Re: Arma virumque cano [was Re: Hurtgen forest]

From: L. Manning Vines <lmanningvines@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon Aug 12 2002 - 01:49:54 EDT

Jim said:
<< What we need a little bit more of in this conversation is Sassoon,
Brooke, Owens...
 not to invalidate what's already been said, but to balance. >>

What they have to say might be added for more variety, but not, I think,
balance missing in the great ancients.

It is not the case that, for instance, Homer and Virgil were blind to the
horrors of war. Both are full of men with spears going through their
brains, and giving up the ghost; and they also include weeping and
screaming.

The Iliad is not REALLY about the Trojan War, which was many years long.
The poem takes place in one brief period from one of those years, and
includes neither the war's beginning nor end. The war is simply the
setting, and I do not believe that Homer is entirely uncritical of it, or
making claims or suggestions of exclusively positive aspects. Where the
poem ends, it seems to me, is particularly poignant, and particularly
indicative of Homer's balanced depiction.

And any claim of a Virgil uncritical of war, or even of Rome, must take
pains to explain the baffling way that Aeneus exits Hades: through the
portal of false dreams.

Will said:
<< I think I have enough insight into men like George Bush and Ariel
Sharon to know that I don't support their militaristic ways of
thinking. I certainly don't see evidence of their insightful,
peaceful thinking. So go ahead Scottie, romanticize war as this--the
"best" of young men fighting for stupid older men. >>

The cases with Bush and Sharon might not be good ones to illustrate
justifiable wars, but neither do I think that they can be reduced so simply
as you're doing here. I think that's an extreme simplification; as would be
the opposite, that war is simply and plainly good. I don't think that
anyone here is arguing for that extreme, though.

I believe the George Bush (and many of our countrymen) has a woefully
inaccurate understanding of the Middle East, and of American enemies there.
I believe that his and others' claims of a hatred for America based on a
hatred of Freedom is brazenly false. We are widely hated in particular
regions almost entirely on the grounds of policies we have in those regions,
and, quite bafflingly to me, our political leaders don't seem to acknowledge
this at all. But I do not believe that George Bush is simply sending young
men to fight for his stupid reasons. There is an actual problem and his
goal seems truly to be solving the problem -- even if his understanding of
the problem is bad, and his methods for solving it faulty. It might be
difficult to make a case for this as a good war, but to call it, simply,
young men fighting for stupid elders, seems equally difficult to me.

The case in Israel is even more complicated. For many and varied reasons,
the hope for peace that was palpable only a short time ago is quite nearly
gone entirely. Liberals are leaving the country or becoming conservatives.
People are sincerely trying to reconcile themselves with the possibility of
enduring this war for the rest of their lives. An overwhelming ambivalence
has taken the whole country. Polls indicate majority numbers for both of
two apparently contradictory views. A bumpersticker reads "Nachzir l'hem
v'shalom al Yisrael," or "Give to them, and peace in Israel." Give it to
them -- the occupied territories, but also, just give it to them. Like
givvit to 'em. Stomp 'em good. Palestine delenda est. The double meaning
is not lost on anyone, as everyone is so conflicted. People get killed
almost every day, and nobody knows what to do about it. The Israeli boys
rolling tanks down streets in Ramallah (and American Israeli boys wearing
fatigues in poshier positions in Haifa) aren't simply doing the dirty work
of stupid or evil old men. They might be fumbling, but it's a horrible and
complicated situation.

War has also returned Helen and liberated concentration camps. Many died at
the hands of Roman legions, but for much of the world, recorded history and
all of its benefits began the same day as Roman occupation -- a common law
and easy citizenship was extended widely (in the book of Acts, when it
became apparent that Paul was a Roman citizen, he was essentially apologized
to and sent on his way after being mistreated and imprisoned). All I mean
to suggest is that realities are usually complicated, and that assertions
for either extreme usually don't account for the complexities.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Aug 12 01:50:03 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 20:48:46 EDT