4 ms·
When I read about massacres in general, I wonder what any regular civilian can learn about how to detect the conditions that lead to them, or prevent them from
by motohagiography 6y ago
When I read about massacres in general, I wonder what any regular civilian can learn about how to detect the conditions that lead to them, or prevent them from happening. The first step I think is to look at them unblinkingly.
The counterfactual view of "if only there were someone there to protect them," only marginally reduces the massacre to a battle where many people are still killed, albeit with some likelihood of there being at least some survivors. If we ask what could have prevented a battle, it's what hypothetically prevents every battle, which is, if not the cost/benefit to the combatants, at least the risk/reward yields some kind of equilibrium where people aren't killing each other. (I sympathize with the american 2A conservative view that reduces to preferring battles to massacres, but even they would agree most prevention is upstream of that.)
Massacres are not random, they work for the people who order them. They are not about taking territory or defending it, they are a demonstration meant to instill terror so that a target people will not fight or resist. It creates a fear that overtakes rational self in the population and reduces them to acting on fear instead of as people. The economics of brutality are such that local atrocities have a low risk and high reward that reduces the cost and effort to dominate the rest of the population. To think this way you must already see people as liquid and interchangeable, like Stalin's comment that the death of one is a tragedy but the deaths of many is a statistic. The men who ordered this massacre operate on that view.
This particular story of mothers binding the hands of their sons to prepare them for execution raises the question we ask about every other historical massacre, which is, "why didn't they resist?" The question itself gets attacked as blaming victims, but it's much more nuanced than that. The answer is because they were lied to. They didn't resist because they believed they could sacrifice their way out and that they were saving themselves and others by not resisting. History tells us over and over that they aren't.
How to prevent massacres? I don't know, but I do know we have to look at them coldly. The only thing I can see is that it's way upstream of the events themselves, and the necessary condition for every single one is a lie and a deception, and that deception is what we recognize as the real capital-E evil in all of it. We might not be able to prevent future massacres, but every person has the capacity to resist deception, and also to name it as what we recognize as evil. If you detect cancer early, you can stop it, but if you let it go, it consumes the body. The same can be said for deception, where all live with a little, but unchecked, it is consuming.
- covidthrow 6y agoI think the most consistent and reliable way to see a coming massacre is to be conscious not just of the amount of "othering" that exists, but with the context of dehumanization. It can be subtle, but generally if the "others" are identified with attributes like "inferior", "threat", "danger", etc., the society is on track for massacre or war. The stronger this division is, the closer the society is to some atrocity or another. If the side that's "othering" a group has great or vastly imbalanced power, then the result is likely to be a massacre. If not, then it's likely a war will occur. It's sometimes hard to tell if a group is being "othered", but generally if you can replace a generalization with the word "others" or "those people" and it sounds sinister, then that's probably what's happening. Examples: "The Patriots defeated the Giants." Rephrased: "The Patriots defeated the others." Not sinister; no threat of massacre/war. "The Russians attacked our voting infrastructure in 2016." Rephrased: "The others attacked our voting infrastructure in 2016." Somewhat sinister; possibly war. "Muslims have attacked two buildings in New York.". Rephrased: "Those people have attacked two buildings in New York." Sinister; risk of massacre. "Whites are responsible for implicit racism by nature of their history of oppression." Rephrased: "The others are responsible for implicit racism..." Somewhat sinister; possible war or massacre. "Adults are increasingly falling into debt." Rephrased: "Those people are increasingly falling into debt." Not sinister. "Blacks are responsible for 5x more murders than whites." Rephrased: "Those people are responsible for 5x more murders than us." Sinister; possible massacre. The frequency and intensity with which you witness these types of phrases—especially in the face of increasing generalization that captures less and less aspects of individuality—the closer you are to something bad happening. And if it's accepted as de facto with no room for nuance or argument, then your society is likely on the precipice of atrocity. The best way to fight it? Recognize when it happens and call it out for what it is: dehumanization.
- motohagiography 6y agoWhile I don't entirely disagree, it does imply that intersectionality by this definition is dehumanizing, which I don't think we should infer, unless we should? (many would agree) Otherness is a historical human norm, but it's very possible your examples are also a necessary condition. Othering and deception, are necessary conditions, unless there is an example of a massacre where these were not present. The sufficient conditions, who knows, I think that's in the details of the otherness and psychopathy of the leadership, but the sufficient conditions to make it possible are more complex.