The noted distinctions between oriental and occidental, or Asian and European culture and history, can be reduced to a critical factor – individualism.  The Asians tend to be focused on the greater society while the Europeans developed a culture of the individual.  This is a simplification because just as not all Asians are conformist drones, not all Europeans are rugged individuals either.  But, just as any myth or stereotype contains a germ of truth, there is something to this argument which bears investigation.

Racial homogeneity is a frequently cited factor in the more-social orientation of the Asian cultures.  This orientation does run quite strongly through the cultures of China, Japan and Korea.  Close scrutiny of their histories shows us however a multitude of leaders.  The argument is made that the dynasties of China were a force for a cultural homogeneity unknown in Europe of that period.  This is not to say that they were immune from conflicts, insurrections, and intrigues very similar to those experienced in Europe.  Somehow the contention that Chinese history is somehow more unified persists.  I will readily concede that one bit of evidence in support of this assertion is the relative lack of competing languages present in the territory of greater China compared to panoply of languages throughout Europe.

The European cultural model is proposed to have evolved differently due to the competition resulting from a multiplicity of nations states with shifting borders.  The question is whether this is an example of correlation or causation – what came first, a predisposition to individualism or an environment amenable to greater liberty from a central authority?  The empirical evidence is that Europeans managed to maintain distinct national identities even throughout the various wars of conquest and empire which populate their history.

In direct contrast, the Chinese experienced a greater sense of being Chinese in a large context unlike the Italian who might be able to acknowledge living in Europe but is nonetheless an Italian.  The concept of being a European is a geographical association, or a matter of political alliances (which history shows us are subject to frequent shifting) more than an identity to be embraced by a whole society.

The Europeans (and by extension, the Americans) developed the concepts of natural rights, private property, and individual liberty in ways which the Chinese never did.  It remains to be seen whether the current or future generations of Chinese will make this transition form society-centrism to individual-centrism (the reverse of this may be speculated, and even desired by some.  As a champion of the individual over the state, my personal disposition would find it regrettable if the west were to be more like the east in this regard).

“When goods don't cross borders, armies will" is a well-known quote attributed to Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) (although in some dispute as evidence suggests that was actually written by Otto T. Mallery (1881-1956)). This quote is a perfect epigram for the discussion of the various historical trade roads: silk, sand and water. The superiority of trade to warfare as a means to cross-pollinate cultures is nearly self-evident but if the reader wishes to consider this notion as merely unsubstantiated opinion then the conversation has reached an impasse. The aftermath of warfare has historically been at least a partial rapprochement between different tribes, nations, or peoples but at a horrific cost. Whatever positive outcomes have resulted from the mingling of the conquerors with the conquered, trade is the means of achieving these same beneficial consequences with much less pain.

If all this seems obvious to the casual observer then the question must be raised, “Why do rulers let war happen?” The answer is found within a quirk of human nature which finds expression in rulers – it may even be an inevitable derivation or consequence of the very concepts of rule and rulers. This quirk is the compunction to control others. When this compunction has been firmly rooted in the psyche of a ruler, the ruler is as bound to it as is the lowly subject of the realm. Mobilizing a society for war is the ultimate act of control.

Rulers fear the independent trader. The native-born trader is able to escape the grasp of the ruler, at least until his return when, laden with foreign treasures he may buy favor. His return also harbors the possibility of importing foreign ideas which may be inimical to the reigning powers. The foreign-born trader must be allowed safe passage from the dominion lest risking a declaration of war from the trader’s own nation (not that the ruler cares about the well-being of the expatriate as other than as a political pretext for intrigue). Of interest in this connection is the case of Marco Polo and his reception in the Far East. Here we see the value of the distant foreigner as a novelty and an amusement for the king’s pleasure. The very independence of the trader is anathema to the control-bound ruler, the trader's freedom of travel is a rebuke of the ruler's need to control that save travel.

Free-ranging is not without its own risks which include banditry, exposure, disease, and possible ruin. A key distinction here is that these risks are voluntarily undertaken by the trader for the possible rewards incumbent on successful completion of the mission. This stands in stark contrast to the compulsory nature of conscription, military service, and the imposition of taxes and duties to fund the military adventures of the rulers.

The shrewd ruler utilizes the means at his disposal, whether propaganda, appeal to nationalism and xenophobia, or portraying his person as the embodiment of his people or the gods, to forge a collective mindset completely at odds with the independent trader. The trader may seem to be out only for himself, and indeed his self-interest is a powerful motivator in its own right, but for all that he effects positive exchange without recourse to violence. A seeming paradox is the way that the self-directed trader brings prosperity and harmony as by-products of his trading activity initiated for solely selfish reasons while the ruler talks of unity and strength while his plans put into practice actually spell misery and death for those under his sway!

I was thinking that sustainability issues could play a part in the quantity of bloodshed evident in man's history. The obvious connection is the competition for natural resources (particularly fertile land and fresh water) which drove, at least in part, the wars of conquest. A tribe or state with desirable and poorly defended land is an easy target for an aggressor concerned with acquiring these assets. Killing the losers in this conflict relieves any necessity for feeding them or otherwise diverting resources away from the victor. At the very least, putting the vanquished to work as slaves might increase the yield of the land enough to cover the carrying costs of those extra mouths to feed.

That all seemed obvious enough, but how to explain deadly cruelty enforced against one's own people as practiced in ritual human sacrifice, especially on the scale of the early Mesoamericans. Not to excuse it, but it is understandable that a despot seeks elimination of his adversaries and potential rivals. A political prisoner is an added cost burden, a dead prisoner carries no more fixed costs with the possible exception of becoming a cause celebre through martyrdom. Something deeper is at work in the case of ritual human sacrifice. We saw the Egyptians and Chinese burying servants or slaves to accompany their dead leaders in their afterlife journeys. Implicit in this practice is the fact that there was a surplus of available bodies to fill this duty call. If human life were dearer, not only in a sentimental manner but in terms of the survival value for society at large we would likely see much less cavalier dismissal of living humans.

As an offering to "the gods," human sacrifice has at least a(n) (arguably faulty) logical basis. Then the question becomes "how much sacrifice is needed to achieve the goal," the goal being a good harvest, victory in battle, whatever the cause du jure may be. Once power is in the hands of the priest class, whether through the merging of political ends with the ends of priest-craft, or through some sort of collective mindset which provides a positive feedback loop reinforcing the perceived rightness of such courses of action we see the institutionalization and expansion of killing.

It was interesting to consider the seminal thinkers in light of this topic. While they were outwardly linked by connection to subsequent religious movements (or more properly a philosophical movement in the case of Socrates) there is one of them which jumps out at me as an exception. "The Prophet" Mohammed was not only involved in proselytizing, he was quite militant about it. Some of the other major religions feature lesser degrees of proselytizing but Islam as promoted by Mohammed himself was a major turning point in the function of war itself. No longer was conquest solely about the rivalry for food and water (which in turn led to considerations of power and security) but conquest in the name of religion was introduced. The rationale for war expanded from the arguable rational (at least inasmuch as a logical case can be built in support of) to the irrational, understood in this context to mean the province of faith, of the zealot and not strictly comprehensible prima facie.

Empires are a bloody business.  The great enterprise of conquest requires tremendous capital to get off the ground.  Treasure and a surplus of population are needed to man an army.  In one sense empire building can be seen as evidence of man’s ingenuity given the planning and logistics involved at the outset, in the strategic arena above the tactical level which has distinctly different characteristics.  As in mobilization for extensive public works there is a need for focusing the efforts of many to serve the ends of few, even the ends of one, be it king or general.  Besides the obvious imposition on the soldier, war is a tremendous imposition on all of society with the losses of men, the squander of treasure, and the general diversion of energy away from more productive pursuits.  But somehow this mobilization occurs.  A population is convinced, cajoled, seduced, compelled and brought to believe that somehow their war of conquest will bring more in return than is lost in the process.

War of conquest has served over time to mix peoples of different backgrounds and to broaden the cultural influence at work within any given society.  While this can be viewed as a benefit it is hardly the only, or best way to achieve this.  Free peaceable trade and travel meet this end without violence and the lingering feuds which outlive conquests.

The inescapable connection is evidenced between warfare and the rise of the state.  Many arguments are put forward about the state being a vital defender, including Stayer on page 118.  However, the state is most vigorous in defending its ruling elites.  Besides warfare, the state is ruthless with rivals among its own populace. As for the rest of society it is hard to say their lives would be any more dangerous without the existence of the warfare state. It is interesting to speculate about will be possible when man’s ingenuity is directed completely towards life enhancement instead of warfare.

It is relatively easy to understand the conceit and power-lust which motivates leaders.  It is a far more interesting question to consider what it is that makes people fall in with war.  People generally love their own families, those that don't are considered criminally insane.  Societies will evolve when a broader recognition of the family of man takes hold and supplants the earlier vestigial hatred of the outsider.  Religion is one possible mechanism to steer man in that direction, however religion must avoid the temptation of imitating the state and pitting its adherents against the non-adherents.  Only when religion can rise above sectarianism can it truly deliver a harmony based on a family of man implying brotherhood of all men under one father.  

The question for me is this: does being civilized just mean living under the control of a state?  If this is so then it follows that prisoners are the most civilized of us all!  I counter that civilization is instead an individual status.  From this it easy to reason that a civilized society is one in which a certain critical mass of individuals have evolved into civility.  Unanimity is not required but plurality is.  One may be a in a civilized minority amidst a barbaric majority - a condition which may describe our present situation, or be a minority barbarian in a largely civilized society.  Viewing the dichotomy this way conserves a respect for the individuals involved, the sort of respect which states sadly lack in most cases.

Studying the history of these conflicts is best viewed as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.  As an end unto itself it is a dreary litany.  As a means to seeking ways to do better next time it is more helpful.  It is also a valuable reminder of what to avoid, which behaviors will invariable end badly, and the sad legacy of unchecked ambition and power.  The fact that this pattern has been repeated wherever people have settled is proof of our common humanity, or at least certain impulses which are shared.  The one bright spot in all this is that same ingenuity of man.  Even now ethics, philosophy and religion are influencing man, there is a moral evolution running alongside the evolutions of civilizations and technologies albeit these evolutions don’t always run in lockstep.  The existence of a temporal lag between these different evolutions does not mean that they aren’t happening.  It can be difficult to focus on the bigger picture in light of the relative length of time for evolution to unfold but given the timeline analogies considered last week it is clear that the pace of change is accelerating in a manner reminiscent of Moore’s Law.  The scale still exceeds an individual’s lifespan but the pace of change has brought about incredible progress in an amount of time practically insignificant to geologic time, or deep history.