Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Why do people make war?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
In Montgomery's "A History of Warfare" he writes the following "The pygmies are extremely peaceable, but for that very reason, and because they are weak, have been driven into the least habitable area of Africa by other more aggressive peoples. The Australian aborigines dislike war. But there are many tribes which regard war as normal like the Masai, Guaranis of Brazil, Apaches of North America, and the Dyaks and Kenyahs of Oceania."
Elaine Morgan in "The Descent of Woman" thinks that the "aggressive brake" which most animals have which stops conflict short of death has disappeared in the human race.
Nature does not make a mistake. Although it is laudable that we try through diplomacy and trade to prevent war, is it therefore natural and inevitable that humans wage warfare on one another? -
Message 2
Posted by Mohammadali (U1749930) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Hi DaughterLeah,
Nature does not make a mistake,but to us it looks very chaotic.War is one of the ways, we pay a price for having a sense of gratification.Thanks. -
Message 3
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
I don't know what you mean by "gratification being the price we have to pay." Gratification for what?
-
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
It is inevitable, I fear, although that does not mean that we should not try to avoid it if at all possible.
It comes as no surprise that one of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, the chimpanzee, is also one of the most agressive and will kill not only for what in human terms would be called military purposes (territorialism, mainly) but also on occasion simply because the victim is weaker than they are.
Perhaps ion some respects the human mind has become too sophisticated. Things like pride, nationalism and so on mean that humans are less likely to back down in conflicts than animals, leading inevitably to a higher death toll. -
Message 5
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Did you see the programme that has just finished on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ2 on the bonobo. Absolutely fascinating.
At the beginning of the programme it said that we share over 98% of our DNA with both the chimpanzee and the bonobo. Because the chimp is more noisy and volatile, it was studied in greater length and no-one bothered to study the bonobo. This has now been rectified and studies of bonobos are revealing more and more fascinating information.
It is posited that as we, humans, chimps and bonobos all had a common ancestor, we can recognise our aggressive streak in the chimp. Towards the end of the programme, when it was thought that due to the civil war in the Congo the bonobo had disappeared, research was done on their DNA, and it now seems that we share one gene with the bonobo that we do not share with the chimp. And that gene is the peace-making gene.
The bonobo are of course the peaceloving great ape. How they resolve aggression is of course not socially acceptable for humanity in daily life (sex in every shape and form whenever they meet, regardless of age or gender, for about 10 seconds and then they move on !!).
Chimps and bonobos aside, I feel that aggression, waging of war, murder (both spontaneous and premeditated) is part and parcel of who and what we are.
When you say "pride and nationalism" do you think you would say the same if, and of course this is a hypothetical if, there was no drought, no population explosion and no poverty.
I am just so interested in why human beings throughout history have gone to war when diplomacy has either failed or not even been attempted. I wish I'd studied anthropology.
However, I do agree with what you say in your first sentence that if at all possible, we should try and avoid war. But so often it doesn't work out that way.
-
Message 6
Posted by Mohammadali (U1749930) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Hi DaughterLeah,
As Anglo-Norman said"things like pride, nationalism".Gratification can come economic and social freedom.Gratification of power.Gratification from the realization of beliefs,thou they may be putrid. Thanks. I don't know what you mean by "gratification being the price we have to pay." Gratification for what?
Μύ -
Message 7
Posted by chalsealauren145 (U3301564) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Whats Antropology?
-
Message 8
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Recruit to recruter Ah dun wannata lern a trade...ah jus wanna shoot guyz...
-
Message 9
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
I read where (Jane Goodall?) wrote bands of Chimps would hunt down monkeys and kill them. Then they would tear them to bits and eat them. We don’t do that. Well not too often anyway.
Matt. -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Re: Message 7.
Chalsea,
Daughterleah has written "anthropology" instead of "antropology". It is important to write it correct as for having entries in for instance Google:
.
It's a bit difficult, perhaps better:
Warm regards and happy that you are so inquisitive for such a young girl. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Re: Message 5.
Leah,
I read the same about the bonobos and the chimpansees in an in-depth article in I suppose a Belgian weekly (I read that much, that I at the end don't know where I picked up the information).
It is very interesting and it will give us perhaps a clue about the human behaviour.
Leah, happy to have had a converstaion with you once again.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by Cerdic (U3121326) on Monday, 13th March 2006
People have fought each other seemingly since we first evolved! It must be because of a very basic drive.
Violence in animals is a result of either obtaining food or reaction to threat. As humans don't as a rule eat each other, the urge to violence is probably linked to feeling threatened. As "top predator", the main threat (real or imagined) comes from other humans.
This might be an organised tribal/national type thing or just a couple of lads having a punch up outside the pub!
Either way, violent behaviour towards other people is an integral part of the human species. I am not trying to defend or excuse war and violence, or saying we should not attempt to limit/stop it. Just don't try to say its just an abberation! -
Message 13
Posted by Leah01 (U3232387) on Monday, 13th March 2006
I agree with most of what you say. (BTW I am Leah01 at work and DaughterLeah at home, so it's the original poster replying to you).
I've seen male lions kill cubs that are not his because he wants his genes to continue, not another lion's. Chimpanzees have been known to murder in packs and drakes have been witnessed actually "raping" a female duck.
I do find the topic fascinating. It is assumed that we have progressed in many ways, but our evolutionary process takes far far longer to catch up, and I think that warfare is part and parcel of our mental make up, whether we like it or not. This does not mean that we should abandon dialogue, it's just that I'm not surprised when hostilities break out between peoples for apparently no logical reason.
Having said that, humanity is far more prone to a peaceful existence than an aggressive one, and long may that continue.
-
Message 14
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
In Montgomery's "A History of Warfare" he writes the following "The pygmies are extremely peaceable, but for that very reason, and because they are weak, have been driven into the least habitable area of Africa by other more aggressive peoples. The Australian aborigines dislike war. Μύ
It's probably true to say Aboriginal people disliked European style conflict, and the Australian frontier was different to other settler countries. However pre contact intertribal warfare appears to have been common. There were 2 features to it..
It was brief..Aboriginal people are almost exclusively hunter gatherers, so they would have to stop fighting to collect food
It was not about land. The conflict arose from grievance, revenge, dispute about women (of economic value in gathering food), often with ceremonies and rituals
I suppose the dismal answer to the question is that there are far too many reasons for war. -
Message 15
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
I read your thread and a quote sprang to mind. I'm sorry but I cant remeber who said it.
Its "Counties will only behave sensibly when they have tried every other possibility." -
Message 16
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Damn the lack of a spell checker. I meant countries. although those folk in Lancashire can be fairly silly.
-
Message 17
Posted by Leah01 (U3232387) on Tuesday, 14th March 2006
Yes, up there they say "T'whole world is mad 'xcept thee and me, and me's not too sure 'bout thee."
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.