Review these sites: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html
How does violence grow or accelerate to such a large scale? Does our scientific understanding of self, and dyadic/familial violence have any relation to large scale violence? How? Why or why not? Are there characteristics of this kind of ethno-political violence that are special or different from the other types of violence that we have covered? Explain your answer.
Next, choose one of the documented cases of genocide (a list is available in the second link above). Learn more about that situationa and report on it here.
February 5th freebie :)
Please and thank you!!
I think that violence grows or accelerates because of mainly, us. I think that we as humans and how we carry ourselves is the main reason why violence grows to such a large scale. In my opinion, we have come to the point in our generation that violence is just going to keep growing and that even if we do realize that we are the problem, it is going to be really hard to stop it. Again, that is just my opinion, but according to the website violence grows because of religious beliefs and the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. According to the website, genocide is defined as killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting on the group’s condition of life, imposing measures that prevent birth in a group, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. I think that violence and genocide both accelerates fast because of the underlying psychological defenses that we create, which is in relation to the Terror Management Theory.
Our scientific understanding of self definitely is in relation to large scale violence. Our definition of self is unique to each person, but if you feel as though you are superior to others then that could cause conflict. Also, if you feel like your “self” is being threatened, then you may react violently. Even if it is small scale violence, it could hypothetically lead to large scale violence. I also think that dyadic and familial violence plays a large part in why there is large scale violence. For example, if you grow up in a family whose culture is to be superior to others, or the culture thinks that their worldview is better than others than you are more likely to be influenced to think and behave like that. Environmental factors with familial violence can also be related to large scale violence because if you and your family grow up in a community where violence is prevalent, or follow the consensus of violence then you are more likely to be violent.
I don’t think that there are any characteristics of ethno-political violence that are really different from any other type of violence we are have covered, except that it deals with a large group rather than a small group or individual. The violence is stemmed from pure hatred, and the feeling of being threatened, which is shown in other forms of violence as well. I am in no means saying that genocide shouldn’t be taken lightly; I am just explaining that it has the same origins as other forms of violence.
The case of genocide that I have chosen to concentrate on from the list is the Nazi Holocaust. I chose this type of genocide because I have always been interested in it, and I am always willing to learn more. I have known about most of the events mentioned such as the Night of the Broken Glass, the media used to display the hatred for the Jews, and the dates as to when the war started, etc. What I was not aware of, and was not able to make the connection to before learning more about the Terror Management Theory is that the German’s felt really threatened by the Jews in relation to political issues. The German’s felt as though they had to blame someone, therefore blaming the Jews who were inferior. In relation to consensus, this would be because there weren’t as many Jewish people as there were to the German’s who did not practice. Adolf Hitler received support from his people because they were also looking for someone or a group of people to blame for the loss of World War I. Hitler felt less restrained sending young, blond haired blue eyed boys out to confront Jews and kill them. One of the things that I did not know about the Holocaust was the amount of courageous escapes that were done by the Jews in the concentration camps. I did know that there were some, but not to the extent of the 300 that escaped from Sobibor. Jews and Soviet POW’s killed 11 SS men and broke out and ran to the woods. They were hunted down and only 50 were said to survive. Even though the Jews did commit an act of violence by killing the guards, it is almost impossible to think like that because of the conditions that they were in.
The concept of genocide, coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, is defined as violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. When arguing how violence grows to such large scales, I would argue that it is impossible to completely or appropriately explain this because if we could, I would hope it wouldn’t be occurring in our present world. But in attempts to explain some causal factors to how genocide occurs, I would say that misplaced power is to blame. Somewhere along the line, power is given or allowed to be taken by the wrong individuals who then overpower a group of individuals with less power in order to diminish the entire group. When I say power is allowed to be taken, I do not mean to say that the targeted group is to blame. I see genocide as a global or worldly issue, a human issue. If a group is being targeted and violent crimes are being committed against them by another, it is the duty of other countries/military/governments to step in and attempt to become an ally to that targeted group in order to protect them.
I think our scientific understanding of self and familial violence is related to large scale violence only because I would argue that violence begins somewhere. Group violence and large scale violence is only composited of single members committing violent acts. The grouping of these members who commit such violent acts towards certain groups they feel are inferior to them is what creates the large scale violence that occurs with genocide. While the Holocaust is a well known form of genocide in our “recent” history, there are many acts of genocide occurring or have occurred within our society as explained on the website. The Bosnia conflict in the early 1990s, the Rwanda conflict of 1994, Cambodia in the late 1970s, Nanking of late 1930s, Stalin’s famine of early 1930s, and Armenians in Turkey in 1915 are all described on the website of examples of genocide that took the lives of millions combined. These acts of violence all began with someone feeling superior to another and forming/gathering support of their superior feeling in order to act violently towards that “inferior” group. I think that genocide directly relates to the ideas of group violence we have discussed, although it is just on a larger scale.
Of the documented cases described on the website, I am choosing to discuss the Rwanda massacre of 1994. I chose this conflict due to the severity of the genocide within in a short period of time, and the fact it occurred so recently…in this day and age/our generation. The conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis had been going on for years. The Tutsis dominated the Hutus for years until 1962 when the Hutus seized power and began oppressing against the Tutsis. For years, things maintained until 1990 when Hutu president was forced into agreeing to share power with the Tutsis. In 1993, Hutu president Melchior Ndadaye was assassinated and tensions increased between the groups even more significantly. In 1994, Rwanda and Burundi’s presidents were killed when their plane was shot down. Political violence pursued ad Hutus began targeting politicians and leaders. Violence spread as Hutu rebels began killing Tutsi civilians countrywide. These killings were not initially classified as genocide related crimes as the U.N. and the U.S. were careful not to label the killings as genocide because this would have mandated an emergency intervention. Days went by and thousands of people were victimized in violent ways, as the Hutus used clubs, machetes, guns, and grenades to kill defenseless Tutsi families anywhere they found them. The killings ended after neighboring countries consisting of armed Tutsi rebels defeated the Hutus in July. From April 1994 to July 1994 (100 days), one-tenth of the population or 800,000 people had been killed, averaging out to 10,000 people killed daily.
I believe this type of violence grows/accelerates to large scales like this because they come unexpectedly before a specific group can prepare to defend. Kind of like gangs trying to take over blocks or neighborhoods. Nobody really prepares for the violent acts they commit. So there's no way of preventing them from injuring or killing innocent people. The other gangs on the other hand are somewhat prepared and on the lookout. If the Polish were prepared with an army developed to protect their people then the holocaust may not have ever happened or been such a big deal that it ended up becoming. Also in america, we have laws that prevent any kind of acts like that from happening, but before certain laws like that were made we had "slavery". Slavery wasn't as deadly as the holocaust was because slaves were kept and controlled for profit purposes. The holocaust involved the unnecessary murdering of a group to gain more power and territory.
Our scientific understanding the different types of violence relate tho these large scale violent acts because these violent tendencies start with the values and morals instilled in us at young ages by our care givers. If one is taught not to be violent/hateful toward others than more than likely they won't grow up to become violent. Racism is something that is taught at a young age by the people they respected so they felt that was the right way to be, so in their eyes there was nothing wrong with their actions and feelings toward other groups.
Genocides are both alike and different from our understandings of violence today. The holocaust, for example, was geared to murder everybody in a certain group because Hitler felt that was the only way they could attain the space they needed. Similar to gangs who want to control larger areas of a city (especially in LA with the racial gang violence), so they murder innocent civilians to send a message of fear that they are on a mission. Now the gang violence isn't built to be a "genocide" act, but they do involve murder and brutal harm inflicted.
Sadly, as some of my classmates have already stated, WE are responsible for allowing violence to accelerate to such a large scale. We really are a very self-absorbed society. A great example is the violence that’s spreading in the African nations of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. I think that for the most part, the thing that people have complained about the most is the price of gas. We are more concerned with rising gas prices than we are the violence that millions of people are currently experiencing. Our governmental policies are also to blame. Genocide is my expert topic so I won’t go in to too much detail, but the United States is notorious for completely ignoring large scale violence. In fact, we do nothing but contribute to it. After all, there is money to be made. We are currently the number 1 supplier of weapons to Mexican drug cartels that have been responsible for over 37,000 deaths over the last 4-5 years. Last year alone, over 3,000 people were killed in Juarez, right across the street from my hometown. We also funded the very organization that is responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil: 9/11. During the 1980s, Reagan and Daddy Bush supplied Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda with both money and weapons to fight the Russians during the Russian-Afghan War. We also funded guerilla terrorists in Nicaragua a few years ago (Iran-Contra Scandal). This country has developed this maladaptive pattern in which our number 1 priority is money, resources, and power, and doing anything and everything under the sun (including funding violent groups) to obtain these things. If it really were about being the “heroes” and “helping those in need”, then we would have invaded countries such as Mexico and Sudan (who is in the process of genocide as we speak) a long time ago. I think other countries are like this too but the U.S. is always the one who likes to pretend we’re some kind of “savior” to those in need.
I don’t think our scientific understanding of the self and dyadic/familial violence has any relation to large scale violence. These forms of violence are much more of a micro-level issue than large scale violence such as genocide. In this country we rarely experience a prolonged or persistent violence at a large scale. I think if we did, we wouldn’t be so absorbed in mundane, materialistic needs such as gas prices or what the hell Charlie Sheen is saying this week, and we’d actually do something to stop genocide.
As far as characteristics of ethno-political violence that are special or different from the other types of violence we’ve covered in class, I would have to say level of destruction stands out, at least in my mind. Sure, a lot of people die from spouse abuse, suicide, gangs, you name it, but it pales in comparison to the number of people who are killed in genocides. You also have to account for the thousands, sometimes millions of people who although survived the violence, they find themselves displaced. They lose their home, they lose their security, they’ve lost their family members, and they’ve lost everything. What’s more troubling is that there are no genocide-survivor “shelters” or “restraining orders”. Nobody is getting arrested, prosecuted, or charged. Nobody will receive medical and psychological treatment to help them start the healing process. Most of these people will never see any kind of justice. How do you move on from something like that? Given the situation, I feel ethno-political violence dwarfs all other forms of violence on so many levels. It is the epitome of violence and destruction.
The genocide I have been most shocked and intrigued by is the Rwanda Genocide during the 1990’s. What caught my attention immediately was the time frame. In a span of about 3 months (April 1194-July 1994), a staggering 800,000 people were slaughtered…that’s an average of 10,000 people a DAY. That is mind boggling to me. Rwanda is a small nation in central Africa that is comprised of two main ethnic groups: Hutu’s and Tutsi’s. Historically, the Tutsi’s were the dominant groups despite the fact that 90% of the population was Hutu. In the early 1960’s however, the Hutu’s ascended to power following Rwanda’s independence from Belgium. Taking advantage of their new found power, the Hutu’s decided to repay the favor and began to oppress the Tutsi’s through systematic discrimination and violence. Tutsi’s who fled the country formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front. They invaded Rwanda in 1990 and allegedly forced the Hutu president to sign an accord that mandated both ethnic groups to share power. The tension between the two ethnic groups escalated even further three years later with the assassination of Melchior Ndadaye, the first popularly elected Hutu president of neighboring Burundi. In April 1994 the tension finally boiled over however when both the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were assassinated when their jet was shot down by rebel missiles. Hutu extremists went on a three month rampage, killing innocent Tutsi civilians and even Hutu moderate politicians with machetes, clubs, grenades, you name it. And as the second website Kim posted for this blog post: “Back at U.N headquarters in New York, the killings were initially categorized as a breakdown in the cease-fire between the Tutsi and Hutu. Throughout the massacre, both the U.N. and the U.S. carefully refrained from labeling the killings as genocide, which would have necessitated some kind of emergency intervention.” As I stated earlier in my post: we the U.S. once again did NOTHING to stop this violence. I wasn’t until Tutsi rebels from neighboring countries got involved and over through the Hutu’s, that the violence stopped. By then close to 1 million lives had been lost. Although I’m not surprised our fine country sat on their hands and refused to acknowledge a genocide was going on, it still makes me sick to my stomach.
I believe that violence grows to a national level for a few reasons. One is people’s willingness to be obedient. After WWII, there was the now-famous experiment by Milgram which showed that people are willing to trust those in “authority”, not questioning them and doing what they say. That certainly helps people who want to get rid of a race to do so. Another reason is fear. People in power, or trying to be in power, are very fearful of that power being taken away, so if they suspect a group is trying to do so, they are going to retaliate. Power is obviously another reason. People with power are usually loathe to give it up, and they will do whatever they can to retain it. I agree with my other classmates that say that we are the problem. I don’t mean “we” as in the United States though, but rather we as a race. If everyone stood up to those who are doing this violence, it would stop. I do believe the U.S. could take a leading role in this. We have obviously made mistakes in the past, not the least is supplying people will want to kill us and others with the means to do so. We must learn from these mistakes or we will pay the consequences, as in fact, we already have. The last reason that violence grows, I believe, is because of people’s willingness to be lied to. It is so much easier to believe the lie that “everything is ok” and “no one is being killed” than it is to know the truth. If we know the truth, than we risk feeling guilty if we don’t help. However, if we “believe” the lie, we can later say, “We didn’t know. We would have done something sooner if we did! We were lied to!”
I believe that our scientific understanding of the self and lower levels of violence can be related to large scale violence. First of all, in a very basic sense, individuals are responsible for violence of all kinds, whether self, dyadic, familial, or large scale. These people are trying to prove the same things whether they are beating their wife and kid or ordering executions of millions of people. They are trying to prove that they are in power, they are in control, and they won’t let anyone else tell them what to do. In a very real sense, these individuals hate themselves and are taking it out on others because it makes them feel better. Some of these people learn violence from growing up in abusive households, and some just realize that it is an effective way to gain power and control. Either way, there is definitely a similarity between small scale violence and large scale violence. Another way that lower levels of violence relate to large scale violence is that people will react when they feel threatened, whether it is by one other person or a group of people. This reaction is oftentimes violence.
I think that the other thing that is different about ethno-political violence than some of the others is that it is done, usually, in a politically context, where other forms of violence generally aren’t. Looking through the different cases of genocide (I looked through most but focused mainly on one) I wasn’t surprised to find that most (if not all) were trying to create a Communist utopian society. I think this is very important to note, because many people on the very, very far left of the political spectrum in today’s America are openly advocating for this type of society. I believe that you must not forget history or it will be repeated, and if we don’t remember that Communism doesn’t work, it will lead to much, much more genocide. We must remember that Capitalism, while flawed, is favorable to the horrific loss of life we see when people try to install Communist regimes. We must also remember that it is governments who have vast amounts of power that are the ones who engage in genocide. Again, genocide is politically motivated, while just about any other type of violence isn’t. It’s incredibly important to remember that.
I focused on the Forced Famine in Ukraine. I had actually read an article about this before, but wanted to compare the two and see if they matched up. Also, I think it’s something that most people are not aware of. Most people have heard of the Holocaust and Rwanda, even Darfur, but Ukraine was never taught to me in school, and I imagine not too many others either. When Stalin took over Russia as its leader, he decided to crush the Ukrainian push for liberation from Russia. Russia had had control of Ukraine for hundreds of years, and the Ukrainians wanted their own country. Stalin didn’t want that, mainly because Ukraine was (and is) considered the “breadbasket of Europe.” His plan was to force the Ukrainians to work on “collective” farms. He killed or shipped off the rich and middle class citizens and seized their land. The poor were supposed to run the farms that were now owned by the State. In fact, the State owned everything-all the land, all people’s possessions, all the food, the people’s lives even. When the Ukrainians protested by burning down their houses and refusing to work the land, Stalin shipped all the food out of the people’s houses and off the farms and refused to let any food into the country. Even when Ukrainians from America sent food to help, it was not given to their relatives. It was confiscated. People were so desperate that they ate whatever they could-leaves, twigs, animals, and eventually, some even ate their children. While this was happening, Stalin was trying to control the media by given foreign media tours that made everything look fine. The point was to make everyone think that this famine wasn’t happening. Journalists from America, Britian and other countries were fooled. (Actually, some of them weren’t, but they printed the lies the Stalin government wanted them to.) Leaders of the countries weren’t fooled either, but no one intervened. After a massive lost of life, Stalin did finally let the Ukrainians eat again, but soon after, they were invaded by Hitler in WWII. Both the articles that I read said the same thing, which leads me to believe this is accurate information. The determined ignorance that led to such a massive loss of life saddens me, not only in this particular case, but in all cases.
Genocide has been defined as violent crimes against a group with the intent to destroy the entire existence of the group. I feel this definition gives us a significant amount of insight regarding the underlying motivations for the individuals that may participate in such horrific crimes. I agree with Angela's blog above that genocide is a term that relates to our scientific understanding of self and familial violence because violence has to start somewhere. Each individual, although part of a larger group is ultimately responsible for their behaviors. Violence begins with one person and can accelerate into large scale violence when other individuals agree with the group think process and are motivated by the same values and belief systems. I do not believe for a minute that the individual's alone would partake in such destructive behavior, such as genocide without the support and encouragement of the group. In my opinion, the relationship between all levels of violence; genocide, self and or familial is the motivation underlying the violent acts. By this I mean that any individual may choose to act violent in nature when they feel that they are vulnerable and or that others pose a threat to their values and belief systems. The other important factor to consider is why violence at times appears to be the only resolution to a problem or issue.
I feel that violence grows and accelerates to such a large scale because of the concept of "group think" and the dynamics associated with this concept. I also believe that the concept of "group think" is what perpetuates the positive interventions that have occurred. Specifically related to genocide was the approval by the United Nations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I encouraged signatory nations to agree to "undertake to prevent and punish."
I choose to read about the Rape of Nanking (1937-1938). The Japanese Army had identified an unknown threat from the Chinese Army during the Battle at Shanghi. The Japanese were threatened during this battle and felt the need for revenge on the Chinese people and armed forces. During the attacks, Chinese POW's were viewed as less than human and unworthy of life because they surrendered. Severe torchure occurred to the POW's because of this as well as many innocent victims because of the perceived threat the Chinese Army posed to the Japanese Army. During this time Japanese soldiers also sexually assaulted and murdered women over the age of 70 and girls under the age of 8. The term "comfort women" was also coined during this time in which young Chinese women were forced to become slave prostitutes and existed soley for the sexual pleasure of the Japanese soldiers. The Japanese community attempted to justify their actions by the need to expand their empire, their mentality at the time was of brutal dominance of subjugated or inferior people being just. Their was some international support at the time. Americans and Eeuropeans in Nanking established an International Safety Zone which was off limits to Japanese soldiers. It was identified that any Chinese individual that did not make it to the Safe Zone would ultimately parish.
I choose this documented case because it is not one I was familiar with. I believe that the predominant issues that motivated this horrific event was the threat that the Chinese Army initially posed to the Japanese Army. The Japanese Army was viewed as more vulnerable then they anticipated and believed that revenge was the only way to achieve their ultimate goal of proving their dominance.
The term genocide was developed to describe the Holocaust. In court, the Nazis were charged with crimes against humanity. The Holocaust was referred to as the war of aggression. There is a definite link of hate with all violent crimes including genocide. There also seems to be a common theme of control and power. Self-harm sometimes involves hate toward the self. It also involves a need for control. Wanting to have some control in life is what keeps self-harm going. With dyadic relationships, power and control are the main reasons violence occurs. If it is not a cycle of abuse, hate or revenge may also lead one to act violently. With the exception of self-harm, all other violence seems to have a level of following the leader. Also, if you identify with a group, you will be more likely to do what they are doing so you can be included and accepted. There is a need to do what others like you are doing. Or it could be you think that is what you should be doing since others like you are doing that. This begins at a very young age. Inclusion and fitting in a group is important to us as humans but very dangerous when it involves violence towards others weather it is bullying, gang violence, or genocide.
With genocide it may be hard to resist the violent acts because the violence is so widespread. One may be involved in genocide because they are scared, they see no other alternative, they feel the need to restore justice, or because it is very easy to just do what everyone else is doing. I think one thing that is important to realize about ethno-political violence is the heightened mortality salience. MS is pretty unique to this type of aggressive violence. MS could be heightened in gang violence but that violence is more about proving a point and gaining respect. Ethno-political violence is based on a fear for your life whether the fear is reasonable or not.
I decided to look more into the Rwandan genocide. It seems like the main underlying spark to the genocide of the Tutsi people is the hate from the Hutu people. The Hutu was a much larger group than the Tutsi but because the Tutsi was considered the aristocracy, the Tutsi ruled the Hutu for many years. The Tutsi were blamed for the economic, social, and political issues. This is what brought about the hate and frustration from the Hutu. What escalated it is the assignation of the Hutu president of Burundi. The Hutu were merciless in the torturing and slaughtering of the Tutsi. Even though other countries such as the U.S. knew about the genocide, no intervention was carried out. The killings only stopped when Tutsi rebels from nearby countries defeated the Hutu. Around 800,000 Tutsi were killed. This genocide happened because of hatred, fear, and a desire for power. The fear came from the Hutu because they didn’t know how they would survive with a limited amount of resources but with so many people in the country and other people controlling everything. They felt the need to be in power so that they would not be overlooked for resources. Many felt it was the way to survive but also were frustrated and did not know how to handle the situation differently to achieve what they wanted to achieve. I think frustration is a difficult emotion to know what to do with and the Hutu who started the killings may have felt like it was justified (even though genocide will never be considered justified by others). Many of the other Hutu were forced to participate in the killings because their lives were threatened. I read about a couple of the other genocides and I don’t think the causes differ much. They all include hate, fear of your life being threatened for one reason or another, frustration about your situation, and a desire for power.
Violence, by itself, seems to be animalistic and instinctive in nature. When the violence has extensive purposes which are considered “human” in nature (such as hatred) is when said violence becomes more progressive on a large scale. Also, the works of violence and aggression start on a slippery slope. It is a progression led often by someone (or some group) who is more vocal than the rest while catering to the people’s wishes in an often charismatic way. As mentioned in the first link, Hitler was able to do many horrific acts of violence to many groups of people. His actions were not all perpetrated at once, but over a slow progression of time. There were actions towards ridding the nation of those not considered “adequate” enough to be in normal society long before the torture and extermination of the Jewish people (and many other ethnicities). Hitler was also a very charismatic leader, tuning into people’s sense of nationalism and the very human idea of being “better” than others.
With these sorts of ideas invading the public’s idea, it was only a matter of time before wide spread violence entered into the mix. Also, when the government shows such a wide acceptance of certain actions, the public is often led into believing the same. I see this as the beginnings of a mob mentality thinking, which makes sense considering the social nature of humanity. Also, when a large number of people are all in accordance with an idea, it is often much too easy to become more aggressive and grandiose with their actions. Doing something aggressive with a group also tends to underestimate the amount of damage being done.
I do not see much of a connection between this large scale violence and self or dyadic/familial violence. Such large-scale violence mentioned in the articles seems to have more relation to sociological/cultural and intergroup violence. Although there are a few instances in which one could argue otherwise. With self violence, one could possibly be actively seeking negative behaviors in an effort to actually harm themselves. This could lead to joining groups in favor of large-scale violence such as genocide. In relation to the dyadic/familial violence, it can be some of the same actions, where people want to fight with someone else initially and then end up joining a larger group to continue with their violent inclinations. However, all of what I had mentioned are more my theories and possibilities of what could happen then any real examples. Overall, I believe the other types of violence I mentioned earlier seem to have more relation with large-scale violence.
The main characteristic that differentiates ethno-political violence from other types of violence appears to be the amount of involvement. It seems ethno-political violence is much more widespread in the fact that it has many people involved causing violence to much larger groups, rather than most of the other types of violence (which is usually the involvement of one or two people and at the most, a small group). Intergroup violence seems to be the most similar in the fact it involves more than two or three people and the hatred also often seems to be racially or ethnically motivated. However, there are still differences such as who is doing the killing: very often it is another country or ethnic group that is extremely violent towards another group. Also, the amount of violence is completely overwhelming when in comparison with other violent groups. Like gangs, strangers in opposite groups are killed, but unlike gangs it is often an entire ethnic (or religious or racial…) group that includes hundreds of thousands of women and children. Another difference that seems only to be widespread with ethno-political killings is the mention of rape, which is quite horrific in the amount.
I chose the link over Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I was shocked by the amount of carnage along with the recency in which it occurred. Such violence was between the Serbs and the Muslims, and I found this article so interesting in the fact that most of the violence appeared to be quite one-sided after some time. The Serbs (along with the “help” of Milosevic, the new leader) mercilessly attacked the Muslims over and over after initially being attacked first. The cases of genocide happened during the 90’s, and were highly widespread in part due to the unwillingness of other nations (including the U.S.) to interfere. Even after the United States began to help, there were still instances in which the Serbs would massacre the Muslims. I found it quite disheartening to realize how long it took for the countries to receive help from outside nations. I do understand that every country’s issues are not everyone else’s problems, but I still feel that the cases of genocide mercilessly being performed are cause enough for some to take action.
I think that violence grows to such a large scale because we are afraid that if we stop fighting, we will have unprecedented amounts of death on our hands. I think that the Terror Management Theory explains why it grows so large. People have such a drive for life, that when they feel there is a threat to it, violence ensues. When it comes to the point that we are fighting others for perceived life, even though there are so many deaths, it is hard to imagine giving up. If we quit fighting in wars, the other side would slaughter us. I think that fear is what drives large scale violence.
I think that self and dyadic/familial violence is the base of the violence pyramid. Take Hitler for example. He wanted to eliminate others who weren’t like him. I think this was born out of fear that he didn’t have control. This started with a self level, at least that’s what I theorize. When someone self-harms, it is often times the result of perceived loss of control. This results in the need to control something. The anger rises, causing harm to the thing that is perceived to cause the loss of control. If that one person feels this way, and reaches apart from themselves for control, they begin a dyadic type of violence. Once they see they can control the other person(s), this need for control and the fear that they will lose it if they don’t harm them, grows. People afflicted by this one person, either fear that their lives are in danger if they oppose, so they agree, or they fear their lives are in danger so they fight back. It becomes large scale when the one person has gathered many people who have this fear, thus the group mentality comes in to play. There is then a consensus that violence is the way, they may feel that they need to fight because the other group did them wrong, therefore justice is the goal. Lastly, by the time it gets to such a level, they do not see any other option to protect their lives and their worldviews than violence. I think this is why so many Nazis joined Hitler. I think starting at a self level, they were fearful and it exploded. We have seen from the Stanford Prison study and Milgram’s study that fear and authority are strong forces which can escalate to large scale violence. Genocide is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” I feel that the fear of losing control to another group or a person of another group contributes largely to genocide. Even if the group that imposes threat is a single person, many times those in fear generalize this to their whole group, leading to a hatred of them as a whole, and can lead to large scale violence such as genocide. Along with this fear may be the belief that their culture is superior and that the opposing group threatens their superiority. I feel that this type of large scale ethno-political violence is very similar to the other types we’ve discussed, except that it explodes into such a large problem. It is much more difficult to cease and results in many more injuries and deaths. It also has other effects that self and dyadic may not as much, such as financial ruin, governmental ruin, economic ruin, etc. Past wars have shown how they can completely dismantle a government or a country, thus making them start over. This large scale violence may cause disruptions in the communication and trust between nations, therefore destroying import/export opportunities and trade benefits. That is what happens when someone (country) depends on another for something and violence occurs; bridges are burned.
I decided to look up the genocide in Rwanda. I have heard of the problem only in passing, so I knew nothing about the event until this assignment. I am extremely appalled by this. In the span of about 3 months, almost a million Tutsis were killed! Rwanda is one of the smallest countries in Central Africa. They only have about 7 million people total. There are two main ethnic groups, the Hutu and the Tutsi. Before the genocide, the Tutsi dominated the country, even though the Hutu accounted for 90% of the population. After they gained independence from Belgium in 1962, the roles changed and the Hutu took over. They would oppress the Tutsi through systematic discrimination and violence. In response, over 200,000 Tutsi fled and formed a rebel army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. They went back to Rwanda in 1990 and forced Hutu President Habyalimana to sign a mandate that said both parties would share power. In 1993, the first popularly elected Hutu president was assassinated. The UN sent in 2,500 soldiers to keep the cease-fire. The Hutu extremists did not want to share their power and wanted to terminate all Tutsis. In April 1994, Rwanda and Burundi’s presidents were shot down while approaching Rwanda. This is when the political violence began. Hutu extremists targeted Tutsi leaders and even moderate Hutu politicians. Their violence spread as they used machetes, clubs, guns, and grenades to kill Tutsi civilians. Just like the Jews of the Holocaust, both groups had identification cards which specified their background. After 10 Belgium soldiers were tortured and killed, the U.S., France, Belgium, and Italy evacuated from Rwanda. They did not evacuate any Tutsi or Hutu people though. Sadly, The UN and the U.S. didn’t want to call the killings genocide because they would have to have an emergency intervention. This makes me very sad and sick to think about. By April 21, hundreds of thousands of Tutsi had already been eliminated. The UN voted to abandon Rwanda and pulled out. Since the Hutu no longer had opposition, they began hacking defenseless Tutsi everywhere they were. Even the Rwandan state radio was taken over. Militiamen forced Hutus to kill their Tutsi neighbors. If they didn’t, they faced death sentences themselves or their entire families. Tutsis were also forced to kill their own families. By mid May, 500,000 Tutsis were killed. The war finally ended when Tutsi rebels from neighboring countries defeated the Hutus in July 1994. By then, an estimated 800,000 persons were killed. This was about 10,000 deaths a day! This goes to show how strong of a force power and control are. Many of the murderers only killed their friends and families because they feared for their own lives, supporting my previously stated theory. It is devastating that these things can happen and that there are plenty more examples in history. Sadly, I don’t think it is something that will ever stop, because the instinctual drive for life and control is so great.
The term genocide refers to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. I agree with a few of the other blog posts that violence has to start somewhere which relates our scientific understanding of self and dyadic/familial violence to large scale violence such as genocide. It starts with just one individual having a certain set of values and beliefs which eventually spread to other people who become part of the ‘group’ and encourage one another in whatever they do. One commonality between individual and large scale violence relates to how individuals AND large groups justify violence whether it be toward themselves, their spouse, their kids, or entire groups of people; therefore, I think most characteristics of ethno-political violence are similar to characteristics of other types of violence that we’ve talked about in class. One common characteristic is the need/desire for power and control. Power is basically seen as the end goal. In terms of ethno-political violence, one or more ‘leaders’ start this idea that a certain enemy group needs to be eliminated. This idea or message is spread out to the general population of that country and eventually the majority of people start to identify with that idea and believe in what they’re being told. The chapter in the textbook for this week’s reading touched on this in terms of if people believe there’s majority agreement on an issue, then they are more willing to go along with it too. A second commonality would be the component of hate. Ethno-political violence is violence between groups due to the conflict of one group hating the other group. One other similarity is the fact that people, either as individuals or as a group, react in some way (in this case violently) if they feel they are being threatened. One of the biggest differences between the different types of violence is that ethno-political violence is committed according to some political agenda whereas other types are typically not committed because of that.
I chose to look more into the genocide that took place in Rwanda. It’s absolutely heart wrenching to think that 10,000 people were killed each day which totaled to be approximately 800,000 people when it was over. The conflict between the two main ethnic groups (Hutu and Tutsi) began when political power was shifted from the minority Tutsi to the majority Hutus. Although various peace agreements and meetings took place over the following years, tensions only grew between the two groups. The final breaking point came when the Rwandan President and Burundi’s President’s airplane was shot down as it approached an airport in Rwanda in April 1994. Hutu extremists began killing political figures who they opposed as well as Tutsi civilians. The Hutu militia used machetes, clubs, guns, and grenades to do their mass killings. Citizens had to carry around ‘tribal cards’ that stated their ethnic background, and if you were of the enemy’s ethnic background you would be killed. Throughout the mass killing spree, multiple countries began moving all their personnel out of Rwanda, leaving the citizens at most risk for being killed. The U.S., along with other countries, did nothing to stop this violence—it just makes me sick knowing our country sat on our butts and watched the violence continue on like that! The violence didn’t stop until Tutsi rebels from other countries came to Rwanda and defeated the Hutus.
I feel that violence grows as tolerance diminishes. Violence, specifically genocides are acts of intolerance of certain people or populations. When one begins to forget the importance of all types of people and adhere to the belief that each life is not as important as their own, this can perpetuate violence. Thinking about genocide is a mind-bending issue for me in that I cannot fully grasp how another adopts the concept of exterminating an entire group of human existence.
Our scientific understanding of self and dyadic/familial violence can help in understanding and relating to large scale violence. They have several characteristics in common such as the component of hate, desire for power and control, and using violence as a means to an end. Understanding violent behavior regarding self or dyadic situations can be applied to large-scale violence as well. I feel what takes violence to a large scale is de-personalization. If you think about it, violence towards self and one other individual is a very personal experience. it makes it even more personal when it is in a dyad with one you know. Large-scale violence takes the perosnal effect out of harming others. People are seen as a group of outsiders, not as indiviudals. Without as much of a personal stake in the violence, it contributes to the willingness of a leader to take out as many as possible and the willingness of followers to adopt the use of violence as means to eliminate the "enemy". Genocide is something few people can grasp the real meaning of let alone organize a genocide against a population. I think this is a differnece between genocide and self/dyadic violence. While they both foster from emotional ties, genocide requires a vindictive agenda that must be planned, people must be recruited, and there has to be an unfathomable amount of hate in many hearts. I think there are many similarities between these types of violence, yet large-scale violence has some other factors playing in that are very different from self and dyadic violence.
In Rwanda, 800,000 people were killed as a result of a political genocide between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Conflict grew for many years between the two groups until Rwandan president was killed in 1994. The Hutu broke out in a killing rampage and killed any person who was of the Tutsi ethnic background. People had to carry around cards that identified which ethnicity they belonged to and if one was not of the Hutu ethnicity, any one of many types of violence would be used to kill the indiviudal. The violence continued genocide continued until Tutsi rebels came into Rwanda and defended themselves against the Hutus. After reading abou thtis, I feel great disappointment that many countires, including the US, turned their heads to this mass destruction of human lives. As the academic on the TED talk discussed, no one wanted to get involved. Hopefully, the devastation in Rwanda did not occur with nothing being taken away from the disaster. We can look back on this genocide now and think about how it could have been handled better and how we should have intervened to save lives.
As psychology students we spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out a persons motives, drives, beliefs, etc and how these mental states can drive our behaviors. When it comes to genocide I am at a complete loss to be able to explain away how large groups of people can behave in such a way to systematically decimate another large group of human beings. So, with that said, here's my attempt.
From what we have learned of violence so far this semester we often find that violence is a tool used for various reasons. We have discussed psychological components, learned behaviors, sociatal expectations, and various other contributors to create a tendancy towards violence. I would like to focus on one specific case of genocide to try and make my point, but I feel like much of it can be generalized to nearly all acts of genocide. The rape of Nanjing was a brutal case of genocide commited by the Japanese army on the city of Nanjing China. Reading the descriptions of what happened there makes me wonder how some people can behave so inhumanely. I think the first point I need to make is about the Japanese opinion of the Chinese soldiers who were the first targets of their attack. These Japanese were raised in a highly militarized society during the hight of WWII. Since the time that they were children they had been primed to be soldiers and taught the virtues of being fierce, strong, and unyeilding. When Chinese soldiers surrendered to the Japanese this was seen as the lowliest thing to do, and not worthy of life. I'm sure this didn't reflect well on any of the Chinese in Nanjing. If the army would so willingly surrender and show weakness, and these were the "tough guys", the citizens they were protecting must be even lower than these soldiers. The japanese did not feel as if they were killing innocent people, but merely removing those who were undeserving of life. The Japanese killed the POW's and then moved on to killing the rest of the citizens of Nanjing. They did not lose their respect for human life along the way, they didn't feel these people were human to begin with. I suppose this calls back to the reading on respect we did... except that in this case there was no respect to be giving. There was a complete lack of acknowledgement of these peoples humanness so no unconditional respect, and because these people were lowly if they were to be considered people there was no contingent respect either. Some soldiers made a game of beheadings and held contests to see who could kill more of the Chinese. Even before the killing of the POW's we have to wonder why the Japanese held such low regard for the Chinese and wanted ot invade. It's reported that they had bragged that the Japanese armies would only need a few months to take control of all of China... a land mass many many times bigger than the island of Japan. The Japanese as a country held themselves in very high regard. Just as we saw while discussing rape that many of those perpetrators had very high self esteem the entire country of Japan seems to have held themselves in higher regard than any Chinese person. We could also look at gang mentality where as the Japanese were raised in a society to hate the Chinese, their nations neighbor. This may help explain why the Japanese citizens were not opposed to the mass killing happening in China as they were reported in thier newspapers. Now it's time for me to make a few wild assumptions based on what we know about the happenings in Nanjing. Japanese soldiers used the torture of their victims as a sort of entertainment using them for target practice, competing for most severed heads, forcing families to rape eachother and watch, and so on. I have to assume any "normal" person would not find these things to be appealing. This leads me to assume that being raised in WWII Japan with the country supporting the violence of the holocaust and the actions of the Nazi armies would lead to a generation of children with an abnormal exposure to violence and stresses of war. Basically I'm trying to say these soldiers are desensitized to violence and suffering from psychological trauma. Then you top it off with training beginning in their youth to raise the perfect soldier (and never being able to show weakness or mercy) and you have thousands of men with guns who are a bit off. I can't assume that being raised in such a way could lead to normal healthy development. We could attempt to compare this case of genocide to the holocaust, but I feel like there is a distinct difference in the way these two were carried out. When Milgram sat down to take a look at human obedience after the holocaust we gave the offending officers the escuse that many of them were simply following orders. The Nazi soldiers did not all seem to have the pride of the Japanese soldiers. I feel like the Japanese soldiers were all very cognisent of the effect of their actions. while Nazi officers could try and convince themselves that they were not aware of the fates of the Jews while they sat at their desks, the Japanese soldiers were knee deep in their dirty deeds with no question that they were killing hundrends of thousands of people. Milgrams research findings on obedience works if we are looking at average non-mentally damaged individuals. As I said before, I think the Japanese soldiers were mentally damaged in some way, which may have led to the disturbing acts of violence seen in Nanjing.
Genocide in any form is probably one of the most disturbing acts of violence I can think of. By definition the goal is to erradicate an entire defining group (by race, religion, etc). The world is full of differing views and different ethnicities which all have the right to be had. I don't think there will ever be a time we could see world wide peace, but I do feel we should all strive to eliminate acts of genocide. The one most disturbing thing about this assignment was reading about the different histories of genocide and seeing how many times nations ignored the problems. The only uplifting part of the story of Nanjing was the glimmer of hope given by the brave men and women who sanctioned off a mere 2.5 miles of land that was the safe zone. 300,000 people were contained in this safe zone to survive, and those outside of it suffered a terrible fate. those brave men and women stood up against the Japanese army, knowing what sorts of terrible things they were capable of. It's those people who restore my faith in humanity. we need more people like that in this world if we are ever to truly put a stop to genocide type violence.
I was actually really glad we got to learn about Genocide in this class, as it was always something that I wanted to look farther into from a psychological perspective. I also think that the topics like Rwanda are discussed somewhat briefly or lightly in schools, so I always thought that there was more to learn on the subject. Reading through these websites is really chilling, knowing how many people were killed and how many people did the killing. The massacres that took place in our world seem unreal; and knowing how many people it took to achieve such high murder numbers is even more disturbing. I think that many times people focus on the deaths and victims; and sometimes forget about the psychological damage that has been done to the thousands of people who committed these murders under extremely disturbed psychological conditions. Not to take any of the attention away from the victims, but I think that there is more to it than simple murderer and victim.
I also think it’s disturbing that events like Rwanda happened so recently! 1994 is NOT that long ago…and it’s hard to think that something like that could be going on today. It makes it that much more real to know that these mass murders took place a mere 17 years ago. Not only was Rwanda taking place, but also the murders in Bosnia until 1995. So much violence going on in the world, yet it still is hard to imagine that this really happened. As I was clicking through the different events across the world, it seemed like the violence got more and more grotesque. More and more people started getting involved as the links went further back in time. It makes me wonder what has changed since then. Are people more difficult to convince and motivate to do these horrible things? Or has technology advanced to a point where less people are needed to fight in order to “get the job done?” While none of these things are pleasant to think about, it adds and interesting aspect to the reasons behind genocide.
I was also a little embarrassed that I haven’t heard of a lot of these massacres. Obviously I’ve learned a lot about the Holocaust, but aside from that only a couple of these events sounded familiar to me. I’m actually really sad and angry that my schools never taught me more about any of these things! Thousands upon thousands of people dead because of genocide, and I don’t even remember any of the countries involved? Maybe I just took the wrong classes or wasn’t paying attention during the “genocide unit” (history always was my worst subject), but I still feel I should be familiar with the names, if nothing else. This makes me wonder why schools see these topics as less important than some of the other information we were presented with in school. Obviously we can’t cover every country’s complete war history in World History classes, but with deaths at these proportions for reasons that seem absurd I would think they could make an exception.
As I was reading through the links, I thought that the “Pol Pot” was exceptionally vulgar. Not only did they shoot and kill people for their race, but they also humiliated them and forced them into situations of shame and dishonor. They forced Muslims to eat pork and shot those who refused. In addition, the article presents an explanation as to why this killings were taking place; “throughout Cambodia, deadly purges were conducted to eliminate remnants of the "old society" - the educated, the wealthy, Buddhist monks, police, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and former government officials. Ex-soldiers were killed along with their wives and children. Anyone suspected of disloyalty to Pol Pot, including eventually many Khmer Rouge leaders, was shot or bludgeoned with an ax. "What is rotten must be removed," a Khmer Rouge slogan proclaimed.” This way of thinking is not only horrendous, but apparently it is also infectious when pressed upon those who are impressionable and feel the need to fight alongside their leaders, no matter how offensive the acts may be.
Before this class, the only genocide occurrence that I had ever learned in depth about was the Holocaust. I think this is probably the case for most schools. I also had those classes in junior high, so it was great to be able to go back and learn about genocide as an adult and be able to understand the violence of genocides. How violence can grow to such a large scale is something that I still do not fully understand. In dyadic or familial violence, there is typically only one or a couple of individuals who are committing the violent acts. In genocide, there are entire armies who commit horrific, unspeakable acts on entire countries or nationalities.
As far as scientific understanding, the main similarities between family or dyadic violence and genocide that I am able to understand is the concept of violence being used for the gain of power, control, or the direct intent to inflict harm on others. We especially learned that violence is used for the gain of power or control in the dyadic situation of rape. It is difficult to analyze the direct intentions within the individuals who are committing a genocide act, while doing so is very easy in a dyadic or family situation. We are unable to test theories that we have learned, such as what the attachment styles and self esteem are within individuals committing genocide. Rather, I think the models of intergroup violence is far more relevant to genocide. Intergroup violence begins with an attitude of another outgroup, whether this may be that the outgroup is a threat to the ingroup, or simply unworthy. Violent acts are also fueled for hatred of this outgroup, which is very similar to genocide.
I read about the genocide in Nanking that was done by Japanese soldiers on the Chinese people. This began with the Japanese intent and battle to take over China in Shanghai. When the Japanese moved on to Nanking, they would have had an easy victory. The Chinese in Nanking surrendered, which was (in the minds of the Japanese troops) a disgusting and cowardly act. This is what began the hatred for the Chinese that fueled the genocide. Japanese soldiers began with killing, torturing, and mutilating the Chinese prisoners of war. They then moved on to all Chinese civilians, including women, children, and entire families. They began to rape the Chinese women, force incest rape of the Chinese women, and brutally murder Chinese civilians. The Japanese also committed other crimes on the Chinese, such as destroying property, stealing, arson, and forcing the Chinese to dig for and bury their own fellow citizens.
After reading about the Rape of Nanking, I was horrified. I am struggling to understand how so many people can happily commit so many acts of violence. One way this is possible is by military force. When an individual is in the military, any act of violence committed is seen by them as a heroic act for their country. They are also given orders by superiors to kill and inflict harm. This is probably how many genocides are able to thrive and continue on. Although the definition of genocide from the first link is very clear, I think it should also include other aspects of what mental harm is, as well as acts of sexual violence. Sexual violence is used in many other genocides that I have read or heard about. It is a way for one group to humiliate and dehumanize the other group, as well as a way of showing power or control over them.
In all, I am glad that I was able to learn a little more about genocide in this class. It is something that I have never really thought much about, but it is a huge problem and quite possibly the worst violence that exists. I still do not know much about it, but would like to see further research on causes, prevention, and motivations behind genocide.
Genocide is a very interesting and sad type of violence that goes on in all parts of the world. I remember watching the movie Rwanda in one of my high school sociology classes and I was mortified after seeing a fictional version of real life events because I knew that the movie was not nearly as horrible as the real genocide in Rwanda. I think violence like genocide gets out of control when a leader of a group of similar individuals are easily convinced that their group is better than other groups. Genocide is essentially an "us versus them" problem usually stemming from one particular leader. When a group of people are easily persuaded that they are better than another group and are instilled with the idea that they have more rights than another group of people, hatred starts to form for the group and they become ostracized. Eventually feelings of superiority and hatred build to the point that someone takes lives into their own hands. In my opinion, one of the saddest forms of genocide is when leaders are targeting helpless children. However, many genocide that happen do target only women and children of a country unfortunately.
Does our scientific understanding of self, and dyadic/familial violence have any relation to large scale violence? How? Why or why not? I would say there are components that may relate these other types of violence with the violent acts of genocide. In the comparison of self harming behavior and genocide, I can see how individual feels can relate. For example, someone that self harms feels depressed and unworthy often times. Theses feels are closely related to feels lacking power and control. Leaders of genocides usually need to have some sense of power and control. Self harming behavior is something a person can control and others can not tell them what to do because it's something they do by themselves. Whereas, genocide is similar in which the leader finds easy control over people and can not be stopped easily. On the other hand, one of the ways that dyadic/family violence is similar to genocide is on the victims end. Often times the victim of dyadic or family violence feels that they can not get away from their abuser because they depend on them. Genocide is similar because it has to do with country leaders and people whom hold power, they often can not get away and lean on their government to help them.
Are there characteristics of this kind of ethno-political violence that are special or different from the other types of violence that we have covered? Explain your answer. I would say the number of people being victimized is a huge disparity with this kind of violence in comparison with other violent acts. Most other types of violence are not readily seen and can be hidden from others, however genocide is such a huge type of violence that it can not be seen. This makes it surprising that people continue to be victimized even when people around them know it's going on and people do not step in and stop it. The US is a top contender of this. We often know about genocide taking place, however we do not step in and take responsibility because of financial and political obligations that we need to uphold.
One particular genocide that I have been interested in for several years in Rwanda. Even though I had heard of the holocaust several times in my life in history classes and reading classes, with Anne Frank, I still do not understand the unbelievable sadness of a genocide until I learned about Rwanda. Learning about the role of government and military power in genocide was unimaginable when I was 15 and learning about the things that women went through during the genocide in Rwanda. I think one of the scariest part of it for me was this genocide took place not too long ago, only 15 years ago, I was alive 15 years ago. It's hard to understand something that happen a long time ago in the past, but when something happens and it wasn't that long ago, it becomes reality for you. Something that is particularly sad right now with genocide is : it is still going on.
I believe violence grows to such a large scale by the minority group in that particular situation being unprepared and unexacting when it happens. Take 9/11 for example. We weren't expecting a terrorist attack at that particular time. We had no signs of it happening, and no reason to expect it. Then it happens. Holocaust happened the same way. One man's plan to get rid of a group of people, getting the army of men together to accomplish this, and acting on it when the people least expected it to happen. Something that is very hard to prevent.
In a way I believe our scientific understanding of this type of violence relates to "familial violence", because a lot of violence in that situation comes from retaliation. Families fight against other families a lot in forms of retaliation, or families fight against each other because of disagreements. Both are reasons for "war" and the "holocaust".
I chose to look up the Rape of Nanking since my topic of expertise was in the field of rape. I don't know if I sound clueless saying this, but I had never heard of this attack prior to doing this blog, which is a never reason I decided to write on it. I respect the first group of military fighting for their protection even though they were outnumbered by the Japanese, but the second military group of Nanking were cowards for surrendering, especially for the fact that THEY outnumbered the Japanese army.
This paragraph was very disturbing to read, and I couldn't see what man in their right mind could find it in them to rape an elderly woman (70 years and older) and DEFINITELY girls 8 years old or younger! That's sick!
"After the destruction of the POWs, the soldiers turned their attention to the women of Nanking and an outright animalistic hunt ensued. Old women over the age of 70 as well as little girls under the age of 8 were dragged off to be sexually abused. More than 20,000 females (with some estimates as high as 80,000) were gang-raped by Japanese soldiers, then stabbed to death with bayonets or shot so they could never bear witness."
And to add fuel to fire, when the military decided to finally ease up, they proceeded to distribute highly addictive drugs to the remain people that survived the attack, and a shocking 50,000 people were estimated to have become addicted to heroin.
Fortunately this crazy situation ended in somewhat of a happy ending, or should I say ended with a few courageous, intelligent men stepped up to do whatever it took to insure their peoples safety. This paragraph right here sums it up well…
"Back in Nanking, however, all was not lost. An extraordinary group of about 20 Americans and Europeans remaining in the city, composed of missionaries, doctors and businessmen, took it upon themselves to establish an International Safety Zone. Using Red Cross flags, they brazenly declared a 2.5 square-mile area in the middle of the city off limits to the Japanese. On numerous occasions, they also risked their lives by personally intervening to prevent the execution of Chinese men or the rape of women and young girls."