Response to Question #4: Why is brutality a necessary part of conquest?
The word conquest is often associated with brutality. Why is it that these two are so closely related? The word conquest is defined as "the act of overcoming by force" and "obtaining by effort or personal appeal." When a person is passionate about something they are willing to go to extremes to get what they want. Most won't go down without a fight. Unfortunately it is true that "drastic times call for drastic measures." It is hard to solve disputes peacefully.
Winston Churchill once said "we shall defend out island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." It is clear that conquering requires ambition and determination. One has to be willing to sacrifice everything to win.
Brutality is "the act of being harsh, cruel, and inhuman." Dishonest, brutal tactics are used to advance in warfare. Sun Tzu says that "all warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
It is necessary to ignore morals during times of war and be brutal because it is what ultimately wins the war.
So what is the connection between brutality and conquest? The Churchill is perfectly placed. And he links are also eloquently placed. Examples of where conquest and brutality when hand in hand would be a neat piece of history to add to the response.
ReplyDeleteIt's great that you used such widely-respected and varied sources as Winston Churchill and Sun Tzu, who provided different but equally relevant perspectives, but in your first paragraph you seem to equate conquest with passion. I would have appreciated an explanation of this step in reasoning, because it didn't make much sense to me.
ReplyDeleteMy reasoning wasn't that conquest and passion were equal. Rather I was trying to say that when someone is very passionate about what they want they are willing to do everything in their power to achieve it.
DeleteAnd does passion always lead to force/brutality?
DeleteI like your exploration of the word itself, it's connotations and emotional basis. I feel like you could have tied it into colonialism a bit more and related it to some psychological aspects of imperialism. Like we discussed today about the pictures, why was it necessary for the imperialists to cut their hands off?
ReplyDeleteI like how provided quotations from Wiston Churchill and others, it added to your argument. Except you could have discussed colonialism a bit more and perhaps added to some examples to further support you beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI like how you went into detail and defined what brutality and conquest are, but I think that you could have gone into how they are connected a little bit more. Other than that it was good.
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't really a connection between the two. You defined brutality and conquest well, and made some good insights into the underlying meanings of the words, however it was like they were two separate entities. The quotations were very effective, and I liked the idea of passion being one of the driving factors in conquest, but I would have liked if there were a few more motivations for conquest.
ReplyDeleteIs passion a driving force in conquest?
DeletePassion is pretty broad as a term. But looking at other questions such as why Europeans began conquest, passion does in a way drive greed and economic gain. Maybe a certain sort of passion is the underlying cause.
DeleteI like your definition and explanation of both brutality and conquest. I would have liked to see how those words were related specifically to europeans nations and Africa. You made clear though, why conquering necessitates brutality.
ReplyDelete