Has the spirit of a society ever changed *without* violent catastrophe?

[DerekG]

(Note: I am speaking of the issue of converting from perpetual war to peace; I am not concerned with instances of reform on a smaller scale, such as the Civil Rights Movement. After all, even the warmonger Bonaparte threw a few "freedoms" to his people.)

Although I've been here since May 2001, my post count is relatively low. One reason for this is my disinterest in "Me, Too!" threads. I need not express my disdain for Bushco--it's internalized. But I do start threads that seek to counter the tribalistic thinking around here, the "Democrats good; Republicans evil" groupthink. You see, I believe we've lived in a fascist state long before December 2000; I don't hesitate in identifying America as the leading terrorist state since 1945. Our cup of iniquity is overflowing.

To put it another way: we've got bad karma, folks. And an election will change very little (I'm voting Kerry merely to get the Christian dispensationalists--extraordinarily dangerous people--out of the executive branch). But we will remain an empire under Kerry. That's no good.

We--the society--have to change. Whether you want to use the language of Scripture ("beating swords into plowshares") or that of the Flower Children ("Make Love, Not War"), our collective animus has to crumble. We have to be "humbled."

But I don't rejoice, for modern history has presented us with societies that shifted from aggression to gentility through catastrophe. I balk at these transfigurations: Dresden and Hamburg; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All atrocities--unfathomably unholy, and I do NOT condone these horrors. The Japanese and German civilians did NOT "have it coming"; their deaths were merely part and parcel to the law of cause and effect--a fisherman will eventually become the fish.

Like everyone else, I don't want rivers of blood. But things can not go on as they have--something has to give.

Has a society ever willingly given up militarism? How is this all going to end?

[unblock]

1. the soviet union comes close

HIGHLY militaristic society; by and large peaceful breakup.
well, the chechnyans might disagree, but in the scheme of things, the change was remarkably peaceful.

[Kanary]

2. Had an interesting discussion Friday night with an experienced politico

His take....."It's going to have to get much worse before people are interested in making changes".

I've heard a lot of people saying that, including some immigrants I know from European countries, and it gives me chills.

I suspect, sadly, they're right.

These little changes only make the downhill slide more palatable.

Kanary

[jdj]

3. Gandhi's march to the sea?

I'm trying with this one

[DerekG]

5. A joyous blow against occupiers, true

But look at the strife between fundamentalists since Britain's expulsion. India is rife with problems.

[jdj]

6. I guess unless you got God on your side visiting plagues of frogs

and stuff on the bad guys, you're screwed.

[starroute]

4. People keep on doing what works

And, unfortunately, what the US has been doing since 1945 has worked.

I suspect that the attitude of a Kerry administration will be that the basic post-1945 stance is still viable and that it's only the Bush perversions -- unilateralism, allowing the economy to go to pot -- that are the problem. Because of that, nothing will change in a fundamental way.

The best prospect I can see is one where US hegemony deflates slowly rather than catastrophically. Where the rest of the world finds more advantage in exchanging goods and ideas with one another than with us. Where Americans gradually wake up to the reality of a planet that is no longer dominated by US culture (Hollywood, rock & roll, McDonalds and Coca-Cola) and ideals (representative democracy, free market). Where everything American starts to seem a little shabby and old-fashioned, so that young Americans long to be part of a vibrant new world culture instead of being stuck with dumb old Americanism.

And, most of all, where nobody in power in the US is crazy enough to believe that military force is a plausible way to stop this from happening.

Basically, we have to get to the state the Soviet Union was in 1989, where Communism had become such a sham that they no longer had the moral certainty to fire on their own people in defense of it.

Is it a good thing to want Americans to lose their faith in their own righteousness? Or to want the RIAA and MPAA to choke off American innovativeness as they so dearly desire? It certainly won't be fun when it happens. But it looks a lot better than the other options.

[Kanary]

7. I like your view!

I've been thinking something similar, that other cultures need to assert their views, but the way you word it puts it all in perspective.

Thanks for a fine post.

Kanary

[jdj]

8. But when the hell did we get righteous?

I don't remember being righteous before Reagan.

Before then, we were still wearing the Scarlet V, for Vietnam. This whole righteous thing is repuke psy-ops, tactics to make shame-based people feel it's okay to project their hate onto whomever Daddy tells them to. Reagan started this crap.

[starroute]

9. "Conquer we must, for our cause it is just"

"And this be our motto, 'In God is our trust.' "

It's right there in the Star-Spangled Banner. We're on God's side, God's on our side, and everything we do comes out for the best. That's the American psychology and has been for a long, long time.