Well even according to this so called “scholar” and his definition of “peace” which is rather Orwellian, the structures of society had experienced more upheaval in Europe and the United Stayes during the post war period domestically than any other periods preceding it; civil rights as a perfect example.
Rather to me the only unquestioned stable by product of the post war dynamic was the American hegemony and imperialism that permeated thoroughly during that so called peace period.
To refer to a period as peaceful after acknowledging the widespread deaths and tribulations experienced by the brunt of humanity is already ghoulish on its face. Adding to that however that it was peaceful because the structures of power remained “stable” adds another level of grotesque delusion to the matter.
The restaraunt food is “delicious” not because it tastes good, but because the servers are white.
Are you in good faith attempting argue:
- We have seen less major conflicts between world powers?
- When we do see conflicts there is less death per 100k?
- That since WWII society has experienced modernization at a rate much higher than any time before?
I'd also argue that your view of what is peace is largely more stringent due to the more peaceful world you've lived in as a result of WWII's conclusion. The very fact that you're only speaking on local, regional, and civil war kind of affirms the thesis. Perspective matters.
Last edited: