Australians and Germans at it Again
The Alternative to War
Last Sunday on Radio National's, Australia All Over Macca repeated the proverb that war will be with us always. I don't think he's right about this. War appears to have largely disappeared from the World in fact (with a long view), and I can easily see a future where it is seen as archaic as is slavery and monarchy.
Shit, ok I've got some explaining to do. There's still war going on all over the place right? Small wars in Africa, insurgent wars in the Middle East and southern Russia, and let's not mention Palestine. But here's the curious thing. There's less chance of a new born citizen of the World being killed in war now than ever before in history.* To understand that statistical fact we have to get all anthropological, and answer those who claim that war was in fact infrequent and low-level in most tribal society. The problem is that if you had a bit of a scrap only every few years - over a hunting ground or a woman generally - and only one young warrior was killed - then the casualty rate is very high among a tribe of only dozens or hundreds, and every male has a very high expectation of dying by violence in his life.
Believe it or not the statistic is true, and even with reference to only 100 years before, even for the generation who was born into the great 20th century wars. Although they were World Wars, most of the actual expanse of World remained at peace.
Our first conception of a world at peace is pax romana, the recognition during Roman times that despite the fact that Rome was built by military violence and that the military were highly visible, all of the space within the empire was in fact at peace, and for many of the peoples involved, unusually so. The Greeks did not war with their neighbours during this time for example, and even more unusually they did not war with one another. Ideas spread throughout the area fluidly. It was not a great step for a political thinker to conceive that by conquest World peace was possible.
The more recent and more interesting example of course is Europe, a continent that has been at war pretty much since Rome fell. Pax Europa is pretty compelling - with Europe's continuing integration it's hard to see Germany, France and England ever again scrapping it out. Historically, that is extraordinary. Did it happen by conquest? In the end, no, but war had a lot to do with it. It came as a result of bringing warfare to its logical conclusion, where everyone loses and nobody wins. War only really works (for the victor at least) when technologies are vastly unequal, a historically unsustainable situation, and moreso with globalised information. Friedman, in that book I read a bit of, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, reckoned that no two countries that have an established branch of McDonalds has ever warred with one another. I don't know how well that's borne out over the last decade, but even if exceptions can be found I think it candidly illustrates a truth. With economic integration between nations, which for technological reasons more than political or military ones is unprecedented, war becomes less and less likely. Arms dealers may still relish the prospect of war, but most businesses, highly globalised, specialised and integrated, simply do not. Politically, at least since Vietnam, war has also become a political nightmare for governments, especially in the West.
There's a much deeper argument that war cannot end, to do with human nature. It says that we are warlike by nature, and can draw strong arguments from evolutionary psychology. Our ability and constitutional inclination to divide the human world into an 'us' and a 'them', and indeed to feel warlike toward the 'them', seems to be a part of our nature which we can thank for the survival of our family trees for the past million and more years. We can't throw it just by a bit of state indoctrination or mass participation in flower workshops. It's a strong argument.
Those famous ancient Greek city states, who would often have jolly good scraps with one another during the summertime, would cease warring every four years for the Olympic Games, where they would compete in a more civilised manner. Through these games, a tradition lasting hundreds of years, before the Roman Church banned and repressed it, the Greeks maintained an identity bigger than their city-zenship, of a single people. The games, in terms of the free expression of our human nature (with all its gruesome evolution, its barbaric tribalism, competitiveness and false collective pride), were a direct and explicit alternative to war.
Was it a coincidence that the Greeks, the inventors of a viable alternative to war, also were the inventors of participatory sovereignty - ie democracy? Probably. Yes, I think that was essentially a coincidence.
It's no coincidence though that the World Cup has expanded to include every country in the World in this time of relative peace, and it's clearly no coincidence that the World Cup was cancelled during both the 20th Centuries World Wars. The World Cup is part of globalisation of course, but it is big enough that it also drives globalisation, and has from the beginning been limited mostly by the forefront of technology. The global focus upon it this year will be, as has been the trend, more complete than ever. There will be billions either watching or closely aware of the Final, and everyone on this planet will know who holds the Cup within a few days. Everyone.
On the 13th June, Australia will do battle, in the civilised manner, with Germany, in Durban, South Africa. Let's be clear that the stakes of the World Cup, in a civilised manner, are nothing less than total World domination. The winner is presented with the most beautifully conceived trophy of all time, a pair of hands holding a ball… no not a ball, a globe. You win, symbolically, control of the planet, and hence become the custodian of pax universal for four years.
The Matchup
Australia and Germany have battled before, and the stakes in the wider competition were also no less than World domination. Like Durban 2010, Tobruk 1941 was not a home game for either side, but was on very unfamiliar territory. It may also be prophetic that at Tobruk Australia played a deep, sustained defense, with speedy, incisive counterattacks following each German advance. Rommel's Afrika Corp had never been defeated and Germany were clear favourites to win.
This battle did not just concern the poor bastards in Africa doing the scrapping. The German and Australian people were both following the battle as closely as information would allow, and were intensely emotionally involved with every gleening. Psychically the nations were at the battle, willing their side to win, supporting in any small way they could, needing the elation that would come with victory, even despite the horrible sacrifice, and dreading in the darkest possible way the prospect of defeat. I don't blame the newspapers. I think we're just like that.
The apparently weak Australian lineup was written off by strategists on both sides, but it held. Goalless draw, with Australia winning on penalties. In Durban there will be no tie-breaker, but a goalless draw would be good. A flawless defense with a minor miracle from Timmy Cahill would be better. Don't tell me that's not possible. It's one 90 minute period.
Just for the exercise, and perhaps because it was ANZAC Day the other day, can we consider for the moment the reality of Tobruk. Our Australian grandfathers really did fight their grandfathers. They killed each other, did everything in their power to make the others' life and death hellish, whist enduring the same. They made one another's mothers weep, orphaned one another's children. Australians and Germans really did this to each other. Fucking crazy but true. Globalisation, of which The World Cup is a profound, even crowning, expression, has given us hope that Germans and Australians will not organise to treat one another with such incivility, even in passionately patriotic competition, ever again.
But on that football field, on the 13th June 2010 in Durban, Australia begins its humble but spirited campaign for World domination in a battle against a superior foe. May the game be fair, well refereed and have no serious injuries.
45 Days. Fuck.
* My "statistical fact" comes from Stephen Pinker (maybe 7 or 8 years ago), either in The Language Instinct, The Blank Slate or How the Mind Works. I can't remember which and can't be bothered looking for it. Aside from any cynical questions about my memory, I understand Pinker to be in the habit of using a high standard of peer reviewed research.
Last Sunday on Radio National's, Australia All Over Macca repeated the proverb that war will be with us always. I don't think he's right about this. War appears to have largely disappeared from the World in fact (with a long view), and I can easily see a future where it is seen as archaic as is slavery and monarchy.
Shit, ok I've got some explaining to do. There's still war going on all over the place right? Small wars in Africa, insurgent wars in the Middle East and southern Russia, and let's not mention Palestine. But here's the curious thing. There's less chance of a new born citizen of the World being killed in war now than ever before in history.* To understand that statistical fact we have to get all anthropological, and answer those who claim that war was in fact infrequent and low-level in most tribal society. The problem is that if you had a bit of a scrap only every few years - over a hunting ground or a woman generally - and only one young warrior was killed - then the casualty rate is very high among a tribe of only dozens or hundreds, and every male has a very high expectation of dying by violence in his life.
Believe it or not the statistic is true, and even with reference to only 100 years before, even for the generation who was born into the great 20th century wars. Although they were World Wars, most of the actual expanse of World remained at peace.
Our first conception of a world at peace is pax romana, the recognition during Roman times that despite the fact that Rome was built by military violence and that the military were highly visible, all of the space within the empire was in fact at peace, and for many of the peoples involved, unusually so. The Greeks did not war with their neighbours during this time for example, and even more unusually they did not war with one another. Ideas spread throughout the area fluidly. It was not a great step for a political thinker to conceive that by conquest World peace was possible.
The more recent and more interesting example of course is Europe, a continent that has been at war pretty much since Rome fell. Pax Europa is pretty compelling - with Europe's continuing integration it's hard to see Germany, France and England ever again scrapping it out. Historically, that is extraordinary. Did it happen by conquest? In the end, no, but war had a lot to do with it. It came as a result of bringing warfare to its logical conclusion, where everyone loses and nobody wins. War only really works (for the victor at least) when technologies are vastly unequal, a historically unsustainable situation, and moreso with globalised information. Friedman, in that book I read a bit of, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, reckoned that no two countries that have an established branch of McDonalds has ever warred with one another. I don't know how well that's borne out over the last decade, but even if exceptions can be found I think it candidly illustrates a truth. With economic integration between nations, which for technological reasons more than political or military ones is unprecedented, war becomes less and less likely. Arms dealers may still relish the prospect of war, but most businesses, highly globalised, specialised and integrated, simply do not. Politically, at least since Vietnam, war has also become a political nightmare for governments, especially in the West.
There's a much deeper argument that war cannot end, to do with human nature. It says that we are warlike by nature, and can draw strong arguments from evolutionary psychology. Our ability and constitutional inclination to divide the human world into an 'us' and a 'them', and indeed to feel warlike toward the 'them', seems to be a part of our nature which we can thank for the survival of our family trees for the past million and more years. We can't throw it just by a bit of state indoctrination or mass participation in flower workshops. It's a strong argument.
Those famous ancient Greek city states, who would often have jolly good scraps with one another during the summertime, would cease warring every four years for the Olympic Games, where they would compete in a more civilised manner. Through these games, a tradition lasting hundreds of years, before the Roman Church banned and repressed it, the Greeks maintained an identity bigger than their city-zenship, of a single people. The games, in terms of the free expression of our human nature (with all its gruesome evolution, its barbaric tribalism, competitiveness and false collective pride), were a direct and explicit alternative to war.
Was it a coincidence that the Greeks, the inventors of a viable alternative to war, also were the inventors of participatory sovereignty - ie democracy? Probably. Yes, I think that was essentially a coincidence.
It's no coincidence though that the World Cup has expanded to include every country in the World in this time of relative peace, and it's clearly no coincidence that the World Cup was cancelled during both the 20th Centuries World Wars. The World Cup is part of globalisation of course, but it is big enough that it also drives globalisation, and has from the beginning been limited mostly by the forefront of technology. The global focus upon it this year will be, as has been the trend, more complete than ever. There will be billions either watching or closely aware of the Final, and everyone on this planet will know who holds the Cup within a few days. Everyone.
On the 13th June, Australia will do battle, in the civilised manner, with Germany, in Durban, South Africa. Let's be clear that the stakes of the World Cup, in a civilised manner, are nothing less than total World domination. The winner is presented with the most beautifully conceived trophy of all time, a pair of hands holding a ball… no not a ball, a globe. You win, symbolically, control of the planet, and hence become the custodian of pax universal for four years.
The Matchup
Australia and Germany have battled before, and the stakes in the wider competition were also no less than World domination. Like Durban 2010, Tobruk 1941 was not a home game for either side, but was on very unfamiliar territory. It may also be prophetic that at Tobruk Australia played a deep, sustained defense, with speedy, incisive counterattacks following each German advance. Rommel's Afrika Corp had never been defeated and Germany were clear favourites to win.
This battle did not just concern the poor bastards in Africa doing the scrapping. The German and Australian people were both following the battle as closely as information would allow, and were intensely emotionally involved with every gleening. Psychically the nations were at the battle, willing their side to win, supporting in any small way they could, needing the elation that would come with victory, even despite the horrible sacrifice, and dreading in the darkest possible way the prospect of defeat. I don't blame the newspapers. I think we're just like that.
The apparently weak Australian lineup was written off by strategists on both sides, but it held. Goalless draw, with Australia winning on penalties. In Durban there will be no tie-breaker, but a goalless draw would be good. A flawless defense with a minor miracle from Timmy Cahill would be better. Don't tell me that's not possible. It's one 90 minute period.
Just for the exercise, and perhaps because it was ANZAC Day the other day, can we consider for the moment the reality of Tobruk. Our Australian grandfathers really did fight their grandfathers. They killed each other, did everything in their power to make the others' life and death hellish, whist enduring the same. They made one another's mothers weep, orphaned one another's children. Australians and Germans really did this to each other. Fucking crazy but true. Globalisation, of which The World Cup is a profound, even crowning, expression, has given us hope that Germans and Australians will not organise to treat one another with such incivility, even in passionately patriotic competition, ever again.
But on that football field, on the 13th June 2010 in Durban, Australia begins its humble but spirited campaign for World domination in a battle against a superior foe. May the game be fair, well refereed and have no serious injuries.
45 Days. Fuck.
* My "statistical fact" comes from Stephen Pinker (maybe 7 or 8 years ago), either in The Language Instinct, The Blank Slate or How the Mind Works. I can't remember which and can't be bothered looking for it. Aside from any cynical questions about my memory, I understand Pinker to be in the habit of using a high standard of peer reviewed research.
Labels: World Cup 2010
posted by Hamish Alcorn at 9:55 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home