Civil War or Political Label? When Naming Determines the Fate of Wars

According to KhabarOnline News Agency based on IBNA – Anahid Khazir: The revolutions of the modern world have complicated the formulation of civil war. In practice, revolution and civil war are indistinguishable from each other; what makes them different are the implicit promises in each and the interpretation given to them. History remembers civil wars as futile phenomena that only bring suffering and catastrophe. Meanwhile, revolutions are seen as platforms for innovation and progress. The book ‘Civil War: History in the Realm of Ideas’ (Shirazeh Publishing) serves as a guide for not succumbing to this theoretical deficiency and hoping that civil war, like other ominous human inventions, can be eliminated by humanity itself. We interviewed Amir Mirhaj, the book’s translator, which you can read below:

First, tell us about David Armitage, the author of the book, and how he defines civil war in this book?

David Armitage is a British historian and professor of history at Harvard University who has written on international history and intellectual history. He served as the chairman of the history department and Lloyd C. Blankfein Professor of History at Harvard University. In his work ‘Civil War: History in the Realm of Ideas’, Armitage delves into one of the most familiar yet ambiguous political terms. With expertise primarily in international history and intellectual history, he provides an intellectual genealogy for the idea of civil war itself, examining how this term has been defined, interpreted, and used throughout history. The author’s brilliance lies in explaining why civil war is a powerful political label with heavy semantic and legal implications. To this end, he begins the history from ancient Rome, where civil war was considered the ultimate catastrophe and worst type of war; a war in which citizen rises against citizen.