12-18-2010, 05:34 PM
I believe that the antiwar movements of the 20th century imposed a mentality that sees the terms "war" and "invasion" as synonymous with "extermination." This has rarely been the case historically. Most wars are fought between ruling classes (though the sword-fodder may be mostly underlings) and most people aren't involved at all unless they are in the path of the armies. After all, throughout history the people of the conquered land were part of the loot. Back in the 19th century Sir walter Scott noted that in modern English, the words for food animals are of Anglo-Saxon derivation: cow, calf,swine, sheep, deer - while the words for the meat of those animals derive from French: beef, veal, pork, mutton, venison. This tells you who was raising the animals and who was eating them.
Even the utter savagery of modern war doesn't effect whole populations all that much. Japan was bombed into rubble and starved in WWII but you'd hardly know it now, 65 years later. Bloodlines and languages are lost mainly through assimilation and cultural dominance, not through slaughter.
Even the utter savagery of modern war doesn't effect whole populations all that much. Japan was bombed into rubble and starved in WWII but you'd hardly know it now, 65 years later. Bloodlines and languages are lost mainly through assimilation and cultural dominance, not through slaughter.
Pecunia non olet
