The thing that Chewie said about not needing military

A Can of Man

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
Sorry but there are examples of two countries that spring to mind immediately, Korea and Belgium who haven't been in much position to piss off its neighbors yet got royally screwed anyway.
Korea before the Cold War years was a very isolated country which hardly had anything in the way of foreign policy. But in the face of China and Japan, it recieved many wars and invasions leading up to the Japanese colonization of Korea.
Belgium, though it did things in Africa, didn't do anything to "piss off" other Europeans. In fact it tried so hard to declare neutrality in the crazy world of rising Europe. And look what happened to THEM.
What did these two countries have in common? Inadequate military. We could bend over and make peace and love like hippies in a grass field orgy and STILL get attacked and colonized.
 
my point was society doesn't need a military to defend it. countries do, dictators need one to stay in power. but society is an evolving thing....it's how people live, their customs & way of life. the military can do very little to protect a society...nor can invading army do much about how a particular society behaves....short of killing everybody off
 
Japanese colonization of Korea started in the 1890s, rotc. That was just a tad bit earlier than the Cold War.

the military can do very little to protect a society...nor can invading army do much about how a particular society behaves
Click to expand...

Well I think the fact that we aren't all speaking German and shouting "Seig Heil!" answers that first part pretty well as for the second part, I suggest you contact the Afghanis. The Taliban systematicly did everything they could to detroy the Afghani culture and largely succeeded. Sacred relics, artwork, and even huge 150 ft tall Buddhas all destroyed. They most certainly controlled how the society behaved as well.
 
Do you read?

In Plato's "The Republic" the thing that concerns Plato in making a luxurious city is how to adequately defend it. If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it. Therefore you need an army to defend your society if it is to be healthy from another society. What is so hard to understand about that basic human concept?
 
The Nationalists losing in the Chinese civil war led to the wiping out of many Chinese traditions due to Mao's cultural revolution. Good thing the madness was stopped from within before it managed to do the whole country and now the Chinese have refound pride in their millenia old culture.
Koreans who lived in Eastern Russia are now scattered throughout other places of the former USSR (mostly Kazakhstan) and have lost their Korean heritage. Obviously Joe Stalin's work.
It isn't always the case, but often the country is the shell that protects the nation (the culture, way of life etc.). Lose one, and you very well could lose the other, the speed in which it happens depending on the brutality of the conquerer. After all, that is the point of defending one's country right? Once you lost your sovreignty, you are subject to the conquerer's laws... which are based on his customs, traditions etc.
Now of the conquerer is generous and allows autonomy and respects the pre-existing culture then the conquered have lucked out.
Another case of cultures being wiped out would be in Indonesia. Way back when it wasn't Indonsia yet, it was a primarily Hindu and Buddhist region. Their culture was very different from the Islam dominated society Indonesia is today. Not all of Islam's spread into the area was peaceful.
Also, India's northern regions which are also quite Muslim used to be primarily Buddhist. Buddhism was wiped out by Islam in a series of wars and now, Buddhism practically doesn't exist in India anymore.
I can go on and on and on.
 
I am just guessing here but my interpretation of this is that a strong society will survive despite external conditions, ie most of "occupied europe" carried on as normal despite being occupied and once the occupation was over it pretty much went back to normal.

I think there is a general misunderstanding between the terms society and culture in this discussion.
 
What's a society but a body of people who share a common culture?
Plus though many of the people in the occupied territories were able to live on "normal," certainly the Jews couldn't. And if the war ended, who knows what awaited these people living rather normal lives under occupation.
 
MontyB said:
I am just guessing here but my interpretation of this is that a strong society will survive despite external conditions, ie most of "occupied europe" carried on as normal despite being occupied and once the occupation was over it pretty much went back to normal.

I think there is a general misunderstanding between the terms society and culture in this discussion.
Click to expand...

bang on the money,
 
Plus though many of the people in the occupied territories were able to live on "normal," certainly the Jews couldn't. And if the war ended, who knows what awaited these people living rather normal lives under occupation.
Click to expand...

No, that's bang on the money.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
What's a society but a body of people who share a common culture?
Click to expand...

Thats somewhat inaccurate it is the sign of a strong society that it can accept multiple cultures that have little if anything in common (invariably forming a single mixed culture).

Charge_7 said:
Plus though many of the people in the occupied territories were able to live on "normal," certainly the Jews couldn't. And if the war ended, who knows what awaited these people living rather normal lives under occupation.
Click to expand...

No, that's bang on the money.
Click to expand...

Umm indeed it is a good example of a weakness in society which pretty much validates Chewies statement.
 
How the hell do you get that? Chewie stated that society needs no protection. That hardly suggests he thinks it's weak. As for your other comments to 13th, I find it interesting how you can refute a person's statement out of one side of your mouth and agree with it out the other.
 
Whispering Death said:
Do you read?

In Plato's "The Republic" the thing that concerns Plato in making a luxurious city is how to adequately defend it. If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it. Therefore you need an army to defend your society if it is to be healthy from another society. What is so hard to understand about that basic human concept?
Click to expand...

If you read carefully "The Republic", Plato says that the porpouse of the warriors is to defend the State, not the society.

If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it.

In what book of the republic did you read this?????????? I can´t remember anything like that, it doesn´t fit with Plato and Socretes philosofy
 
Charge_7 said:
How the h**l do you get that? Chewie stated that society needs no protection. That hardly suggests he thinks it's weak. As for your other comments to 13th, I find it interesting how you can refute a person's statement out of one side of your mouth and agree with it out the other.
Click to expand...

no i stated that a STRONG society should need no military to defend it. after centuries of persecution, the eureopen jewish society was not in any sort of position ( or numbers ) to carry on in the face of the nazis.
 
Ah, well excuse me then. And since the Jews weren't able to defend themselves and thus be able to be a strong society, how does a society accomplish that exactly without defending themselves?
 
staurofilakes said:
Whispering Death said:
Do you read?

In Plato's "The Republic" the thing that concerns Plato in making a luxurious city is how to adequately defend it. If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it. Therefore you need an army to defend your society if it is to be healthy from another society. What is so hard to understand about that basic human concept?
Click to expand...

If you read carefully "The Republic", Platon says that the porpouse of the warriors is to defend the State, not the society.

If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it.

In what book of the republic did you read this?????????? I can´t remember anything like that, it doesn´t fit with Plato and Socretes philosofy
Click to expand...

That's the whole point! In the healthy city there is no need for guardians because there is no luxuries in Plato's healthy city. However, in the 'fevered city' where there are luxuries and wealth, the city needs the guardians to defend against outsiders who would take it from the city.

And what are you people talking about that the society would go on despite who they are being ruled by? Really? Like the Jews got along so well with German occupation. An occupying force can do whatever they want to you society including making everyone slaves or virtual slaves through crushing taxation.
 
A society without a strong defense will be taken over and assimilated into a society with a strong offense.
 
03, that depends on the culture of the conquerers.
But the fact is, EVERYTHING will depend on THEM. You will have no control. And yes, defense is primarily to preserve the state, but the state is usually the body that preserves the nation.
The Nation is not a political entity, rather it is a group of people with a culture. I know someone pointed out that there are societies that have many different cultures but then in this case, they have something in common: a tolerating culture that is open to new ideas and other cultures from abroad. This too is actually a cultural trait.
So an example of the military protecting the nation but not really the state. The war against terror at least up to Afghanistan was a protection of the nation, and not the state. No one believes that these guys can take down the US, but the operations were launched to prevent further attacks on the people of the society so that they can be safe and live their lives more normally.
 
society, so·ci·e·ty

a)The totality of social relationships among humans.

b)A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

c)The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.



If our society had no military to defend ourselves against Hilter, then we today would have a totaly NAZI dominated society were we cannot express our opinnions without approval of NAZI authorities. That means all our mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture, movies, music, ect, would fall under Nazi ideals and influence.

Even if the society were to remain "strong" by covertly keeping its identity, most people would be forced to go inline participating in NAZI doctrine. Even if the society didn't agree with it they would be forced watch people get killed without being able to do anything whatsoever and to go through with the motions of the "hiel Hitler" salute among other stuff.


Would you want to live under this kind of "strong" society? Would you really want to be forced to go "hiel Hitler"? As for me, no thanks. Give me the arsenal of democracy any day.

This thing about needing no defense is a pipe dream in a fools paradise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top