The Warrior Hero: Reality and Myth

Who was Joseph Campbell? What is a myth? What does "Follow Your Bliss" mean? If you are new to the work of Joseph Campbell, this forum is a good place to start.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Lizpete
Associate
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:00 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA

Post by Lizpete » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:53 pm

There’s a funny thing about Ghandi- he was an attorney, raised in a foreign? Faith, if you will.
It starts by not being afraid. It starts by being more than hopeful. I see the good. I know it is mine. I have it already.
I’m not sure that its about knowing one has “it already.” Or if some have it already. One can lack food etc., but still see the thinking, reasons (and rationalizations) of the other. There is some logic there somewhere, unless its just death to conquer.

Unfortunately for Ghandi, he seemed to say that his own should absorb the hurt, rather than fighting back. Then who has to explain who to whom?

What does one do about children with guns?
All human wisdom is contained in these words: wait and hope. Alexandre Dumas <br>America: The call that every generation must improve itself. *Member Generation &quot;X&quot;*
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:01 am

nandu wrote:Carmela, I'd respectfully suggest that you have not read Hero mythology deeply enough. Joe Campbell's Hero is not about any of the things you mentioned.Nandu.
Hi Nandu,

I've read the length and depth of Campbell, and I believe I understand your point.

The hero is not always a warrior, and those who are warriors are not always killing anyone or interested in doing anything other than getting through a horrible situation. The hero is someone who leaves home and enters the unknown to face whatever challenges are encountered before bringing back a boon for those he left behind.

Having said that, the man who fills the role of the warrior hero in the manner of Audie Murphy is a glorified killing machine who works for people who are not skilled in the art of diplomacy, conflict management, dispute resolution and other alternatives to violence. In a significant way, making a hero of a warrior contributes to the mistaken and unquestioned assumption that war is only undertaken as a last resort.

War is the last resort of a dingbat. Nearly all "successful" American politicians are dingbats where the question of violent conflict is concerned. The magic word is "defense". They feel like victims or fear becoming victims. They overreact to insults and challenges. This psychology is especially well-represented by the term "Act of War".

Example: The events of 9/11 were criminal. They were not "acts of war". War is waged by nation-states and crime is waged by individuals and groups. There were reasonable demands made by the attackers. They could have been treated like human beings and given a chance to advance their reasonable requests. We didn't even try. We just started another interminable war.

Why do we keep making war? The short answer is that war fulfills basic needs satisfied by a job that offers great dividends to both the warriors who survive and those who die. There are boons returned even when the hero is in a body bag or vaporized by a bomb. It's a job for those who need work. It's an identity. It's a source of glory and moral fulfillment. There is so much satisfacition in war that it's hard to avoid it.

Technically, the warrior is a hero. In fact, war is stupid and it can't produce anything worthwhile enough to qualify as a "boon".


~*~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:33 am

Lizpete wrote: One can lack food etc., but still see the thinking, reasons (and rationalizations) of the other. There is some logic there somewhere, unless its just death to conquer.

Unfortunately for Ghandi, he seemed to say that his own should absorb the hurt, rather than fighting back. Then who has to explain who to whom?

What does one do about children with guns?
Campbell talks about dying for something bigger than ourselves.

If you assume that there is a duality of good and evil, and you believe you have a corner on the good and your foe embodies the evil, then HOW one creates death is irrelevant; whether those sacrificed are your own people or others, whether you pull the trigger yourselves or order them to be fired or provoke the action, or you kill civilians in a democracy or military targets in a scary community.

Anyone who thinks that a gun is a solution to anything is emotionally immature. All warriors are children with guns.

~*~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
A J
Associate
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:00 am
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

Post by A J » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:57 am

CarmelaBear wrote:
nandu wrote:Carmela, I'd respectfully suggest that you have not read Hero mythology deeply enough. Joe Campbell's Hero is not about any of the things you mentioned.Nandu.
Having said that, the man who fills the role of the warrior hero in the manner of Audie Murphy is a glorified killing machine who works for people who are not skilled in the art of diplomacy, conflict management, dispute resolution and other alternatives to violence. In a significant way, making a hero of a warrior contributes to the mistaken and unquestioned assumption that war is only undertaken as a last resort.

Technically, the warrior is a hero. In fact, war is stupid and it can't produce anything worthwhile enough to qualify as a "boon".


~*~
CarmelaBear,

I hesitate to confront your statement directly, since this isn't my thread, it's NoMans. But since the topic is my book, I feel it is important to address your posts. Nandu's quote about your knowledge of Joseph Campbell strikes a chord with me. I must say that if you were more familiar with my book, you would know that neither it or Audie Murphy are about the glorification of war. The "boon" that Murphy brought back was that war was a terrible solution. I am not suggesting that you read the book. The JFC Newsletter that referred to this thread was quite clear, and quite right, in saying one did not need to have read the book, or know anything about Murphy to participate in the discussion. And there have been very many interesting side discussions here that prove that. However, I need to point out that in spite of the fact that you said, very early on, that you had not read the book, you seem to be making judgements on its contents and its primary character. This book does not glorify war or war makers. Audie Murphy was not a "glorified killing machine." He was an individual with an extreme sense of responsibility, who found himself in an impossible position, and had to deal with it as best he could. In every instance where he won a medal, he was putting his life on the line in order to protect and save as many of the men under his command as he possibly could. The sections of the book that deal directly with war and battles are subtitled, respectively, "The Lesson of Reality," "The Lesson of Irony," and "The Lesson of Futility." These are the lessons concerning war that Murphy had to learn before reaching the "Nadir of his journey," and confront the dragon. NoMan's original post presents that confrontation, so I will not go onto it here, except to say that his motive was to keep the remaining soldiers under his command alive. He ordered them back and confronted the enemy alone. He fully expected to die himself. But he survived, and the simple, scaled down answer he brought back, the answer he gave to his friends and the public back home, was, "All the heroes are dead." Even before the war was over, it was evident that he was developing what is now called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He never fully recovered. He had flashbacks and nightmares for the rest of his life. He was opposed to the war in Vietnam. The message he tried to bring back from his journey into hell was that it was indeed hell. He was appalled over the fact that "so many of our fine young men" were being sent to die in some politician's cause.

As I wrote earlier, the message of this book is not about war, but about the warrior archetype, which is present in all of us, and which needs to be acknowledged. If we repress it, it will present itself, sometimes in projections, sometimes in angry rages, even in angry rages about war itself.

If you want to denounce war and politicians who make war, I will join you wholeheartedly. So would Audie murphy, if he were alive today.

In an earlier post, I said that for me, Murphy was something of an animus figure. When I said that, I was not referring to his ability to kill those whe were trying to kill him, but to his willingness to accept responsibility in every situation he found himself in, and to refuse to be a victim, whether of poverty, of war, of the state of his community after his return, or of the inevitable "fall from grace" that all true heroes must face eventually. In every phase of his life, in every situation, he accepted the reality, assumed responsibility, and took action to remedy. That's why I admired him, and that's why I wrote a book about him.

AJ
"Sacred space and sacred time and something joyous to do is all we need. Almost anything then becomes a continuous and increasing joy."

A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on the Art of Living
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:26 am

AJ,

The people who went to Vietnam went for the same reasons Murphy went to his war. The leaders who furthered the Vietnam War did so for the same reasons or category of reasons that leaders took us into the two world wars.

The difference between those who do what Murphy did and those who will not go to war is that those with the moral courage to risk being misunderstood and rejected already know what it took a whole war and PTSD and empty medals to teach our good man, Murphy.

I admire the people who sacrificed virgins to the gods, but I would not be open to the practice now.

We have the skill and resources to avoid war. What we lack is a set of values that are consistent with conflict management, dispute resolution and other alternatives to war.

I feel sorry for Murphy. I think that he was a victim, not only of the war fever of his day but of his own belief that the people who waged war were doing all that could be done to solve whatever problems had led to violent conflict.

It's true that we all fight for something, but not necessarily with guns. Quakers manage to work out their difficulties without violence. When the Amish suffered an aberration, they were forgiving and kind in response. The Tibetans fight for self-determination, but they do so without building armies or terrorist cells. There is oppression in the world and within the organism that houses consciousness, but the answer is not to feel so "responsible" that one learns to kill and risk death and injury in order to set matters straight.

Leaders who go to war do so partly out of incompetence, partly as a result of inefficient methods of response, and partly because there are rewards for winning and punishments for losing or refusing to fight.

We get that to which we give our attention, that which we expect, that which we feel we deserve.

Carmela

~*~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:46 am

I think that all of us will agree that there should be no wars; that killing is bad; and that all of us should live together in peace. It is very nice as a general statement. It is only when we get into the details that we start running into snags.

Let me ask a question. Here is pacifist country, Country A, which doesn't believe in war. It is bordered by a totalitarian Country B which is full of bloodthirsty warmongers. One day, they decide to take over Country A. Now, both countries are equally strong and any war between them is likely to be a standoff: however, Country B knows that Country A wouldn't fight for any reason. So one day the tanks move in, and there is no country A any more: only an enlarged Country B.

If Country A had fought, they could have avoided this disaster. But some blood would have been shed.

So is war justified?

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:08 am

I am of the mind that war is never just. War is never moral. War is, however, sometimes, though rarely, necessary and remains a significant part of human behavior.

I truly wish we would stop it. The insanity extant currently seems to be dragging the world inexorably toward another global conflict because there are too many in power around the world who lack the vision, imagination, courage and/or morality to avoid it.

I would sell my soul to the very devil to keep my children's lives from being sucked in and ripped apart by fools.

At the very least, I'd ask Martin if he had some room on his couch in Germany.

One republican candidate for president states he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons to preemptively (I've come to depise that word) keep Iran from developing unclear weapons. Instead of responding with horror and disgust, this comment barely registers in the national dialogue.

In the lead up to WW II 'mistakes were made' which allowed the Beast to touch down on the planet. At a certain point the war became inevitable and a whole generation sacrificed their collective soul in bringing it to a conclusion.

No one returns innocent from war. Not even the 'good guys.' I think that's one mesage I'm getting from AJ.

People join the military for a variety of reasons and all expect to be used honorably. Unfortunately, this trust, more often than not, is violated and betrayed. However, for all the political rhetoric, warriors are not thinking about the noble abstracts we're told they are protecting. They're thinking about survival, and the survival of their comrades. They are individuals, in private, individual circumstances whose behavior under extreme conditions elicits the full spectrum of human behaviors from extreme to extreme.

Their behavior in these moments is divorced from the reasons for the war, the politicians who sent them there, or the generals who ordered them into battle.

I find Murphy's comment, "All the heroes are dead," rather chilling. I can't but think he also refers to all those, including himself, who put their innocence on the altar for the knife.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:52 pm

Clemsy wrote:I am of the mind that war is never just. War is never moral. War is, however, sometimes, though rarely, necessary and remains a significant part of human behavior.

I truly wish we would stop it. The insanity extant currently seems to be dragging the world inexorably toward another global conflict because there are too many in power around the world who lack the vision, imagination, courage and/or morality to avoid it.

I would sell my soul to the very devil to keep my children's lives from being sucked in and ripped apart by fools.
There is little doubt in my mind that we have trouble imagining a non-violent solution to certain conflicts. However, that is not for lack of a such a solution. It is for lack of imagination.

Illustration:

When Thomas Edison set out to find a solution to the problem of creating a light source that we now call the :idea: "electric light bulb", he had no idea where he would find the material that would conduct electricity in exactly the way it had to be conveyed in order to function the way the electric light operates. He knew intuitively that a way would be found. He tried everything and he kept trying no matter what challenges and problems he encountered. He knew his job as an inventor was important. He knew the task was ethical and within the realm of the possible, perhaps the probable, and in an imaginative sense, it was a sure thing.

Thomas Edison, who invented the light bulb, had nothing to lose.

It wasn't enough to say, "Let there be light". He struggled and everyone around him had to suffer the consequences of their loyalty. He had rivals. He had critics. He had more naysayers than flies have baby flies. Still, he persisted. To many, he was just stubborn. He kept on working on the project.

He is one of my heroes. I'd like to think that I'm a kind of inventor, too. I'm inventing a new way of managing our collective human existence so that the planet's eco-system can thrive, our species can survive the Big Threats, and each individual human being actually gets what each one needs and wants and cares about most.

Possibilities and opportunities are nice, but results rule. I'm in search of my first voter who will start the ball rolling for my write-in Democratic Party campaign for president. (Sometimes, I suspect he is follower of Joe Campbell!)

Toward that end, I'm working on my website, and it's aimed at the first voter, the one with influence and a voice, with courage and faith in my ability to create institutions that will bring the light of day to a world immersed in violence and force and coercion and victimization of every kind, where we are so distracted by conflict and struggle that we are neglecting Mother Earth and the human species and our own personal health and life. Because I believe in a democratic way of doing things, I expect to guide the great ship of state, while the people actually make the lists and check them twice and contribute out of real enthusiasm for the task(s) they choose as their contribution.

Given our priorities (Planet, Humanity, Individuals), I'm going to ask everyone who can participate (regardless of age or any other status) to join in the making of the Great To-Do List. We will amass a complete list of everything we want, we will divide the tasks among those most knowledgeable and willing to assist, we will prioritize and decide where the money will come from and where it will go. We will do this work TOGETHER, not through intermediaries or representatives or higher-ups, but directly, as individuals. We have the means to do this and we will not have to compete for results. The only question will be what we want most, not what we will achieve. All things will be covered, but some things will have to be at the top of the list.

Here's something about individuals. Drugs. Two-thirds of all the illicit (violence-generating) drugs in the world are consumed by 4% of the world's population, and they are Americans. We abuse everything from alcohol and tobacco to ordinary food, poisoning ourselves up one side and down the other. When they aren't harmful, they're just a huge distraction, demanding our money, which we earn by giving up needed sleep and exercise, and it goes on just like that, getting more and more complex.

I propose educating the public about the dangers of enforcing laws that make problems worse. The enforcement of drug laws involves violence and coercion that we mask with nice names like "arrest and conviction", which sounds like a solution, when it's just another big problem, passed on to groups we love to hate. We think Paris Hilton was given special treatment, when there is nothing special about being afforded the deference and respect of a human being. There are better ways to rid our country of bad habits. None of them involve making people suffer. All of them involve making health and happiness accessible to everyone, whether they are wealthy and blonde or poor and bald. We have to see each other as sacred souls, and our bodies and minds deserve to be enriched and nourished and appreciated.

There are private morals and ethics, personal to each decider, but we can only give what we have. Those who are condemned and punished and killed (whether guilty or innocent, wielding a gun or without a weapon, etc.) have no goodwill to offer. From what source can they draw? We can't ask the blind to drive a cab. Morality and ethics and abiding by the law come from being healthy and well-treated and educated and included in the management of our collective institutions. It doesn't come from God or good genes or some inspiration of the universal ether.

Those who enjoy generally good health must ensure the health of their fellow human beings so that we can function and concentrate all our energy on what means most to us.

Example:

When I was being raped, all I wanted was to be free of the immediate experience at that moment. It was overwhelmingly unpleasant. Once it was over and I was safe, and he was ready to talk about it, I had a chance to go over it with the man who hurt me. He was contrite. I understood his explanation. It made sense. I was not afraid, though I never let him have the privilege of sexual access to me again. For all my interior struggles, I did not see either of us as being guilty of anything. I did not feel much more vulnerable than before nor did I see him as a dangerous man.

His capacity to hurt me was already proven, but I was not in a position to do anything about the risk he posed to others. At that time (in the early '70's), date rape was not illegal, and I still don't think the criminal court system offers a solution to the problem. Putting oneself at risk was deemed to be "consent", and being with a man was enough to say, "Mi casa es su casa". All the courts can do is take human beings and turn them into statistical "things". The courts do more harm than good unless you're into vengeance and hurting people and making everything worse.

Like all non-lethal events in my life, I learned a lot from being raped. If the man who committed the act was a danger to others, it became his problem, not mine. If he hurt anyone else, and I have no reason to believe he did, I never heard anything that would convince me he had offended anyone enough to transform him into an object of condemnation or punishment. He went on with his life. I hope he's okay.

Here's the analogy:

The Earth has been raped. She cannot speak for herself. She just wants man to stop what he's doing. There's no need to feel guilty. She did nothing to deserve all the carbon emissions and the plundering of her eco-system. There is no reason to guilt-trip the "offenders". Once they understand their stake in this, and they are engaged in a cooperative process in which they will face the NATURAL consequences of their actions, the "offenders" (well-meaning overachievers who earn the goodies distributed in a meritocracy) will join humanity's overriding interest being in the world.

Those with the courage to look beyond the current American way of life will be the new founders of a nation that is not afraid to stand with the world in the glow of consensus, where one does not have to apologize for wanting to be treated like a million dollars by institutions of social management. We will still have kids who poop and vomit. The dog will still bark and die too soon. Neighbors will still find some way to irritate us. The little things will drive us nuts.

Nations will do no harm. Institutions will radiate unconditional goodwill. The lazy will be in charge of efficiency. The nerds will radiate competence. The zealots will keep us on the straight and narrow. The turkeys will be proud. The eagles will find food. The food will multiply so that there will be safety in numbers. The numbers will be awesome. So much good.

I have my vote. I am working on my website to find the first voter.

I will find a way to write my name on the ballot, first inside my head, rehearsing and getting ready for Carnegie Hall by practicing, practicing, practicing.

Let's see. It's CARMELA B. CHAVEZ.

Are you really voting for me, CarmelaBear?

Sure. Didn't I say I would?

Well, gee, thanks.

You're welcome. My pleasure. Don't eat so much.

Don't push your luck.

Just saying....

Yeah, well.


~*~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
Lizpete
Associate
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:00 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA

Post by Lizpete » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:26 pm

Clemsy wrote
I am of the mind that war is never just. War is never moral. War is, however, sometimes, though rarely, necessary and remains a significant part of human behavior.
Hmm had a grad student that espoused the thought that war was actually good for the human race- pushed intellectual/ mechanical development; freed up space on the planet etc. etc. etc. All in all a hard way to go, I think.

American law classic view: If someone is attacking you with deadly force, you are allowed to defend your life. Isn't that how a war starts? Or did it start with that first person attacking with deadly force? Now personally, I'd like to stop that other person. How to do, how to do, how to do? (And I don't even own a gun.)

Hmmm, maybe s/he will be deterred if s/he knows I have a gun, and a big gun would be better right? (An invisible fence then- yes?) Mary, Mary quite contrary how does your garden grow? Not on greed and jealousy- wait... was/is greed good?

Maybe if I helped the other meet some subsistance needs, er, um needs, they might not be so blood thirsty. Then merely egotistical? Oh, then they might need ethics- religion anyone? (For a Pooh Taoist I'm sounding more like a fundamentalist, but that was already outed. Wait, wait that's not right, that's not what I wrote. Ahem, I lean.- No, I'm a basics.)

Dmn, I'm playing with all three sisters now, discontent, desire and delight. Sorta monopolizing their attentions. Discontent's not my fave, but we're on speaking terms.
All human wisdom is contained in these words: wait and hope. Alexandre Dumas <br>America: The call that every generation must improve itself. *Member Generation &quot;X&quot;*
User avatar
noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:09 am

.
..neither [my book] or Audie Murphy are about the glorification of war. The "boon" that Murphy brought back was that war was a terrible solution.

- AJ
I’m not about to question the author on the interpretation of her own book. But as a general comment on war I would say that there definitely is glory in war. It’s one half of the Janus face that Martin Weyers spoke of in the first page of this thread.
...the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest owah."

- Winston Churchill (1940)

* * * * * * *

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

- Abraham Lincoln (1863)

* * * * * * *

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

- Henry V, William Shakespeare

There are people, looking at war from only one angle, only see the glory face. And there are others, who, looking at it from a 180 degree different angle, only see the horror face. But the reality of war, is that it is at once glorious and horrible. It brings out the very, very best and the very, very, worst in people.

But what I think is important to appreciate is that it is not a new dilemma. Arjuna confronted it in the Gita.

- NoMan
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:17 am

I beg to disagree, although it may seem like splitting hairs. War is never glorious. Human behavior can be glorious and within the context of war that glory is illustrated. However, if war is glorious, so is a burning building from which a firefighter has to rescue an infant.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Lizpete
Associate
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:00 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA

Post by Lizpete » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:25 pm

Nothing like coming through in the clutch is there...

Still, war is a hard way to go. And did our own T.R. Roosevelt not charge up San Juan hill because he and his raiders felt left out of the glory of a previous war? Only to realize after war is not glorious?

He even spoke softly in an earlier, rougher (?) age.

What to do in an era of suicide bombers where no one is left to tell the tale of how not glorious it was.

Yep, the man says paradise is to be had in the next world- slaves know it too.
All human wisdom is contained in these words: wait and hope. Alexandre Dumas <br>America: The call that every generation must improve itself. *Member Generation &quot;X&quot;*
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:19 pm

War itself may not be glorious, but the personal experience of some warriors is of a kind of glory, if only the acknowledgement of the service rendered to a great cause, a great nation, a great people. I think the warriors do feel like fire fighters rescuing helpless children. The prestige involved is considerable.


Another point: One of the reasons that Germany was so aggressive after World War I was the humiliation they suffered at the hands of victors. While war may not be glorious, there is this understanding that only the winners are accorded the special privilege of being treated like human beings after it's over. Humiliating and punishing those who do not emerge on the winning side is a cause of much cyclical rage and hatred.

I think that's one of the causes of the difficulties in the Middle East. It's not enough to whomp the competition, the dominant nations seem to rub the oppositions' noses in their status as children of a lesser god.
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:05 am

Noman, Hal's speech is truly rousing.... as rousing as a speech must be to get the blood up so one can risk its spilling. Indeed, Theoden's speech before the battle of Pellenor Field had me willing to join the fray.

However, I'll see your Shakespeare and raise you a Byron:
But quiet to quick bosoms is a hell,
And there hath been my bane; there is a fire
And motion of the soul which will not dwell
In its own narrow being, but aspire
Beyond the fitting medium of desire;
And, but once kindled, quenchless evermore,
Preys upon high adventure, nor can tire
Of aught but rest; a fever at the core,
Fatal to him who bears, to all who ever bore.

This makes the madmen who have made men mad
By their contagion; Conquerors and Kings,
Founders of sects and systems, to whom add
Sophists, Bards, Statesmen, all unquiet things
Which stir too strongly the soul’s secret springs,
And are themselves the fools to those they fool;
Envied, yet how unenviable! What stings
Are theirs! One breast laid open were a school
Which would unteach mankind the lust to shine or rule

Lord Byron, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, cIII s42-3.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:16 pm

Some years ago, America was dead certain that war was not a legitimate aim of government. Indeed, to suffer war is to deny that governing is possible. It is the antithesis of what good, nurturing, protective stewardship is all about.

So, we changed the name of the cabinet agency from the "War Department" to "Department of Defense".

We're stuck there. The idea that we provoke and even deliberately plan and instigate provocation in order to have an excuse to over-defend ourselves against mythical monsters like "Terror" has been conveniently overlooked. I wonder when the United States will cease dividing the world into US and THEM, good guys and bad guys, etc.

I thought it was interesting that a member of Congress is suggesting that we should have a "Department of Peace".

~*~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
Locked