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

I wasn't thinking of the ancients at all in this conversation, Robbie :) -- just
about this conversation Today :). Really, I was responding to Scottie more than
to you, but I didn't make that clear. Honestly, modern popular discourse about
war generally, and effectively, ignores the ancients in place of a direct
representation of the individual experience of war and the immediate social
ramifications about war.

It's important to recognize that participants in war in the 20th century often
took issue with _any_ positive statements made about war.

Jim

PS I don't think Roman citizenship was really gained all that easily. Even in
the account you mention, a Roman soldier mentions to Paul that he had to
purchase his citizenship at no small price. Paul was born a citizen, making him
(ostensibly) more worthy of respect, as his citizenship extended at least one
generation, if not more.

Material benefits are often cited as an advantage of military occupation by a
foreign power, but somehow I don't think those living under that occupation
really believe that crap...that's entirely the self-justification of the ruling
class from the British to the Americans to the ancient Romans, probably.

"L. Manning Vines" wrote:

> 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

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH