3 Comments

1. 

   acilius

    /  February 12, 2010

   This is great, I’d love to echo and enlarge on every sentence.

   If humans were as bloodthirsty by nature as the conventional belief Zinn attacks declares them to be, armies would have a much easier time than they actually do desensitizing recruits to killing.

   And the stuff about the Wilson administration and World War One is great, I for can never hear too much about what a rat bastard Woodrow Wilson was. Five stars all around! Thanks for posting it, LeFalcon!

2. 

   lefalcon

    /  February 13, 2010

   Don’t know much about Wilson. But clearly he “…was no Millard Fillmore,” to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen.

   Glad you enjoyed the segment. I think it’s an important statement, not just for its exposure of the political manipulations…but also b/c: If we acquiesce to viewing ourselves as bloodthirsty monsters, then we’ve allowed “the machine” to indoctrinate us against ourselves.

3. 

   acilius

    /  February 13, 2010

   That’s true. Not only was the part about Woodrow Wilson great, but the part about Edward O. Wilson also made a vital point. It may possibly be true that our biologocal evolvution has left us with an innate tendency to aggression. But “aggression” is not the same thing as modern warfare. Modern warfare is a particular social institution. Like other social institutions it is peculiar to the society in which it appears and is subject to constant change. So while it is possible that our genetic endowment might have sentenced us to feel aggressive urges, but it certainly does not sentence us to use aerial drones to kill people who live on the other side of the world.