THE EVILS OF FACTIONALISM

According to an interesting set of statistics concerning 278 conflicts that took place between 1480 and 1981, civil strife outnumbered international wars worldwide by approximately three to one.  This factor in and of itself constitutes a condemnation of factionalism.  For civil wars are basically conflicts between factions, usually composed of groups of neighbors within a particular place who are at odds with one another.  Ironically, most of the time, the participating factions are quite similar to one another--as regards many, if not most, of the traits of each group.  That is to say, even if these two combating groups are distinctly different with reference to one or two traits or beliefsa or habits (such as would be the case in a culturally or religiously motivated civil conflict), the number of other traits, beliefs, and behaviors shared in common by the members of both sides will usually greatly outnumber these differences.  If our common bonds were always first looked to as a rationalale for resolving the differences that divide us, local internal struggles could be minimized, and perhaps, hopefully, abolished altogether.

The Civil War which took place in America between 1861 and 1865 is submitted as an example of this principle.  If the combatants were standing about rogether in a group, dressed in civilian clothes, one would be unable to tell them apart (except that they might speak with slightly different accents).  They were almost all white males of apparent European extraction, between approximately sixteen and thirty years of age.  All spoke English; as civilians all dressed and behaved prewtty much alike.  Most were married, and the fathers of children.  What separated them into two factions, intent on slaughtering one another, was the fact that there existed at the time a difference in certain social and political principles, governed by economic conditions and consequent political leadership, within the locales occupied by the members of each group.  In sum, realistically speaking, there existed a dozen bases of similarity and but one basis of difference between these two groups:  approval and disapproval of the concept of human beings being owned by other human beings as "slaves."  And yet, this one basis of difference justified one faction's attempt to withdraw from union with the other, and the consequent sacrifice of over half a million lives during four years of bloody warfare in an effort to prevent this.

It is not my purpose to discuss the rationale of, or alternatives to, the American tragedy known as the Civil War.  But I would respectfully guess that few of the actual combatants who fought and died on the side of the Confederacy were themselves slave owners.  Some may have worked for, did business with, or were otherwise beholden to, one or more actual slave owners.  But, in all likelihood, most probably simply personally consented to permit themselves to be caught up in the factionalist fervor for a "way of life," a concept that was likely kindled and resorted to for the very pourpose of motivating many young men to eventually thus sacrifice their lives and their limbs for the Confederate cause, and continuation of the flawed and unjust institution iknown as slavery. 

At the same time, most Union soldiers were probably less than personally "rabid" about preserving the union of our country's North and South.  But they too likely allowed themselves to be prompted to join, or be conscriped into, the aforesaid "factionalist frenzy" that was sweeping the country; and to lay their lives and limbs on the line in order to prevent, say, Mississippi from becoming politically separated from, perhaps, Rhode Island.

There have been numerous similar instances of this nature throughout history.  Thus, it is reasonable and obvious to conclude that the common traits shared by the combatants in local or regional conflicts are usually far more numerous than the differences that exist between them.  Perhaps what we see in the "other guy" could well be an undesirable trait that we unconsciously recognize as residing within our very selves.  Perhaps it is this unconscious distaste for these traits in ourselves that causes us to identify them and to detest them in our neighbor.  Perhaps it is a recognition of certain common characteristics that causes the Israelis and Palestinians to be so much at odds with one another.  For after all, both claim the lands on which they reside to be an ancestral homeland.  Isn't it therefore likely that, in the distant past, before the distinctions that are claimed by both sides developed, there was some commonalty?

If there were no state of Israel.  If there were no anticipated or hoped for state of Palestine.  If there were no arguments over territories or boundary lines.  If people in the region could simply reside together--to the extent that they desired to--doing what they wished, in the manner that they wished--residing where they wished, and choosing not to reside where they wished--socializing with whom they wished, and excluding whom they wished--but doing nothing harmful or unlawful to one another--and harboring no hostility toward the other for occupyinbg their "homeland"--because now there'd be no territories or borders, and therefore no politically defined "homeland"--but instead, only legal ownership of different parcels of real estate within the region, by people, whose differences might be regarded with interest, and even respectful amusement, but never with ridicule or hostiloity, because of a realization that we seem as different to them as they do to us--where it would be unnecessary for other nations to support one or the other of two former factions, because they too would no longer be nations--but all componentws of a single worldwide society--what a wonderful world it could be!

If you want to call me a dreamer, go ahead.  But remember, many of yesterday's dreams are regularly accepted circumstances today--as "doers" turn dreams into reality.  Hopefully this process will continue unceasingly.

                                                              * * * * *