Lawrence LeShan article

[billvon 3,120]

I came across an article by Lawrence LeShan, a psychologist who wrote a book entitled "the psychology of war." The book concerns the question why we as a worldwide society regularly go to war despite the incredible suffering it causes. The article was essentially an excerpt of the book. I think I'm going to have to get the book and check it out.

Some interesting passages:

"The way that people begin to perceive reality in the period typically preceding the outbreak of war is very seductive. I call it the mythic mode of perception, as opposed to the sensory mode we ordinarily use. Once mythic perception takes over, we cease to structure the world in our customary way and turn to the ways of a fairy tale or a myth. In the mythic reality we never question why evil exists; it simply is. Since the enemy is evil, we're quite ready to starve or kill them; they are barely a part of our species.

During a mythic war god, history and destiny are clearly one one's side. The division of the world into good and evil is so complete that not only similar qualities but similar actions are seen as fundamentally different. For instance, during WWII the bombing of Rotterdam by the Germans and Hamburg by the allies were seen as two different kinds of behavior, We bomb civilian centers for the good of mankind; they do so because they are evil."

Examples of how our perception changes between peacetime and war:


PEACE: Good and evil have many shades of gray. Many groups with different opinions and ideas are legitimate.

WAR: Good and evil are reduced to us and them. There are no innocent bystanders; there are only those for or against us. Crucial issues are divided into black and white, and opinons about them are either right or wrong.

PEACE: Now is pretty much like any other time.

WAR: Now is different from all other times. Everything hangs in the balance.

PEACE: The great forces of nature, such as god or human evolution, are not often evoked in disputes.

WAR: "God is on our side", "history will absolve us" and other such slogans indicate our belief that the cosmic forces are with us.

PEACE: All people act from pretty much the same motives.

WAR: They act from a wish for power; we act from self-defense, benevolence, and reasons of common decency and morality.

PEACE: We are concerned with what causes the problems we're trying to solve.

WAR: We are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

PEACE: We can talk to those we disagree with.

WAR: Since the enemy is evil, he naturally lies. Communication is not possible. Only force can settle the issue. We tell the truth (news, education.) They lie (propaganda.)

[Push 0]

Hear hear. Not to belittle the fact that some wars are necessary, this hits many different nails on their heads. Sounds like an interesting book.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Michele 1]

Thanks for that, Bill. Seems interesting. Some of that rings true, and yet others don't. But I really can't comment unless I read more about why/how he's come to those positions and articulations.

Can I borrow the book once you've read it? I'd love to read more about his perspective, especially right now.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JJohnson 0]

A little over simplified psychology.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[steve1 5]

Sounds like some good reading. Another good book (I felt) is called "On killing". I don't recall the author. Most of it pertains to killing on a battlefield, yet it is also required reading for some police depts. and was written by a clinical psychologist who was also a soldier.

At any rate it talks about how difficult it is for a normal person to kill another person. Soldiers in combat, often could not even fire their weapon or if they did fire, they would miss. Many were able to overcome this by thinking of the enemy as an inferior being who deserved to be killed. Many soldiers thought of the enemy as a Jap, Krout, Gook, Towel Head, etc. By lowering their status to this level it was easier to blow them away.

The book also said that there are some people who are natural psycho-paths and took to killing much easier than others. Many of these were found in the more elite units. Such as S.F., Rangers, Seals, Snipers, etc. This kind of bothered me because I went through S.F. training, years ago, and most of the people I knew seemed pretty normal. Although there were a few I wondered about. I remember one guy who said he was reuping for Vietnam and going S.F., because it was the only way, as he put, that he could kill legally and he liked it. I remember another ex-marine who was going S.F. and volunteering for Vietnam for a 2nd tour. He told me once how he shot an old Vietnamese women in the head with a 45 at point blank range. In other words he murdered her. Supposedly she was calling in fire on his Marine infantry unit. At any rate, I figured both these guys would fit into the psycho-path category.

I've read other books though, where many soldiers were able to kill the enemy by thinking this act was helping to keep their buddies alive. Many of them also felt a lot of guilt upon returning home alive, when many of their buddies didn't. I suppose it would be an extremely difficult job to do and probably difficult to understand if you haven't been in their shoes. (Which I haven't). Most of them suffered from at least some symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress.
Steve1

[billvon 3,120]

>A little over simplified psychology.

I don't know enough about psychology to determine its level of simplicity, but the reason I found it striking is how closely the "mythical" way of looking at things mirrors what's happening right now. We've actually heard nearly all the things he used as examples of mythical thought:

----------------

"The US has never seen an attack like 9/11 before; everything is different now." (common quote after 9/11.)

Former U.S. president George Bush on Wednesday told American airmen based in Kuwait to enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq that they were doing God's work. (AFP)

"See, we love - we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love." Bush, 8/29/02

In their disinformation and propaganda campaigns, the Iraqis use elaborate ruses and obvious falsehoods, covert actions and false on-the-record statements, and sophisticated preparation and spontaneous exploitation of opportunities. (White House position paper)

"You're either with us or against us." Bush state of the union address after 9/11.

-----------

It may be simplified, but it predicts the actions we've taken eerily well so far. I don't know enough to agree or not yet, but it's sure worth reading the book.

[JJohnson 0]

Yeah, and according to the Iraqis we are the great satan.....cause their perceptions are kinda fucked as well.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[billvon 3,120]

> Yeah, and according to the Iraqis we are the great satan.....cause their
> perceptions are kinda fucked as well.

I think it's more because we killed between 100,000 and 200,000 of them, and are participating in the current effort to starve them, and are straining at the bit to kill even more of them. But you're right, I think, in that they are buying into the same mythos.

[JJohnson 0]

The Middle East has been screwed up long before we killed them. Their hatred of us goes beyond the Gulf War and extends well past Iraq. So I would have to say that not only bought into that mythos, but smoked it heavily.
One aspect of that shit I do not understand is their idea that the State of Israel does not belong their, that the Jews have no right to be there. That our support of Israel is one of the key factors in their hatred of us.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not the Jews from the Middle East?

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

The Middle East has been screwed up long before we killed them. Their hatred of us goes beyond the Gulf War and extends well past Iraq. So I would have to say that not only bought into that mythos, but smoked it heavily.
One aspect of that shit I do not understand is their idea that the State of Israel does not belong their, that the Jews have no right to be there. That our support of Israel is one of the key factors in their hatred of us.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not the Jews from the Middle East?

You mean, like the "Indians" were from Cleveland (and all the rest of what is now the USA)?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skygal3 0]

So basically in sum he is saying that in times of war our vision becomes tunneled and we are more apt to easily believe the things that could easily comfort our fears("God is on our side", "history will absolve us" and other such slogans indicate our belief that the cosmic forces are with us.), our fears stemming from the quote "Now is different from all other times. Everything hangs in the balance." Yeah, I believe that--and that same thought process can be applied to basically any other trauma in ones life that leaves them with the feeling of "Everything hanging in the balance", or saying it another way, our personal security being threatned making us feel inscure... I also believe that the media plays a HUGE portion of applying those fears and thus making peoples vision more prone to becoming tunneled. I stopped watching the major news organizations about a year ago because of their way to blow basically any minut detail about a certain subject out of proportion. I think that may be a factor in why my blood pressure remains so low.

edited to say: before I get flamed I am not living my life like an ostrich with it's head in the sand, rather I take the news with a grain of salt knowing that it is almost impossible for news today to be reported unbiased..and there seems to be an intentional ratings hungry fear factor applied to their stories..

[JJohnson 0]

I'm not sure what you asking. If you have a question please rephrase it, if you have point make it.
If my statement confused you I shall rephrase: Were not the Jews originally from the Middle East? If so, why do they not have a right to be where they are now? (According to some Muslim extremeists)
What white settlers did to the Indians is of no relevance to the Middle East, unless of course you are simple saying that throughtout history mankind has practiced "might makes right" and "to the victor goes the spoils"?

I gotta start using the spell check.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[JJohnson 0]

Yes, it is kinda of what I was saying as being oversimplified pschology. Mentally we warp our logic and rationale to make things easier to handle, to justify our behaivor.
We alcoholics have used this mental defense forever to get away with the mass drinking we did.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[wmw999 2,589]

Jews originated in the Middle East. Of course, before then they were in Egypt, too, according to the Old Testament. Arabs also come from the Middle East, and the vast majority of what could be called "Jewish Culture" (both Eastern and Western European based) didn't come from the Middle East.

The area currently called Israel was largely populated with Arabs; there were also Christians, Jews, and others there. When the Holocaust happened, that intensified the international support for the Zionist movement that already existed, and which had caused increased migration of Jews to the Israel area.

Unfortunately, with more people than arable land, there is going to be disagreement.

So yes, the Jews came from there. A long time ago. So did the Palestinians, a lot more recently. They were displaced.

That's my undoubtedly-too-superficial analysis. The wrongs to me seem to be in asserting that one group's rights supersede other groups'. Mainly because more than one group can assert this, and provide backing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kiltboy 0]

Yes the Jews were from the middle east.

Anyone regrardless of religion has the right to be there.

I think the arab world is a touch upset about the generation of Israel as a country and the displacement of Palestinians when Israel was created.

I'm not going to go into detail but I saw a link from the BBC web page that covered the lead up of events from late 1800 on.

Extremists are hard to defend either way so I'm not going to bother as I don't like them.

David

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

I'm not sure what you asking. If you have a question please rephrase it, if you have point make it.
If my statement confused you I shall rephrase: Were not the Jews originally from the Middle East? If so, why do they not have a right to be where they are now? (According to some Muslim extremeists)
What white settlers did to the Indians is of no relevance to the Middle East, unless of course you are simple saying that throughtout history mankind has practiced "might makes right" and "to the victor goes the spoils"?

I gotta start using the spell check.

Just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Yes, 2000 years ago, the Jews were in the Middle East. In the same way, 500 years ago, the ancestors of most Americans were in Europe.

It has been said that there are more people of Polish descent living in Chicago than Warsaw. However, if they went back to Warsaw and asked for their land back, they wouldn't be well received, true?

After WWII, the British and French divided up the Middle East. The large number of Jewish emigres were settled in the newly created state in 1948. The Palestinians were already living there and unhappy about it. The most unhappy ones were place in barbed-wire detention faciltiies. Since stealing your property and placing a person in a barbed-wire camp was unpopular with the Jews in Germany, you can understand the Palestinians sentiment.

Who lived there 2000 years ago has little bearing over who should live there now. If you take that route, remember that Kuwait was once the 19th province of Iraq.

[JJohnson 0]

So what you are saying is that because white settlers, which became the U.S., slaughtered the Indians, the Jews don't get to be in Israel???

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[Muenkel 0]

Damn you Bill. You tricked me into a political thread.

Exit...stage left.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[JJohnson 0]

So you are saying there were no Jews in Israel from 2000 years ago until 1948?? They were all there, then left, then we just picked Israel out of a hat to put them all back into? "Well you Jews, the final choice was between Florida and Israel, We would like to save Florida as a nice retirement community, so Israel it is!" I mean by what manner did anyone decide that the Jews were getting Israel?
I also understand that in many areas the Jews and Palestinians have lived in relative harmony.

The whole thing is very fucked up. The solution is very obvious. The U.S takes over Jamaica. We kick the Rasta Heads outta their homes and send them to the Middle East. In six months nobodee feel like fightin anymore mon.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[Zinger 0]

Quote

I think it's more because we killed between 100,000 and 200,000 of them,

Quote

Most of the Iraqi people we killed where murdering rapists that invaded and conquered a innocent neighboring country for oil. Invaded with little warning let alone 11 years of diplomacy.

participating in the current effort to starve them,

I thought the U.S and U.N where feeding most the Iraqi people now because Saddam spends most the money on his personal welfare and luxuries ??

***
and are straining at the bit to kill even more of them.

Quote

This is so very wrong, The U.S is not trying to kill innocent people like Saddam is so don't even suggest that. The US military does as much as possible to save lives of the innocent, Alot more then Saddam does.

Sometimes I just sit here in amazement of some of the shit I read and see going on in this world. Really I do. Why can't people tell the simple difference between good and bad.

Saddam,his family and gang (I don't want to call it military because that word carries to much respect so I use "gang") have brutally raped and killed hundreds of thousands of people (some say over a million people), made war with most of their neighboring countries, gassed their enemy AND their own people,Has a "Scorch the Earth" policy, Is openly paying suicide bombers to kill innocent people guided by race/religion, shoots at U.N planes, Has/used WMD and Dictates a whole country with the fear of death and violence.

But President George W. Bush is the bad guy because he wants Saddam to stop doing these horrorble things??? People are marching against war with anti-Bush signs??..I just don't fucking get it??

War is the reason all these protestors have the right to march, All of them, all over the world, If it was not for wars fought for freedom they would not be there marching.Period.

But these anti-war marchers I guess think they are better or more important then the Iraqi people?? Being that they don't want others to fight for the Iraqi peoples freedom let alone themselves fight for it. Many many people died for our freedom, Are we more deserving then the Iraqi people ? I think NOT. How long should they wait ? Alot have already waited their entire life.

Stuff like this is what I don't understand. Maybe you can find a book that explains it?

------Have a good one!--------

• Quote

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I mean by what manner did anyone decide that the Jews were getting Israel?

The United Nations did:

"UN Resolution 181, defined the outline of a settlement in Palestine creating both a Jewish and a Palestinian homeland. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem."

Truman Library

[billvon 3,120]

>This is so very wrong, The U.S is not trying to kill innocent people
> like Saddam is so don't even suggest that.

We are talking about going to war. War is not like what you see on TV, with smart bombs targeting only evildoers. War is killing as many people as you can, and destroying as much of a country as you can, while minimizing your own losses. Blowing the hands and face off a 13 year old girl is acceptable in war, as is burning 200 people to death. Bombing a wedding is an unfortunate mistake, but again, acceptable in a war.

We try to minimize civilian casualties, to our credit. Still, we killed around 3000 civilians in Afghanistan, and that was a walk in the park compared to what Iraq will be.

War is killing people, and some will be innocent. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it is anything other than that.

>Sometimes I just sit here in amazement of some of the shit I read
> and see going on in this world. Really I do. Why can't people tell the
> simple difference between good and bad.

Let's say you live with your family in the desert. You don't hear much of the outside world. You have a government you don't really understand too well. They have a lot of laws (i.e. you have to cover your face and pray X times a day) but when you follow them they leave you alone. Most of your life is spent with your family and your farm; that's what you care about.

Then one day an aircraft flies overhead and drops a few bombs. The bombs destroy your home and kill your children and your wife. You later find out it was a US plane, and you were a 'taliban sympathizer' who deserved to die.

Who will you think are the bad guys? Will you listen to an American explain to you how you've been 'liberated?'

>But President George W. Bush is the bad guy because he wants
> Saddam to stop doing these horrorble things???

No, I want Saddam to stop doing these horrible things. I just don't want to make him stop by doing even more horrible things to his people. Saving people from a ruthless dictator is a good thing - killing them to 'save' them is not.

>People are marching against war with anti-Bush signs??..

I'm not marching against war with anti-Bush signs. If he can disarm Iraq without killing Iraqis I'd be the first to congratulate him, and if all his saber-rattling leads to Hussein finally backing down then he will have played his hand well.

But let me ask you this - let's say we invade. We have to kill, say, 100,000 people in Iraq (death toll of the last war.) We lose 2000 American soldiers. As in Afghanistan, we take over the country but can't find our target (Hussein and his government.) He retreats to Pakistan and hides out. Terrorism increases in the US since Bin Laden's popularity grows and Hussein now has the freedom of anonymity to wage his wars. 6000 people die in an attack on the Sears Tower. As in Afghanistan, the government for most people in Iraq doesn't change much.

Did we 'win?' Is that outcome worth all that killing?

>But these anti-war marchers I guess think they are better or more
> important then the Iraqi people??

No, they want to avoid their painful deaths. One of the people in the march I was on grew up in Iraq. The bombs we drop will kill her family; that's why she's protesting the war. Will you tell her that you think it's OK to kill her family for your ideals? Would you claim you understand the problems in Iraq better than she does?

>I think NOT. How long should they wait ? Alot have already waited
>their entire life.

And so you want to end their lives to make it right? _That's_ the best solution?

[JJohnson 0]

They only thing I disagree with you on is definition of war, which is not to kill as many people as possible and destroy as much of a country as possible. That is simply not true.
Destroying the armed forces is a real objective, but we do accept surrender as well. So if our only purpose was mass distruction, we would not accept surrender would we?
As for ravaging the countryside? Again, as it has been said around here, oil is the reason for this conflict. If we destory the country we will not get that oil. So our definition of war my dear friend is not complete and utter destruction.
It's more like sporadic, restrained destruction.

I do have a question for you. You keep throwing that 100,000 people death toll around. What percentage of that was actual combatants? How much of that can be really known to be innocent women and children? Where do these numbers come from? Please do not tell me Iraq.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"