Latest / Thinking Out Loud | Kimberly / Are We Capable of Long-Term Peace, or do Humans Eventually Return to Conflict? | Thinking Out Loud
Transcript
- Thinking Out Loud - Podcast: It seems like lately war feels inevitable, I have to ask myself, is it really, or is it about resources, power, misunderstandings, projection, revenge? when it comes to the lead up to war, It often feels the people involved, the everyday people want compromise, that changes when the narrative shifts and propaganda begins. I honestly think Suzanne Collins captured that perfectly in the hunger games trilogy. The line, ⁓ Remember who the enemy is has a that touches on, the book's really the enemy, the way I interpret it, wasn't a person. It was what caused the harm. ⁓ Everyone except maybe snow believed they were the good guy. ⁓ Coin believed was a necessary evil. ⁓ and didn't care who she hurt along the way. Snow, at the very least admitted He didn't care who he hurt, he still saw himself as necessary. They were doing the same thing. It just looked different. the people under them, they were being used, harmed, manipulated. In some ways, ⁓ everyone played a part. some people only broke down. when they were in survival mode and still try to do the right thing when they could. maybe war is caused by bad people or maybe it's caused by scared people ⁓ who have only ever known war. ⁓ maybe ⁓ war when leaders avoid conflict ⁓ and war always an accident. Maybe it's a some that get economically, ⁓ politically, socially, because too many benefit from it continuing. ⁓ war truly ended everywhere, a lot of power structures have to change with it. instead it's leading to picking sides too late and then calling it defense when things spiral out of control. Hi, it's me, Kimberly. Today, I want to talk about harm without naming specific modern wars by using a blend of history and nonfiction ideas to explore a bigger question. I believe in defending ourselves, I also think we need to ask when does it go too far? before we go quick note, this podcast is for reflection and conversation, not professional advice. Take what resonates, leave what doesn't and listen away that feels supportive for. you. The question at the center of this episode is, are we capable of long-term peace or do humans eventually return to conflict? I think first we need to define peace two common definitions are freedom from disturbance, ⁓ tranquility. ⁓ And the second is state of period which ⁓ is no war or war has ended. Looking at those, have to ask, has there ever been peace in human history or have there been places that weren't directly experiencing war while still benefiting from it? living in the illusion of tranquility. in the hunger games, Panem experienced about 75 years of peace, for the districts, the war never And in the Capitol, ⁓ the peace was fragile. It felt like people were holding their breath ⁓ when it came to their behavior. No one wanted to be seen as a traitor. People with darker, more manipulative traits thrived in both peace and war. They had to appear to more civilized during peaceful times, more controlled, more calculated. during war, All gloves came off. ⁓ And we've seen that in history, especially during World War II. The horror People were capable of under leadership. And war? War doesn't create darkness. ⁓ seems to just expose it, it also forces people to parts of themselves. They've never had to face before. Conflict in itself isn't bad. Conflict can bring people together. It can create allies, even turn enemies friends. conflict mixed with propaganda, ⁓ a different story. propaganda, asks you to ignore truth replace it with certainty. It says, these people are dangerous. Look at them, the way they dress, the food they eat, the way they speak. They can't be trusted. Everything they do is wrong. And that thinking ⁓ can quickly lead to prejudice, racism, and even genocide it doesn't start with it starts with ⁓ They're different becomes they're wrong, becomes they're dangerous. once is seen as dangerous, harm starts to feel If we look at world war two, different countries targeted different groups. The United States, Primary was Japanese Americans and internment camps, but we also had some German and Italian nationals. Germany during the Nazi regime. Primarily targeted the Jewish people at Holocaust, they also targeted Romanian disabled individuals Polish and Selvick political prisoners the LGBTQ plus individuals and Jehovah Witnesses in They targeted prisoners of war ⁓ targeted The United kingdom in Canada enemies that were ⁓ foreigners ⁓ in their country, well as specifically They also citizens. The Soviet is kind of where things took a different I would consider this one a tyrannical government they really focused on their own people. The Gulag labor camps, ⁓ they were prison system where millions of people, ⁓ often political prisoners ⁓ seen as a threat. were sent and put into harsh environments, starvation and overwork. ⁓ another we don't talk about enough during all of this was the bystanders, the people who aren't directly causing harm, but aren't stopping it either. ⁓ And that's not always because they're bad people. Sometimes it's fear. Sometimes it's survival. And sometimes it's not having the full picture, history shows silence can still shape outcomes. People try to rank which was worse. And I do agree. The only one that technically was doing genocide was Nazi Germany. does that make. everybody's else action better or a different form of harm. whether it was fear, racism, control or power, it always depends on one thing. Were you the one being oppressed or were you the one benefiting from the system continuing? And that question points to something deeper. ⁓ does war happen? The us versus them. Instead of asking what the problem is, we ask who the problem is blaming a person. or blaming a group of people is easier than examining behavior. We do this in our own personal lives too. It's easy to say they're toxic than ask what's actually happening here. What boundaries were being missed? What expectations weren't communicated? What hurt wasn't repaired? it seems to be easier than looking at consent, being respected, misunderstandings turning into conflict, culture differences clashing without communication, expectations never clearly being stated. Sometimes it's greed. Sometimes it's boredom. Sometimes it starts as defense and turns into revenge. And sometimes it's manipulation. Like in the Mockingjay, when District 13 used bombs after they had already won to ensure the Capitol believed Snow had gone too far. That final move wasn't about winning, it was about controlling the narrative. And history shows us when we win through revenge, we often restart the cycle. when I look at today's conflict and been asked, what do I think? My answer is simple history. We minimize it and we ask, how did we get here? Instead of asking who has the power, who benefits from the war? Who is paying the cost? We label good guys and bad guys. And now ⁓ with social media, those narratives spread faster than ever. ⁓ Algorithms don't reward nuance, they reward certainty, outrage simplicity. instead asking questions, we're often just shown stronger opinions. We cheer on one side, we dehumanize the other, ⁓ and we wonder why it keeps I think a lot of people aren't actually seeking peace. ⁓ They're seeking stability and we call peace. ⁓ Can we really call it peace if there's always a war happening somewhere? Sometimes our stability comes at someone else's costs, their resources, their safety, their dignity. And we justify it by saying it had to happen for us to feel safe, even though harm still exists with or without war. ⁓ Fear is the most powerful tools bad leadership use. ⁓ people what to who to fear, why it matters. And the people causing the harm are the same ones us who the enemy is. ⁓ Good leaders don't fear being questioned. They focus on doing what's right, even when it's unpopular. They admit mistakes. They don't rewrite history, but fear, fear is easier to control. and that's how systems like Panem lasted 75 years, even while slowly destroying themselves. ⁓ Scarcity is another powerful tool because people believe there isn't enough, they compete instead of cooperate. realistically, ⁓ often do have enough. The issue becomes disruption and desire for more. It stops about being enough and it becomes about more than others. Identity plays a huge role in war. We see it in stories and histories and communities. It becomes less about values and more about shared enemies. who you voted for becomes you are friend or foe. When really it should be about values and willing to question leadership anyone can be misled. ⁓ Even progress, something I deeply believe in can become complicated because in the name of progress, we don't always ask, is this better or more convenient? is sustainable? Are people ready for this change? And if how do we the need before it becomes urgent. We also sometimes mislabel things we call necessary change propaganda and then normalized dehumanization. in the hunger games where the districts were treated as less than human were resources instead of people. And that was just accepted. This can feel overwhelming. ⁓ And people don't disengage. Because they don't care. They disengage because they're overwhelmed because caring about everything all the time isn't sustainable. And that's where people either shut down or simplify things to I feel that pressure. That's why I come back to something simple. ⁓ Get my house in order. For me, that with myself, ⁓ my marriage, my kids, my friendships. Now it's extended outwards to local community, not through judgment, through accountability and connection real change doesn't start globally. It starts small with how we treat people in our immediate world. When it comes to conflict resolution, maybe it's accepting. We won't always get what we want ⁓ learning to repair, to listen, and what compromise truly means. Both parties can what they want without losing something. And if they can't, it's an impasse, compromising is a that we all can learn. if we want something close to peace, we need social skills, how to communicate, how to repair harm, how to navigate misunderstandings. and understanding that consent matters and also giving compassion for and others that change is hard for everyone yes, to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs, ⁓ you still have to take the time to remove egg shells it's never about perfect peace. ⁓ Real peace isn't passive. It requires effort, accountability, discomfort. It makes people have to sit in conversations they would rather avoid and to care about outcomes, even if they don't directly benefit. It's about building something that's good enough. back to the question, are we capable of long-term peace do we always return to conflict? Maybe the better question is. How do we handle conflict when it shows up? Because it always will. People have big emotions, some act on impulse, some act on belief, and maybe it's not our job to fix everyone. Maybe it's about holding space for complexity and learning how to talk to each other again, one community at a time, the enemy is often a problem, not a person.