Categories
philosophy politics Uncategorized

Peace and Goodwill

A lasting memory I have of secondary school history lessons is the description of the 1914 Christmas truce during World War I. With subsequent study and a few pointers in the right direction from a friend of mine who’s a budding WWI historian I realised that my teacher had embellished the story somewhat. As, I suppose, history teachers in an all-male school are likely to do when dealing with a class of rowdy teenagers who are only pacified by talk of war.
This event has been romanticised and mythologised for 95 years. In spite of the debris the story has gathered with retelling the facts are inspirational. While retrenching for the new year push British and German soldiers on the front-line reduced their attacks until eventually a temporary truce was declared. What’s even more surprising is that the truce was preceded by gifts from either side including a chocolate cake which some German soldiers slipped into the British trenches. This was accompanied by a note suggesting a temporary ceasefire so the German troops “could celebrate their captain’s birthday”. The 1914 truce was repeated in 1915. The “Boy’s Own” story of the spontaneous football game between both sides is often recounted by football historians as demonstrating the power of sport to bring people together. I suppose somebody somewhere is busy writing a thesis about how the event shows how chocolate cake is a vital ingredient in building a lasting peace. I’m kidding but there’s no doubt that the event has proved culturally significant with experts, historians and clergy all suggesting differing and overlapping messages that we can take from the moments of kindness and sanity amidst one of mankind’s worst atrocities.

For me the most poignant aspect of the 2 Christmas day armistices was the opposition of many in the high command on British, French and German sides to the ceasefire and the orders to resume fighting or risk disciplinary action. In many respects, the spontaneous truces were based on a deepening sense of shared struggle between the opposing soldiers and their mutual distrust and disillusionment with their leaders who were safely ensconced in luxury around 30 miles behind the front line. Yeats put it extremely well in his 1919 poem – “An Irish Airman Foresees His Death”

Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan’s poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.

War and conflict are a constant in human history. Yet people fundamentally want peace. They want the dissipation of war, to go home to their loved ones and rebuild their lives. Perhaps, just perhaps, we don’t need war. That war is similar to an auto-immune disease where the body is tricked into attacking itself.

I’m sure some will disagree but in any war-like conflict I believe you can reduce the initiation of conflict to a policy decision, always accompanied by “heroic” rhetoric and justification. War is so abhorrent that it demands justification whether it’s by Kissinger’s or Obama’s. There’s nobody (especially not Nobel peace prize winners) who don’t comfort themselves with a “just war”. War is initiated by leaders at the cost of their followers. There is no just war, only a just defense of freedom.

For me, the best argument for pacifism and neutrality comes from a surprising but insightful source.

Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. – Herman Goering (convicted war criminal)

Ring any bells? You can verify this as part of the actual transcript taken during the Nuremberg trials in 1946. See more here.
A detailed and eye-witness account of the armistice is available at the First World War Multimedia Archives.

While those reading this post are probably sitting at home in surroundings which are luxurious and, hopefully, peaceful there are many who will spend this Christmas in warzones fearing attack. Soldier or civilian, the gift they really want is peace. They trust their leaders to be just and wise. These are the gifts our leaders need most this Christmas time.

Categories
philosophy

Connecting the dots

Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple, the largest independent shareholder in Disney and one of the most influential technologists for around 30 years. He’s also a brilliant public speaker which is probably why he was chosen to give Stanford’s 2005 graduation address. Stanford hold all copyrights on the clip and have made it available on YouTube.

In the context of 4 simple stories about his life Jobs provides some key insights into what motivated his success and the resilience required to get to and stay at “the top”. The most important advice he gives is that anything worth doing is hard so “you’ve gotta love what you do”. You must keep searching for it and “don’t settle”. This seems to be the key to a life less ordinary.

Categories
philosophy

Thought for the day

“A life lived with integrity – even if it lacks the trappings of fame and fortune is a shining star in whose light others may follow in the years to come.” – Denis Waitley

If only more people believed this the world would be a better place. Unfortunately they don’t. It’s too common in today’s society to attack those whose opinions differ from our own instead of considering their side. It’s often easier to defame and decry than to be fair. I’m lucky I guess as I met R who is a decent and honourable human being 🙂

Categories
philosophy

Jumping from couch to couch

If you haven’t seen this on gawker or youtube yet then you’re in for a treat. Now, I’m all for expressing unpopular beliefs (popularity is overrated) if you can provide a rational argument for them but if you fervently (WRIT LARGE) believe in something to the point of wild-eyed and frothing enthusiasm then an honest person has to share that with the world at large. Especially so if you view that you’re the “only person who can help” when you see an accident or that your religion is the “way to happiness”. More problematic is the anti-psychotherapist propaganda and the IPR protection of much of the Scientologist belief system. All “religions” seem to think they’re the way to happiness anyway. I guess what I object to about this is that people can have all the unsubstantiated beliefs they want but, at the minimum, theit tenets should be publicly available (not for cash) and publicly expressed, So, with the presumption that Mr Cruise is “extremely serious” he should be giving public interviews about all his beliefs. Even if his career nose-dived it’s not like he needs the money. He’s rightly afraid of ridicule as the Brooke Shields incident proved. Mother’s are movie-goers too! Still, if he’s so serious… ?
I guess I’m a religious committment-phobe. I’m comfortably agnostic but determine the existence of an unknown creator is low in probability based on our current knowledge of the universe. Still, I can’t know so I can’t even fully commit to agnosticism or atheism. Maybe it’s labels. I don’t want my psyche to be branded (or trademarked). I’m not sure I could commit to any religion that wanted me as a member, only kidding :S Gee that sounded smug, maybe I should make an informercial 😀
I reject the idea of “supernatural”, I just believe we can’t explain some things yet but we should be careful about forming belief systems about things we don’t understand. This applies to science aswell. As our knowledge of the physical world expands we better appreciate how neat formulaic beliefs don’t always hold (e.g. at the sub-atomic scale) and we appreciate that our beliefs are essentially heuristics which have a utility and should be measured as such. Bit cold, bit dry but there ya go 🙂 Still, a lot of rules and regulation in the major religions of the world have practical social value. Don’t eat meat that’s rotten, don’t fight your neighbour, don’t steal, kill etc.
It’s important to consider their context rather than blindly dismissing everything. Marx claimed that religion was the opium of the people. So, he replaced it with a new drug, just as powerful and stupefying.
I guess most people would chose certainty over ambiguity, destiny over happenstance and heaven over oblivion.