It was 38 years ago that Clifford D. May was in the African nation of Chad as a reporter covering the events there for an American publication. He came to know Idriss Deby, a young officer of the Chadian military who, in later years rose in stature to eventually become President of the country.
A
few days ago, Idriss Deby was visiting an area in the country held by rebel
groups where he was shot and killed. This prompted Clifford May to write what
amounts to a eulogy of the man he knew, if only casually, a long time ago. The Clifford
May piece came in the form of an article under the title: “The death of an
African warrior,” and the subtitle: “With a bit of history, a few memories and
some lessons.” It was published on April 27, 2021 in The Washington Times.
The
history behind the Clifford May account is obvious, the memories are clear, but
what lessons is he talking about? Well, you won’t be surprised to know that the
lessons are not drawn from his observation of life, but are a reiteration of
the philosophy of life he has been expounding for years. Once again, instead of
observing and then drawing conclusions from the observation, Clifford May began
with the conclusion he had adopted long ago through indoctrination, and went on
a tangent looking for a justification to support his long-held conclusion. Here
is that conclusion, expressed in his own words as you’ll probably recognize it:
“Chad
has been embroiled in conflicts, on and off, since the mid-1960s. That too, should
be food for thought. While it’s comforting to believe that peace is the natural
state of mankind, and that wars — especially those that appear ‘endless’ — are
aberrant, the evidence contradicts that conclusion”.
And
that’s where I take issue with Clifford May. Whereas he sees that the evidence
(of war) is the natural state of mankind, I look at the same evidence and see
that war has nothing to do with our natural state. The difference in our points
of view, stems from the fact that he sees war as an end in itself, whereas I see
war as an effect of causes that are yet to be identified and fleshed out.
So
then, where do I go looking for our naturalness? I look for it in the heritage
that evolution has bestowed on us. As one of the species that populate the
Earth, we continue to exist because we are endowed with a mechanism that
ensures a balance between the demands of a selfish gene that’s pushing us to engage
in risky adventures on one hand, and the instinct for the survival of the self
and the species that forces us to be cautious on the other hand.
That
balance, which is common to all the species, has kept life on Earth in a stable
state for about half a billion years. To break away from this “stagnant” and
perhaps “boring” stability, even if it is desirable, and to strive achieving a
higher level of existence, evolution has invented the human brain. It is an
organ whose task is to amplify the two elements of our stability. Thus, the
brain has rendered more aggressive the selfishness of our gene, but has also
heightened the sense of survival that we harbor for the self and for the
species.
The
outcome of all this, has been the human invention of an organized system of education
for the masses that’s allowing us to dare taking our species beyond our natural
capabilities, on the one hand … as well as the invention of a system of justice
that restrains us from embarking on dangerous excesses, on the other hand. The
aim here is to mimic nature by providing us with the balance that will
hopefully continue to guarantee our existence as a viable species.
This
part is the gift of the brain we recognize as being the good side of our
nature. The trouble, however, is that none of us has complete control over our
circumstances. Because of this, fortune happens to some people while misfortune
happens to other people. In the face of this inequity, we violate the rules of
a balanced existence by refusing to toil quietly, based solely on the desire to
advance the common good. What we do instead is engage the brain and have it work
on getting as much as we can for the self from the existing circumstances. This
triggers a fierce competition among individuals, as it does among organizations
and nations. When the competition becomes excessively fierce, the result can be
fights, skirmishes, even wars. But this cannot be called the “natural state of
mankind”.
Considering
that the two points of view (Clifford May’s and mine) cannot be reconciled, we
must conclude that in the continued evolution of the human race, one point of
view will prevail and become the norm in the future, whereas the other point of
view will at best coexist as a minority position, or at worst go underground
and carry on with a low-level resistance against the new status quo.
And
that, my friend, may or may not be considered stagnant or boring by those who
will look for new and challenging adventures.
The future will tell.