The True Nature of Man

While we were making our own Geneva Conventions during class (yes I wrote this after class) my group and I were talking about the real Geneva Convention. It surprised me that most of the comments about it had to do with how "no one actually follows it" or how "war is kill or be killed, so people are not inclined to follow its rules" Perhaps it is our survival mechanisms that break the agreement, but one can avoid death without using mustard gas. The answer that I came up with was that we don't abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention because there are hardly ever repercussions for those who do disobey it. So do humans have to be watched to avoid gruesome acts of violence? We talked a bit in class about how humans can be either humane or animalistic as is clearly demonstrated in The Iliad.

What I am proposing is that humans are innately trouble makers and that the polite, more subdued side of our duality is created by the regulations of the state. As an evolutionary tool, no species needs to follow rules and regulations so maybe we have always had the "eat or be eaten attitude" imbedded in our DNA and it only surfaces in war. Perhaps without guidelines,we would be doomed to self-destruction.

Think about it, would you steal if there were no police?

Leaders

In class, we talked a lot about what a leader is and what should qualify him or her to be in a leadership position. I thought it would be interesting to compare the qualities that we all agreed on in class with the qualities of our newly elected leader, Barack Obama. I am trying to keep politics out of the discussion and focus purely on his qualities so read it as such.

1. A leader influences others - Clearly Mr. Obama did a good job of influencing others as he won by a landslide in electoral votes. This is especially evident in the fact that he won states that are usually perennially red such as Virginia.

2. A leader is able to convince others that an action is in their best interests - By emphasizing a connection between the politics of John McCain and President Bush (whether that be realistic or not), Obama was not only able to convince voters that John McCain would bring "more of the same," but that what America needed was change, the keyword of his campaign. He convinced America that change would be in the best interest of our country.

3. Charisma - With his intelligence and eloquent speaking ability, Obama has plenty of charisma.

4. Credibility through success / experience - Disregarding whether one agrees or disagrees with Obama's ideas, one can not deny that this is one of his weaknesses. Judy Keen of USA Today writes:

"Two years in the U.S. Senate. Seven years in the Illinois Senate. One loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. One stirring keynote address at a Democratic National Convention. Two best-selling books.That's Barack Obama's political résumé. Is it enough to qualify him to be president?"

Apparently it was, although I would argue that it was despite this weakness and thanks to his other attributes that he will be our next president.

Although he seems to be a failry good leader at this juncture, Obama will encounter his true test when becomes president and is forced to lead a country rather then a campaign. It will be interesting to see how his characteristics help or impede him during this process.

War Over Ego

Many wars have been fought over land, wealth, and women, but are the tangible spoils of war really what humans wage war to attain. In Homer's The Iliad, Achilles and Agamemnon argue over what should be done about the curse that Apollo has inflicted on the Achaean army. The obvious answer to the problem would be Agamemnon returning the daughter of Apollo's priest. However, he states that he deserves to keep her as his prize and that if he must return her, he deserves to take the prize girl of Achilles. Achilles refuses. Why are both men so stubborn about keeping there women? Is it because they actually care about the women themselves?

No. the answer is power. By taking a women from the Trojans, Agamemnon has asserted his power over them, and in turn, by demanding to have Achilles women, he is attempting to assert his dominance over Achilles. However, Achilles like Agamemnon has a large ego. He refuses to give up his power to Agamemnon. He would rather draw out of the war than see Agamemnon win the dispute.

Similar ego battles occur in the real world. Israel and Palestine have been fighting for what they each consider to be holy land for decades. Although the battle may have begun in an earnest attempt to capture Jerusalem, it has turned into a fight for power, similar to that of Achilles and Agamemnon. In an article in The Khaleej Times, a paper published in the United Arab Emirates, talks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It quotes Mira Al Hussein, a Dubai based writer as saying,"Any land belongs to God. I don't think people go to war for land and resources. They go to war for ego and foolish pride. This is my personal opinion. I don't think they are fighting for land as much as they are fighting for ego."

The majority of the non-radicals of each of the two sides would agree with this statement. Both Islam and Judaism preach peace and the love of God for all people, yet Palestine and Israel continue to fight for land. Or so they claim. In reality, the real battle is for power and dominance.

Why do we as humans fight because of our egos? It is within human nature to want to have power and control. War is a time tried method of asserted one's dominance. Why? Because if one's enemy no longer exists or voluntarily suurenders, one can claim complete power.