The Myth About the Ordinary Citizen
The next time you
hear someone say that the “ordinary Pakistani citizen” doesn’t support
terrorism, remember the “ordinary Roman citizen” who enjoyed gladiatorial
contests, as Keith Hopkins wrote in his article, “Murderous
Games”.
Hopkins points out
that back then, the Roman army practiced “decimation”, the practice of killing
literally 1 in 10 in any army unit “judged disobedient or cowardly in battle”.
And so, asks Hopkins:
“When Romans were so unmerciful to each
other, what mercy could prisoners of war expect?”
Regardless of what
the Asterisk comics may say, the Roman army was very effective, so much so that
“the inner core of the Roman empire was virtually insulated from the direct
experience of war”. And so those at the “inner core” often forgot what real
fighting and killing was like; and converted it into a game.
It wasn’t just the
rulers who thought this way. Why else do you think the Colosseum is as large as
it is? And don’t all of us today consider the murderous amphitheaters of the
Roman era to be “architectural monuments”?
The spectators
weren’t exactly saints either. They would “vote” on the fate of the winning
gladiator at the end of each bout:
“No sooner has a man killed, than they
shout for him to kill another, or to be killed. The final victor is kept for
some other slaughter.”
Nor were
spectators always safe:
“One day when there was a shortage of
condemned criminals, the Emperor Caligula commanded that a whole section of the
crowd be seized and thrown to the wild beasts instead.”
Such shows soon
became “an official obligation and as a tax on status” for those in positions
of power. Or “in Goffman's strikingly apposite phrase 'a status bloodbath'”.
And now to the
question many ask: how can people “timid and peaceable enough in private” turn
into those who tolerated (if not enjoyed and cheered) the “merciless
destruction of their fellow men”?
“Part of the answer may lie in the simple
development of a tradition, which fed on itself and its own success… Some
spectators identified more easily with the victory of the aggressor than with
the sufferings of the vanquished… Slavery and the steep stratification of
society must also have contributed… Those who were destroyed for public
edification and entertainment were considered worthless, as non-persons… The
brutalisation of the spectators fed on the dehumanisation of the victims.”
Dehumanisation of
the victims: that’s something Goebbels did. And so do the mullahs.
Richard Dawkins named his book on biology 'The Selfish Gene', and the book became a popular and best-seller one. Maybe he knew the truth, even if not the entire truth, of biology - survival of the selfish. Selfish can from time to time verge on becoming devoid of feeling towards killing and cruelty. As the blog touches on it being independent of background - any population is prone to it. The Whites have done plenty of it, and the mullahs today are hated for the same worldwide. But, it seems part of human meme and possibly has root in the genes too.
ReplyDeleteThere is a contrary paradigm promoted by some people who do not recommend shying away from show of might, who nevertheless suggest a level of desisting from mindless killing and cruelty. Not just religious prophets were into that - even many secular wise people follow that line of thought. There are many takers till date. Strange!
The problem is we may never know if that paradigm has any fundamental basis. Or, no matter how tall in our claim to 'being civilized' we humans may never be so - it may all be jungle law. We may forever be the same beasts and insects that exploit for survival. The superior mind may be a stupendous tool but it may after all be a gift of nature for maximizing the ulterior motive of the selfish gene. All other achievements may only be side-effects!
While that may be the truth, I am not giving up on the Buddha's message. Whatever be the reason behind it, I place more bets on the Buddha rather than Einstein and Darwin and Freud and all Western scientists who have nothing at all to discuss on any Absolute Moral Code, but indirectly promote the absence of such. Maybe believing in right conduct may be nothing other than giving some inner solace, but it is still worth it. Anyway who anyone is nothing other than the bundle of one's beliefs finally!