Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Mermaid [View all]

malthaussen

(17,193 posts)
3. As to the conundrum, the answer is: the rooster.
Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:25 PM
Sep 2013

As to the larger question, I have to echo George Carlin: we love war. I frankly do not see how anyone could read the WWI poets or anything about WWI and not be opposed to this mass insanity of testing-to-destruction if the human breast can turn aside a one-ounce lead projectile moving at 900 fps. And the sad part is how gleefully the young go off to war, how gladly their mothers surrender them (ever see the statement of "UK Mothers for the War" in WWI? I think Sassoon quotes it in the last book of his biography), how their girlfriends put flowers in their gun barrels and cry tears more of pride than fear as the poor bastards march off to be shredded.

But perhaps we have learned some over the past 100 years. Not our leaders, no: war costs them nothing, so there is no incentive for them to avoid war. Crocodile tears aside, and appropriate breast-beating about the "tough decisions" that must be made by our Fearless Leaders. I suppose I could be wrong, but it is hard for me to imagine Western wives, mothers, and lovers sending off their young men with a song in their hearts. (Aye, okay, sexist imagery, no contest there) But the Disconnect has become so great in the West that our leaders continue to happily make the "tough decisions" that benefit none of those wives, mothers, or lovers. And outside the West, where passions are greater and the crisis imminent and present, the young men will march gladly because they believe it in some way proves their manhood.

I have come to one conclusion in this regard at this point in my not-so-very-long-really life, and that is this: So long as our culture continues to define "strength" as "the ability to impose your will on another," there will be war. And rape. And assault. And all the catalogue of crimes and man's inhumanity to man. Perhaps it is a "true" definition. Perhaps it is a "necessary" one, for the survival of the culture, or indeed the species. That lies beyond my small wisdom. But there it is: to be strong means to make others do your bidding. And who would be so weak, as to desire not to be strong?

-- Mal

Mermaid [View all] H2O Man Sep 2013 OP
humility bigtree Sep 2013 #1
This is a H2O Man Sep 2013 #6
I see that bigtree Sep 2013 #7
The egg came long before the chicken. MicaelS Sep 2013 #2
As to the conundrum, the answer is: the rooster. malthaussen Sep 2013 #3
Thanks for H2O Man Sep 2013 #5
If you read war memoirs... malthaussen Sep 2013 #10
without feathers H2O Man Sep 2013 #4
kick kentuck Sep 2013 #8
What would Jesus say? kentuck Sep 2013 #9
One of the strange H2O Man Sep 2013 #11
thank you G_j Sep 2013 #12
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mermaid»Reply #3