When did it become socially unacceptable in western culture to glorify war and killing?

When did it become socially unacceptable in western culture to glorify war and killing? Was this an Enlightenment invention or did the change happen after that?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Socially unacceptable in what sense? There's routinely war movies produced by Hollywood all the time that the US military freely admits to having a hand in helping to create.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but those war movies tend to try to make the USA come across as the defender in such cases. You rarely see movies where the US is brazenly on the offensive against a peaceful nation and it's portrayed as a good thing.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/deq1Wed.png

        When did it become socially unacceptable in western culture to glorify war and killing? Was this an Enlightenment invention or did the change happen after that?

        This is seen as bad everywhere in the world you moronic Black person
        Every country in the world always try to justify its wars

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think raider cultures justified their activities much, they seem pretty lucid and honest

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, if you think ghetto Black folk rapping about committing robberies and murders is lucid and honest

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I mean yeah you can't really say they aren't

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well adjusted people tend to think that their violent posturing is just how they spread their inner misery onto bystanders and that there’s nothing lucid about being a loser who justifies his own ignorance and that it’s all just a giant cope.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Well adjusted people tend to think that their violent posturing is just how they spread their inner misery onto bystanders and that there’s nothing lucid about being a loser who justifies his own ignorance and that it’s all just a giant cope.
            The absolute irony

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, low class trash throughout history have always lionized brute force because it’s something they understand; but nobody important agrees with the sensibilities of gutter trash

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How are the nobles and kings throughout history "low class"?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            low class trash? You mean that people that wiped out entire ethnic groups and the very people you descend from?
            completely delusional cope out of touch with reality, human nature, and human history.
            So ironic you claim anybody else is coping

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, steppe Black folk, for whom the world was unironically a better place when they were brought under the yoke and civilized

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You have no concept of human history. The yoke ancestors were the same. Just because you're a coping loser doesn't mean your superiors and descendants were

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's a completely different matter from whether they're honest about what they do

            They did
            Look how mongols always bring the muh they killed our envoys

            That's their reasoning for acting, I don't think it's supposed to morally justify obliterating Iran

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You asked when it became socially unacceptable to glorify war and the answer is for as long as there have been civilized people. Homeric Greeks justified the Trojan war as justice for a wronged king.

            How are the nobles and kings throughout history "low class"?

            They’re not, that’s why you don’t see elites unironically listening to Black folk in the ghetto rapping about committing crimes. If they want a war they always had to manufacture some pretext to justify their actions as being motivated by more than petty greed

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >If they want a war they always had to manufacture some pretext to justify their actions as being motivated by more than petty greed
            No they didn't.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes they did. If they didn’t their enemies went to their neighbors and warned that they should all unite against this mindless belligerence. They had to maintain the moral high ground or they lose on the diplomatic front

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Their neighbors would've just taken that as a sign of weakness and joined the other side

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why would anyone ally with treacherous savage dogs? Are you asking for them to plant a dagger in your back?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It was a different world back then, the assumption was that everyone was always seeking to expand their territory at all times.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and there was also a crabs-in-the-bucket mentality where if one got too strong the rest would gang up on them to keep them from getting too strong to contest

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They did
            Look how mongols always bring the muh they killed our envoys

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >This is seen as bad everywhere in the world
          It didn't used to be.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah but those war movies tend to try to make the USA come across as the defender in such cases.

        So what? It still glorifies violence and is de facto propaganda.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The end of World War I, with its sheer level of destruction and number of casualties, and the Kellogg-Briand pact outlawing war. (Which didn't entirely work, but is the reason the US and France always pretend to be "preventing terrorism" or "stopping genocide" or "peacekeeping" or whatnot, and the reason the leaders of the Axis powers were hanged.)

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What are you talking about? Its always been unacceptable and glorified if they are your enemies. It never changed and is the same way to this day. You are 12 years old

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    WW1 began it and basically buck broke the whole of western civilisation. The process was completed by WW2 which made aggressive wars literally illegal

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    DESU, this World War I killed the love of war thesis isn't *quite* accurate. Brits loved the Falklands War, and a lot of Americans were all about Iraq at the beginning at least.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Brits loved the Falklands War, and a lot of Americans were all about Iraq at the beginning at least.
      Only to an extent though, you didn't hear a lot of Americans talking about how they hoped the soldiers would make sure to burn and salt all the land and rape the women before taking any survivors back home to be enslaved.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Okay zoomer.

        No seriously, I remember the Bush years and the war well, and a lot of Americans had extremely bellicose and classically jingoistic notions about their enemy.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Holy frick you really are underage, Muslims still are not welcome in America and treated horribly. That is literally how Americans felt, have you ignored how the media talks about Russians?
        You are such an ignorant stupid little shit

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >this World War I killed the love of war thesis isn't *quite* accurate
      It killed the love of conquest. It didnt kill the love of "righteous" conflict

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12504074/#12506947

    >Thing is, people in the past were both primal and dumb which made things like being a conquistador or crusader or mercenary or whatever seem cool and not moronic, at least at first.

    >Now we're more aware of what war is shorn of popular delusions (largely thanks to Crimea and World War I), of how power actually works, etc. so doing the same kind of shit now mostly just feels pleb and stupid. You can sake this is cope and we're weaklings and cowards and maybe (in fact, likely) it is true, but that's the reason.

    >Go back far enough, and war was something that even many high-status people had experience with up close (as late as the early 19th century Napoleon's brother in law Charles Leclerc gave his life for the French assault on Saint-Domingue now Haiti, and Louis Napoleon died IN BATTLE fighting the Zulus in 1879). This gave fighting and war (even at a much more pleb-tier and low-status level) something of prestige.

    >But when you're in a world where anyone and everyone who's anyone keeps their own squishy flesh and brittle bones as far away from the battlefield as possible, actually fighting a war doesn't seem high-status since it won't get you (much) money, status, or pussy. It's something you associate with (no offense) black Africans, Ukrainians, Chechens, nonspecific Central Asians, people hacking each other up in the jungles of Indochina or whatever.

    >This may be both vanity and cowardice, now that I think about it. But yeah, whatever the reason, the public consciousness around warfare has changed totally, and the romance is essentially dead.

    >What I think is an interesting topic that leads on from this: what was the last truly romanticized conflict in/by the West?

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Part of it is simply that directly participating in war isn't the big status boost it was. >Historically speaking, being a fighting man was a big part, maybe even a mandatory part, of being a respectable member of society. There was a distinction for example among the French aristocrats between "nobles of the sword" who were noble by virtue of their military service and others given titles as a reward or compensation for other kinds of distinction, and the former definitely considered theirs to be more the genuine article, and to be more "truly" noble. Many other European societies had similar concepts.

    I suppose it's more than anything just a practicality thing at the end of the day. When you live in a society where physical conflict is still a regular part of life, it's more obvious that physical force is the ultimate authority. And while in the modern West, you can as a politician or bureaucrat simply command that power, in the distant past, it was more expected for all leaders to at least dabble in actually exercising physical violence themselves.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I have a theory:
    What if the reason that there are more corrupt politicans in the US today than in the past is because those people were formerly warfighters who enjoyed conquering, pillaging, and raping peaceful lands in the early days of the US where sociopathic colonialism and imperialism in the name of MUH FREEDOM was perfectly allowed?

    Now since they can no longer fight in such wars since they are now illegal, they have to turn against the masses of their own country?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's because of women's suffrage. Women love beaurocracy.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You are so fricking moronic. The people in charge are not the same people who would have ruled millennia ago.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        they are predators at heart though, they descend from the same predator family tree

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >>>/x/

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Glorify war for what? War for wars sake? Most wars these days have no glory. Collective PTSD from the great wars but the US doesn't have it

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Roman invention

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What a garbage mordhau loadout

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Not sure if glorifying killing is exclusive to Western culture. I believe this act goes all the way back to early human history in the form of valuing great killers, those killers being hunters.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's not, however western culture is one of the few cultures to reject that mindset later on.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I think looking back to ancient Rome. Or if we wanted something past the collapse Roman power, we can look to the Frankish states in modern day France. These Frankish socieities were literally organized militarily. Entire family structures organized by military strong men called Lords. These Lords would eventually become known as warlords as they fought wars all over the globe. Literally there is a Frankish castle still standing, one of thee best castles int he world, located in mordern day fricking Syria. Krak des Chevaliers. The Franks really spear headed Western civilization after the Roman collapse. The Franks being a broad range of ethnic groups eventually mixing or separating to form the French. The Franks were originally thought to be a Germanic tribe.

        Honestly anons, something magical happened in modern day France in the Medieval Ages.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *