History of Violence
I was recently asked by a Christian woman, what I’ve come to deem the strangest question known to man. Being that I am a man, I felt inclined to give an answer.
She asked me, “Why does “MAN,” love to fight?”
In truth this question was targeted to the male population. This was only revealed after I ignored her question and she prodded me further by asking a much more targeted question, “Why do “Men,” LOVE to fight?”
With the years of movies, television shows, news reports, stories of wars in far away places, and the interpersonal relationships of her own life~ which she would suggest she was never violent to anyone, stanchly keeping to her Christian principals of “turning the other cheek,” upon any form of confrontation; she truly was at a loss of understanding death and a “MAN’s” need to kill. Believing if a woman kills she is of a reprobate mind and deserving an asylum, for violence is never justified. (In her mind.)
Living in America all these years she still weeps for the Native American and believes none of them had a chance to know Jesus and that’s why they chose to kill, opposed to seek peaceful relations with the American invaders.
I only had one answer that sums up our American history and propensity toward violence when terms of peace have been violated; “Self-preservation;” becomes the great equalizer in our realm of chaotic reasoning.” No one likes to fight, in all honesty. Very few really can. No longer do we live in a feudal society, yet when we are placed in feudalistic circumstances, self-preservation becomes one’s only measure of justification. Cowboys did not like killing Indians any more than the Stick up man enjoys having to live the life on the run, avoiding a smoking gun. Self-preservation equalizes all involved.
In our light discussion this Christian woman has been known to compare me to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Much to my annoyance. She has seen me as a man of two eyes, the left dim and grey and unfeeling the right full of fire and green with passion.
Yet wouldn’t anyone suffer these twinges of feelings if they are made to incessantly repeat themselves. Nothing new expected from their lives. Living in the past, unable to complete the story they’ve begun. Hyde would raid the towns at night seeking the freedom he experienced as a solider of the Queens Army, and when he returned home was stuffed into the belly of the whale that was the vault of Jekyll’s mind. At some point we were to expect the break down of history. Then I think of my own, a mind filled to the brim with art depicting a freedom I’ll never truly obtain, acquired once; yearn for daily and must shove back into the vault of reason, lest I am to be seen as a demon like Hyde. It would be different if Jekyll’s psychosis was not based upon a plausible reality~ none would offend me, by comparing me to that monster~ Instead, they would have seen me as a man who lost something and help me in finding it. Thinking of Hyde I am always made to wonder if he ever found peace~ I’d have to re-read his story to remember.
For “Violence is in Our Nature,” and “Art of War,” I chose the image as an illustration to speak upon a topic that has shown it’s face culturally in America and world wide. A nature that is as violent as the weather and equally a sensation that must subside according to it’s own will. “Why do men like to fight?” is nearly as unexplainable as the diamond that crashed in the Sudan desert in 2008. Oh scientist have devised a story; and I could do the same, in hopes of assuaging your mind and giving you an answer. Whether it is believable or not; well that can only be determined by what it is you really want to believe.
I’ve proposed, “self-preservation,” is the only motivation for MAN’S desire to struggle. Yet somehow the answers that come easiest deter us from accepting them. We dig deeper into history, into the mind of a person; Jodie Aries for instance, imprisoned for murder; Never asking what drove her. Condemning her to the lot destiny of killers. Men and women protest the violence of the Gaza Strip; arrested for speaking against the deaths of Palestinians; which I find interesting; “They would risk being called traitors by their own political state? Risk their own self-preservation and of their countrymen?” (The contradiction is unbelievable and that is why it is broadcasted.)
Men bleed and die in hopes of self-preservation and the selfless (though very few in number, are imprisoned for ignoring a natural human reaction.) Why do men like to fight? I am a military brat that was not accepted into the Army as a Warrant Officer (one who flies helicopters) because I would teach ROTC cadets in my time of University studies that our leaders discourse upon Leadership was flawed. Where they taught “Good Leaders Know How To Follow.” I taught, “Good Leaders Know How To Think In Pursuit Of The Best Interests Of The Group.” This was the wrong, but correct thing to say in a cadets training course. Wrong because as the Corps would have it; Leadership was based upon who could follow orders, good or bad. Not upon who could obtain the goal placed upon the group. The structure was not based upon whether a mission was fruitful but whether one would do what they were told. Regardless of how one morally felt about the terms and conditions of one’s employ. I told the class and instructors as such; and though I analyzed correctly; I was told I was wrong to suggest good leadership took thought.
I am methodical because those whom pose a threat to anyone’s safety, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are even more methodical in how they can cause harm and keep a positive light shining upon their cause. Those seeking to conquer the innocent pursue quickly and with a vast determination out of fear and the formulated doctrine of “self-preservation.” I was not given the honor of serving my country. (I do see it as an honor.) Yet you would not believe the number of times I’ve had a gun in my face by a man desiring to kill me, simply because I had what he wanted or because he “heard” I was offended.
That last statement always threw me for a loop; L’ll o’d me was enough of a threat to a man to where he believed taking my life would ensure his own. Darwinist’s & Burton “Russellites,” have the same flawed mentality. Garrett Hardin, the ecologists explained it best; in his discourse commonly known as, “King of the Hill.” He compares the human community to the socio-economic cycle of plants and weeds. He believed when, “Man,” colonized themselves into groups in order to cultivate the most from their devised social order; anything outside of the “norm” was to be seen as a “weed.” “Man” seeks to protect it’s self interests (crops) from the encroaching nature of the “weed;” in hopes of achieving the best social order from what lies beneath; the resources that keep life going. Self preserving structures of thought that if you don’t root up the weed, protecting the King of the Hill, the crop dies and the weed thrives.
This was proposed to be the “natural reflection,” of the nature of modern and past man. Incessantly seeking to retain the best resources and crop and preserving the Hill or best life. If it was not done; according to these modern thinkers, you’d not have much of a crop.
I always defended man against this thought under the belief that we are not plants to be lined in rows, to be eaten by the “King of the Hill.” This of course does not change the fact that ecologists have tirelessly sought to write dissertations of this nature to defend genocide.
Am I a monk? a Pacifist? A Priest?
All of which are asked in hopes of binding the hands of a man who is entitled to the same “self-preserving,” fire as the man whom would talk of flowers and weeds.
2 Kings 9:22, Psalms 72.
Where “Man’s” nature is predicated upon self-preservation and the war with flesh. God’s nature is decreed in Matthew 18. A nature he commands of man in order to reach heaven.
Coinciding art work for a lot of our topic discussions can be found @ https://adventvoice.newgrounds.com/
At that site we like to have in-depth discussions about the art and the motivations behind them.
Recently we were discussing the implications of giving Pulitzer Prizes to individuals that have built portfolio’s that justifies the very mindset many of them would claim they could not personally condone in public.
We are believers in the freedom of expression, but we frown upon the cheering of hypocrisy.