15-May-18 World View -- Gaza violence surges in Palestinian 'Great March for Return' into Israel

[John]

> I can't think of any circumstance where we had the meaningful
> choice to use human shields. So it's more about opportunity than
> culture.

> In the American Civil War, both sides could easily have rounded up
> women and children and held them among their troops during key
> battles. Other nations have done just that. Perhaps the Americans
> just didn't think of it -- but even that is a cultural
> issue.

> Human shielding involves the use of persons protected by
> international humanitarian law, such as prisoners of war or
> civilians, to deter attacks on combatants and military
> objectives. Labelled “counter-targeting” in military parlance,
> the tactic hardly represents a new battlefield phenomenon.
> Shielding occurred, for example, in both the American Civil War
> and the Franco-Prussian War.

http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicw ... chmitt.pdf

[Guest]

Having a Union officer in the American Civil War use secessionist preachers as human shields on a train--an isolated event--not a state policy, is not on par with rounding up hundreds of thousands of women and children and throwing them into death camps.

I see the point you are trying to make, but it doesn't really prove your point or disprove the other posters.

[Guest]

Neither side was facing complete oblivion in the American CW. It was a dispute among Americans. Haiti and Israel are about different races going at each other.

Based on the literature I have read from the 1860's, it seems to me that the people of the time on both sides considered themselves to be facing complete oblivion.

> Human shielding involves the use of persons protected by
> international humanitarian law, such as prisoners of war or
> civilians, to deter attacks on combatants and military
> objectives. Labelled “counter-targeting” in military parlance,
> the tactic hardly represents a new battlefield phenomenon.
> Shielding occurred, for example, in both the American Civil War
> and the Franco-Prussian War.

http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicw ... chmitt.pdf

I stand corrected. It seems that human shields on transport trains were used during the ACW. However, battlefield human shields have not been used as has been common for other peoples, although the Americans had every opportunity to do so. I still attribute this to cultural differences, but thank you for the correction.

Similarly, in WWII the Japanese military used "comfort women" as sexual slaves, but the American military did not. I also attribute this to a cultural difference, the background of the ACW being the previous American crisis war certainly played a role in shaping this culture. I by no means intend to excuse the American soldiers who illegitimately fathered children by French women. But the manner of the offence was different and I attribute that to culture.

I think there is even a difference between the way that Japanese and American militaries sacrificed their own soldiers during WWII. The Japanese used suicide "kamikaze" pilots, who were each sent on a death mission with no hope of surviving. The Americans on the other hand sent thousands of men to storm the German-held beaches in Normandy knowing full well that almost all of the first wave would die -- but no individual was sent to certain death. While these actions are very similar and common in crisis wars, I attribute the difference to culture.

[John]

After 9/11/2001, the US began incarcerating innocent Muslims in a way
that hadn't been seen since innocent Japanese were interned during WW
II. A reason that was often given after 9/11 was that "the US
constitution is not meant to be a suicide pact." What this means is
that whatever cultural inhibitions or legal restrictions that the US
had regarding human rights, they could be ignored for a while if
terrorists were going to be flying airliners into skyscrapers.

So I'm not saying that there are no cultural differences between
societies. What I'm saying is that under certain circumstances,
those cultural differences become irrelevant. During a
generational Crisis era, the importance of human rights and
the value of an individual human life are both reduced, and
are reduced further as a society goes deeper into a generational
crisis era.

After the crisis war has started, human rights and individual human
lives become almost irrelevant, as the only thing that matters is
winning the war. This is true of every society, irrespective of
cultural values. Use of things like torture and human shields becomes
acceptable, even if they were considered unacceptable during previous
non-crisis wars.

So different societies have different cultural values, but those
cultural values become unimportant compared to the importance of
preserving the society and its way of life, as a generational crisis
war reaches a climax.

[Guest]

So different societies have different cultural values, but those
cultural values become unimportant compared to the importance of
preserving the society and its way of life, as a generational crisis
war reaches a climax.

Your reference to a society's "way of life" is significant here. Some aspects of culture become unimportant. Others become even more important than ever. In determining what aspects of a society's culture (or way of life) will be the most important, we should not look at what if fought like in previous non-crisis wars. Rather, we should look at what it fought for in previous-crisis wars. We should also look at what the perceived differences are between a society's own culture and its enemy's.

So for Americans, important cultural values fought for in previous crisis wars include: opposition of foreign rule, personal freedom, abolition of slavery, the English language (at least compared to German), and abhorrence of death camps. So as extreme examples, no mater how bad things get we will not see the United States swearing allegiance to the British Crown for protection, importing slaves to work its farms and supply its army, or extermination several million people in gas chambers. These things are simply anathema to the American way of life.

[Guest]

So different societies have different cultural values, but those
cultural values become unimportant compared to the importance of
preserving the society and its way of life, as a generational crisis
war reaches a climax.

Your reference to a society's "way of life" is significant here. Some aspects of culture become unimportant. Others become even more important than ever. In determining what aspects of a society's culture (or way of life) will be the most important, we should not look at what if fought like in previous non-crisis wars. Rather, we should look at what it fought for in previous-crisis wars. We should also look at what the perceived differences are between a society's own culture and its enemy's.

So for Americans, important cultural values fought for in previous crisis wars include: opposition of foreign rule, personal freedom, abolition of slavery, the English language (at least compared to German), and abhorrence of death camps. So as extreme examples, no mater how bad things get we will not see the United States swearing allegiance to the British Crown for protection, importing slaves to work its farms and supply its army, or extermination several million people in gas chambers. These things are simply anathema to the American way of life.

But how long will America remain American? Torture, mass murder, and defacto slavery are not anathema to Latinos. That is their way of life. I can drive around my town and see the carnage and misery that has been inflicted upon it by mass immigration from Central America. Mass immigration and political correctness have already destroyed the American way of life.

[Cynic Hero 86]

Your reference to a society's "way of life" is significant here. Some aspects of culture become unimportant. Others become even more important than ever. In determining what aspects of a society's culture (or way of life) will be the most important, we should not look at what if fought like in previous non-crisis wars. Rather, we should look at what it fought for in previous-crisis wars. We should also look at what the perceived differences are between a society's own culture and its enemy's.

So for Americans, important cultural values fought for in previous crisis wars include: opposition of foreign rule, personal freedom, abolition of slavery, the English language (at least compared to German), and abhorrence of death camps. So as extreme examples, no mater how bad things get we will not see the United States swearing allegiance to the British Crown for protection, importing slaves to work its farms and supply its army, or extermination several million people in gas chambers. These things are simply anathema to the American way of life.

I disagree with John on the origins of wars but regarding "American values" it is not inherent american-ness and/or inherent un-american-ness that prevents such actions for being carried out by the US. Only the tyranny imposed by the boomers is what prevents the US from taking the gloves OFF.

[Guest]

Your reference to a society's "way of life" is significant here. Some aspects of culture become unimportant. Others become even more important than ever. In determining what aspects of a society's culture (or way of life) will be the most important, we should not look at what if fought like in previous non-crisis wars. Rather, we should look at what it fought for in previous-crisis wars. We should also look at what the perceived differences are between a society's own culture and its enemy's.

So for Americans, important cultural values fought for in previous crisis wars include: opposition of foreign rule, personal freedom, abolition of slavery, the English language (at least compared to German), and abhorrence of death camps. So as extreme examples, no mater how bad things get we will not see the United States swearing allegiance to the British Crown for protection, importing slaves to work its farms and supply its army, or extermination several million people in gas chambers. These things are simply anathema to the American way of life.

I disagree with John on the origins of wars but regarding "American values" it is not inherent american-ness and/or inherent un-american-ness that prevents such actions for being carried out by the US. Only the tyranny imposed by the boomers is what prevents the US from taking the gloves OFF.

The commenters on this thread have been discussing what the US has and hasn't done in previous crisis wars. Boomers weren't in power then. The roots of culture run very deep and can never be limited to a single generation.

The background of the American Revolution has prevented Americans from yielding to a foreign power. In the American Civil War, neither side sought or would have accepted the intervention of a European military on American soil. Even in WWII when the US and the UK formed a joint military command structure, the American side insisted that the top general be American. This sentiment predated the boomers and will go on long after the boomers are gone, because it was the object of a crisis war.

Similarly, it is impossible for the US to revert to slave labor to win a war, even a crisis war. The abolition of slavery was the object of the American Civil War. This does not preclude all forced labor, as the draft has been culturally isolated from slavery, having been used in the ACW and afterwards (although the draft is still a violation of the 13th amendment). But any form of clear slavery especially importation of foreign slaves will not and cannot be done by boomers or anyone else.

There are other values that Americans cannot transgress because they are contrary to the American way of life. Some have even been the object of a previous crisis war, such as opposition to the Nazi death camps. This is not one generation but the culture of an entire civilization with roots stretching back to antiquity. When boomers are gone, things will change but we will still be Americans.

[Guest]

When boomers are gone, things will change but we will still be Americans.

Unless we become Mexicans.

[Guest]

When boomers are gone, things will change but we will still be Americans.

Unless we become Mexicans.

True. Or more accurately, unless we are replaced by Mexicans.