful list of wars here:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars
Of interest may be the fact that incidents of inter-national war are vastly declining. In contrast to earlier periods, most wars in the 20th century (and increasingly so) are civil wars and wars of independence.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 10:08:58 AM · #5 |
And people kill each other all the time, so that justifies you killing your neighbor? Your argument has no merit.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 10:17:50 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The Delmas analysis is misleading because it focusses on the regularity with whcih war happens in the world, without considering that peace was far more prevalent throughout the world as a whole at all those times (with the possible exception of 1939-45). |
Your definition of war is pretty narrow. Most scholars consider the last major, epochal war to have run from 1914-1989. There were not broad periods of peace during that time. Even when the bullets weren't flying, the beligerents were still most decidely at war.
Last time war broke out in N America was early 20th century. Before that, mid 1800's. Before that early 1800's. Before that, late 1700's. ETc, etc. Don't think that qualifies as 'a really long time'.
War between countries within the EU - How long has the EU been around in its current form? A few decades? Are the balkan states EU members? If you consider nothing from 1945 till now as a war between EU states, you have to look back a mere 60 years. Again, not a long time.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:03:19 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Your definition of war is pretty narrow. |
My definition reflected the article, which considered the impact of specific wars.
You appear to be broadening the interpretation significantly, looking for periods during which significant conflict existed. Conflict is a very different thing to war.
If you are arguing that people often disagree with each other, then (ironically) I would agree with you. If you are arguing that resolution by warring is a natural consequence, inherent to mankind in some way, then I disagree with you strongly.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:13:27 PM · #8 |
| Somewhere in between bullets flying and people amiably resolving their differences, you have an area where the troops are ready to fight, the arsenals are being expanded, and tensions are high. If you consider that peace, fine. I would disagree. It was called the cold War for a reason. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:48:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Are the balkan states EU members? If you consider nothing from 1945 till now as a war between EU states, you have to look back a mere 60 years. Again, not a long time. |
I would add that the peace resulting from the EU so far is the longest period of continuous peace between member states since the Pax Romana, ending in 180 AD. In terms of continuous peace for such a large region, it does represent a long time.
However, this is not to say that the entire region has been at war for the majority of the remaining period: most states have been at peace for most of the time, with a relatively few wars ongoing between specific states at any one time.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:57:32 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It was called the cold War for a reason. |
It is also often referred to as a "war". Much like the "war" on terror. The quotation marks are there for a reason.
Edit to add that this kind of war does not support the proposition that war resulting in millions of deaths is an innate human condition. In fact, it indicates that modern warfare in the West is divorced from the historic forms of war that Flash uses to justify future warmongering as part of the human condition.
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 13:01:45.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:03:00 PM · #11 |
| Whatever. It's not often called "war" much like the "war" on terror by anyone who isn't a historical revisionist or just uninformed. Post links if you feel that the cold war is brushed off in such a way by supposedly enlightened people. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:10:14 PM · #12 |
| Take a few weeks and read this book, then we chat. |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 05:17:38 AM · #13 |
Thanks for the recommendation - it looks interesting. I will keep an eye out for it (I read quite a bit of history).
I don't doubt that history can be viewed from afar, and I am sure that doing so is insightful. However, I am not convinced that this supports the proposition that warmongering is acceptable because human kind lives in a state of perpetual war. The wars (while possibly interconnected and stemming from common episodal causes), cannot be explained away individually as "unavoidable" and therefore acceptable, in some way.
I did not mean to undermine the significance of the cold war, merely point out that it was not a "hot", or active, or open war (the usual identifiers that a war is underway). It was waged in many ways (including proxy wars, economic rivalry, political dialogue). It was not composed of identifiable, related, open battlefield conflicts.
Perhaps part of the semantics issue here results from modern usage of the word "war": maybe it has come to mean prolonged conflict.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:41:10 PM EDT.
