A little something to ponder…

There are certainly many, but if we're talking about the killing of thousands, the bombing of populations, and the large scale conflicts of the last few thousand years, one of the roots has to be language, or the way we use it.  We are, like other animals, violent in our actions and thoughts. Instinctively and forcefully we respond to attacks on our bodies, or even to attacks on our mental "selves" if we haven't grown beyond this form of ego identification process. There were always aggressors among us, of course, trying to take what wasn't theirs, or to harm others for the temporary pleasure, power or profit that could be gained. However, if  we go far enough into the past we see that this resulted in fighting and killing on a relatively small scale. In other words, we were violent, but didn't have large wars. We could not conceive of large scale killing, let alone carry it out with any efficiency. It's difficult to imagine pre-language humans killing by the hundreds, let alone by thousands or millions at a time. It's not only difficult to imagine our non-verbal ancestors going to war, but there is no evidence of it.

War can't be blamed on technology, though. Bloody wars started when weaponry was still limited to clubs or swords. Our current technology makes the killing of millions more practical, but the intention was there as soon as we had one thing: language that allowed us to unite in beliefs about why so many must be killed. This suggests that the way we use language is one of the primary roots of war. The development of communication through language made large scale conflict possible, but it's our particular human way of using language that makes it actually happen. Worshiping of words makes war almost inevitable, and we are the hypnotized species. We are under the spell of our language and the control of those who are most skilled at manipulating those words. As a simple example, consider a scenario from the past, before we had language. Tribes would defend their "territory," as is common to many animals, and this meant violence was probably common. Now suppose a tribe of apes or pre-language humans looked down into a valley which was not part of their usual hunting and foraging area, and saw another tribe. If not starving, their response would likely be curiosity or a retreat born of fear and uncertainty, but not war.

Eventually, however, with the development of language, "our territory" could suddenly be any valley or island or desert anywhere on the planet. Once a piece of land was so labeled, members of the tribe could be easily aroused to defend it, as though their survival actually depended on it. From an outside perspective it appears that the words "territory," "ours," and "enemy" are a form of hypnosis, used to elicit a violent response to the "threat." Phrases by themselves, like "our way of life," could elicit the same protective and violent feelings as attacks on the real "territory" upon which our ancestors relied for actual survival. Eventually, by such manipulation of hypnotic words, over-fed "citizens" , could support the killing of thousands when nothing more than their supply of non-essentials or their ideals were threatened, as though their physical bodies were under attack by others.  

An animal responds violently if another attacks its actual body or steals its meal or violates its home. But we can get violent if called a name or told our beliefs are wrong. Tell a man he is an idiot, and he will feel that his actual person has been damaged. He sees his name and thoughts as his "self," so an affront to this imagined identity elicits violence. This is inappropriate, since he is not actually threatened physically. In fact, he is in even greater physical danger if he does act out violently, because he could go to jail or lose a fight. But this evolutionary response is triggered by mere words, because he has come to see them as both weapons directed against him and - in the case of his own thoughts - as an essential part of his identity. He must defend this language-created "self" as though it is his body. This happens on a larger scale too. We label ourselves by nationality, call others the "enemy" and then say they're a threat to us. Then we feel the need to kill them. Of course, we will say we're defending "our country," which is another way to say "our tribe." 

If some ask why it deserves defending - in other words if people notice that they're not a "country" - then other hypnotic words are used to motivate them. For example; "Our freedom must be defended!" It's a common sentiment at times of war, almost as common as the destruction of freedom in the name of that conflict. It is a hypnotic catch phrase designed to elicit fear and participation of tribal members in the ensuing killing. The military draft, a form of enslavement, and other violations of individual rights in the name of "freedom" show that the goal is not freedom (or even survival) in any meaningful sense. It is often the perpetuation of the powers that be, or at best the freedom of the tribe to continue its ways, whether those are good or destructive.

War is about the instinctive defending of the interests of the tribe and its territory, but with language people can be lead to see this as meaning almost anything. Once the right words are used, absolutely normal people can feel it's okay to murder innocent millions. If you think people who do such things are really different from the people around you, you're not paying attention. These "monsters" are the same as our brothers, fathers, mothers and friends. The idea that these killers are a "different" kind of people comes from the same ugly tribal mentality that leads to the routine murdering of "outsiders." We have "enemies" because having an "interest" in killing another is not a good enough reason for many of us. We have "monsters" because they are easier to kill than teachers, bus drivers, cleaning ladies, mail men, fathers and mothers. We have "collateral damage" because killing children is tough to do, even when done with "good" intentions.

 Our use of language is one of the roots of war because it can make us see things that are not there, and miss the obvious truth. It never occurs to us, for example, that one country is actually our enemy. Yes, people intend us harm, and others are mislead to follow them, but no entire population sets out to harm another group of people. The idea is an artifice of words, and the word "enemy" is meant to hypnotize, as are many other words used by our leaders. See only enemies, and we see only the need to kill. See humans who are similar to us, and we look for other ways to resolve problems.

p/s ...is this an argument against war? Not really. It's about honestly looking at the wonderful invention we call language, and seeing how dangerous it can be when used a certain way. If we do not use words as the tools they are, we become tools used by them, or by those who manipulate them skilfully. But maybe, if we were to lose a bit of our reverence for our words, and wake up, we might find that most, or perhaps even all wars are not really necessary after all. It's possible there is a better way, out beyond the usual verbal "logic" of why we must kill other people.