This discussion got me thinking about WWII. I don't think anyone could argue (reasonably) that Japanese and German societies were "uncivilized"- yet people called them barbarians because of what they did. Clearly, the most "civilized" people, who are capable of amazing art, or able to build wonderful cities, are not beyond torturing their fellow humans, if they think they have a compelling reason, or destroying civilian populations, or any of the other things that we think "barbarians" do.
This is not about being "barbarians". What we are really talking about is "How far are you willing to go in the service of your ideas?" What harm are you willing to do to other humans? That's really what we mean. And in that context, it's hard to see people who support beheadings as very different from people who say "Nuke them all". There are certain populations on both sides who would be incredibly cruel in the service of their ideals. Mr. Bush started a war in the service of his, and maintains he is right, despite evidence to the contrary, because he believes so firmly in his ideology. It's not surprising that there are people on the other side who believe their ideology just as strongly. Calling them barbarians, imo, misses the point.
We call their methods "barbaric" because they are primitive and personal (and they are primitive and personal because of the asymmetry of warfare), but we see nothing barbaric in fire bombing, because it is more "impersonal". If our opposition had the ability to be more "civilized" and fight us with a big army and big weapons, I feel sure they could rise to that level of civility. If it weren't so deadly serious the self delusion involved on both sides would be rather funny- but it causes too much harm to be at all humorous. |
