Why is a soldier not really a fighter nor a warrior?
Not being necessarily historical or accurate, but still somewhat important.
People with guns aren’t fighters, but fighters also can use guns, when they have to.
Some asian people had their fighting methods without weapons or if so, then those who will only be used in direct combat.
Of course people here also had those and some still train and use them to this day as all around the world.
But it isn’t that common I think and some of these are also mainly out for fun or some kind of coolness.
It is easy to pull a trigger, as long as you can reach it somehow. Usually it is just in the hand anyway and only needs one small movement to end ones life. Sadly even children can use these, sometimes by accident, sometimes because they can’t live in this world anymore or for whatever reason.
When a child would have to fight against a (trained / wise) fighter, the child would obviously lose. But actually, the child would win, if you understand where I am heading.
Because the fighter wouldn’t want to harm the child, so the child already won. While of course in an actual fight, the child wouldn’t have a chance and probably end up dead. Which actually would also be wrong, but what do I mean with this?
The soldier (we are talking about what it is and not the individual) is trained and shaped to obey and follow orders. To do tasks and also not question (much) about their reason, purpose or logic etc.
People who are fighters are actually there to protect those who are weak or in need. They are here to teach those a lesson, who don’t want to behave and harm others. And they let them live whenever possible, but are of course able to kill, if necessary. It is usually the last option and should only be done when not otherwise possible, hence when the to be protected others can only be safe this way because the other one might otherwise kill them. It is a fight with power and with direct interaction. Not only do they look into the others eyes, they also can see their weak spots, their strength and maybe the abilities.
Sometimes a fighter might be able to do more damage in a second than someone with a pistol.
I have seen a woman who was able to destroy someones eyes (it was presented with a human-like puppet) with immense speed. Keeping balance between here two arms and hitting with both of her hands with small breaks (milliseconds) in between, always keeping one arm in reserve, preparing for the next hit. Making her enemy not only blind, but also possibly beat them down within a few seconds, at best without a chance of them to hit back.
There are a lot of techniques and kinds of martial arts or fighting tactics or ways.
And a lot of them are very violent and sometimes also unprofessional, even though they might have been taught in a professional way.
(Says the one who has never really fought with others and therefor shouldn’t be “allowed” to write about it, since he “can’t” know what he is talking / writing about.)
When you can’t assure that the one you are fighting won’t be deadly wounded, but could be, if not otherwise possible, how can you call yourself a fighter? Now, this of course goes only for those who have to fight like this. Others might fight in other ways, for example by healing wounds and fighting sickness others are dealing with. And some just fight with themselves each day they have to get out of bad, because there is not really much else they might see as possible to fight, even if they wanted to.
And someone without arms and legs can also be a fighter.
How? – You might ask, hence they have nothing to fight with.
But then you didn’t understand what fighting is all about, I guess. Which is nothing bad, since most people don’t know and also won’t get told. Otherwise they would understand that they don’t need most of the things others try to sell and talk them into.
The body is one unit, sure, it is a collection of many different cells and things, but they (should) work together. It is only logical that they should work together because they are part of the same thing, you.
So when you don’t have things other people or beings have or maybe have different things others don’t have, it doesn’t mean, that it necessarily has to be a disadvantage or problem. Or that you are less (or more) than others. There was a man without legs and arms who went swimming and all kinds of things because at some point he started to fight for his life (while before he wanted to kill himself) and also had some people who supported him later with his fight.
Of course he wouldn’t be able to fight as in bringing a criminal down on the ground, but he would still be able to motivate others and also live his life in ways possible for him, while trying and searching new ones.
Anyone can hit someone and then by accident maybe kill or badly injure them. That is no art nor great effort.
Even the man without arms and legs could maybe hit you with his head or bite you, to defend himself.
When you understand this, then you know that of course a fighter could be a soldier, but that a soldier (by design) is not a fighter. Even if they might have some qualities of a fighter. And we are not talking about the humans used as soldiers, but the “job” or thing it represents.
Just knowing ways to fight or being able to use them, doesn’t make you a fighter.
I would even go as far and say, that even a grand master of such a martial art kind might not be a fighter.
We are clearly talking about different things here, while the word “fighter” (is not really what is meant).
And yes, I already wrote about it in some way somewhere here. There are also possible words out there to describe it or name it, I know.
Let us use another one, like ninja, samurai, ronin or such things, while the words named are just examples for uncommon words in the western world and even today in general, while they once have had meanings.
For example was it (according to some) a thing, that a samurai would commit Harakiri, as an act of honor towards their master or lord. Which basically would be them turning around their sword and moving it through their own heart or belly, basically committing suicide in a very painful way. Because they were said to be loyal to their lord and with his death, might sometimes even die with him. (I don’t know the history, please be kind, this is just what I remember or know.)
Of course, I wouldn’t call that honor or logical or call it good, to do such a gruesome and in my eyes stupid act, only supporting old patriarchal and oppressing structures.
But in western culture, this wasn’t a thing as far as I know.
So we might call it: 监护 or Jiānhù (chinese for guardian or related things)
(I don’t want to say it out loud, since I would fail miserably. ^^)
If you look at China these days, I don’t really see any of these Jiānhù. Only a lot of people with phones and cameras and maybe a few guns here and there. If there are any guardians, then only for the government or maybe some companies, but not really for the people.
In the media people often talk about “countries” or “nations” and “economy” and such smart words. Often talking about them as if all people in it are one with it or part of it. In reality they are often trapped in it, while a few people play Sims or Sims City with them (in a way), only in reality, so it wouldn’t be fun. While they might still have fun watching. It is one thing to watch a drawing of a fictive character suffer, while knowing it is not real, but another to have an actual living being suffer. Although relating fun with both of these is very difficult and might be hard to understand, since it is not really something to have fun with. It shouldn’t even be a thing at all actually, to say it with other words.
It wouldn’t be a solution if the military or parts of it would overthrow the regime, as it never brought actual change (for the better) and usually ended up being worse.
The reason for this is, that usually the soldier is no guardian.
This is actually paradox for some people, since they got told that their children or they themselves are meant to defend and protect the people and country. The guardian does that, but the soldier only does as they are told.
For example, if the army would lay down their weapons and don’t take them up again, the chances that they might actually be guardians could be higher. The problem is, that they could always get new weapons or others could then get some.
This is a psychological problem after all.
If the soldier would understand that they should indeed guard and defend life and people, but that they are doing the opposite, since they go against their own, they might actually refuse to stay a soldier and instead lay the weapons down and actually guard and fight for the people.
Who are the people and what is the life they shall guard and protect?
If you ask me, all those who are poor, helpless, in need, working for cruel others, might be forgotten, ignored, alone. Especially women and children, although some of them can of course also defend themselves.
A guardian can be anyone, no matter what age, gender or origin.
If a Chinese guardian wouldn’t offer food to a Korean, they wouldn’t be a guardian. If an American can’t drink water together with an African, they aren’t guardians. And if someone can’t help up their enemy, despite their believes, sides and language, they aren’t guardians.
I don’t say, that they shouldn’t be prepared to be tricked, trapped or killed, but if then everyone is an enemy, no one is.
A guardian faces death and therefor has trust in themselves, although they might struggle sometimes.
If you don’t give the people the ability to learn how to defend themselves and therefor eradicate the need for others with weapons to “defend” or control them, it would actually be the act of a guardian, since they wouldn’t set themselves above others or refuse to teach or help them. Otherwise they wouldn’t be guardians, but thieves or slave driver or prison guards, defending and guarding the prison, but usually not the prisoners, since they were sent there to stay there. And even a prison guard can be an actual guardian, but it might be uncommon, since they would risk their life. Most guards and soldiers won’t do that and also are taught to not do so. Of course you shouldn’t risk your life easily or in a naive way, but if you only protect yourself all the time or only those who pay you or tell you what to do, then it might not even be a life, so risking it would actually be risking nothing at all. While someone who has everything to live, being safe, healthy, happy and all, but then going away from it, they would risk their life. And yet again, was it a life?
Sometimes a farmer might be living a better life than the richest merchant, (would the “merchant” just let them be).
It might be cool in movies when some “so called” fighters kill hordes of enemies.
But it would actually be cool, if they would defeat them all, while not killing them, since it would mean, that they are actually wiser, stronger and kinder than them. Making clear who is on which side.
Because if both sides kill each other, they are equally bad or good, negating themselves and leaving a neutral or terrified third side, always losing. Since no matter who wins, they only won through violence or cruel power.
Actual power worth worshiping would be of love kind. Why wouldn’t people support each other or those who give them what they need without making them fear or cry and all? But it can only work when it is a world wide thing these days, since otherwise it would only be as it always was – “We just need to do this first!” or “We only have to fight those!”
And then making someone else do the hard work, calling it justice or freedom.
So called “hard” work, making or ensuring food, could actually be a very fun thing, if you do it with friends.
If you be honest with yourself, what much else is there to do anyway?
At the end of the day, you all need something to eat and drink. Okay, maybe not all want food, I don’t know, but usually it is this way, I guess. So why is it the least prioritized thing? Or did I somehow sleep through the time in which humans started to eat sand and metal and only I need some food offered by plants and nature?
When you can’t make people do what you want without scaring them, you don’t want what they need.
In other words, why should they fight or fear their government and corporations, if they would actually all do what is good for everyone?
While maybe a few centuries ago there were mainly countries for themselves and people were more focused on their own traditions and culture, in the 21st (although the number only makes sense depending on the calendar and way of counting 😀 ) century especially, we should have grown or gotten out of these old ways. Which means, that we indeed have different cultures and origins and shouldn’t destroy it or forget it, but also not force each other to follow or keep it. Instead we could find common things and maybe learn from each other. Since each one has something to share. Some might have more unique stories to tell than others, but nonetheless it would still be unique because the one who tells and lived or lives it is still someone and not just a number, a face or a name on a screen, paper or book.
After all, isn’t the population of people who don’t really have what they actually need higher than the one of those who think they have what they need or are about to get it?
Leaving them as a small percentage, while the rest is almost everyone.
The problem is usually the dependency (usually) built up from childhood on and (usually) not really questioned or interrupted or changed.
When a master sets a slave free, does it mean that they are actually free or only by the means of the former master?
When master and slave become friends, they can play master and slave in front of those who wouldn’t accept their friendship, but they would know that by heart they are equal, each one with their own special touch.
When the (former) master would offer all of their (former) slaves to live in their house, eat the same meal, get all what they had or have themselves, where would be the difference?
But it only works, when they (masters) then do the same work, on their side and maybe also find ways to make it good for everyone and together decide.
As long as people think in terms of economy, governments, money and all, there will always be poor people, always be pain, always be crying women, children and even men. Earth would die and with it, maybe the whole galaxy or all of the universe we live in.
A global collection, global government or however they might call or plan it, it wouldn’t safe or help us, it would enslave the last bit of our “so called” freedom.
The only temporary barrier between people should be language and maybe the understanding of their ways, cultures and experiences. What would they do, if there would already be a “world government”? Place walls around the whole earth, so no one escapes? Shoot everyone down who tries to fly away? Kill everyone because of the mistake one had made? If it even was their fault?
This is not guarding, it is killing or destroying.
There have to be some who move forward as a good example.
Knowing the risk, knowing the goal.
Yesterday my father was again outside cleaning the path from snow, although there wasn’t really much. But since I know that he really is trapped in these patterns and does it because “everyone” does it and he might have had problems in the past in case he didn’t do it, so he does it. Although it sometimes of course also helps, usually not really. Yet I made him a coup of tea and invited him in.
We were talking about what is going on in the world, what he knew and heard and what I saw. Even his cat was in and peaceful. He (the cat) even came close to me and moved his nose towards mine, although he still was a little scared of me. But after a while, when me and my father were talking, the cat was lying behind his chair, playing with the jacket a little bit and enjoying the warmth of the room. Even ate empty the food originally for our cat (but there is enough left). No intentions to attack or anything, just a playful and a little scared cat. Even my mother was sitting there with us for a while and we then even listened to some music together through YouTube. He even stayed and listened to it, although he didn’t want to at first.
And from start to end it was a peaceful and good time, unlike most of the other times.
It even gave hope to my mother that there might actually be a way in which we could live here together.
Just this tea made it possible, this random idea of mine, to just offer him a cup of tea, while seconds before that, I thought: “Why is he walking around here again, doing (mostly) unnecessary, unwanted or even annoying things…”
It is really hard for me to believe that it wasn’t just a “too good to be true” kind of moment. But I have to.
Otherwise, what would I be fighting for?