Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
Quote of the Day
"The Iliad is ever mindful that war is about men killing or men killed. In the entire epic, no warrior, whether hero or obscure man of the ranks, dies happily or well. No reward awaits the soldier's valor; no heaven will receive him. The Iliad's words and phrases for the process of death make clear that this is something baneful: dark night covers the dying warrior, hateful darkness claims him; he is robbed of sweet life, his soul goes down to Hades bewailing its fate. Again and again, relentlessly, the Iliad hammers this fact: the death of any warrior is tragic and full of horror. Even in war, death is regrettable."
- Caroline Alexander, The War That Killed Achilles
That is a good quote.
Let's romanticize war some more.
This is a really interesting quote to me in light of all the recent discussions about the importance (or not) of authenticity and verisimilitude in war movies. I wrote this last week:
"Answering these questions isn't really about movies, I don't suppose, but about morality: even in a world that needs soldiers, and that knows it needs soldiers, do writers, filmmakers, and other entertainers have some responsibility to create art that refuses to glorify war? Would it even be effective if they did? After all, we've had Stephen Crane and Robert Service and so on, and "Platoon" and "The Thin Red Line" and "Dances With Wolves" and others that make it clear that war's no picnic. But there will always be Virgil and Tennyson and John 15:13. And what about art for its own sake? Should we be similarly critical of literature and film that deals with drug abuse, or murder, or suicide?"
Not sure whether everyone saw the op-ed in the Times on the subject, but the writer's argument is basically that there's no such thing as glory in war, and movies should make that clear. My feelings on the subject are less certain, though I can understand how an experience like the writer's would be formative on this.
Good reminder that even the ancients weren't all cheerleaders for war, and that this debate -- authenticity versus art -- has been going on in the war literature for pretty much ever.
I honestly believe that any one who has served ( and I exclude myself form that list) will state with conviction that there is nothing romantic about death. I had an uncle die at the Somme, he drowned in the mud at the bottom of the trench, weighted down by the ballast that was his pack and coat, gun and ammunition. I was just a wee bairn when my mother told me that story. Knocked the glamor right off the idea of a glorious military death.
Death or injury in combat can certainly be noble, it can be sacrificial and it can be for the greater good, but it is nothing to glamorize and harp about.
Socrates had no problem with war. He was of citizen-soldier for Greece -hoplite status- (armored warrior) and fought in several campaigns. He served with distinction at Delium and Amphipolis during the Peloponnesian War.
If I may quote Socrates; he said "All wars are fought for money." Caroline Alexander said, "Iliad hammers this fact: the death of any warrior is tragic and full of horror. Even in war, death is regrettable."
Alexander insinuates that if you die in war, Hades awaits you. I just want to point out, if Socrates died in war, he would have died 400 BC. Knowing this, he might have been judged by Mithra, as Zoroastrianism was the religion at that time. Christ and hell (Hades) didn't come till much later.
One additional problem, also, was that the concept of "sin" was not yet invented back then. Socrates, being the leading philosopher of the time, pursued truth and morals as the highest virtue. There was no room for dogma in his teachings. I doubt that he discussed Mithra or Hades very often. He probably just kept his potbelly, bulging eyes and flat nose, and went to Hell. Oh wait, Hell wasn't invented back then either ...
"There's no such thing as a glorious death... just death"
Its been a while since I read Homer. My recollection is that although Alexander may be correct in what she says, the overwhelming message of the iliad and odyssey seemed, to me and the fellow students, that war is a glorious thing, dying for your country/city was the pinnacle of man's achievements etc etc .
I'm not sure why a lot of representations of war still glorify it to a certain extent, but its probably something to do with Johnson's maxim that "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier" (well, at least presumably the ones who havent been soldiers)
Think Homer would be considered to be a liberal democrat by today's standards. I would have to climb into my time machine to look at Homer's time to determine why he wrote what he did.........just to be fair. Not trying to say he was wrong, but there is a time and place for all in life and death.
If your going to do it, might has well look for something more modern....George S. Patton
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. Spricht Deutsch?
&
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. think that sums up a response to today's qoute.......poor them.....has something to do with the invasion of Poland, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11
Hitler hat mehr als Juden an Fossenburg gekocht. Es hat Vereinigte Staaten Regierung Soldaten auch gekocht.
Dunkelheit existiert in den Herzen von Männern
If you did not get my poor German.....Flossenburg was a town near the Czech border. My buddy who was Kennedy's color guard was in that area in the 60's and told me about Flossenburg. The SS killed and disposed of US prisoners of war at Flossenburg. Jews were not the only people they picked on. Not sure how well known that is. There were a lot of folks the SS did not like. You can read that between the lines in the history of the concentration camp. Met up with one of the guys that liberated a different concentration camp, interesting discussion stuff you do not hear about in the news. Lot of that was glossed over after WW2 to help mend the feelings. That was long before the Japanese-Americans cried about detention. My father's childhood live was saved by a German that was later arrested for spying in ww2. My father served on the frontlines to kill his cousins, as did a lot of GI's.
Now you ask me what was my buddy doing in the area? One of his jobs was to go into eastern bloc areas and try to talk Soviet Officers to defect. He did at least one. Had his work pass and would trek off into to the bad lands and that is all he had....and his witts. What happened if he was found out?
One of his group was captured......Soviets hung him and put him on display on their side of the border....it was cat and mouse.
The last sentence is.....Darkness exists in the hearts of men....
You do not have to die in war to find the devil......hence the reference to Poland, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Sometimes you have no choice.....like it or not. Liberal Democrat or not. A lot of guys died to let you whine (or wine).
I just want to point out, if Socrates died in war, he would have died 400 BC. Knowing this, he might have been judged by Mithra, as Zoroastrianism was the religion at that time.
Zoroastrianism!? Not in Athens, I think....
The quote reminds me of Williams in Henry V:
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.
Heraclitus born 540 bc, - died 480. Greek philosopher remembered for his cosmology, in which fire forms the basic material principle of an orderly universe. Zoroaster is said to have influenced Heraclitus. Zoroastrianism / Mithra-worshipers were common in Greece and in Persia. Mithraism was the main religion before Christianity. Mithras worship started around 800BC. Mithras / Zoroastrianism was worshipped just about everywhere, from Syria to the UK
Check for your yourself. It's on the net.
I think you've watched Clash of the Titan's one to many times...
I think you've watched Clash of the Titan's one to many times...
Look, I'm sorry, Zoroastrianism wasn't the main religion of Classical Greece. Seriously, are you high? They built enormous temples to Zeus and Apollo and Poseidon. They're still there! You can visit them and everything! They put Pallas Athene, guardian of the city, on their coins! They built enormous statues of her!
The Ancient Greeks, and I know this may come as a shock, worshipped the Ancient Greek Gods.
No doubt there were some Zoroastrians around in the Golden Age of Athens - not many, I'd think, as it was a young religion at that time, and little known in Greece (at least according to Herodotos, who didn't know much about it). But saying Greece was Zoroastrian is frankly insane.
I have to second Ajay (and others) here, Kratos. Though you are right that the Greeks do not seem to have had the concept of sin that is found in the Bible until well after Socrates' death, to say that the Greeks did not see the dead as going to Hades is, as Ajay says, frankly insane. Where else, after all, does Odysseus go when he visits the land of the dead in the Odyssey?
Not to mention that your conflating of Zoroastrianism and worship of Mithras seems to be mistaken. Whereas Zoroastrianism certainly was an Eastern tradition, Mithraism seems to have been born in Rome shortly before the time of Christ. So while Zoroastrianism probably did have its share of followers in Athens in Socrates' day, the Mithraic Mysteries do not seem to have appeared anywhere until centuries after Socrates' death.
"Check for yourself, it's on the Net"...hilarious!
Pretty sure this commenter is high. Herodotus encountered Zoroastrianism in Persia and thought it was totally bizarre. Definitely not something that existed in classical Greece.
The dopers in Reynosa Mexico have a winning media reachout strategy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/world/americas/14mexico.html
"..the attacks on members of the media now under way in Reynosa and elsewhere along a long stretch of border from Nuevo Laredo to Matamoros are at their worst.
Traffickers have gone after the media with a vengeance in these strategic border towns where drugs are smuggled across by the ton. They have shot up newsrooms, kidnapped and killed staff members and called up the media regularly with threats that were not the least bit veiled. Back off, the thugs said. Do not dare print our names. We will kill you the next time you publish a photograph like that.
“They mean what they say,” said one of the many terrified journalists who used to cover the police beat in Reynosa. “I’m censoring myself. There’s no other way to put it. But so is everybody else.."
They need to build a friendship wall between the US and Mexico. With a moat of napalm and 50 calibers. We have 3 wars going on, one on drugs, Iraq and Afghanistan... over 1/2 the States in the US are bankrupt and the President wants to tax us more with his Health Care for all...including the mules who bring the drugs in the U.S.
If they legalized the shit, we wouldn't have these problems....or would we?
SOCOM should start running black ops on the cartels, like we did with Pablo. Kill them all...and it.will solve that problem for about a decade.
@visitor napalm,
"If they legalized the shit, we wouldn't have these problems....or would we?"
Yes. We. Would. But far worse. Let's remember the Dems governing default is Detroit (or pick an area where they rule for any time). They are going to put 15 million and counting up into the Hood -whether we call it the Hood, Trailer parks, barrio, public housing, public assistance etc. It's what they do.
(yes, I am telling you that if you are unemployed now for any length of time...welcome to the ghetto. If you have the option of joining the military to get out TAKE IT - even if WE start recruiting suicide bombers).
Now add drugs and the incipient gangsterism they bring with them and you have the Favela. We keep this up much longer and we're headed for worse than the 80's. For instance right now (you racialists should love this) huge swaths of white rural America is where the ghetto was in 1965 - to include all the really important indices - illegitimacy, unemployment, drugs, rising crime. As far as guns - what can I say? They got all the guns in the world. Oh porn and prostitution (de facto) are also on the rise. Usually the last two are for: drugs.
The key steps to getting to the tipping point are: unemployment, drugs (crime part of the package), breakdown of the family (which the state subsidizes).
Just give it a couple more years and it's set in stone for about 20. Or whenever we come out the other side of this and start electing Reagans, Giuliani's, Kemp's, Roths, and yes Clintons. How long was Harlem and Brooklyn in the toilet? Is St Louis out yet?
Add your comment