Tag Archives: Violence

War once helped build nations, now it destroys them

By Mark Kukis – Organized violence – the term war boils down to – has long been a unifier of peoples. Archaeological evidence shows that nearly half those who lived during the last part of the Stone Age in Nubia, an area along the southern reaches of the Nile River, died violent deaths. Many other tribal societies through the ages have shared this mortality pattern, which suggests large-scale mobilization for killing rather than widespread random violence.

Cooperation, mutual dependence, trust – even in killing others – are building blocks of political order, the foundational elements of states.

The advent of agriculture was a prerequisite to long-term human settlements – cities – of any significant size. It gave rise to larger societies, capable of bigger and more elaborate wars. For the dynasties of ancient China, the empires of Mesopotamia and, centuries later, the kingdoms of Europe, waging war was one of their reasons for being.

Frederick William founded and built Prussia to wage war against its many hostile neighbors. Prussia’s clashes with regional rivals during the 17th and 18th centuries made the nation we know today as Germany.

Across this long history from the Stone Age to the modern era, the basic political formula remained the same. Disparate elements of a society learned to cooperate outside familial structures in order to arm themselves for plunder, defense – or both. They formed hierarchies, bureaucracies and institutions that endured and evolved. For emerging nations, the aftermath of the wars imparted important shared experiences too. Defeat could be even more unifying than victory.

The last major nation-building war came in 1980, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein attacked Iran following the Iranian Revolution. When Hussein launched a ferocious assault reminiscent of fighting from the First World War, Iran was woefully unprepared. The Iranian revolutionaries drew on religious commitments to help galvanize legions of fighters. Iranian men young and old flung themselves against Iraqi tank attacks, again and again, until Iraq’s advance ground to a halt.

For Iran, it is difficult to overstate the legitimacy this achievement gave the new regime, and the cohesion the war imparted to Iran. Iranian society cohered around grief, fear and a renewed sense of Persian identity in response to Arab invaders, both Sunni and Shiite.

Since the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), wars have tended to be mainly destructive forces for nations. more>

Violence, fabricated news, and responsible media

By Egemen Bağış – In history no medium of any kind has evolved as the way media has. From radio broadcasting to large box-sets, to today’s social media networks and online viewing capabilities.

In 1946, Darryl F. Zanuck, a powerful Hollywood producer at 20th Century Fox, said that television wouldn’t last because “people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” Today we can only smile with amazement at the sheer inaccuracy of this prediction.

Another prediction by British journalist, publisher, and politician C.P. Scott was slightly truer when he proclaimed, “Television? The word is half Latin and half Greek. No good can come of it.” While it is not true that no good comes of media, it wouldn’t be a far-fetched call to assert that modern day mass media exposes society to violence, degradation, and vulgarity.

The effect of media is profound and far-reaching. It influences our values, our daily routines and even our thinking with our deep-seeded ideologies and beliefs. Also today media is much more accessible. Media is in our homes and our mobile phones.

It is through TV and internet that our communities are introduced with extreme visions of violence. Social media brings forth a steady stream of live atrocities at the touch of a finger. Video games teach our young how to handle weapons they would otherwise never even heard of. We must, therefore, take extra precautions to ensure that our families and communities do not get contaminated from this toxic fallout. more>

Our enemies are human: that’s why we want to kill them

BOOK REVIEW

Virtuous Violence, Authors: Alan Fiske and Tage Rai.
Out of Character, Authors: David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo.

By Tage Rai, Piercarlo Valdesolo and Jesse Graham – Ever since Rohingya militants attacked Myanmar police outposts, resulting in a dozen deaths in August 2017, Myanmar security forces have begun a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

This process of dehumanisation has been invoked to explain acts of violence ranging from the Holocaust and the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib to the ethnic violence against the Rohingya people. However, our recent research suggests that this explanation is mistaken.

To understand the active desire to cause pain and suffering in another person, we have to look to a counter-intuitive source: human morality.

We show in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2017, dehumanization allows us to commit instrumental violence, wherein people do not desire to harm victims, but knowingly harm them anyway in order to achieve some other objective. However, dehumanization does not cause us to commit moral violence, where people actively desire to harm victims who deserve it. We find that moral violence emerges only when perpetrators see victims as capable of thinking, experiencing sensations and having moral emotions. In other words, when perpetrators perceive their victims as human.

What we found was that dehumanizing victims predicts support for instrumental violence, but not for moral violence. For example, Americans who saw Iraqi civilians as less human were more likely to support drone strikes in Iraq. In this case, no one wants to kill innocent civilians, but if they die as collateral damage in the pursuit of killing ISIS terrorists, dehumanizing them eases our guilt. Dehumanization might not cause a white supremacist to kill, but it does enable the rest of us to stand aside and do nothing. more>

Is Religion Inherently Violent?

BOOK REVIEW

Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, Author: Karen Armstrong.

By Emma Green – Armstrong points out in the book, “there is no universal way to define ‘religion,'” particularly when it comes to comparing mono- and polytheistic faiths.

“In the West we see ‘religion’ as a coherent system of obligatory beliefs, institutions, and rituals … whose practice is essentially private and hermetically sealed off from all ‘secular’ activities.”

“But words in other languages that we translate as ‘religion’ almost invariably refer to something larger, vaguer, and more encompassing.” This is an important premise of one of Armstrong’s main arguments:

It’s impossible make a coherent case about the role of religion in warfare and violence throughout history and across the world, simply because religion plays very different roles in different cultures.

more> http://tinyurl.com/nq84us3