BS: On killing and war

Subject: BS: On killing and war
From: GeorgeH
Date: 28 Jul 99 - 01:22 PM

n the thread on the UK miners strike I was aware of a seeming contradiction in my arguments, in that I criticised one writer for separating war from other killing . . . yet disagreed with someone else who said that there was no cause worth killing for. Anyway, I came across this fine piece which "squares that circle" better than I could. It follows from a description of the devastation of a bomb attack in the London blitz.

". . . Elsewhere, men are being burned alive, blinded, shot, drowned, smashed to bits when their planes crash. Civilian war deaths are no worse than those of the young men in the fighting forces; all alike are sentient human beings, dying suddenly or in agony. 'Eighteen of our planes were lost, but eight of our pilots are safe.' And ten are not. Do not let us cant about 'women and children'. However it may be about children - and I admit that here our feelings outrun reason - it is no worse that women should be killed than men. It is all part of the blind, manic, primitive, stupid bestiality of war, into which human beings periodically leap, spitting in civilisation's face and putting her to confused rout. The alternative, here and now? No one can see any, except surrendering to the still more blind, manic, primitive, stupid bestiality of Nazi rule over Europe, which would be to spit at and rout civilisation even more earnestly." Rose Macaulay: A sample corner of total war; Oct. 1940. In "Hearts Undefeated: Women's writing of the second world war" Ed. Jenny Hartley ISBN 1-85381-671-X.

BS perhaps, but of good quality IMO. I wish I could say the whole book was as good, but while much is excellent I find some amazing editorial lapses. Well worth reading, nevertheless.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: On killing and war
From: Ferret
Date: 28 Jul 99 - 02:41 PM

here, here. very well said

Ferret