Tag: World War I

Psychoanalyzing human aggression and war

Posted on by kathiemm

Uncle Sam poster, Psychoanalysts have had a long interest in war and other forms of human aggression. For example, the “father” of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1915), horrified by the outbreak of World War I, argued that the violence was convincing evidence that “A belligerent state permits itself every such misdeed, every such act of violence, as would disgrace the individual.”

Decades later, appalled by violence in the United States (which he identified as “the most violent of industrial societies”), psychoanalyst James Gilligan placed considerable blame on people’s moralistic motivation to punish others. In his view, rigid and hierarchical social structures produce shame in the downtrodden, and those victims strive to replace shame with pride. He cites German resurgence in the post-World War I era as an example of how punishment and shame can generate appalling violence.

More recently, an Israeli scholar, Niza Yanay, offers another psychoanalytic analysis of the psychological foundations of violence. In The Ideology of Hatred: The Psychic Power of Discourse, she explores the unconscious forces and conflicts that underlie political hatred, which she views as an ideology of power and control.

Disillusioned, like Freud, with governing groups, Yanay comments “Sovereign states and groups are usually motivated to construct a humane face and a just image for themselves” (p. 99). She goes on to suggest that hatred helps aggressors maintain their image of goodness by turning the victims into objects of blame deserving hatred.

What do you think of these psychoanalytic perspectives? Do you think governments seek a monopoly on violence and will commit acts of aggression that would be declared illegal when done by individuals? And do they try to present a “humane face” while using propaganda to promote hatred?

Kathie Malley-Morrison and Majed Ashy

An earlier version of this two-part review was recently published in the American
Psychological Association journal, PsycCRITIQUES, August 2013.

Established as a colonial state (Imperialism still stinks, Part 2)

Posted on by kathiemm

Second in a series by guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Palestinian refugees, 1948
Palestinian refugees, 1948. Photo by Fred Csasznik, in public domain.

In 1917, as the Allies (with the help of the Arabs) were rallying to win World War I, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration.

This decree regarding a Jewish home in Palestine was named for Arthur James Balfour, Britain’s foreign secretary. Balfour had been strongly influenced by British Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann since their initial meeting in 1906. Though most leaders of British Jewry at the time were opposed to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, Weizmann—considered to be one of the fathers of the Zionist movement—garnered Balfour’s support for the Zionist agenda.[1]

The very brief Declaration stated:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

The British had not yet taken control of the Holy Land, but that didn’t stop them from promising its future to both the indigenous Palestinians and the global Jewish population.

In 1917, less than ten percent of the inhabitants of Palestine were Jews[2]—many of whom were recent immigrants brought by the Zionist movement between 1905 and 1914.[3]  No one had asked the more than 90 percent “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” if the creation of a “national home” on their land—which excluded them—was acceptable.  Israel was established as a colonial settler state.

[1] Shlaim, Avi 6/27/09

[2] Ibid

[3] Neff, Donald. “Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days That Changed the Middle East.” Linden Press/Simon & Schuster, New York. 1984.  p.21

Imperialism by any other name…still stinks

Posted on by kathiemm

First in a series by guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Imperialism is defined as the policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Map of Sykes-Picot territorial divisions
Sykes-Picot territorial divisions. Used under Creative Commons license.

The British Empire’s reign expanded through the invasion of 90% of the countries on Planet Earth, including those of Western Asia (the “Middle East”). This region remains riddled with violent strife.

Duplicity by the Allies during the World War I era is the root of the injustice and accompanying conflict that continue between Western Asia and Western powers. Today, the imperialist drives of the United States and NATO are continuing the bloodshed in this region for the sake of economic exploitation.

By 1916, British forces battling the armies of the Ottoman Empire in Mesopotamia were suffering great losses. Facing defeat, the Crown dispatched British Army officer Thomas Edward (T.E.) Lawrence—also known as “Lawrence of Arabia”—to rally the Arab tribes against their Ottoman rulers. Lawrence promised the native peoples their independence in return for fighting alongside the British. Lured by these guarantees of self-rule, indigenous leaders agreed.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918 was instrumental in the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. But the Allied Powers had their own desires to exploit the vast resources of the region. They never intended independence for the Arabs.

Beginning in 1915, representatives from France, England, and Russia conducted clandestine negotiations to divide up Ottoman territories—their anticipated spoils of war—among them. In May 1916, the final deal apportioning control of Arab lands to colonial powers was signed by British politician Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot—just as T.E. Lawrence was promising Arabs their independence in exchange for their help.

The stealthy Sykes-Picot Agreement rendered the Crown’s guarantees of self-determination meaningless. (If only the Arabs could have consulted with the indigenous peoples of the Americas on what promises mean to European colonizers.)

(The next installment will discuss ongoing imperialism in the region today.)

Drones: Dispensing death, destroying democracy

Posted on by kathiemm

“Drones for America!,”a brief satiric video, will chill you, horrify you, and anger you. It will make you think very carefully about our government’s drone policy, its violation of constitutional principles, and its message to victims, their families, and the rest of the world.

Combat drone
Unmanned combat drone. Image in public domain.

Some of the identified cases of drone murders should also push you to act. Consider this one.

Leaders of the military-industrial complex who profit from wars are hoping that Americans won’t make the kind of fuss about drone warfare that they did about the Vietnam War, because drone warfare does not harm American service personnel. Or does it?

The arbitrary killing of Americans and others around the world, in violation of fundamental principles in our Bill of Rights, should be felt as keenly as the horrendous bloodbaths of the two world wars.

It’s not only the number of people who die in a war that is horrifying, but also the deliberate murder of human beings, particularly of innocent civilians who are simply trying to survive.

Still, the death count from drones, while not regularly reported by the news media, is gruesomely high.

Recently leaked documents reveal that the Justice Department gives the government a rather free hand in deciding who to kill.

Will you be able to sleep at night knowing that such a policy has been approved?

Like the now-obsolete weapons that lured militaries into trying out their new “toys” in World War I, drones are the latest in a series of deadly killing machines that threaten us all.

Learn about the drone killing of an American teenager and consider what can happen if ordinary people believe that there is nothing they can do about the violence being perpetrated by the power elite and those whom they have terrified.

In this Season of Nonviolence, we can be thankful that the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counterterrorism of the United Nations is investigating drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories.

If world peace is to be achieved, then all nations, without exception, must respect international conventions for human rights.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology