Humans, as William Golding subtly argued through his allegorical Lord of the Flies, are savages deep down. The only reason they are not savages at times is that on occasion they have established mechanisms that maintain order: Culture, for example, society’s rules of behavior, systems of justice that can be reduced to one commonality, punishment. Without its threat, humans revert to savagery; heck, they revert to it even with that threat.
You don’t have to look hard to find examples: The war crimes of Russians during the Ukrainian invasion, the massacres perpetrated by Hamas on Israelis that engendered casualties among Palestinians in return, and, well, just look around the planet. At any time and in almost any place humans embody Golding’s assessment of the species: Brutal savages only temporarily held in check by some overriding order.
Peace, in Golding’s view, is not just tenuous; it’s rare because the restrictions on savagey require constant vigilance. You let your guard down, you invite savagery. Think 9-11 and the recent incursion of Hamas into Israel; think “mean girls” in high schools spread across the planet; think bloodlust in boxing audiences.
Of course, there’s that other view, the one that says humans express their compassion in times of trouble Mother-Teresa-like. That means humans are good deep down. This view doesn’t have much support, however, because it reveals that the better side of humanity only shows itself in reactions to circumstances dire and monstrous. You might think “medics” in armies could be an ameliorating behavior in the savage business of war. That even in the worst circumstances, we reveal the best in humanity. But do we have medics because we are compassionate or because we need soldiers back in action? I think of the sophisticated, multilingual Civil War leader of the 20th Maine, Joshua Chamberlain, Medal of Honor recipient and later governor of his state. At Petersburg, Chamberlain was so severely wounded that he received a “death-bed” promotion. During the war he was wounded multiple times but returned to action after each wounding.
The “Battle” for Peace
It seems that we spend most of our energy just trying to keep the peace by warding off savagery. And as the recent attacks by Russian and Hamas forces indicate, savagery breeds savagery. The innocent suffer. But what are we humans to do? “Turning the other cheek”encourages savagery. If the Israelis did not respond militarily, the Hamas fighters would have continued to massacre the innocent. Savagery begets savagery, and when it begets compassion, it simply devolves into more savage savagery. The recent history of ISIS fighters torturing people stands as an example. Ukrainians were minding their own business when Russia attacked, massacred people, kidnapped and raped them. Istraelis were minding their own business when Hamas attacked.
It’s a battle. And it’s ongoing because those blinded by hate cannot see themselves as savages. In Manhattan, a group of people standing in support of Israel during the war with Hamas were countered by a group standing in support of Hamas on the opposite side of the street. Those supporting Hamas proclaimed the invaders “heroes.” And it didn’t matter that Hamas just murdered hundreds, including children. The savagery runs deep.
We don’t seem to have much choice in circumstances like the recent Hamas invasion: Those who would meet Hamas fighters in peace and reconciliation are summarily slaughtered. There is no negotiation with savages.
That Third View I mentioned in the Title, or Reductio ad Absurdum at Harvard
The savage human is a myth. People respond savagely only when provoked.
As in every instance of such savage attacks, once the savages have been savaged by those they attacked, they and their supporters will “sue for peace.” And those who fail to understand that bullies and savages only respond to savagery in kind, will continue to blame those who were attacked. Israelis have tried appeasement: in an attempt to solve their differences with Palestinians, Israel has attempted peaceful solutions, as they did in turning over Gaza to their sworn enemy. And the world has thrown money at the Palestinians who remain impoverished while their leader Abbas accumulated a net worth of $100 million. How did that happen? Was it the product of apartheid policies or corruption? Is Israel’s supposed apartheid policy the cause of Palestinian impoverishment? How is it that Israeli Arab citizens fare better than Palestinian Arabs in charge of their own destiny in Gaza? Have Palestinian leaders used all the aid they have received—including aid from the USA—into developing industry or weaponry?
Thirty-one Harvard groups believe that Israel is to blame for being attacked and for having its citizens murdered and tortured. It’s Israel’s supposed apartheid policies that warrant a barrage of rockets fired indiscriminately into its cities. Let’s answer their reductive thinking with reductive thinking: Those Harvard groups live in a secure society of elites protected by an army and police force with no threat from rockets. Do they keep their own peace?
As in almost every circumstance, humans removed from the consequences of savagery fail to see its potential threat. Out of sight, out of mind, in a sense: Evil doesn’t really exist. Would, as many have asked, those people at Harvard blame themselves if the people of Rhode Island launched rockets onto the campus? Would they so readily defend the Palestinian terrorists if they had the opportunity to walk among some 40 or more dead babies, some beheaded by the Palestinians the Harvard groups so happily support? Recall my repeated saying: That which is not personal is meaningless.
If the Harvard libs want to reduce the problem to apartheid policy, should they not look to see whether or not they could be similarly reduced to a people out of touch with the reality of human savagery? It’s easy to reduce the problems of others from afar, not so easy to reduce it up close, as the libs in NYC, Chicago, and other sanctuary cities across America have discovered in the midst of an illegal immigration crisis. It took the welcoming libs of Martha’s Vineyard less than a day to banish a small group of immigrants. That which is not personal is meaningless.
And the evil perpetrated on Israelis? Not personal to those at Harvard. Rockets fired into Harvard Yard? I certainly hope that never happens. Children of professors and graduate students beheaded by savages? I hope that never happens. But short of those atrocities, what will it take for libs to know that evil exists, that only by constant vigilance does a civilization remain civil? And only by recognition that evil perpetrated by a group committed to genocide will the people at Harvard come to understand that the savagery in a faroff land can appear at any time in Harvard Yard. Note, dear libs of Harvard, that faulting the victims of evildoers and not the evildoers only makes you vulnerable and, if I might be allowed a reduction, foolish.
In Sum
Three views: Humans are basically savage; humans are noble savages at times; savagery is the fault of the savaged. Should I add a fourth view? Coddled humans living in safety are incapable of recognizing evil unless they are its victims.
You don’t have to look hard to find examples: The war crimes of Russians during the Ukrainian invasion, the massacres perpetrated by Hamas on Israelis that engendered casualties among Palestinians in return, and, well, just look around the planet. At any time and in almost any place humans embody Golding’s assessment of the species: Brutal savages only temporarily held in check by some overriding order.
Peace, in Golding’s view, is not just tenuous; it’s rare because the restrictions on savagey require constant vigilance. You let your guard down, you invite savagery. Think 9-11 and the recent incursion of Hamas into Israel; think “mean girls” in high schools spread across the planet; think bloodlust in boxing audiences.
Of course, there’s that other view, the one that says humans express their compassion in times of trouble Mother-Teresa-like. That means humans are good deep down. This view doesn’t have much support, however, because it reveals that the better side of humanity only shows itself in reactions to circumstances dire and monstrous. You might think “medics” in armies could be an ameliorating behavior in the savage business of war. That even in the worst circumstances, we reveal the best in humanity. But do we have medics because we are compassionate or because we need soldiers back in action? I think of the sophisticated, multilingual Civil War leader of the 20th Maine, Joshua Chamberlain, Medal of Honor recipient and later governor of his state. At Petersburg, Chamberlain was so severely wounded that he received a “death-bed” promotion. During the war he was wounded multiple times but returned to action after each wounding.
The “Battle” for Peace
It seems that we spend most of our energy just trying to keep the peace by warding off savagery. And as the recent attacks by Russian and Hamas forces indicate, savagery breeds savagery. The innocent suffer. But what are we humans to do? “Turning the other cheek”encourages savagery. If the Israelis did not respond militarily, the Hamas fighters would have continued to massacre the innocent. Savagery begets savagery, and when it begets compassion, it simply devolves into more savage savagery. The recent history of ISIS fighters torturing people stands as an example. Ukrainians were minding their own business when Russia attacked, massacred people, kidnapped and raped them. Istraelis were minding their own business when Hamas attacked.
It’s a battle. And it’s ongoing because those blinded by hate cannot see themselves as savages. In Manhattan, a group of people standing in support of Israel during the war with Hamas were countered by a group standing in support of Hamas on the opposite side of the street. Those supporting Hamas proclaimed the invaders “heroes.” And it didn’t matter that Hamas just murdered hundreds, including children. The savagery runs deep.
We don’t seem to have much choice in circumstances like the recent Hamas invasion: Those who would meet Hamas fighters in peace and reconciliation are summarily slaughtered. There is no negotiation with savages.
That Third View I mentioned in the Title, or Reductio ad Absurdum at Harvard
The savage human is a myth. People respond savagely only when provoked.
As in every instance of such savage attacks, once the savages have been savaged by those they attacked, they and their supporters will “sue for peace.” And those who fail to understand that bullies and savages only respond to savagery in kind, will continue to blame those who were attacked. Israelis have tried appeasement: in an attempt to solve their differences with Palestinians, Israel has attempted peaceful solutions, as they did in turning over Gaza to their sworn enemy. And the world has thrown money at the Palestinians who remain impoverished while their leader Abbas accumulated a net worth of $100 million. How did that happen? Was it the product of apartheid policies or corruption? Is Israel’s supposed apartheid policy the cause of Palestinian impoverishment? How is it that Israeli Arab citizens fare better than Palestinian Arabs in charge of their own destiny in Gaza? Have Palestinian leaders used all the aid they have received—including aid from the USA—into developing industry or weaponry?
Thirty-one Harvard groups believe that Israel is to blame for being attacked and for having its citizens murdered and tortured. It’s Israel’s supposed apartheid policies that warrant a barrage of rockets fired indiscriminately into its cities. Let’s answer their reductive thinking with reductive thinking: Those Harvard groups live in a secure society of elites protected by an army and police force with no threat from rockets. Do they keep their own peace?
As in almost every circumstance, humans removed from the consequences of savagery fail to see its potential threat. Out of sight, out of mind, in a sense: Evil doesn’t really exist. Would, as many have asked, those people at Harvard blame themselves if the people of Rhode Island launched rockets onto the campus? Would they so readily defend the Palestinian terrorists if they had the opportunity to walk among some 40 or more dead babies, some beheaded by the Palestinians the Harvard groups so happily support? Recall my repeated saying: That which is not personal is meaningless.
If the Harvard libs want to reduce the problem to apartheid policy, should they not look to see whether or not they could be similarly reduced to a people out of touch with the reality of human savagery? It’s easy to reduce the problems of others from afar, not so easy to reduce it up close, as the libs in NYC, Chicago, and other sanctuary cities across America have discovered in the midst of an illegal immigration crisis. It took the welcoming libs of Martha’s Vineyard less than a day to banish a small group of immigrants. That which is not personal is meaningless.
And the evil perpetrated on Israelis? Not personal to those at Harvard. Rockets fired into Harvard Yard? I certainly hope that never happens. Children of professors and graduate students beheaded by savages? I hope that never happens. But short of those atrocities, what will it take for libs to know that evil exists, that only by constant vigilance does a civilization remain civil? And only by recognition that evil perpetrated by a group committed to genocide will the people at Harvard come to understand that the savagery in a faroff land can appear at any time in Harvard Yard. Note, dear libs of Harvard, that faulting the victims of evildoers and not the evildoers only makes you vulnerable and, if I might be allowed a reduction, foolish.
In Sum
Three views: Humans are basically savage; humans are noble savages at times; savagery is the fault of the savaged. Should I add a fourth view? Coddled humans living in safety are incapable of recognizing evil unless they are its victims.
RSS Feed