Posts
Why is brutality a necessary part of conquest? Brutality and conquest seemingly go hand in hand when one looks back on the civilizations of old. The definition of conquering listed by Merriam-Webster is "to gain or acquire by force of arms" They go hand in hand so much that sources rarely talk about the why. In Conquest: How Societies Overwhelm Others by David Day the only discussion I found about brutality revolved around how societies justify brutality, not why they engage in it in the first place. Then again doesn't justification provide some instance for why the acts were committed? Either way Day listed several ways of justification: Religious, (spreading the faith) moral (our society is the best and we need to show the barbarians how to behave) and Hitler famously said the only justification he needed was the blood of his enemies (Day 94).
These reasons provide a bit of insight into the psyche of why brutality is a part of conquest. Most every conqueror didn't have a problem with brutality. and from the justifications given, it is fair to say that most conquerors thought of their opponents as lesser in some way. This condescending attitude I believe is the root of brutality. When you consider the american slave experience such as in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison, the prevailing attitude among the Whites committing acts of brutality is that these people are worth less than their own lives; they do not view them as equals. Once that mental barrier is down humans are capable of horrific brutality. But just because someone is capable of brutality doesn't mean they will commit it, so why is brutality committed in conquering?
From the dawn of time, wars have always been ugly, and one could argue that war has evolved to favor the brutal. In early primitive wars, wouldn't a society that was more brutal and willing to destroy the will of the enemy be much more likely to survive? If we look at the history of American Wars as well we find that the further along we go, the more brutal warfare becomes. For example in the American Revolution, the US army engaged in guerilla warfare and broke many of the established rules of war such as firing upon officers, attacking the day after Christmas. This willingness to temporary suspend morals definitely contributed to the American victory. Move forward 4 score and seven years and in the civil war and Union General William Sherman is leading his infamous march to the sea. Sherman burned down farms in the south and stole food from civilians. Sherman argued that the war was against the people supporting the enemy as well. Now skip ahead to World War 2 where the allies bombed Hamburg, Germany and killed at the very least 40,000 civilians. Lest we forget the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forever are shrouded in controversy. Then we move forward in time and still we haven't changed dropping napalm on Vietnamese innocents and ordering drone strikes in the Middle East which hit civilians.
The societies that are around and about, are those who have succeeded in warfare and the current world we live in dictates that to win a war you must be brutal. That is why conquest and brutality go hand in hand, because people value victory at all costs; even their own morals.
This is a very interesting post in that it provides a viable reason for brutality: it facilitates victory. I like that you used multiple historical references for solid evidence. You asked very apt questions that made the post more thoguht-provoking.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that like having a condesending attitude towards your enemy, de-humanizing them is just as, if not more effective at breaking down the barriers between being able to commit these acts and not being able to. You had a paper chock-full of historical references; good job, you sound credible. I guess conquerers are just sticking to what has worked in the past, eh? (brutality)
ReplyDeleteI agree that dehumanizing the enemy allows us to do horrible things as it numbs us toward others. This is pretty much the only way I can imagine Hitler committing the holocaust against the Jews (or the armenian genocide, etc.)
DeleteI liked your strong thesis with heavy backing from history, the wide use of examples and the use of the Day source were nice. I did disagree slightly with the difference between the conquerors and the conquered, to me it seems they both are engaged in violence without morals there is only one difference between the two sides, one wins and one loses. To me it is true that conquest involves brutality but only because war involves brutality not because winning a war makes someone more inherently evil.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Matt, one side wins and one side loses. I feel like that itself is pretty brutal. But does winning really make the winner more inherently evil? Forgive me for using a cliche example but MLK and his fight for rights, although not combat war rather a social and psychotically one, when they won did that make them inherently evil>
DeleteI would merely say that the societies we have around today are around because they have for the most part had military success. Personally in my research I found a connection between military success and willingness to cross moral lines. Yes the losers have brutality as well (it couldn't have been a contest without some brutality on both ends) but I believe brutality is a sort of arms race and societies that have won wars with brutality set this bar higher and higher.
DeleteGoing off both of your responses, I agree with Matt in the sense that in violent battles throughout history, both sides are usually engaged in brutality and thus the conquerors should not be regarded as more violent simply because they prevailed. Battles with one sided violence, such as MLK's struggle are very rare, but in such cases, of course the more peaceful opponent would be looked at more favorably.
DeleteI liked how you cited evidence from literature and history. Brutality does serve as the easiest and often as the necessary way to either prevail in a battle or conquer a less civilized people. People don't want to get hurt and thus they will comply with the inflictor of the distress in the majority of situations.
ReplyDeleteI think this brings up an interesting point about fear. To what extent does fear play into conquest?
DeleteYour examples from history/literature were powerful and rightly used. This was a great linear response that managed to connect all the dots, exploring all the different view points without favoring one of the other.
ReplyDeleteI also liked how you included the examples without bias, this was a very objective analysis and I liked that.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly did your research!!! Tons of facts and historical evidence really strengthened this response.I also like that you presented a mainly unbiased response. Do you think war has evolved to favor brutality? Even though we rarely engage in man on man combat, which I personally view as more brutal because it is pitting one man against another. Current warfare, or at least in the major wars that we engage in are less personal, which in and of itself is a whole other issue.
ReplyDelete