...does that affect our understanding of its essential nature?
I am lucky. I live in a country protected by two vast oceans. The devastating effects of war are things I see on television and in movies, and find it difficult to relate to my home country in a meaningful sense.
In its relatively short history, Canada has sent millions of troops overseas to fight in wars, and many of them have been injured or killed protecting what I consider worthwhile values and ideals. I admire their sacrifices, and hope their efforts were not in vain. Although I respect pacifists, I am not one myself. I believe wars are sometimes necessary.
However, Canada itself does not bear the scars of these conflicts. The civilian population who remained here during these conflicts did not endure occupation. Or bombing of civilian targets and the total destruction of cities. Or the imposition of a totalitarian government with all the depredations and brutality that come with that.
I can read about these things, or even experience them when travelling, to some extent. But our almost unique geographical situation prevents me from seeing them as even possible in the country I call home. We have a good relationship with the one country whose army would not need to cross an ocean to fight us.
My question is this: In such a light, are Canadians as a whole best placed to comment upon the essential nature of war? Is our perception necessarily skewed by our unusual -- not to mention unusually brief -- history? Is the unfathomably eternal nature of human conflict best understood by such a fledgling culture, whose nearly unparalleled privilege of position sets it apart not only from most of the world, but even from its own very recent ancestors?
The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it. Start with me.
I am lucky. I live in a country protected by two vast oceans. The devastating effects of war are things I see on television and in movies, and find it difficult to relate to my home country in a meaningful sense.
In its relatively short history, Canada has sent millions of troops overseas to fight in wars, and many of them have been injured or killed protecting what I consider worthwhile values and ideals. I admire their sacrifices, and hope their efforts were not in vain. Although I respect pacifists, I am not one myself. I believe wars are sometimes necessary.
However, Canada itself does not bear the scars of these conflicts. The civilian population who remained here during these conflicts did not endure occupation. Or bombing of civilian targets and the total destruction of cities. Or the imposition of a totalitarian government with all the depredations and brutality that come with that.
I can read about these things, or even experience them when travelling, to some extent. But our almost unique geographical situation prevents me from seeing them as even possible in the country I call home. We have a good relationship with the one country whose army would not need to cross an ocean to fight us.
My question is this: In such a light, are Canadians as a whole best placed to comment upon the essential nature of war? Is our perception necessarily skewed by our unusual -- not to mention unusually brief -- history? Is the unfathomably eternal nature of human conflict best understood by such a fledgling culture, whose nearly unparalleled privilege of position sets it apart not only from most of the world, but even from its own very recent ancestors?
The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it. Start with me.
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-06-20 19:36:35)