|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 47
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 47 |
With the new "hawkish" atmosphere in international politics which is both sad and foolish, does the expression of being a "hawk" relate solely to the predatory nature of the bird of prey this could refer to or is the origin of the word more complex than this?
Oh and war is an outcome decided by an elite, never the masses and those who choose it as a way forward never count the cost nor have to bear the consequences themselves. It is always a lazy outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Well, Ares' bird was the woodpecker, but that might be too vulnerable to idle manipulation.
Militis in galea nidum fecere columbae, adparet Marti quam sic amica Venus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
although this usage was merely an extension of earlier fig. use, this seems to have been the first (recorded) political application:
1962 ALSOP & BARTLETT in Sat. Even. Post 8 Dec. 20/1 The hawks favored an air strike to eliminate the Cuban missile bases... The doves opposed the air strikes and favored a blockade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re:war is an outcome decided by an elite, never the masses and those who choose it as a way forward never count the cost nor have to bear the consequences themselves. It is always a lazy outcome.
is that what Machivelli had to say? as i recall, he advocated negociations, and war was a extention, a physical level of negociations, to be avoided, and only used as a last resort. he also stressed war was expensive...
obviously, avoiding war is always a goal, and just as obviously, failed efforts at negociating peace often lead to war.
the american revolutionists thought it was perfectly logical for england to just back off and let us go our own way. we had a declaration of independance, not a declaration of war or even revolution. the english government saw things differently. England response to our declaration was to send in troops.
but after the war, we didn't end up with england as an enemy, but rather one of our prime trading partners-- we continued the negociations!
i don't want to go off on a political bent, and discuss good wars vs. bad wars, but countries and goverments generally only enter war after repeated attempts at other solutions.
unfortunately, it is often only with the twenty twenty hindsight that time gives us, that we see the real causes of the war, and how peaceful solutions might have been achived.
i actually think the whole of your quoted statement is very politically loaded..
war is an outcome decided by an elite,
often true... but then the elite often decide on the peace too, and lots of other things..even more so in countries that are Monarchies.
those who choose it as a way forward never count the cost nor have to bear the consequences themselves.
The second half of that segment, in italics is most definately not true. it might be somewhat true for the winning side, (but even there, history is littered with stories of kings, or lords, or the rich, losing sons, or family, or fortunes in wars) but it is most definately not true for the losing side.
the US hasn't been as vindictive as the romans, but Robert E Lee's beautiful house, and grounds, called Arlington, in virginda, is now a massive cemetary. it was a personal punishment to the general for siding with States rights (ie, Lee thought himself a citizen of Virgina, not of the United States) . So not only did this elite, West Point educated, person lose politically, he lost socially (his house, his slaves, his fortune) and personally (as i recall, one of his sons)...
i am sure there are countless other examples...
It is always a lazy outcome.
war is a lazy outcome of what?
do you mean by this war is the path of least resistance? that it is easier to wage war than change politcal policies with education or other means?
gearing up physically for war, and beating the war drums (physically or metephorically) is not easy or the lazy way to change thing. it might be the most dramatic, but lazy outcome?
the whole statement seem like a bit of war mongering propaganda to me! i suppose i should have just ignored it, but it is an interesting exersize in propaganda
(aaugh!--i am in the middlle of a move, and with out a dictionary handy..what is the root to propaganda?)
propaganda is a war waged with words, and your bit of propaganda is of interest for this point.
one way to beat the war drums is to start with propaganda. blame war on the elites, (not us common men and women), claim the elites are immune to negitive effects, but rake in all the positive effects, and claim, that war could have been avoided if an unnamed 'someone' just worked a little harder...
well done... perhaps you'd like to explain your position... you seems to be 'anti war' but drop yet another political bomb into a word thread, on a BB devoted to words...and risk provoking a flame war-- which i suspect you would then claim was not your fault, but rather the fault of some AWAD elitist, who wanted to keep the BB about words, and not politics!
i think you are acting elitist... you have stated you think politics should be part of every intelegent discussion.. (so either i get to say i am a dummy, or i must discuss politics..) and interesting way to frame an arguement.
but if i stick to words, and not politics, then i am some sort of AWAD elitist, and impossing my will on everyone here...(again, it is a framing issue.. if this is a place to discuss words, then discussing words is not elitism, it is the common thing to do... to suggest other wise is to create propaganda...)
i think the propaganda is a very important part of the word... by framing an arguement as being a positive, pro--for something (not against) and then claiming what you are for is somehow better... is at the heart of propaganda.
In US history, no one was "pro slavery"-- the southerns were for States rights and the north was anti slavery...
by choosing the right thing to be for.... propaganda hopes to change our way of thinking... (even the nazis were For a pure germany, and equated racial purity with economic and social success. it action, it was translated into anti semitism, but it was first sold as a good thing, one that it was easy to be for!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 47
newbie
|
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 47 |
War is a lazy outcome in that it is a populist outcome and is very much a well-trodden path stirred up by mobilisation of fears and prejudices. How do you mobilise a group of men to set about killing another set of men?
It has been seen as the continuation of foreign policy by other means. Machiavelli's take would be as you described I imagine.
It was intentionally politically loaded but my crux is this: the word "politics", "political" is often used to make something sound unduly opinionated, facile or even inappopriate or irrelevant. I contend quite strongly that if something is "political", even within this context, that does not render it anything less worthwhile than any "non-political content." For politics, read choices or beliefs or questions. Forget chambers and parliaments and party hustings etc, so I would take that as an observation rather than a point of concern.
The consequences, if negative, for the ruling elite are bound up in the confines of personal ambition and realpolitik. In terms of bloodshed and upheavel and the breaking up of generations, they will carry very little of this.
You acknowledge the energy involved in gearing up for war which is massive. The lazyness I refer to is not the one you appear to have assumed I meant. It is rather a lazyness to refrain from exploring constructive options; the lazyness to sit back and explore a reactive foreign policy rather than a progressive one. War can be a consequence of moral inertia and lazyness.
You make the anti-war position sound facile with a particular paragraph. Might I suggest a more complex approach where you consider who benefits from wars? We were told in Britain post-1945 that the "People's War" won immense dividend for the working classes i.e welfare state etc. However these were subsequently eroded and undermined. War is a the result of a failure. It is as despicable and foolish as a bar-room brawl expect it is made to be more sophisticated as it is dressed up and paraded as a National Effort, or a Battle For Our Way Of Life That We Must Win or an Effort To Defeat The Axis Of Evil.
To sum all this up I would quote one Mr Edwin Starr. War, what is good for?.............
With regards to your comments over elitism, and your take on the inclusion of politics in wider forums such as this I would imagine the thought pattern had rather a nice rhythmn to it. Read back cold it comes over as a tad aggressive so I will not reply to this save to say your approach is somewhat simplistic, one-dimensional and crudely belligerent.
To abuse a turn of medical phraseology my approach to such forums is holistic (not sure if quite the correct term) and I will not box off politics or indeed religion. This forum should be a "safe" environment where people do not run and hide from such areas and are part of our discussions and games centred around words, their uses, their meaning and the abuse of words in all sorts of contexts.
Now I am off to listen to some pan pipes, buy a bigger pair of sandals and wistfully sing some Peter, Paul & Mary. Where did I leave those lentils?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
"simplistic, one-dimensional and crudely belligerent"
Irony. Gottaluvit.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
I have participated in this board since Day 1. Political discussions have not fared well here, and I expect that will continue to be the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
(aaugh!--i am in the middlle of a move, and with out a dictionary handy..what is the root to propaganda?)
Helen. A good catholic girl like you ! It's a Latin gerundive from the verb propagare (to propogate) and means necessary to be propogated. Comes from the Latin name of the Roman Catholic College for the Propagation of the Faith (de propaganda fide).
Propagare originally meant to cause to multiply referring to plant cuttings and such like.
(and with a mighty heave he wrenches the discussion from politics to religion.)
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
from politics to religionHmm, another subject sure to raise people's hackles...good job, Bingley! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Political discussions have not fared well here, and I expect that will continue to be the case
This is very true, AnnaS, but they have never been banned - nor even eschewed, really.
Whilst it remains at a fairly high intellectual level, as this discussion has (and you are wrong, Maurice, about Helen - she is certainly not simplistic, not should her plain-speaking be written off as beliigerence.) it is acceptable, I think.
It would have been better placed in Miscellany than Q & A , but.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,316
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
621
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
