Seminar Make-Up, Questions to The Roots of War
- “However and whenever war began, it has persisted and propagated itself with the terrifying tenacity of a beast attached to the neck of living prey, feeding on human effort and blood.” By Barbara Ehrenreich.
I agree with this statement. This is making me realize that war is an addiction for some of us. Addiction might not be the right word but as animals need their prey to live some people need a way to get their hatred and violence out by fighting and killing. We as people feed off of war. We learn and grow mentally by learning how to strategize, or learning the nature of people so that it is easier to attack but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to learn these types of skills.
As the author mentions, there is 12,000 years in evidence of war. Twelve thousand years is a lot of time to be fighting a war, it is hard to change the ways of how we, the people of the world, communicate and show our aggression towards each other after that much time.
- She doesn’t think that the strategies of violent speech and imagery will totally get rid of war. Her idea of getting rid of war would be to absolutely get rid of everything about war, including all of the weaponry and that way there is no way to have a violent war. This is a smart conclusion to getting rid of war because then there is nothing left to attack. Even though there might be something to cause a war it won’t be possible because there will be nothing to use.
- I do not think it is possible to end war by fighting war because it is an ongoing deal of hatred. It might be a way to end war if it ended in a peaceful resolution, but it doesn’t. It would just cause the same amount of negative interaction between areas and people. Nothing about war concludes to a happy ending unless you have made a deal or an agreement to the ending or how it ends and even then I doubt everybody could end up happy.
- Both of the authors realize that war is kind of a necessity for some people and that it is also a bit of an addiction The thing is they both come out with different conclusions about how to end war and that is where their ideas differ. These two pieces of writing both believe in very different ideas about how to deal with war and how to look at it. Germany and The Next War the author believes that getting rid of war is not a good idea because we need war to advance in ideas and society. While in The Roots of War the author, Barbara Ehrenreich says that we should totally abolish war including everything that comes with it because that is how we will solve not having violence. Both of the articles make good points even though they both have different ideas of how the ending should go I agree with both and I think both of the strategies are true.
