(answer to question #4: Why is brutality a necessary part of conquest?)
Any conquer is brutal; one is forced to submit to another. Any creation of this circumstance cultivates brutality. Brutality is put in place to create fear and to remind those who have been conquered that they must remain compliant.
Brutality in war is seen as opposite to the peace that comes after. Lyndon B. Johnson said it was in our nature that peace could only come after fighting, stating that "the infirmities of man are such that force must often preceded reason, and the waste of war, the works of peace." Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature be in a constant state of war. Some justify war by saying that it is fighting for future peace. But while many pin war down to human nature and peace, war is also about winning. Henri Rousseau said that in international politics, states must be aggressive or they will deteriorate. The rule is to be the most aggressive, and most brutal, or to submit - to conquer or be conquered.
The peace that follows conquest collides with the fear of another war. And this fear, sometimes terribly, further encourages peace, as well as submission. Fear is the primary reason for brutality in war. In a psychological study of fear, it was said that fear was "anticipation of pain," and that it was created by a circumstance that left a trace of suffering. When one encounters brutality in conquest, the trace of suffering is left behind. This creates a fear of another conquer and convinces one to submit to the current conqueror. FDR stated that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to create fear and scare us into changing our military path. This kind of brutality has a purpose to create fear. Fear and conquer, created by brutality, enforce the obedience that conquest desires.
Nice quote by Johnson, and the information about Hobbes and Rousseau certainly helped back up your claims about brutality. As history has shown us, like you said, those you fail to be aggressive always seem to lose and get conquered. I really liked your analysis about fear, and the information about FDR helped make that clear.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your points about Rousseau, Hobbes and Johnson's views on brutality and warfare; they gave your post good credibility. It really does seem that those who are docile and peaceful end up being conquered. Your exploration of the influence of fear and a 'conquer or be conquered' type mentality was interesting as well.
ReplyDeleteI think it was really helpful when answering your question to describe the term Brutality like you did. When I think of the word brutality I often thinkof someone who is just tyrannical and dangerous, I rarely correlate brutality with conquer. I know part of the question was to relate the two but I think your definition of the term and being used to maintain power over someone else was helpful. I think your second paragraph is incredibly thought provoking. I do not agree that peace always comes after war. I think that perhaps more and more recently, chaos and resentment comes from war, we may encounter peace within our own country but do we ever truly experience peace with another country? What seperates a country being peaceful or a country being complacent. I do agree that we are in a constant state of war. It is human nature to want to retaliate after defeat, or achieve revenge. Can we only achieve real peace if we go against our natural human nature? I agree with Madison that your inclusion of the two philosophers Hobbes and Rousseau really strengthened your argument. great job!
ReplyDeleteI think that the "peace" that comes after is more of a suppression or a lack of rebellion than an actual happy peace. Authorities might call it peace to try to justify war. Especially nowadays, when wars seem to usually be unsuccessful in fully completing countries' goals, there is less resolution and no actual peace after the war.
DeleteI think that a country that has been conquered can be peaceful with its conqueror if the conqueror country provides the conquered with aid, whether that be economic aid, or physical aid during natural disasters or other as events as such.
Delete"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
ReplyDeleteSo, does this mean that we, as Americans, fear the period of time where this peace happens? I think rather, that we are most definitely the conquering power, and our "peace" might just be there as long as we aren't being conquered?
I think you definitely hit the nail on the head about how conquest is intrinsically linked to brutality; those words really do go together. As countries who have military power, it is no surprise that Africa was at European mercy during this time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, but I think even though we are often the conqueror, we still fear war. You do have a valid point though, because America's violent response to 9/11 was definitely drawn from fear.
DeleteI almost used that quote. I think it means that we fear the period of time when the peace will end, not when it happens.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile i agree completely that it is part of war and that it happens, this would also serve as a basis to ignore any humanitarian efforts in war zones, as well as to authorize torture and maiming as a military tool.
ReplyDeleteAs black and white as it seems, i feel like there are just going to be too many people who think war is something less than what it is: The most brutal possible form of human conflict.
Do you think that people don't understand how war works? Or do you think they're attemping to change the nature of how war is conducted? even then, would it be effective enough that weaker powers would switch to it isntead of just being more brutal and effective?
When you talk about authorizing torture, it is still used as a military tool today. Many humanitarian efforts are ignored in the face of brutality. What are you saying that weaker powers would switch to?
DeleteI think that the US is trying to change the nature of war. Torture is unspeakable now, Guantanamo Bay has been criticized for its torturous ways and investigated closely (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9006637/Britains-last-Guantanamo-Bay-prisoner-held-without-charge-after-10-years.html). But when faced with terrorist threats, the ethical dilemma remains: hurt someone to get information that will prevent the deaths of thousands of people, or risk a mass attack?
DeleteGovernments always tend to criticize their torturous ways in retrospect, but yet there always seems to be some new ethical problems. Now it is the drone strikes.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/obama-orders-release-of-drone-memos-to-lawmakers.html?_r=0
I think it is important for national safety to find ways to stop terrorist attacks, but it goes back to the safety versus freedom debate. How many lives must we risk for mass safety?
I never looked at brutality as a "fear-induced" concept. I agree with Eric that those two ideas do go together in that it shows what causes the need for brutality and what the consequences are. However, in the case of genocides, why would one group of people who are already in power demonstrate such brutality against those already being oppressed, for example the Nazis and the German-Jewish population? I don't think fear or conquest are the only reasons for human brutality. This is only true when the one in power isn't a deranged sociopath.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. Maybe brutality begins with necessity to cause fear and suppression. Then once someone has power go to their head, it can escalate to atrocities. Also, I can't seem to find your blog on the blog roll - is it not on their or something?
Delete