genocide
more diamond:
reading about genocide...
a simple mindset such as "us" and "them" makes a world of difference.
if we don't identify with "them" we could easily diassociate ourselves.
he's saying that this is how genocide is possible. if it's not "us" we don't care too much.
and if you're in no way involved, then you really don't give a shit.
diamond points out the irony of a media frenzy around apartheid in africa while differing, black ethnic groups in burundi were slaughtering each other and going unnoticed at the same time.
it seems that genocide is sometimes accepted because of principle differences that people can accept. (the reading makes genocide and war almost seem one in the same. i guess the only difference is that true genocide involves complete desmiation of an ethnic/religious identity.)
so something like religious differences and cultural clashes have sparked many-an attempted suicide from the crusades to native americans and aboriginies to the damned jews.
in the past these xenophobic differences were enough to spark a killfest in the name what is sane and right.
but later in history, and i guess sometimes even in the past, retaliation of some initial audacity was the best excuse to slaughter a given group.
things like the 200 dead at the alamo helped out the mexican war, and everyone knows what pearl harbor did for our involvement in WWII.
even Hitler used a fake attack by Polish soldiers on a German border post as an excuse to go buck on the jews. it seems that some grave attack is necessary to get public support. makes you wonder about the twin towers...
diamond (having written the book before the incident) says nothing of this, but could easily fit it into that given chapter.
but all in all what it all comes down to is land and resources. Britain and the Iberian peninsula was getting a mite too small for those Europeans and their high birth rate, so killing native americans and aboriginies let them expand and was justified by the fact that those people weren't using the land to its full potential.
it seems like some people just get picked on. maybe because jews are so steadfast, but they were killed by Christians as scapegoats for the 14th century bubonic plague, in the early 20th by Russians for political reasons, by Ukrainians after WWI as scapegoats for the Bolshevist threat, by Nazis in WWII for holding the blame of Germany's defeat in WWI.
again religious beliefs give an underlying reasons for attempted genocide.
is that maybe because the jews can't be completely controlled? therefore they must be extreminated.
where was i going with this? oh. i guess that a christian president who wholly supports the morals of that religion can easily use its being to protect his nation from those of rival religions with the use of war. its an easy way to promote the right-wing mentality of increased resource aquisition and unchecked use.
it would seem that this over-played tactic would be easily visible to the public, but alas, too many are uneducated or brain-washed by whatever religion got ahold of them.
cuz really, what does religion do for you?
it allows you to turn off your brain and have somebody else tell you how you should live and what you should believe in.
the funny thing is that they're all probably fundamentally the same but just with some additional traditions and ceremonies that are apparently worth dying for.
just because somebody prays to your same god 5 times a day religiously doesn't mean they're plotting your country's demise.
yeah, maybe some fanatic group is out there, but not to the extent that an army needs to invade that land to search it out.
what ever happened to regan's star wars?
couldn't we focus a bit more on home before we go out and fuck with everyone else?
i could go on, but i'm starting to get the feeling that its either something you already know or incoherent babbling.
reading about genocide...
a simple mindset such as "us" and "them" makes a world of difference.
if we don't identify with "them" we could easily diassociate ourselves.
he's saying that this is how genocide is possible. if it's not "us" we don't care too much.
and if you're in no way involved, then you really don't give a shit.
diamond points out the irony of a media frenzy around apartheid in africa while differing, black ethnic groups in burundi were slaughtering each other and going unnoticed at the same time.
it seems that genocide is sometimes accepted because of principle differences that people can accept. (the reading makes genocide and war almost seem one in the same. i guess the only difference is that true genocide involves complete desmiation of an ethnic/religious identity.)
so something like religious differences and cultural clashes have sparked many-an attempted suicide from the crusades to native americans and aboriginies to the damned jews.
in the past these xenophobic differences were enough to spark a killfest in the name what is sane and right.
but later in history, and i guess sometimes even in the past, retaliation of some initial audacity was the best excuse to slaughter a given group.
things like the 200 dead at the alamo helped out the mexican war, and everyone knows what pearl harbor did for our involvement in WWII.
even Hitler used a fake attack by Polish soldiers on a German border post as an excuse to go buck on the jews. it seems that some grave attack is necessary to get public support. makes you wonder about the twin towers...
diamond (having written the book before the incident) says nothing of this, but could easily fit it into that given chapter.
but all in all what it all comes down to is land and resources. Britain and the Iberian peninsula was getting a mite too small for those Europeans and their high birth rate, so killing native americans and aboriginies let them expand and was justified by the fact that those people weren't using the land to its full potential.
it seems like some people just get picked on. maybe because jews are so steadfast, but they were killed by Christians as scapegoats for the 14th century bubonic plague, in the early 20th by Russians for political reasons, by Ukrainians after WWI as scapegoats for the Bolshevist threat, by Nazis in WWII for holding the blame of Germany's defeat in WWI.
again religious beliefs give an underlying reasons for attempted genocide.
is that maybe because the jews can't be completely controlled? therefore they must be extreminated.
where was i going with this? oh. i guess that a christian president who wholly supports the morals of that religion can easily use its being to protect his nation from those of rival religions with the use of war. its an easy way to promote the right-wing mentality of increased resource aquisition and unchecked use.
it would seem that this over-played tactic would be easily visible to the public, but alas, too many are uneducated or brain-washed by whatever religion got ahold of them.
cuz really, what does religion do for you?
it allows you to turn off your brain and have somebody else tell you how you should live and what you should believe in.
the funny thing is that they're all probably fundamentally the same but just with some additional traditions and ceremonies that are apparently worth dying for.
just because somebody prays to your same god 5 times a day religiously doesn't mean they're plotting your country's demise.
yeah, maybe some fanatic group is out there, but not to the extent that an army needs to invade that land to search it out.
what ever happened to regan's star wars?
couldn't we focus a bit more on home before we go out and fuck with everyone else?
i could go on, but i'm starting to get the feeling that its either something you already know or incoherent babbling.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home