Difference Between War And Sociological Avoidity

Is war a biological necessity, sociological inevitability, or just a bad invention? Well war is an invention. To begin it is just a way of man hood. As well as a way that we go about obtaining access to land and natural resources. This is an invention simply because there was once a time where this didn’t exist. This is a form of innovation, because it is not an elemental part in the world. Some examples of elemental things in the world is fire, water, and air. When you combine the concept of biological necessity and sociologically inevitability, one discovers that with the emerging of states and nations. Comes the use of boarders and territories that have to be developed. This theory is that if we want something we go out and get it regardless
of who we hurt in the process. Such as oil being as though we do not have it here in the United States we go to other countries and take it from them.
The definition of warfare is that two groups of people are fighting against one another.
Both inflicting harm on one another. The difference between war and a fight is that war is between two groups of people, not just two individuals. There are certain groups of people in the world some that believe in war and some that don’t. The Eskimos were a group that did not believe in war. They simply do not have the idea of warfare, so they do not practice it. As oppose to the people in the United States. So the next question is will warfare be replaced by a new invention? Margaret Mead does not even come to a clear understanding, the only thing that she has stated is that maybe it could be a
possibility. Warfare is in our genetics, therefore meaning that there is no way for us to prevent it from happening. People who support war tend to have the understanding that people are aggressive in nature as well as unable to be trusted. These individuals also believe that humans are unable to change being as though war is in their human nature. Although people have the ability to get easily upset it is not an instinct. War is unable to be justifiable to all based on the information from social scientists, because there is no “war instinct”. The way people do activities in the non-Western part of the world is a lot different being as though they are some nontechnological societies.
Anthropologist are extremely intrigued in the way non-Western parts of the world operate. By bringing attention to the places that do not get involved in war, some fear that it would bring a negative light to maybe even the idea of war being practiced in those areas. A few Anthropologist believe that specific actions we as human beings have done has created a whole new umbrella as to what makes war ok. Some common ideas are the way that we go about getting out mates, and another is how we enjoying hunting animals. Ones desire to be admired by those around them causes us as human beings to show our war instinct. War rivals are very adamant about how they degrade their enemies. They basically dehumanize their opponent’s by using certain terms. Many different anthropologist believe different things for example one believes that “primitive war” is ok to be used. They agree that it may not be the best way to handle a situation it is able to meet multiple social needs and environment. However on the other hand other anthropologist believe that war is never ok and is extremely dysfunctional and a way to cause society to die off. In order for a man to become a man they must exhibit their aggressive side. Being competitive is normal to a certain existent, and it is also very heathy to have outlets on how to express aggression in a positive way. Ones goal in society is to have more resources, and not doing what they naturally do. But they do more so what previous things done in history can be repeated. We will not stop war until we abolish the idea of classes and allow power to be evenly distributed to everyone. Culture is one of the reasons for war, considering how hard it is to follow. People are raised with certain morals in which that is all that they know to believe in. There for almost being capable of predetermining that future generations of children with believe the same thing that their ancestors believed in. “ What hope is there of persuading nations to abandon war, nations so thoroughly imbued with the idea that resort to war is, if not actually desirable and noble, at least inevitable whenever certain defined circumstances arise.” Which will cause them to have aggressive tendencies. Wars will always remain for as long as race, social class, and power exist. A group consist of multiple people, even if it is only 15 pygmies.
The goal is to go out and fight to kill the opponent. This warfare like this is an invention in and of its self. Some examples of this is how one does not eat their meet raw, one chose to cook it. A few more examples are the idea of writing, or even getting married. The things that are universally used are no longer inventions to some but are considered attributes of humanity. Such as marriage and the ability to create fire to get warm when it’s cold. These are still inventions whither they are universally used or not, these things did not always
exist. The Eskimos did not believe in engaging in war. Nor did the Lepchas of Sikkim, they are gentle and non-confrontational individuals. Some may argue that they are like this because they are not full human beings, as well as that they have never experienced frustration. Which causes one to be at a disadvantage as far as having a motive to become aggressive. The Eskimos on the other hand have faced hardship, yet they still choose not to engage in warfare. They are troubled and deal with murder, theft, and loosing wives. Despite all of the hardships the Eskimos faced they still didn’t see it as worthy enough for war. They may have fought for power but never did it become war. It always remained between to individuals, never two groups. Another set of reasons for why the Eskimos were not experiencing war was because they didn’t have social classes dividing them, or even any land or towns that could potentially be taken away. These individuals moved their shacks often moving from one place to another. The Pygmy people also called the Andamans. These people are live a very simple life, they are hunting and food gathering people. These people reside in tiny hordes, the houses were simpler then the Eskimos. Yet they still knew about warfare, and engaged in open battles. However after multiple causalities, they decide that it could only deal with warfare by a peacemaking ceremony. The Australian aborigines had no real town, they believed in just wandering from varies water holes. “If a people have an idea of going to war and the idea that war is the way in which certain situations, defined within their society, are to be handled, they will sometimes go to war” There are so many different ways to deal with this situations when it comes to warfare. The unaggressive people like the Pueblo Indians, choose to only engage in defensive warfare. They will be forced to think about war, because there are places around it that strongly believe in war. The Balinese have a very different approach to warfare, where they have to go register their argument at the temple. Then they have to swear to never see one another again. To conclude “The people must recognize the defects of the old invention, and someone must make a new one”. Inventions are created every day, some of the simply things that are used by everyone we sometimes forget that it was in invention. Being as though one has always had it around. Contributing to warfare is a choice it is not in our nature, which was proved by multiple groups who did not get involved in war. War is an Invention, and may or may not be replaced in the future with a new invention.