War & Human Nature: Crash Course World History 204
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- In which John Green teaches you about war! Specifically, John talks about whether humanity is naturally warlike, hard-wired to kill, or if perhaps war is a cultural construct. John will talk about the Hobbes versus Rousseau debate, the effects that war has on human social orders, and the effects that war has on individuals. So is war human nature? Watch and find out what we have to say about it.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing, and dancing sooner than war."
The only ones who see the end of war are the dead.
-Plato.
John MacDonald did you watch bhd...?
Do you watch pewdiepie...
Do you play ROME: Total War...?
its doge I hate that kid soooooooooooo bad!!!!
*insert another inspiring yet sad quote*
Star Trek is really good at examining these questions. I'm always reminded of a certain Captain Kirk quote: "Alright, war is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We are human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers but we aren't going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we are not going to kill... today." Pretty grim but I think it gets at the heart of it. Maybe war is inevitable, maybe it isn't. But what's most important is that today we choose peace.
Gene Rodenberry was a visionary.
Why should was stop? The majority of the time it’s justified or necessary
@@jeremylaneball5890 war is never justified or necessary it's unnecessary violence and humans would benefit from not going to war all the time we would make so many advancement in various sectors and industries.
Top5facts yeah, theoretically if no countries were aggressors, but that will never happen there will always be a group that wants to attack another group.
Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time. I grew up watching that show and it's amazing to me how much modern day society has all of the gadgets that show introduced.
War may be less common these days, but humans still fight. We've just once again ritualized it through sports and other competitive games that minimize the violence done.
Rosalie Kitchen
love the battle, but hate the war.
combat is the oldest "intense" form of "animated deeds". we are essentially "animals" (organisms of action/animation), actively seeking action is probably the most raw/basic instinct in humans, be it hunting, foraging, racing, writing, debating, or even leaving a comment as i was just doing.
war is generally not preferable. even Sun Tsu, the author of "the Art of War", stated that "when a war is waged, it must be ended swiftly. The longer the war is, the more momentum loss your forces will suffer, the less efficiency your army's fighting will become; the more stress on the ecomony and citizens of your nation, the more vulnerable your nation is to external/interal threats (hostile nations / civil revolts)."
Rosalie Kitchen
when the word "war" is used, it usually involves "loss of life".
for sports and other competitions, they are more ritualistic, controlled "battles" (by your definition).
so basically, "love the battle, but hate the war."
Rosalie Stevenson what are you talking about there’s 5 or more wars going on as we speak ...we just live in an American bubble
War is still going on. On so many place's in the world like The middle east. and Back in 2014 there's a war in Ukraine and so many more place's
@@thelastpersonyouveeverwann4176 wars in the Middle East and a few African countries.....
Correct me if im wrong but that's not " so many places "
WW1 and WW2, that's " so many places "
"You kill my friend, ...it makes it more likely that I'm going to kill you. I'm not going to kill you, but seriously, don't kill any of my friends."
& then it was revealed that John Green isn't the type to get his hands dirty, he's a hiring hitmen kinda guy.
TheTaintedWisdom Good joke but no sense of reasoning~!!^^
+박남자 The best jokes are rarely reasonable my friend
+박남자 You could almost say his wisdom is somewhat tainted...
(•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
I started watching these in High School to prepare for my finals, now I'm graduated but I still watch these just because they're just the coolest, most informative things to watch!
Chris Eastman jet fuel cant melt steel beams
What the fire did was weaken the steel beam so that it could no longer support its portion of the building.
Chris Eastman I agree.~! regardless what position we may now be situated, excellent contents may(should) be shine its worth~!! No matter we were a highschool student...or we were a leading scholar in brilliant ivys.
Chris this is actually not good. These videos are fun for little bits and pieces of information. You’ll have an illusion that you know a lot when in reality to know about some subject sufficiently you should at least read one academic book about it. As is, these videos are fun but are shorter than any real college class in a day.
My favorite novelist addresses the thrill of the warrior briefly in one of his books, and suggests that although it can be easy to be confused about this, much of the thrill in fighting in a war comes not from killing your enemies, but from successfully avoiding death when other people are out to kill you; and killing your enemies is simply how to accomplish that. Survival after a stressful trial, whether it directly involves fighting or not, brings an amazing thrill of victory and power. Fighting may only be the most common scenario to evoke that response, because we've done so much of it.
In which John Green teaches you about war! Specifically, John talks about whether humanity is naturally warlike, hard-wired to kill, or if perhaps war is a cultural construct. John will talk about the Hobbes versus Rousseau debate, the effects that war has on human social orders, and the effects that war has on individuals. So is war human nature? Watch and find out what we have to say about it.
To quote one of my favorite characters from the short lived tv show Kings: "Can't see that war is just the fuel of progress. Nothing gets made in peace - except art..."
Can't wait for the next episode.
Take about Gaza
Mohammed Elwan gaza isnt war.. its a war crime, and genocide
Human nature id rather say male nature CAUSE WERE MEN RAAAAAAAAAR RAAAR rar ....serioisly though
I k that its a crime to all humanity i want to k what he think about it and i hope if he make video about it to show people about this massacre
Both philosophers were wrong by the fact they limited our minds to only being one way. We are not naturally violent or peaceful, we are just energy seeking resources.
A violent human is one that learned if they take stuff they get more resources easily.
Peaceful humans are humans that learned reason can get you resources and stability.
I personally find the peaceful route more beneficial. It's actually the reason we got this far. It's the majority.
Also if we were naturally violent why do we feel remorse?
TheIllusionelf Look throughout history. We were never peaceful. Wars on wars for what? Religion push and territory . Right now I would say is the most peaceful time. The only wars right now are in the Middle East.
Raptor3614 Like I said before, it's all conditioning. We are not good or evil. We do what worked in the past and/or what's most beneficial for all.
Like war. Side A feels they have to control the water because they fear side B will clean it using unnatural compounds not made by their God. Side A wants to prevent humans being cast out by God for defying him. Side B feels that not purifying the land's water can lead to the spread of illness. Which side is really evil?
Both sides are scared.
Side A prayed in the past and the water hasn't been bad for any of them.
Side B had 11 children getting stomach pains after drinking the water. They began purifying the water and the cases ceased to happen again.
If only people were so simple.
Exactly. A question about complex beings like humans cannot be absolute
TheIllusionelf not everyone feels remorse
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
Darkest humor but funny nonetheless.
I'm not going to laugh. I am not going to laugh.
Feel like I should mention Ambrose Bierce here, seeing as he was the one I stole it from =]
I feel like a horrible person but: LMAO! :D
That's pretty funny. I can't even get mad.
How do they write these videos so expertly?! They are so insightful, cutting right to the heart of every issue they tackle!
Humans are animals like all others who battle for territory and resources. It is as natural as breathing. It is entirely human however to be able to create systems of cooperation that makes violence less prevalent.
Thanks.
Someone called me a warmonger and ignorant for saying that
+1945joshuaruiz They would rather express aggression towards your idea than cooperate with you on it.
Oh the irony of internet morality police.
do you think that if all our needs are fulfilled.... violence will stop completely.Well I m still confused that whether it is a human trait to fight it just a need
ashu upadhyay Not at all because human needs are infinite.
There is a difference between "knowing history" and "understanding it" and crash course is doing an awesome job at that... keep it up.. cheers!!
Conflict and competition is a catalyst for progress and development.
no, motivation is the catalyst for progress and development. Conflict and competition are two causes of motivation, but they are not the only two causes.
I think you could also say though that progress and development is the catalyst for conflict and competition. Once humans started to progress into societies with food and technology, they were more able to wage war. Often, groups can lay low and build up their strength (progress, development) in order to enter into conflict and competition with their neighbours... ie: the Mongols.
A catalyst, not THE catalyst.
xarlev
well said!!!
impwarhamer Everything is a conflict, even an everyday choice, as schools would love to beat into your head.
Humans also turn everything into competitions (most notably, the dick waving competition, but regardless).
I feel the quotes from Tim O'Brien sums up war quiet nicely:
"To generalize about war is like generalizing about peace. Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true. At its core, perhaps, war is just another name for death, and yet any soldier will tell you, if he tells the truth, that proximity to death brings with it a corresponding proximity to life. After a firefight, there is always the immense pleasure of aliveness. The trees are alive. The grass, the soil-everything. All around you things are purely living, and you among them, and the aliveness makes you tremble. You feel an intense, out-of-the-skin awareness of your living self-your truest self, the human being you want to be and then become by the force of wanting it. In the midst of evil you want to be a good man. You want decency. You want justice and courtesy and human concord, things you never knew you wanted. There is a kind of largeness to it, a kind of godliness. Though it’s odd, you’re never more alive than when you’re almost dead. You recognize what’s valuable. Freshly, as if for the first time, you love what’s best in yourself and in the world, all that might be lost. At the hour of dusk you sit at your foxhole and look out on a wide river turning pinkish red, and at the mountains beyond, and although in the morning you must cross the river and go into the mountains and do terrible things and maybe die, even so, you find yourself studying the fine colors on the river, you feel wonder and awe at the setting of the sun, and you are filled with a hard, aching love for how the world could be and always should be, but now is not."
I'm a pacifist but i find war the most interesting thing in history......its a juicy contradiction.
It's not a contradiction. It's like how a lot of people become atheists after learning a lot about religion.
MobiusCoin You mean the opposite right?
***** I think you're both right.
If I didn't know better I would say someone was trying to start a war here...
Pacifist..... Maybe you should look for a good mental health provider to discuss why you are effected by the Stockholm syndrome.
I'm an evulotionary biologist so I see EVERYTHING through that lens, naturally, war as well.
I'd have liked a comparison to our closest living ancestors and a meditation on violence itself.
I know chimps go to war with other chimp groups. Bonobos AFAIK are much less confrontational. As it so happens chimps are also more violent inside their social groups than chimps.
I think fundamentally anger and aggression helps you feel you've been treated fairly. And of course we all feel our own survival is fair. Which explains the rush of joy at fights. Same reason an orgasm feels good: it helps our survival to like doing things that help us survive.
I often see leaders at least up to the medieval kings very similar to a leader of a group of chimps. The groups success relies on the ability of their leader to defend or even expand their territory (which is a mammal way of doing things anyway). And like with any social group if the leader's ineptness causes the group to suffer there's ways to mitigate the leader's incompetence or do away with them altogether.
I firmly disagree with us having free will. We do however have competing motivations. If we'd only bash each others heads in at every minor slight our species wouldn't be very fit for survival after all, so the aggression always needs to be tempered with social bonding and mechanisms to reduce aggression. Which is how everything from smiles to diplomacy work.
Our lives have also changed drastically and under predetermined will we will make different choices in different circumstances. Western people don't starve, we aren't struck down so much by mysterious deadly diseases. In fact even me who's chronically ill and currently unable to work live a life that is downright luxurious compared to even the highest people in the social order a few hundred years ago. There's still wars for resources but now it's also about cultural dominance. Which might be is a uniquely human reason for warfare. I wish the crows and the dolphins were a little more forthcoming there. I know they pick on outsiders just as much (like ANY social species, who knows maybe (some) bees are racist).
I think fighting and wars ARE in our genes. But so are compassion, making up after the fight and cooperation. Hunting is in our genes too and yet modern humans found ways to channel the hunt into so many other things. A hunt for information, a ball game, paint ball, stuff like that. It can be the same for war. After all nobody is going to claim WWE is a proper war.
War, war never changes.
Not according to Solid Snake:
"War... war has changed."
+Nels Hotvedt the idea hasnt but the weapons have
+Frost Bite except for the huge transition from decissive battles on the feild makes a winner. To taking cities makes a winner. to decissive battles makes a winner to taking land makes a winner. ect ect war itself is constantly changing by how you win it.
fallout 3 Ron Pearlman
War has changed significantly.
In the past, war has no rules and genocides were common. Now, war has Geneva convention to follow. Genocide is no good, even killing civilian is not supposed to do in a war.
In the past, the winner can get land and people's loyalty (at least obedience). But now, with super military power, US and Russia won military war but could not win people's loyalty in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. All colonies also got independent a while ago, not because of strong military. War can no longer win land nor people any more.
I like this video because John involves war, but does not make it a centerpiece. It may not interest you, but the history of warfare can NEVER be dismissed entirely. War is the greatest catalyst of sociological change, because it is so fast (in the context of time at least) and dramatic to those that it effects. Because of this it is intrinsically connected to all other forms of History. Trade and Cooperation (Especially cooperation) are prime examples of this. The Thirty Years war which shifted the balance of power in Europe ended the trade dominance of The Hanseatic League in the Baltic with the rise of Sweden and Russia. The end of the concrete Holy Roman Empire in the same war would set Europe on the course towards the interlocking alliances that precipitated the empires of the 18th and 19th centuries and later WWI.
_Also, John is the first person I have seen to actually like the History of Trade. Everyone needs to vote him in as the doge of Venice when Italy inevitably collapses sometime in the next few years._
Hank does claim he have an abundance of resources though. Which isn't a given. What makes the world go around is oil today, and that's why the powers that be are down in the oil-countries looking to secure that scarce resource.
Perhaps Hank should focus more the relation between trade and war, because they are interlinked. Everyone wants to control a trade route, it's the spring of wealth. Back in the day when salt was pretty much the oil of the day, people fought over salt mines and connected trade routes in order to secure the ruling class' interests. (i.e Rome vs Etruscans).
Herrera saurus Hank?
RoarOfDamnation i think he means John
I actually like the history of trade too. Now make me a doge.
John has the puff, so he gets Venice...and the Turks. You can have Genoa. Whoever calls it next gets Pisa, but the Tuscans will rather annoying.
There's a massive difference between wanting to fight and wanting to kill. Humans might like to fight, but they don't like to kill. It's not part of our nature.
How else could PTSD even exist? If we liked to kill, all of our cultural values would be different. Murder would be seen as normal instead of abhorrent.
That asshole in the napalm bomber might have been excited by fighting. But if you made him go back to those places he bombed immediately afterwards and watch little children fucking melt, my guess would be that opinion would get changed real fast, if he didn't kill himself out of guilt right on the spot.
No human being, short of actual sociopaths, going back for millenia, thinks killing is ok.
Drew .Goldston I wasn't trying to imply that it isn't possible for someone to act badly. I definitely don't think that. Just that I don't think killing is something that comes easily to humans, it's like acid on our moral conscience.
I think I disagree with the "almost everyone is good" thing too. No, I think people have a _desire_ to be good, which is very, very different from actually being inherently good.
People want to be perceived as righteous by others, and they want to be able to sleep comfortably at night without feeling their actions were morally reprehensible. But the fact it's a desire means it can be overcome, which is why humans are corruptible creatures.
If we had an innate tendency towards good, then doing evil would basically be going against our conscious programming, like holding your hand on a stove or eating feces. You just couldn't do it.
No, if there is one thing humans are good at, it's _deluding_ themselves into thinking they actions are righteous, no matter how insanely unethical they really are.
This is just a take or leave it prejudice, but I've noticed that the more "good" someone thinks they are, the less likely it is that they have any coherent moral compass at all.
This is why I don't consider myself, or almost anyone else, a "good person."
Good implies above neutral, actively beneficial to other people in a selfless way. Most people just flat out don't fall into that category, or if they do, they often use it as an excuse to be slack in other parts of their life. Someone might be very generous to charity, but treat their waiters like shit.
This framework is the only way I've been able to understand why people can even be corrupted, and why someone can napalm small children and still think they're a "good person."
***** I like this, you seem to have actually thought this out, unlike 99% of keyboard warriors on this site.
I agree with you that killing is not in our nature. But you are wrong on the ptsd thing. The whole idea that you only get ptsd from doing or witnessing something bad is partially right but wrong. It mostly comes from simply being in the military. It makes you extremely paranoid gives you ocd and makes you very aggressive and socially conservative. All these things give a person large amounts of stress and therefore they are diagnosed with ptsd.
Fenrirthewolf You're right, I definitely overgeneralized on the condition. You can get PTSD for a lot of reasons, and it manifests differently in everyone.
I was just trying to point out that very few people who've killed anyone sit around and boast about it, because most people aren't proud about murder.
***** You are correct but it seems an increasing number of people are boasting about it or don't care that they killed. In world war 2 very few soldiers fired their weapons combat. In Vietnam nearly 90% fired their weapons but didn't aim specifiable at an individual enemy. Now because of desensitization to violence you have tons of kids who go and kill people then come home and either don't care or boast about. I fear what it will be like by time we have our next war.
Religion, ideology, resources, land, spite, love or just because. No matter how pathetic the reason, it’s enough to start a war.”
Pain (Naruto Shippuden)
Human social hierarchies are based on power. Power is coercion. The ultimate coercion is bodily harm. So long as people desire power, they will fight.
power can be attained in otherwise such as manipulation and converting. I remember a nation that became a empire by converting foreign lands. It was in the middle east forgot the name.
Wish Make
I think you mean the Dar-Al-Islam, an empire of Arabic Islamics. However, they did in fact go out and conquer places. The Islam part was because of trade. They weren't integrated into the empire until they were conquered, but yes, sometimes the conquest was not really bloody.
Eric Li not it was a buddist empire.
Wish Make there was no such thing as a Buddhist empire, not unless you count Ghenkis Khan
Miguel Marenno - Why would you? I'm pretty sure the Mongols under Genghis Khan followed Tengrism.
john how is you from the past wearing a 2014 world cup shirt? plot hole confirmed??
War.......War has changed.
Ahmad abdal War.. War never changes
Men do, through the roads they walk
TheLegend 27 I have a hard time not making that comment about myself
It changes a little
METAL GEAR!
A good video, I however feel that humans are neither naturally peaceful nor violent, we adapt to our environments psychologically, and that our minds adapt to our environments to either be violent or peaceful, what ever will let us live longer.
However this does not mean that all humans have the same adaptation method, and most deal with different situations differently, some enjoy these situations, others are scarred for life.
As I said, we are adaptable animals, and our minds are adaptable to our environment, that's why a perfectly good man can kill for food if you starve him enough, but without that starvation, he will be less likely to do so, and may even try to socialize for food.
War to me appears to start however, when something feared by someone is brewed in that persons head so much that eventually they take action, let it be starvation, lack of mates, money, losing all your power, etc. It is simply fear and some amount of small time greed.
I think CrashCourse has reached a new level with this series. They are really brilliant. I learn so much of it!
The idea that nomadic hunter-gatherer bands conducted organized raids to abduct women seems implausible. These are people who had no permanent settlements or fortifications, and who had to forage every day for food. Any captured women would obviously have had to join in the food-gathering activities. What's to stop the "prisoners" from just walking off and going back to their own band?
War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
SAY IT AGAIN!
Rapid advancement of Technology
Its good for many things actually, without state war we would be still in the dark ages, when war is occurring technology advances fast. And like it or not war can benefit people and nations.
It's still good for the economy. War involves plunder, and all that weaponry and armory stimulates many industries. It also concentrated power and resources (start with slaves, progress to industrial goods) in certain spots throughout human history and created competition allowing for fast advancement of technology.
"War made the state, and the state made war" - Charles Tilly. War created the modern political system that we live under during the 16th and 17th Centuries in Europe. Those wars started out small, but became exhausting for the participants. They required more efficient taxation, conscription, and overall organization of a nation's resources. The Hundred Years War and Thirty Years War pretty much ended the last traces of European feudalism. After 1650 wars simply got bigger and more organized as this new nation-state commanded greater populations and wealthier economies towards the organization and science behind war. Bureacracies that could outlive the king and keep the wheels turning also developed. The wars then drove innovation on weapons, engineering, transportation, and communications which made the state even more efficient and powerful which gave them the ability to make bigger wars.
I feel like war is a result of basic human nature combined with our Intelligence. In Nature we needed to be able to protect ourselves and thus we developed a certain level of aggression. Like many other animals that aggression made us willing and able to fight in order to get what we needed to survive and protect ourselves and our families...
then our intelligence began to develop. At first this was simply with us just gaining the ability to organize ourselves so that we might use our natural aggression to better serve ourselves as a group. But then we started developing higher intelligence to the point of self awareness. We gained the ability to think beyond our basic immediate needs and think long time, and plan... As we became stronger normal animals were no longer a threat, but other humans still were. OUr intelligence also allowed the small raids to turn into gigantic battles; in truth war is just an extreme version of those tiny raids. And even when we developed the ability to talk out our problems, war remained because we never truly lost that basic aggression that served us so well when we were more simple. That natural aggression is what makes us willing to fight, and our intelligence gave us ways to give us reasons... our natural aggression makes us less willing to take more peaceful routes; either we just want to fight or we feel our enemies desire to fight is so strong that we feel we need to fight back. Again that natural aggression can be both defensive and offensive. Granted the more intelligent we get the more rational we became and find solutions around war and overcome our natural aggression, but we still are not quite there.
In theory i think many animals who developed high intelligence would also be prone to war... the exception would be those animals who's main method of protection was running away and hiding as those animals lack that natural aggression. Wolves would be even more warlike than us while Rabbits would not.
Combat is addictive, but no one who actually starts wars anymore, sees combat. They're addicted to the spoils.
GodTheBear
love the battle, but hate the war.
combat is the oldest "intense" form of "animated deeds". we are essentially "animals" (organisms of action/animation), actively seeking action is probably the most raw/basic instinct in humans, be it hunting, foraging, racing, writing, debating, or even leaving a comment as i was just doing.
war is generally not preferable. even Sun Tsu, the author of "the Art of War", stated that "when a war is waged, it must be ended swiftly. The longer the war is, the more momentum loss your forces will suffer, the less efficiency your army's fighting will become; the more stress on the ecomony and citizens of your nation, the more vulnerable your nation is to external/interal threats (hostile nations / civil revolts)."
true. they are more into moving armies on the map and so on. but there were the great like Carolus Rex who fought for their nation.
Combat is addictive! Wow! I've never heard that. I'm serious.
War. War never changes.
Shit-ton of people have already said the same in comments. It happens to be a false statement- war is constantly changing, and it has also been decreasingly violent over time.
True, but still a pretty awesome quote
Only if 'awesome' means 'utterly incorrect in all capacities'.
It's not entirely incorrect; the ways we fight will change, but it's always going to just be two sides who dislike each other killing a bunch of people for varying reasons.
Mitchell Davis I disagree.There's lots of differences on the surface, but when you condense human conflict it is always people kiling each other for X.X can be resources such as food or land or women, it can be religion, it can be political, it can be because of tradition. There are lots of things that can and have occupy the reasons and justifications of X and there are lots of ways to go about accomplishing X, but at it's heart, it is people killing other people for some reason they find justified.The specific tools available to these groups aren't as relevant as the idea of why they do it and that even in the end isn't as important as they are killing each other for one reason or another. There is always someone who has to make the choice to drop the bomb, pull the trigger, swing the sword or hurl the rock and that aspect of a human taking other humans life knowingly does not change, despite the method. People killing other humans for X is as old as humanity and will continue as long as we do.
War... War never changes...
War has changed. - Solid snake
themanwiththepan War... War never changes...
Grove332 It depends on what war you speak of because it sounds like you're clinging on the abstraction and simplicity of war: war produces dead bodies, war produces weeping souls, war produces horrific violence, war produces traumatic memories, etc. It's why a lot of pacifists dislike war: it always produces the same thing over and over again despite being apparent in various time periods.
However, war did change. Due to technological and logical advancements, war changes by the death ratio. It's now possible to destroy an entire town with just a drop of a bomb. War also changes by focuses on armies: individual warriors don't hold water in the battlefield against an organized army (i.e how the Romans spread themselves out due to being organize like spreading butter on a piece of bread).
Of course, war didn't change much by definition, but it did change by how it works.
Just the way is brought about and the way man must do in order to survive it.
themanwiththepan
But men do, through the roads they walk
I'm just thrilled that this is back. The other Crash Course series were great, but World History is by far the most fascinating. And this new series takes it to a new level. Thank you so much, John and Raoul :-)
has no one noticed how john is a lot more serious then in the earlier crash courses?
When you said that ".....violence may be in our genes, but you can't kill people", you answered the question if civilization turned us violent. The idea that 'you can't kill people' really only took hold when civilization came along and brought with it the consequences that come along with killing people.
Where do you see that in history? What precedent shows you that?
The Iroquois Confederacy went through a period of tribal warfare, but then established a framework of peaceful coexistence in a semi-nomadic tribal society. Tribal societies all had ritualized ways of dealing with murder and warfare and governing themselves. Human beings are extremely ingenious that way.
I'd say the affect of civilization is neutral: civilization just scales up everything, including war, justice, technology and the regulation of violence.
When I talk about civilization, I'm not just talking about what we foolish modern day people conceder civilization. I'm talking about any where groups of people stopped wandering, banded together and formed some form of community, where each member consented to live by a standard set of rules to reign in harmful behavior. That would go back to Hammurabi's code of laws (1772 *BC*), and even further.
West Kagle But the idea that people shouldn't kill people didn't come up from a code of law. Before there was civiliation, people banded together in usually kin-based tribes. Murdering someone was literally like murdering a cousin. People don't usually like killing their cousins.
Drew .Goldston
This is true (unless you're watching some American prime time drama from the 80s). However, it's my belief that civilization brought froth civil behavior. Once people became civilized, they embraced civil behavior. This includes when people were in family communities.
I think the differences of opinions here are not so much about the original question as it is about the meaning of 'civilization'. I think of the dawn of civilization as when peoples stopped wandering and build permanent homes, and stopped acting in an uncivil manor. which means they came hand in hand.
There is always something to be learned with an awesome phrase in the end of each video of World History. I. LOVE. IT.
And John Green nails it as well.
Usually, I find John Green's humor throughout these videos pretty forced and ungenuine, but he was really on point in this episode, well done!
Why is past john wearing a 2014 World Cup shirt?
lol i didnt not catch that!
he never stated how long in ze past :3
Time travel?
*****
Actually, he did. It's him in high school.
Nice Nigeria shirt! I'm from Nigeria so that was really cool to see. :)
+Dayo Olorunnisola SAME
+Mrdavid Nazi
+Mrdavid enjoy hell.
+Mrdavid I won't blame you because you are probably 12-years old. I hope, however, that RUclips prevents you from commenting for a big while, until you grow up to become less of a irrational and disrespectful bigot.
Go back to Africa.
90% of creatures fight wars, the only difference is ours are more advanced.
And flashy!
Which sadly also means ours are more deadly. We often consider ourselves higher than animals, but in truth, we're just primates like any other, only with the tools to do great harm.
That's a vastly oversimplified view, a war refers to a permanent state of conflict between two or more opposing "tribes"... In your statement, you've applied a very human concept to the animal kingdom: yes, animals fight, but they have no notion of a "permanent state of war." That's like saying "a pack of wolves has an alpha male, therefore it has a fully developed parliament, including a treasurer and a foreign secretary"
Finn Halligan No war has ever been permanent; long: yes, permanent: no.
Bernard Karp
Exactly. Humans just have better memories, live longer and want more stuff.
I'd give it another 30 years until humanity achieves world peace.
100 years at best, either we advance as a civilization or we all die from neuclar warfare. Dont know why but i think we are more inclined on the latter :/
Too Idealistic, realize the inevitable or face disillusionment.
Also i'm referring to Michio Kaku's prognostication of the Kardashev scale
I don't think there will be much peace if sea levels keep rising and climate continues to deteriorate.
War will end when civilization ends and it won't be anytime soon.
i know you guys dont like talking about 'war', but you guys need to do an entire series about every war in recorded human history. the first episode could be about per-history war, mostly hypotheses from historical linguists, and the last episode would be about 9/11 and ISIS
Do a video on israeli-Palestine conflict!
I'm sure john could do it....
yesss dooooo eeet. there needs to be a special on it
He probably can do it but not in one video. There are lots to cover, starting from pre-WWI, post-WWI, WWII and its consequences, the 1948, 1956, and 1967 wars, which led to the refugee problems, the rise of the palestinian resistance, the attempt of peace keeping, etc. Also, I think the conflict is still too hot to discuss, although probably if you end the video about 1990s it should be ok.
... you wanna know about gaza, watch stormclouds gathering
he can do a series.. like this war vid is only "Part 1".
Humans are remarkably non-violent as far as animals go. Perhaps it's better to ask "why don't we go to war more often?"
But most animals play fight. Think puppies that rough house. Or bighorn sheep, if a male sheep really wanted a harem all to himself he would just headbutt the others off the side of a cliff. But they don't. Bighorn sheep butt heads over and over to prove dominance. Most intra-species violence is ritualized. The human equivalent is when two men get in each others faces, talk tough at each other, and their friends pull them back. Both men have proven they would fight but they don't and then they can get all the fine bitches without all the stitches.
Humans however, are unique in that they can 'hunt' each other. Inter-species violence is usually this. The wolf pack hunts the deer.. A group of soldiers set up an ambush and give some insurgents brand some new assholes in their faces. War is essentially two human packs hunting each other.
FortuitusVideo stupidest thing i heard all day lol
FortuitusVideo Uh.
Bighorn sheep ram their heads together till one of their brains turns to *actual* jelly.
So yeah, completely peaceful.
Brotherhood of Steel Uh. You just agreed with my point so I don't understand the sarcasm. Assuming what you said is true, then they should just bash the other sheep off the side of mountain but they don't. Its ritualized social violence.
Often? dude... we had more wars in the last 100 years then the last 200 years
1. When the video started, all I could think of was, "War, war never changes"
2. "...Why people fight."
Me: "To protect home, and family"
Baller Balgruuf
1 Fallout series
2 Warcraft of kungfu panda.
Chris Griffin Mists of Pandaria* pandaren came first.
+Baller Balgruuf Me: "to steal other's land and resources"
"All tremble at violence; all fear death.
Putting oneself in the place of another,
one should not kill nor cause another to kill."
*―Buddha*
Phanteus 4 Noble truths babbyyyyy
If resources are abundant, why do we still have war?
Notice that the most war-like parts of the world are the parts of the world where resources, and the ability to obtain them, are NOT abundant, whether that be in the dead sands and rocky hills in the Middle East where farmland can't be established, or in the pre-70s warlike conditions of Japan where the one resource that can't be grown so easily, Land itself, was at a premium, or even in the 30s, where Germany was running into much the same problem, too many people and not enough land to feed them.
Certainly many parts of the world engage in ideological war, but nothing breeds peace quite like affluence and abundance. The more a person has at their fingertips, the less likely that person is to want to sacrifice everything they have in order to go blow up someone else's resources, risking losing their own in the process. Bring about an abundance of safe living conditions, food, and consumer goods in pretty much any wartorn country, and you'll see some relatively rapid results towards peacetime, so long as the access to those things remains constant between all levels and classes of the people within that country. Not even necessarily Equal, but at least somewhat equally attainable.
And as for the people that Enjoy fighting, well, there's no accounting for psychopathy. Tragically, between the supposed "Warrior" caste(Which, by the way, is not a Caste, nor is it Who you are, it is simply a Job you picked) and the folks in upper management, psychopathy is encouraged as a pathology, that is to say, it is not treated so much as it is embraced wholeheartedly.
Also, never underestimate the ability for rhetoric to turn a normal, well-adjusted person into a brutal, troubled, and downright evil murderer, whether that be in the form of a uniformed soldier or a propaganda-driven terrorist.
Because we want more for ourselves and less for others.
TacComControl Might I add that "warrior" was in some cases (mainly in feudal system) a job that people were assigned by society.
Whether it be a job you selected or one that was selected for you, at the end of the day, your job does not define you as a person.
It's called Inflation, in other words scarcity.
u know whats weird, john speaks a lot... like any history teacher... but i dnt get bored?! thats brilliant :D
Well the soldier might like the war but he can't really start one.
Unless the soldier was a leader of a country.
Have you ever heard of the 1857 rebellion?
Lions for Lambs, until that Lion becomes King.
***** Julius Caesar too
BrynfordG napoleon
I love John Green's videos, but I think his specialization as a historian make him contradict himself more than if he was a philosopher--or like Nietzsche, a philologist. I think this question is actually best handled by understanding Nietzsche's will to power, and the diverse ways it manifests itself. I can add more detail if anyone read this and is curious what I mean. Basically, I challenge that idea that we have free will, as well as his assertion that biology somehow gets dissolved by culture.
also war is kinda the funnest part of history because... Err... Swords n guns n stuff
MERICA-
Based on archeology the Indus Valley civilization never had weapons showing that they didn't have an army which means not all humans had agressiveness/ war-like intentioned
There weren’t as many external threats as others until the nomads of the north ( forgot what they were called) invaded and the culture diffused with theirs.
The animation and design style here is just plain amazing
That was one of the better crash course videos. Good job John.
I.... I killed a fly to day. ;_;
You monster
*MONSTER. *
+Do you really need to know? Ha! xD
+Stale_Wafflz valiant little tailor anyone?
I cri evrytim
Difference between war for survival sake verses war for bloodthirst (joy?)+ greed and power..
This is the best video to listen to...while playing Shogun II: Total War
Damn I one up your sir......Empire Total War......bringing fictional violence around the world to the beat of a drum
I'm that peaceful human being and I play Cities: Skylines (͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Where are my Vikings? You promised Vikings!
They were busy organising a new raid, since they didn't figured out all the boss mechanics yet...
4:50 See the Viking and his daughter? Cuties. Ps. Vikings didn't wear horned helmets-search it up.
Jia Yi Lim
Vikings didn't used horned helmets, so those cannot have been vikings.
Drudenfusz what are u talking about? Did you see the daddy viking and his daughter? They're vikings
Jia Yi Lim
I saw them, but the are not vikings, since the idea that vikings had horned helms is an idea that is about 200 years old, true vikings didn't had such helments.
I wish we could reinvent war, and instead of armies and bomb we could have this arena where the armies or groups of fighters could just hash it out as violently as they like then the winner is the winner of the war end of story.
No burning homes and corps, no destruction, no killing of children women and the elderly and most importantly no destroying lives!
if it was up to me that would be perfect =(
Correct me if I'm wrong, but people would still die in that situation.
Michael Millefanti yeah but they chose to protect there what ever it is, there adults there fit for fighting its the civilians that bother me
SexyFish87 So your saying that it's the death of those not involved with the conflict that should be put an end.
War used to be more like that, however the problem was the women and the children and the crops and buildings were the prize. Total war was the result of long drawn out campaigns which are the result of large nation states
Michael Millefanti yup they have nothing to do with it there just casualties its not fair to them, I would rather all war stop but its really not possible
Anthropologists actually find a really big difference between the categories of "Violence" (which can be small scale, or amongst individuals) and "Warfare." Using human violence and warfare interchangeably is problematic.
Pure and simple, enemies of our kin group, real or perceived, is the basis of xenophobia, the same thing as prejudice. It's written into our code, and while most of us seem to be capable of overcoming that nature with enlightenment and compassion, it's an uphill struggle. We subconsciously use visual cues to perceive threats and use stereotyping and profiling to decide if someone is dangerous or unfavorable. I do believe humanity is on the path to overcoming this nature though, and I think technology will be our salvation.
Technology will make it easier for us to kill more people without even feeling like we killed anyone. Saying technology will save us is far from it.
Theodore Ward yes it will, but it will also start to eliminate our reasons for killing each other. You might say that humans dont need a reason, and I would answer that our caveman minds dont, but we are changing. trust me, we are.
skykid Are institutions are trying but they only keep us this way for so long. Humans don't need a reason when they only have to press a button like its a goddamn video game, and for those who want a reason tell them they will get 10 points, side money is still around so I don't see killing going anywhere.
Theodore Ward Don't go there - dozens of academic studies have found NO correlation between gaming violence and actual violence, perhaps, like violence itself, people know there's a difference? Shocking!
Or are you implying if I attack another civ in Civilisation then I must be a murderous dictator, like a Stalin in waiting?
Theodore Ward Yea it is the ability to distance yourself from the emotional shock of violence while still committing said violence that is so dangerous. I don't necessarily agree with his assumption that differences in inter societal outcomes is entirely due to oppression though. It seems to me that like most complex phenomena the causes are split between some ratio of social, biological and environmental factors.
War is inevitable... until resistance becomes futile.. lol... once my opinion differs from yours we are already at war... war is life life is war... nothing we can do... except manage it
I think generally avoiding war is helpful if you want to survive since war is obviously dangerous.
thank you guys from CrashCourse for this! looking forward for more!
War. War never changes!
War has changed.
+Dave William Someone had to do it ;)
Sean Drum Guess so.
Sean Drum Thought you'd get this reference, too. ;c
+giorgi mushkudiani he literally explains in the video how war has changed from primarily raiding bewteen tribes to full out out between nations... Did you watch this shit?
Why would you assume that soldiers have anything to do with why wars are fought? Soldiers don't start wars. Grumpy old politicians start wars. Soldiers just die in them. Not only that but in many of the major conflicts in history the soldiers are legally bound to fight in them.
I love your videos and I enjoy them immensely keep up the good work. However I feel i have to address that you should really do more research on Neitzsche as that isn't the premise of his philosophy, it is so much deeper and meaningful than how you made it appear in this video.
I just saw war as:
“The time when people decided that taking matters to the extreme necessary, despite anything.”
“Every man for himself, and whatever reasons he fights for.”
Dad was a B-52 navigator, "Stay out of the mud and blood " was his advice in war.
So basically, "Presumed evolutionary differences have been used as a pretext for nasty things, therefore the said presumed evolutionary differences cannot be true".
John could watch some Crash course philosophy about good reasoning.
War, what is it good for?
Motivation for technological advances...and other stuff
Drew White *sigh* Kids don't know their classics.
Drew White That can be motivated by desire for welfare. Or medical advances. Or culture. Or curiosity. Or scientists' passion for the given subject. Or economical reasons. Or to make working eaiser.
The Internet? Started as a military program.
Sam Weiner And?
Are you sure this isn't Crash Course: Shatters your worldview? I can't resist watching these sort of things.
WAR! *HOOAH*
What is it good for?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN'
SAY IT AGAIN YALL
+Edward Dundoned smith WAR, HOOAH, GOOD GOD, Y'ALL
damn lee you gonna pass me a empty gun,I am tryna kill somebody here
i thought it was "good guy! you all!"
It may be a dispute or need for resources or want thereof.
so greed, pride, and selfishness are main causes of war and we know how suckers we are for these three things
No we need to remember why people died and what they fought for it is very important
Personally I concluded that human struggle and violence come from self preservation as you mentioned. Our very nature to prosper and multiply our gene and to secure our rights, fortune or honor...etc
"As long as there will be men, there will be war."-Albert Einstein
This nerd guy explaining about war is like me explaining about the third trimester and what to expect.
RE: 8:00
"Let me have war, say I; it exceeds peace as far as day does night; it’s spritely, waking, audible, and full of vent."
Shakespeare
Do a history of religion and religious beliefs in pre-agrarian societies
The comments section would be war in that video
Hi, I'm from the internet, I just like to sit here with the smart people.
imI am afraid there is an infestation of creationists.... GET YO HAZMAT SUITS
Ryzhing AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FER DAT!
Love the outro, very insightful and inspiring. Our genetic hardwiring may have us moderately predisposed to certain behaviors, but our sheer knowledge, wisdom, and will, combined, can, and will, take us to the stars together
Marlantes' testimony leads to an interesting question: Is warfare so appealing because it's a ritual?
Earthling warfare has actually all ingredients of an interaction ritual: Predefined rules (from uniforms to the Geneva convention), concentration on a common task, a "sacret object" (victory), synchronized, often rhythmic action (coordinated tactics, lockstep, war drums...)... On the outcome side, we have coodinated emotions, a common sense of morality, and last but not least symbols (like banners). So, is warfare itself a ritual? Or is it just, like all social activities, peppered with rituals?
By the way, on a global scale, earthlings slaughtering each other doesn't really make sense. And as alien anthropologists are used to say: If it doesn't make any sense, it's probably a ritual...
I would say that war is peppered with rituals rather than being a ritual on itself, because there are usually big economic/social/political pressures that push societies into war.
Intuitively, I'd go with war being, or at least having been at one time, a valid strategy in terms of game theory. It's peppered with rituals because ... humans.
That's just intuition, though. I haven't looked into the topic enough to have a confident opinion.
Military is ritualized combat, but war is just a fight between more than a few people lasting more than a few days.
war... is one more way of nature regulating population, i guess. if it is a ritual... i resign from being an earthling
Those are not rituals, those are practical steps taken to maximize the chances of you, and your side, being alive by the end of the day.
This makes me think of that song this anit no place for a hero. Borderlands 2 opening song
I would recommend the book 'The better angels of our nature' which shows how society has been getting much, much more peaceful.
7:47
Dr Strangelove reference?
yep.
There’s no glory in peacetime.
I came here because I wanted to provide a student with extra material in addition to a short article in the Economist that concerned, along with other factors like poverty and stagnation, the effect of climate change on upheaval and war, and expected to see more of that. The perspective you provide is related to internal rather than external factors. Anyway, thank you very much for a most entertaining video
conflict is human nature, where as my girlfriend dosnt like war and says we dont need fight one another, i say i do like the subject and we do sometimes have to fight. that argument in itself we have is a conflict :) so i kinda prove my point to her :P
Conflict =/= War. Your argument is invalid.
You speak of institutions and states as some sort of 'cure' to war and violence in general, except however that violence, or more specifically 'force' is ultimately were the authority for said institutions and states are derived from.
Things such as law, human rights and democracy -are not free standing, without the authority (from some sort of force); they at best unsustainable.
In my opinion war as we know it began after agriculture, after we stop being nomadic and begin settling in societies that become civilizations, we to started to identify land and property Which led to idea of what Is mine and how to defend it eventually leading to what I can take to make it mine to use for my benefit and the benefit of my society.
Actually from what I hear from other archaeologies, the need for go to war is was more about power, territory and resources, not exactly in that order, if other town have the resources and the territory that you want, you only need a good army and be totally ruthless and conquer the next town, so you would have more resources and more power to control the population.
I feel like I wouldn't have time to suffer from ADHD if I lived in a forager-society.
e d g y
War... war never changes.
Now where have I heard that before?
Yes it does.
Bernard Karp Fallout
I'll give you a great reason to think about this one: "*as long as Humanity exists there's always going to be conflict/battles/wars, as a human race we are a very destructive race and whatever we touch we destroy.*"
But you don't have to be Steven Pinker to recognize that our societies today are far less violent today than has been in the past. And if you follow the trend, our violence and destruction is reducing asymptotically toward zero. Simple things that are easy to observe:
- Check how many people you know who live in a castle today in order to maintain home security.
Some of the most extreme home defenses in many places are little more than gated communities. And the houses seen as "fortresses" are those who put bars over their windows.
Then look at leadership. JFK is remembered as one of the greatest leaders. But there is one bold plan he is not remembered for. He announced his proposal to eliminate nationally controlled conventional armed forces. That means no more US Army, no US Navy, no US Air Force, and no US Marines. That's on top of his push to eliminate nuclear weapons. That alone is seen as a radical step today, but JFK had this vision where absolutely no country at all had any national armed forces at all.
Implement his vision and guess what you've achieved. You've just eliminated all wars.
Disappointing that John Green and his team did not see this to be significant enough to mention. Or maybe none of them studied history that closely. As was stated earlier, this isn't a thing that people talk about. But JFK said it in a speech broadcast to the entire world, before the UN General Assembly. And the reason why he did not implement this plan? A case of lead poisoning got in the way two months later. He was no more. And the guy who replaced him did not share his vision. Some would go so far as to say that the very reason why he got replaced was because of this vision.
He did not even mention the UN Charter which made it illegal for anyone to start a war. THAT was a huge step toward reducing violence.
3:15 : How does that guy have glasses on, considering the time period?
That's actually John from way in the past (if you watch World History 1 intro you see him)
James A Clouder it was kinda joke thing............
John has his own TARDIS!
the doctor
Glasses?! What about his third leg, haha?!
In an evolutionary perspective, violent people tend to survive more than peaceful ones, because when two kinds collide, the violent ones will have a higher chance of surviving the conflict.
+DocsDota actually violent people drive those around them away, so that when they need help they're less likely to survive
+mbanana23456 I'm not talking about violent people who are shunned by others, I'm talking about a violent/warrior society, where everyone deals with matters in a physical way. When that tribe/civilization goes against a more peaceful one, the likelihood of survival is the more violent ones. There is still a saying called might is right. The threat of imminent death, pain, and suffering is one of the biggest motivators in the world.
DocsDota that tribe is less likely to be helped if they have a harsh winter or face disease and starvation
+mbanana23456 and guess what they will do instead? Raid the next tribe and take their food and resources.
DocsDota when they're sick and dying they won't receive any help and there's no way in hell they could put up a raid
High John.
I am Kambiz DARA. I'm originally from Iran and living in Australia now and working as a GP.
I was wondering if you are happy to let me translate your video into Farsi (Iranian Language)
so more Iranians can enjoy it as I did.
I really like it.
I F I G H T F O R M Y F R I E N D S
Choice Snarf get out of here with your Path of Radiance quote.
war....war never changes
***** I think he means the motivations of war.
This was probably my favorite that youve done. I love psychology
Dear John Green,
Who wheels in your background stuff, is it little people?
Best Wishes