War! What Is It Good ForIJ
Author : Ian Morris
Publisher : Hachette, Rs699
This thought-provoking book goes against predominant understanding of the phenomenon of war. The author argues that archaeology, history and biology demonstrate that war has been good for humanity, and it has even made the world safer and richer, opines ClAUDE ARPI
As a youth, I still remember reading The Quest for Fire (la Guerre du feu or War for Fire), a 1911 book written by J-H Rosny, a pseudonym used by two Belgian brothers.
The novel (later made into a successful movie) was about the first human war during the prehistoric times; it was the story of two tribes, one of which knew how to preserve the fire, though it could not start it. Wanting to dominate, the other tribe stole the fire. It marked the beginning of a violent hunt for ‘the fire’, an element essential to the tribe’s survival and which proved to be a critical element for leadership over other tribes.
It was probably the first war aimed at possessing a new technology for dominating other human beings. War was then a routine affair.In the recent past (let’s say since a few centuries), war is seen differently; it is today synonymous with death, misery, destruction and suffering.
The title of the book under review comes from Bruce Springsteen’s famous song against the Vietnam War: “War, what is it good forIJ Absolutely nothing; say it again, war; what is it good forIJ Absolutely nothing, come on; war, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker; war, friend only to an undertaker.”If I asked you what is war good for, you will rightly say only negative things.
According to historian Ian Morris, you are wrong if you look at it from a historical perspective, war was not so bad.
Morris is not any random person; he is a professor of History at Stanford University; and also the director of Stanford’s archaeological excavation at Monte Polizzo, Sicily. Morris has put his erudite scholarship in his new book, War! What is It Good ForIJ This thought-provoking book goes against predominant understanding of the phenomenon of war. The author argues that archaeology, history and biology demonstrate that war has been good for humanity; it has even made the world safer and richer.
The story starts during the Stone Age when people lived in small feuding societies. At that time, humans had a one-in-ten (or even one-in-five) chance of dying violently.
Morris’ main argument is based on statistical evidence. Comparatively, he shows that about one person in a hundred died violently during the 20th century despite two World Wars. Morris’ explanation: “War, and war alone, has created bigger, more complex societies, ruled by Governments that have stamped out internal violence.”
His conclusion is that killings, though horrible and repulsive, have made the world safer. Further, people are able to prosper better in a safer world emerging from the war. It, therefore, makes the world richer too.Morris writes: “Contrary to what the song says (Bruce Springsteen’s), war has been good for something over the long run — the alternatives would have been worse.”
At this point in time, it is perhaps difficult to accept this, but Morris continues with another argument — by fighting wars, people have created larger, more organised societies that have reduced the risk of extreme violence.His second claim is that while war is the worst imaginable way to create larger, more peaceful societies, it is the only way humans have found so far.
Though not mentioned as one of the many historical examples cited by Morris, one should look at the case of the European Union. Soon after the end of the World War II, a French man, Jean Monnet worked hard to create conditions where war would not be possible anymore.With the possibility of a World War III looming large at the end of the 1940s, Monnet had a revolutionary proposal — to unite the enemies of yesterday, France and Germany. Monnet wrote: “The course of events must be altered. To do this, men’s attitudes must be changed. Words are not enough.’’
To avoid the mistake made in 1919, when the winner imposed its diktat on the loser, Monnet’s plan was that both countries should collaborate to construct the future. As both Germany and France had to rebuild their industry, which was bound to revive the old rivalry, Monnet thought to reverse the problem — the seed of war had to become the seed of unity — his proposal was therefore to create a high authority which could manage the resources of coal and steel for both nations. This was the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community, the first embryo of the European Economic Community (EEC). It came into existence in March 1957, when the Treaty of Rome created the EEC and Euratom (for atomic energy). The Treaties of Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2000) and lisbon (2007) saw new steps towards unification. Today, 27 nations share a common future. It is a fact that a European Union without borders would have not existed without World War II.
Morris writes: “My third conclusion goes further still. As well as making people safer, I will suggest, the larger societies created by war have also — again, over the long run — made us richer. Peace created conditions for economic growth and rising living standards.”
Though the author goes in some depth into the history of the Roman Empire to prove his points, here again the case of World War II can be cited. Europe, if not Asia, prospered during the decades following the war, and the Cold War, responsible for ‘only’ a few hundred casualties, did not stop this movement.Morris further argues: “War has produced bigger societies, rules by stronger Governments, which have imposed peace and created the precondition for prosperity.”
Morris’ final reasoning is that war is now putting itself out of business: “For millennia, war (over the long run) has created peace, and destruction has created wealth, but in our own age humanity has gotten so good at fighting — our weapons so destructive, our organisations so efficient — that it is beginning to make further war of the kind impossible.”
An interesting phenomenon appeared rather recently, which has been the upshot of the two World Wars, the creation of larger and larger supranational units; just to mention a few, apart from the EU, the Mercosur, ASEAN, SAARC, APEC, SCO, these groupings are slowly making the world somehow safer.
Incidentally, a couple of weeks before the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Mao told his generals: “It is better to die standing, than to die kneeling. If China fought successfully, in an awe-inspiring way, this will guarantee at least 30 years of peace.” In a way, it is true.
Morris’ book can only make us think deeper, especially in India, the land of non-violence, but also the land of lord Krishna who ordered Arjuna to go to battle and follow his dharma. I always find it more enriching when someone is able to think out of the box. This is the case with Morris’ book.