[Peace-discuss] Slavery and oil…

[Morton K. Brussel]

Reply to Dave,  and Bob:

I'm afraid the logic here is (also) faulty: "No Hitler, no Holocaust"  
simply means that Hitler was a necessary actor in the event,
although he may not have been a sufficient actor/cause. Similarly,  
one can say that the issue of slavery was indeed a necessary aspect/ 
cause for the Civil War. The "issue of slavery" involved diverse  
factors, economic, racial, perhaps others, but without that  
institution one may well surmise that the Civil War would not have  
occurred.

"No oil, no war" is in the same category, I believe, as many others  
have pointed out.

And although I admire Bertrand Russel, the peremptory quote below is  
not one of his most cogent. Propositions may involve various clauses  
and factors, some of which may be true and the others false, so…

--mkb



On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:55 PM, David Green wrote:
That reminds me of another bit of historical nonsense that has pretty  
much become conventional wisdom: "No Hitler, no Holocaust." If one  
buys into the faulty logic that Hitler therefore caused the  
Holocaust, then you don't have to deal with all the other factors.

DG

Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu> wrote:
Chuck and Ron have done a good job of covering the complexities
of the motivations that led to the Civil War. One of the first
things you (usually) learn when you take history in college is
that the notion that the Civil War was principally about slavery
is a myth. Zinn puts it well in Chuck's quote.

Much of America's commonly accepted history is actually a myth, and
one that Zinn has done much to debunk (if you haven't read his
People's History, I highly recommend it). Although I respect America
greatly, we are not anywhere nearly as noble as most Americans
believe.

One of my favorite Bertrand Russell quotes is "any given proposition
is either true, false, or nonsense." It is the nonsense we need to
beware of, because it is the most dangerous. For example, the
proposition that if a particular factor that led to a war were absent,
and the war were then prevented, then that factor is the cause of the
war. This is rather like saying that if you remove someone's liver
and they cease living, then the liver is the cause of life.
Nonsense, of course.

Ron listed a several other factors leading to the invasion of Iraq.
Let me add a couple more. The "free" market folks thought that Iraq
government properties could be acquired at fire-sale prices, as
happened in East Germany when the wall came down. This these ill-advised
folks saw as good. US oil companies would benefit by the destruction
of the middle East oil fields, because the price of their oil would
go through the roof. But most importantly, in my opinion, is the
defense-industry profiteers desire for perpetual war. Perhaps you
notice that greed is at work in all of these? If you thought
greed was not as serious a sin as murder, think again. It's a chick-
and-egg problem.

During the Vietnam war, I met an occasional "lifer" soldier who was
happy with the war because it led to more frequent promotions. I
couldn't believe my ears. Greed is sick stuff. Killing to get a raise?

Sorry to have missed today's demonstration. I'm running a fever and
staying in doors.

Bob

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070315/425e1327/attachment-0001.html