Howard Zinn on Human Nature and Aggression

published by dystopianfuturetoday

8 months ago • 793 views

tags: howard zinn, zinn, human nature, human, aggression, war

You should also watch
“Douglas Adams - thoughts on humanity”

Comments

wow, 2 minutes in and already he's talked so much sense my head is spinning.

"it isn't the population that demands war, it's the leaders".
"if there was a spontaneous [natural human instinct] urge to kill, why would we need a draft?"

so simple. can this guy lend ron paul a few speaking tips?

written by MINK

| 8 months ago | CH

▲ 4 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This guy is my idol.

I highly recommended reading possibly his most famous book: "A People's History of the United States."

written by HaricotVert

| 8 months ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

i knew i recognized his name...
thnx HaricotVert

that is a great book, i still need to finish

written by kingmob

| 8 months ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

He's an idealist, no doubt. I guess we didn't read the same history and anthropology books though. The noble savage was noble to his own tribe and savage to others. The history of civilization is a continuum of war, occasionally punctuated by peace. The campaigns; Romans, Gauls, Vikings, Normans, Spanish Conquistadors, the revolutions; American, French, Bolshevik, and Maoist, the civil wars; American and Spanish, they all point to the aggressive nature of man.

Without government and it's most noble function, rule of law, all would be anarchy and aggression.

Governments of States share the characteristics of the individual; pride, prejudice, suspicion, envy, nationalism, and aggression. The individual is restrained by threat of penalty of law. The State has only the restraint of defeat at the hands of their enemy. This is where Mr. Zinn hits the nail on the head. The Government of the State is a dangerous thing because it lacks that restraint. It's able to wage unpopular geo-political war and push citizens, under threat of penalty, into forced and unwilling aggression.

written by snoozedoctor

| 8 months ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Anyone with the power to send a nation to war should be legally/politically compelled to have their children/relatives sent to the front lines first.

End of fucking discussion.

written by bigbikeman

| 8 months ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I might go a step further. Excepting when the success of a noble campaign like that of World War II (which WAS righteous aggression on the part of the Allies against tyranny and world domination), is put at risk, maybe THOSE IN POWER should be the ones in the front lines. Ready Bush and Cheney for deployment. Obviously, their loss would not put a noble campaign in jeopardy. I take that back, don't send Cheney with a shot-gun. He's likely to kill one of his own with friendly fire.

written by snoozedoctor

| 8 months ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Submit Comment

playlists with this video

Knowledge by Farhad2000