I wrote a paper for college, well over a decade and a half ago. The details have grown fuzzy, I can't really recall my sources, but it changed my way of thinking tremendously.
See, I was looking at some of our involvement in low-grade conflicts. At the time, that meant Bosnia. Somalia. Haiti.
I used to agree, if I'd ever thought about it, with the notion that 'ancient ethnic hatreds' could suddenly flare up. A nice and neat way of explaining how reasonable people could get caught in a bloody war, one that didn't really place the blame on anyone. After all, how can you blame anyone specific for 'ancient ethnic hatreds'?
It didn't pass the smell test. Or rather, when you get a place like Bosnia- a place that used to have a large number of mixed marriages, and mixed communities- people do not normally wake up thinking "I hate ____ and want to kill them all." These are your neighbors. Your in-laws. Relatives and friends. If you successfully are living like that, ignoring 'ancient' hatreds, going about your day to day life without trying to kill off the people around you, then something has to trigger a change. Something has to make you decide that it's no longer okay that your neighbors are somehow other, that your wife or husband or cousin or brother's spouse or whoever is suddenly not acceptable. Sure, there might have been tension before. Said 'ancient hatred' probably weren't completely dead. But it was not relevant enough to make you protest when some relative decides to marry someone from the other group.
So what changed?
From what I recall, specific people (for whatever reason) decided they had something to gain by pushing ethnic issues. Take over the radios, the news, spew out content discussing how much 'your' people were discriminated against. Push to arm yourselves (for self defense, natch.) Then, when the government or some authority figure gets nervous about having a bunch of armed people around, take their attempts at disarming your group as proof (proof, I tell you!) that you are threatened.
There's more to it of course. But enough actions like that, and you too can end up in a bloody war in which numerous of your loved ones die or become displaced refugees.
I sometimes wonder, if they had known the consequences of their actions, would they truly have used such... disruptive techniques to gain power?
Eh, but most people don't honestly think it'll happen like that. Like the infamous 'short, victorious war' they think they'll wind up on top, and don't think about the potential toll along the way. (And generally, once blood is in the air, the toll just becomes further incentive to fight violently. Part of why blood feuds are such a problem.)
The sad thing is, it's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build it up. There is a beauty, I suppose, in pure destruction. Back in the Army, I have to admit there's just something about throwing hand grenades (for example) and making a big 'boom'. There's a reason why we like to watch demolitions experts tear down an old building. But hey, there are constructive outlets for that sort of thing. Like becoming one of those demolitions experts. Most people do realize there's a difference between seeing an old building demolished in order to build something new, vs. someone deciding to attack a bunch of people with a truck IED or something.
As for love of destruction, I don't necessarily think it's a gender thing, but I do think some young boys go through a stage where they're drawn to that sort of thing. Like shooting out street lights, or traffic signs, or knocking over mailboxes. I don't really know why... an old friend of mine once told me about some of the shenanigans he and his friends got up to (potato guns, etc) and mentioned the street light thing. Or maybe it was something similar? Anyways, all I could think of was the homeowner who now had to spend the time and money fixing it. Same thing when kids knock down mailboxes. The owner now has to repair the mailbox, which can cost a hundred or so dollars. And as for traffic signs the government has to repair them eventually (I've seen some shot up signs way out in the country, though by the number of holes in them I wasn't sure if the government had just given up on fixing them or not gotten around to them yet).
It's the kind of childish delight in destruction or inability to see the consequences to others that people (thankfully) mostly grow out of. Or at least, find ways of feeding it that don't involve harming other people. (Like joining a bomb squad or something.)
Construction is so much harder. So much more challenging. Anyone can go around destroying things (though certain types of engineers have a much better idea of how to do it efficiently.)
Not just anyone, however, can go about building things back up.
Was there a point to all this rambling? Kind of, I suppose. It's mostly about the nastiness in our current political environment.
And... while both sides have certainly done their fair share of horrible political moves, there's a certain strand of ugliness to those like Breitbart and the like that remind me of gleefully destructive children.
The same sort of attitude that trolls delight in, who feel empowered and strengthened by getting people to react.
Who cares if the trouble they stir up leads to worse things? They either don't believe it will be that bad (i.e. a false belief that people aren't truly that foolish, or that they'll come out on top) or they don't really care (burn it all down.)
They sometimes come across as shining examples of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. That is, they come up with some highly intelligent strategies that betray serious foolishness about human nature and human behavior.
Well, I call it foolishness. Just as destruction is easier than construction, gaining power by appealing to the worst in human nature is far easier than appealing to our better natures. And it can take a while before the negative consequences of doing so become obvious.
See, I was looking at some of our involvement in low-grade conflicts. At the time, that meant Bosnia. Somalia. Haiti.
I used to agree, if I'd ever thought about it, with the notion that 'ancient ethnic hatreds' could suddenly flare up. A nice and neat way of explaining how reasonable people could get caught in a bloody war, one that didn't really place the blame on anyone. After all, how can you blame anyone specific for 'ancient ethnic hatreds'?
It didn't pass the smell test. Or rather, when you get a place like Bosnia- a place that used to have a large number of mixed marriages, and mixed communities- people do not normally wake up thinking "I hate ____ and want to kill them all." These are your neighbors. Your in-laws. Relatives and friends. If you successfully are living like that, ignoring 'ancient' hatreds, going about your day to day life without trying to kill off the people around you, then something has to trigger a change. Something has to make you decide that it's no longer okay that your neighbors are somehow other, that your wife or husband or cousin or brother's spouse or whoever is suddenly not acceptable. Sure, there might have been tension before. Said 'ancient hatred' probably weren't completely dead. But it was not relevant enough to make you protest when some relative decides to marry someone from the other group.
So what changed?
From what I recall, specific people (for whatever reason) decided they had something to gain by pushing ethnic issues. Take over the radios, the news, spew out content discussing how much 'your' people were discriminated against. Push to arm yourselves (for self defense, natch.) Then, when the government or some authority figure gets nervous about having a bunch of armed people around, take their attempts at disarming your group as proof (proof, I tell you!) that you are threatened.
There's more to it of course. But enough actions like that, and you too can end up in a bloody war in which numerous of your loved ones die or become displaced refugees.
I sometimes wonder, if they had known the consequences of their actions, would they truly have used such... disruptive techniques to gain power?
Eh, but most people don't honestly think it'll happen like that. Like the infamous 'short, victorious war' they think they'll wind up on top, and don't think about the potential toll along the way. (And generally, once blood is in the air, the toll just becomes further incentive to fight violently. Part of why blood feuds are such a problem.)
The sad thing is, it's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build it up. There is a beauty, I suppose, in pure destruction. Back in the Army, I have to admit there's just something about throwing hand grenades (for example) and making a big 'boom'. There's a reason why we like to watch demolitions experts tear down an old building. But hey, there are constructive outlets for that sort of thing. Like becoming one of those demolitions experts. Most people do realize there's a difference between seeing an old building demolished in order to build something new, vs. someone deciding to attack a bunch of people with a truck IED or something.
As for love of destruction, I don't necessarily think it's a gender thing, but I do think some young boys go through a stage where they're drawn to that sort of thing. Like shooting out street lights, or traffic signs, or knocking over mailboxes. I don't really know why... an old friend of mine once told me about some of the shenanigans he and his friends got up to (potato guns, etc) and mentioned the street light thing. Or maybe it was something similar? Anyways, all I could think of was the homeowner who now had to spend the time and money fixing it. Same thing when kids knock down mailboxes. The owner now has to repair the mailbox, which can cost a hundred or so dollars. And as for traffic signs the government has to repair them eventually (I've seen some shot up signs way out in the country, though by the number of holes in them I wasn't sure if the government had just given up on fixing them or not gotten around to them yet).
It's the kind of childish delight in destruction or inability to see the consequences to others that people (thankfully) mostly grow out of. Or at least, find ways of feeding it that don't involve harming other people. (Like joining a bomb squad or something.)
Construction is so much harder. So much more challenging. Anyone can go around destroying things (though certain types of engineers have a much better idea of how to do it efficiently.)
Not just anyone, however, can go about building things back up.
Was there a point to all this rambling? Kind of, I suppose. It's mostly about the nastiness in our current political environment.
And... while both sides have certainly done their fair share of horrible political moves, there's a certain strand of ugliness to those like Breitbart and the like that remind me of gleefully destructive children.
The same sort of attitude that trolls delight in, who feel empowered and strengthened by getting people to react.
Who cares if the trouble they stir up leads to worse things? They either don't believe it will be that bad (i.e. a false belief that people aren't truly that foolish, or that they'll come out on top) or they don't really care (burn it all down.)
They sometimes come across as shining examples of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. That is, they come up with some highly intelligent strategies that betray serious foolishness about human nature and human behavior.
Well, I call it foolishness. Just as destruction is easier than construction, gaining power by appealing to the worst in human nature is far easier than appealing to our better natures. And it can take a while before the negative consequences of doing so become obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment