- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 4 Hour
- Reading permission
It is my pleasure to contribute, Wave :)
I've actually planned to have a quiet weekend but my dear friend, Wave, felt he missed presence. So, here I am.|
Wave's contention is difficult to dispute. For one thing, I'm no historian and therefore cannot call upon a vast researched knowledge to explore if I've been right or wrong. Secondly, we're talking about ancient civilisations in which available information may be scarce, and neither Wave or I can speak convincingly on the topic.
So what I've done is to step back and look at the "forest instead of the trees". A few key concepts soon became apparent to me. [But, first, let me amend my earlier use of the word "hunger" to "necessity" which would include basic needs such as hunger, warmth, shelter etc].
First, I realised that "evil and brutality" are not human needs, unlike "hunger". At best, they are just forms of HUMAN BEHAVIOUR. Maslow's Theory of Needs to explain human behaviour tells us that the most basic NEEDS are hunger for food (and water), comfort of warmth and security, shelter, society needs, self-actualization. The difference led to a "cause & effect" analysis , ie. is "evil & brutality" (I've used a singular verb 'coz I'd treat it as a single concept) the cause for war, invasion, occupation, enslavement etc? Or, are NEEDS the cause for brutal and evil wars, occupation, enslavement etc? The Three-Word Classics tells us that man is basically kind and humane and it is the people he mixes with and the environments he goes through in life that changes him.
So with this line of thought I began to imagine what kind of societies the Greeks and the Romans had. One thing is sure - they were still agrarian societies then. Science had not develop to the extent that agricultural production was yielding bountiful harvest. Perhaps, the plough had been invented but what about other agricultural tools? Was irrigation primitive or advanced relatively? Were they very dependent on good weather for good harvest? How do they supplement their poor harvest during natural calamities? How they do pay for the construction of their beautiful but monumental buildings (the remains of which we still see today) and sports arena, their irrigation system, their education and other forms of government? Even if they were to tax the farmers, there is obviously a limit because agricultural yields cannot meet their sophisticated needs! Knowing that they were more advanced and stronger than others, could it be this necessity and need that made them covet their neighbours' land?
The next question to ask is "why didn't they tried to trade instead of invading their neighbours?". Are there any agricultural produce or wealth that they have which their neighbours would want to trade with at that time?
Next, I begin to reflect on the nature of wars, invasions, occupation, enslavement generally. What cause these occurrences? Today, we've wars over religious strife dating back centuries, wars over ethnic differences (eg. with the disintegration of Czechoslovakia, and I believe, in World War One over the murder of Duke Ferdinand), war over ethnic superiority (sounds like Hitler's self-actualization of the domination of the German race to me), Japan's need for a larger hinterland of natural resources....(could someone check me on this line of thought)??? What about the motive of America"s invasion of Iraq?
Sorry Wave, I can only respond by asking these questions. Hopefully, this will generate more views, disagreements, criticisms and more questions by others. If these do come about, I would have done my part :)
Now, time to watch my favourite TV programmes ^_^