>>> Jim heartfield <jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> 06/21/99 04:41PM >>>
In message <s76e23d2.026 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes
>
>If war and violence are not culturally caused, how are they caused ?
I didn't take you for a Weberian, Charles, I would have thought that you would have located the drive towards war in a more materialist explanation, like the division and redivision of the world economy in the epoch of imperialism. But, hey, if you really think it's really all down to patriarchy then that's an interesting argument, too. (((((((((((((((((
Charles: Yes, historical materialist. I use cultural as synonymous with socio-historical. In an argument between genetic explanations and cultural explanations of war, historical materialists side with the culturalists , don't you think ?
In the imperialist era of capitalism the explanation of many wars is as you say. However, war predates 20th Century imperialism and capitalism. So, the above explanation is historically (culturally) specific to the current era.
Patriarchy ? Yes, male supremacy is cultural , not genetic. But how is war male supremacy and dominance of women ? War seems to be men trying to dominate especially other men, not so much women. That doesn't seem to be male supremacy, which is men dominating women. The efforts in war by men to dominate other men is a social and historical , i.e. cultural, phenomenon.
Of course, violence in the form of wife/domestic abuse or rape , is male supremacist.
Charles Brown