Where We Went Really Wrong

It shouldn't be a very daring observation that democracy basically won't exist in any meaningful way in a country that was just invaded and had a civil war. I believe this can be traced to political and economic uncertainty. It's here where I think we can start to know the significance of violent personalities. When we look at Iraq, this is also the case -- violence makes democracy very difficult. According to human rights reports, this is the case in Libya too:


...the main hindrance to holding free and fair elections is the deep divisions within Libyan society – a consequence of eight months of civil war

So tragic, because you can tell some people just think you're supposed to fight everything out, or encourage people with more power to do that. At that point, I say you are not applying your mind, or looking at history.

An ex-slave observed after our war to abolish  slavery "...we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food, and clothing, and he held us out of necessity and want in a state of servitude but little better than slavery." This same lack of liberty after war is pretty explicit in human rights reports the world over, one example of this in Libya, "thousands of detainees still languish in prisons run by militias, without a formal charge and without any prospect for legal review." 

Most Chicagoans know that violent crime is up here, and there's a new mayor with new policies and a police chief quite hostile to nonviolent intervention. Going back in our history there is a more dangerous time and it's instructive when looking here and abroad. The formation of the KKK was after a much more extreme uncertainty, the civil war. 

The repression lives on though. It's still common here for people to say things like "the red [train] line is dangerous" and I even had a pot dealer who wondered why the cops weren't just targeting black dealers. 

I know these variables don't seem to match up: we had a free election, they had a "free election." But elections are just one aspect of democracy. They are pretty close to the right place to look however. I think if you examine people, influential people, at the root of violence and hate you find a messed up idea of human nature. It's important to get it right because when democracy fails you can get a quite terrible revolution, even with the best intentions. The rise of Hitler, the "revolution" that Marx predicted, was hailed in this country's press as a return to a "moderate," and even someone not from Germany wrote propaganda for his racist cause and contracted with him (Henry Ford). So it seems to me we have a choice. We can love people and condemn violence, or practice it, and therefore love violence and become monsters. It's really that simple. 

So I disagree that the reason we can feel good about war, as my government once said and continues to say, is because "insurgence" is "the cause of human nature."

Here's Barack Obama giving up as well, for example:

“War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.”

No, Mr. President, not the manner, just one manner. There are others, that come up spontaneously, despite cultures of violence, and sometimes, however, ended by them..:

Polatch:

At potlatch gatherings, a family or hereditary leader hosts guests in their family's house and holds a feast for their guests. The main purpose of the potlatch is the re-distribution and reciprocity of wealth.

Hip Hop:
At its best, hip hop has given a voice to the voiceless and poverty-stricken worldwide, particularly in inner citiesand neighborhoods suffering from urban blight, and showcased their artistic ingenuity and talent on a global scale.

Orgams:
The period after orgasm (known as a refractory period) is often a relaxing experience, attributed to the release of theneurohormones oxytocin and prolactin