Cancian And Gibson: A Comparative Analysis

823 Words 4 Pages
Cancian & Gibson provide a 21st century snapshot on wars
1980s Iran-Irak (US Navy Patrol in Persian Gulf), Israeli invasion of Lebanon and prolonged conflict with Palestinians, Russian invasion of Afganistan, US invasion of Grenada, Guerrillas and counterinsurgencies campaigns in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, South Africa and Third World countries.
Can War be considered as a natural everyday phenomenon?From comparative research in human society “War is not natural” “We created the war system so we can abolish it” (Cancian & Gibson, pdf)
While for centuries war was characterized by small warrior groups (lords/peasants) with revolution of French peasants, urban workers and part of the merchant class against feudal order the first big masses
…show more content…
Cancian & Gibson distinguish between Negative Peace (absence of war) and positive Peace (inclusive of socio-economic wellbeing and justice, and equal opportunities for development and improvements)
In our Capitalistic system the top of hierarchy, corporative ruling class, supports the concept of negative peace, because they want to maintain the status quo, although peace cannot be separated from social justice (Cancian & Gibson, pdf)
Barash and Webel also distinguish between positive and negative peace extending the positive concept to mental and spiritual states of “inner peace” and well-being, supporting this thesis through eastern concepts derived from Taoism and Confucianism.
I do not agree with their interpretation of the Judeo-Christian world in which they state that Jewish, Christian and Islamic tradition, have war elements embedded at their core. They even recall the bellicose god of the Old Testament. Other interpretations of the Old Testament define God as merciful.Although also the Christian tradition attributes an intrinsic innate sinful and therefore bellicose attitude to human
…show more content…
Is this the real definition of war? I do not agree! I believe his experience went beyond the psychological tolerance of violence, hence as a defense, he is trying to make sense of so much horror.
I do agree with Hedges that war eviscerates the worse and the best of human beings from cowardly to heroism.
Hedges defines the wars and ethnic conflicts of our times as “manufactured” (The Myth of War, pdf. 20-21), accusing the press of propagandistically creating the enemy figure, a situation in which the other is demonized and therefore we are justified to fight it. Is he trying to eviscerate that in human conflicts we tend to enhance our qualities and to dehumanize the enemy? This could be a psychological defense

Related Documents

Related Topics