What's All The Killing About? (may not be suitable for people of a human persuasion)
Daniel Pipes, a renowned analyst of the Middle East, just published a list compiled, in part, by Gunnar Heinsohn, showing how many people were killed, since 1950, in all the various conflicts around the world. His point was that the Arab-Israeli conflict gets undo attention because it ranks only 49th among the 67 bloodiest conflicts, with “only” 51,000 fatalities, as compared to some of the others.
Please take the time to look at some of the numbers.
1 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
4 3,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present
5 2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53
6 1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
7 1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
8 1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75
9 1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
11 1,100,000 Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present
12 1,100,000 Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92
13 1,000,000 Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88
14 900,000 Rwanda genocide, 1994
15 875,000 Algeria: against France 1954-62 (675,000); between Islamists and the government 1991-2006 (200,000)
16 850,000 Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-present
17 650,000 Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-present (200,000)
18 580,000 Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal’s retreat (1972-2002)
19 500,000 Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999
20 430,000 Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)
21 400,000 Indochina: against France, 1945-54
22 400,000 Burundi, 1959-present (Tutsi/Hutu)
23 400,000 Somalia, 1991-present
24 400,000 North Korea up to 2006 (own people)
25 300,000 Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s
26 300,000 Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)
27 240,000 Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-present
28 200,000 Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80
29 200,000 Guatemala, 1960-96
30 190,000 Laos, 1975-90
31 175,000 Serbia against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999
32 150,000 Romania, 1949-99 (own people)
33 150,000 Liberia, 1989-97
34 140,000 Russia against Chechnya, 1994-present
35 150,000 Lebanon civil war, 1975-90
36 140,000 Kuwait War, 1990-91
37 130,000 Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-present (120,000)
38 130,000 Burma/Myanmar, 1948-present
39 100,000 North Yemen, 1962-70
40 100,000 Sierra Leone, 1991-present
41 100,000 Albania, 1945-91 (own people)
42 80,000 Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)
43 75,000 Iraq, 2003-present (domestic)
44 75,000 El Salvador, 1975-92
45 70,000 Eritrea against Ethiopia, 1998-2000
46 68,000 Sri Lanka, 1997-present
47 60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present
48 60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49 51,000 Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present
50 50,000 North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)
51 50,000 Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
52 50,000 Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79
53 50,000 Peru, 1980-2000
54 50,000 Guinea, 1958-84
55 40,000 Chad, 1982-90
56 30,000 Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)
57 30,000 Rhodesia, 1972-79
58 30,000 Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)
59 27,000 Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)
60 26,000 Kashmir independence, 1989-present
61 25,000 Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)
62 22,000 Poland, 1948-89 (own people)
63 20,000 Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)
64 20,000 Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979
65 19,000 Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)
66 18,000 Congo Republic, 1997-99
67 10,000 South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)
*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999, 2nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M., “Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century,” 2003.
___________
Incredibly, since 1950, about 85,000,000 people have been killed in bloody conflicts around the world. And that doesn’t even include World War I and World War II.
I have often said that more people have probably been killed, by the hand of man, in the last 200 years, than the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence. It turns out, as dramatized in the film The Rise of Man, on the Discovery Channel, that cavemen, who lived during the 2,000,000 years before the advent of “civilization,” were actually quite nice to one another. As hunter gatherers, there was no real reason to kill. Would you kill your neighbor just to steal a couple of peanuts? Why bother? Common sense told them to be good, and to help one another out, and they did.
In most instances, we demonstrate a certain sense of arrogance when we kill one another, an excessive sense of pride, and an extreme confidence in the validity of our convictions. When we kill, it is as if we cry out, for the world to hear, “We are right, and you will pay with your lives for the inadequacies of your beliefs.” It is sheer arrogance to kill one another so causally, even in the name of our deeply held beliefs. Look at it this way—if we were indeed created by God in His image, then when we kill one another, aren’t we, in effect, spitting at God’s face?
To my mind, for what it’s worth, there are only two reasons to kill: either someone is coming at you with an ax, or he’s coming at your buddy with an ax. That’s it; self-defense and the defense of others. No other reason to kill: not for our religion, not for our deeply held beliefs, not for politics, not for geopolitical considerations, not for the accumulation of wealth, not because we resent how someone thinks, or how he looks, or what he feels about us. Not for nothing. No other reason to kill.
Weapon systems are so advanced nowadays, that we would soon be able to kill one another in such magnitude, that previous death tolls would pale by comparison. Some of the bombs we have today are hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. We could literally wipe ourselves off the face of the earth.
Countries that are beginning to compete for scarce resources, like oil, or clean water, could find themselves embroiled in a whole host of new conflicts, in the years to come. A global economy is a competitive economy, in which poor nations could easily find themselves on the losing end of the stick. But unlike previous times in history, when mostly everyone was poor, now there will be some who enjoy the prosperity that comes with economic growth, while a great many will be left behind, only to bear witness to their sense of deprivation and loss, and to their desperate struggle to survive.
The global economy offers promise for the future, but some pitfalls as well, as is often the case with new developments. The trick will be to sustain economic growth for ourselves, while allowing everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. Yes we will compete with one another, but we will invest in one another, as well. Yes we will work to augment our prosperity, but we will work for the prosperity of others, as well. Yes we will compete for scarce resources, but we will challenge one another to protect the environment as well. Yes we will hold on to our deeply help beliefs, but we will find ways to talk to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity as well.
The secret to world peace, in contrast to the bloody history of the past, is not a secret at all. We have to find a way to connect, and to connect so cohesively, that we come to depend on one another. As such, it will be in our mutual best interest to keep the peace. By helping others, we help ourselves. Granted, it is a tall order, but it is probably the only way. Connect ideologically, Connect economically. Inspire in each other a sense of hope. And let the hope sustain the peace throughout the generations.
Join the Conversation
“It turns out (…) that cavemen (…) were actually quite nice to one another.”
Don’t think so. It has been reported by scientists that even monkeys are doing something one would describe as “war” (they get into another monkey groups territory, with no reason than to kill “enemy monkeys”). It’s something absolutely human – what, in my opinion, makes it even more something to be changed.
How many were killed in the Crusades, Trojan war, the Egyptians vs. whoever. Mendo-Daro is the earliest evidence of slaughter (3000BC). Gilgamesh was a “Great Warrior” of Sumer. I think the NORMAL state of mankind is war. Peace is a myth fostered by the “rest periods” between wars. Pitiful huh?
This is a very great article I would suggest you to read:
History of Violence
here is its opening paragraph:
Interesting post and thread, thanks for taking information Pipes posted with a really questionable agenda and starting an entirely different conversation.
My take on it is that we’ve been around as a species for some two million years. There were different versions of us at different periods of time: Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc. Civilization only came about 11,000 years ago, which is relatively a short period of time, compared to our stay here on this planet.
The violence we see swirling around us does not date back to the brutishness of the cavemen, but is a product of our own invention, that of modern man. I don’t think the cavemen would have survived if they were as violent as we are today. The movie on the Discovery Channel, The Rise of Man, makes the incredible point that cavemen were gentle with one another, and this is backed up by a number of noted anthropologists.
As for “cat burning,” Mohammad, yes, we can be cruel as hell. But that is our choice. We can learn from the cavemen, and walk the path of peace, the way we were intended to be for the sake of our survival, or we can go on “burning cats” because it amuses us to do so. We are very inventive as a species. We invent all sorts of gadgetry. We even invent all sorts of ideological perspectives which make no sense, and which have us by the throats. The one saving grace is our ability to defy the odds, and to begin choosing a wiser course, to begin making sense of our lives.
Nissim:
the prime point of that article is this: “today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.”
and there might be a simple explanations for why cavemen appeared to be more gentle (compared with us): they had common enemies as strong as dinosaurs… today, we think that we are strong enough to conquer any species; indeed sometimes we happen to think that other species depend on us for their own survival… and this vanity helps selfish part of our character to reveal to the universe, a character which was put down in stone age by dinosaurs.
Mohammad, I did read the article, and it was very interesting. I’m not too sure that he is talking about cavemen. I think he may be comparing pre-state tribal culture, with us. And maybe, by comparison, we seem to be less violent. But it is also possible that if you go back even further, that the cavemen were even less violent than we are today.
The big debate is whether we are violent as a species. I would like to believe that it is not the case. I believe that we become violent as a result of cultural influences. For example, the games at Rome’s Colloseum could have influenced the people to increase their appetite for violence. But for sure, there have been cultures, in the past and more recently, that were not violent.
It probably is the case, that there is a tentendcy in recent times to curb the amount of violence. But we have to remember that in the last half century, over 100 million people have been killed in various conflicts around the world. We also have devastating weaponry at our disposal. Therefore, even if the overall amount of violence may be decreasing, the potential for cataclysmic violence is definitely within the realm of possibility.
The importance of all this, for me at least, is to come up with new ideological and economic realities which will be able to curb whatever inclination we have for violence. I believe that this is possible, and I use the cavemen and some isolated cultures as evidence that we are not naturally wired to be violent, and that our violent tendencies can be moderated by cultural influences. I tnink that this type of analysis will be in keeping with the article you referenced.
Hope your not saying humans and dinos coexist…
Humans are peaceful now, but VERY effective when we do kill… that’s why there are more deaths now than ever before.
Nope. There are much more humans to kill on earth – 1950 there were 2,5 bill., today there are about 6,6 bill. That’s so much more than ever before – there nearly must be more victims.
Population is also a factor, but tell me, how many people can you kill with a sword and then tell how many you can kill with an AK-47? Or how about a bomb… this is what I meant when I said very effective.
Jina:
the capacity of modern weapons as well as number of potential vicitms is a thing, natural inclination of humans to kill is another thing. yes, today a crazy might kill billions of men/women in less than one second and destroy the whole planet earth hundreds of times in few seconds… but, does it mean that Humans are more violent today compared with their ancestors?
I dont believe so. we are more gentle, but our fools are more powerful. that is the point.
It is ironic then, Mohammad, that even as we become more gentle, which is still open to debate, the danger of Armageddon may be looming even stronger, because more power may soon be placed in the hands of loonies. It is as if two forces are coming head to head: our sense that violence is abhorrent, and our ever increasing ability to do ourselves in. And so the question arises: Which way will we go as a species? I don’t know about you, but I sense that things are heading toward some sort of ultimate conclusion. There is a fork in the road coming up ahead, and the question becomes: Which way will we go?
Nissim:
“It is ironic” because he does his wonders in a mysterious way!
Mohammad
You got a wrong cavemen neighborhood by something like 65 million years. On the other hand cavemen did have as neighbours saber toothed tigers, mastodons, bears and other nice animals like these.
I do not think that we are more violent than cavemen, Babylonians or other early civilizations. In the first place the population was much smaller. During cavemen era entire population of homo sapiens was something like one million. It also seems that they also were not less violent but more violent. Percentage wise more of them got killed and their lives were shorter. They were fighting over the good hunting grounds as well as over the women.
Nowadays we have a lot of small wars, true, nevertheless percentage-wise less of us get killed.
Nissim
I don’t think we become more “gentle”, I think we found ourselves in different position then before, and we are constrained by laws, rules and regulations which prevent many expression of violence. There are more of us so we have to accommodate others, we also have police, army and other such organisations who can use violence on our behalf, so we do not need to use it.
If I want to done my neighbour in, my neighbour will call the cops and police will arrest me. Hundreds of years ago my neighbour will have to cope with me on his own or with a help of his neighbours. Police were mostly non-existent.
btw I do not think that everybody think that violence is abhorent, I also do not think that we are going to some sort of an ultimate conclusion. Yes we have a lot of terrible weapons, but in 19 century, in 18 century and in eleven century Europe people also thought that they have an awful weapons and that the world is going to some sort of ultimate conclusion………………they were wrong, there was no conclusion at all, humanity is still here and people are still talking about ultimate conclusion.
another anonymous:
(a)
I didnt get what you meant, sorry: “You got a wrong cavemen neighborhood by something like 65 million years. ”
(b)
from a behaviroal approach, we are more gentle, because our behaviors are much more gentle. i.e. we behave more gently, then, based on a behavioral approach, we are more gentle. but, in the same time, you might be true that this ‘more gentle behavior’ does not necessarily translate into being ‘more gentle’; and indeed, it might be just being in another position much different from that of cavemen which makes us behave somewhat differently, and if God put us right now in the cavemen’s age, we would behave like cavemen. true. agreed.
Mohammad, I think Another Anonymous meant that the dinosaurs preceded early man by about 65 million years. We are a relatively new species, only 2 million years old. Perhaps we are the crowning achievement of our Creator. He practiced long and hard to get us just “right.” But I don’t know if He succeeded.
Another Anonymous seems to be suggesting that I may be over-doing it a bit to suggest that we are approaching an ultimate conclusion. He or she may be right. Maybe things are not as dire as they seem. And it is correct to say that throughout history people have continued to believe that they are approaching the End of Days scenario.
But I look at our situation and see some big problems over the horizon: Global Warming, Religious Strife, Nuclear Proliferation, Disease, Famine, Water Shortages, Crime, and so forth. I know we have the technology, but I don’t know if we have the wisdom to come together to solve some of the problems which threat our very existence.
I look at the world as a satellite floating in space, on which is being conducted an experiment of sorts. You take equal parts of good and evil, a pinch of common sense, and a whole bunch of nonsense, for good measure, and see which way things will go. My hunch is that we better take seriously the threats we face, as if they are apocalyptic, because in the end, they very well may be.
I think I agreed with you there >.>
Daniel Pipes is an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racist and a bigot … it’s hard to take anything he writes seriously …
Ray Hanania
Nissim Dahan
When you put everything together – water shortages, global warming, religious strife and so on, I changed my mind. Perhaps we are not approaching “the ultimate conclusion”, but you are right, we do have large problems and we may not have a wisdom to solve them.
Ray Hanania
Daniel Pipes may be anti-islamist, but …………..I do not like many ME governments and some non-governmental organisations in the ME. I think they are racist, bigots and anti-western. Should I refuse to consider everything they say just because I don’t like their views?
Thanks Anonymous … The answer is YES. It is somewhat ridiculous to defend bigot and racist Daniel Pipes by saying that he’s not alone … it’s not about liking or not liking someone’s views. Daniel Pipes is a notorious racist and bigot. If someone were anti-Semitic, would you listen to what they have to say? Pipes is to Arabs what an anti-Semite is to Jews. He’s repugnant, a vicious hater and his writings are so obnoxious that citing him is only a bad reflection on the person citing him. There are so many other sources out there who might say the same thing worth citing instead of Pipes … for example, David Duke also denounces terrorism. Is he the best source to turn to for that? I doubt it.
Ray Hanania
I have not personally read it, so I can’t really comment on it, but according to this report, the world is actually growing safer.
Here’s a blurb:
You can check out some of the report’s figures here.
@ PeacefulVanguard:
I read about a similar documentation, which also found out that the world were growing safer in the last ~ 20 years. But they said this were not due to more “peacemaking” (UN etc), but less “war making”, effecting from the end of the Cold War.
That can’t be true, Uncle Sam told me they are useless and some other not so nice things.
Ray, you might wona add sexist to the list about Pipes.
another anonymous, just a note…
Hitler supported the Indian National Army (INA) against the British.
So should I goto a Jew and say… hey just because he fried 6 million of you guys doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ignore everything he has to say. Doesn’t make much sense does it?
And about ME governments… ya they are racists, bigots, but not anti-Western. Last time I checked, save for hand full of them, rest are in bed with the West… that rhymes….
Jina, if we are more gentle, but let our fools become more powerful, what does that say about our gentility? Are we gentle in name only, but not when it comes to taking the risk of curbing our fools?
Even when he’s just quoting statistics?
And purposefully taking them out of context? Hmm.
Jina
So, if Hamas will tell that the people inside Gaza are starving I should not believe them, because I really dislike Hamas?
That would be what you propose: disregard opinion of people/organisations you dislike and/or hate, listen only to the ones you like or agree with because they have similar opinion to your own.
Really? How often your governments or the people working in the government are saying that the West is depraved, immoral and so on. How often your newspapers (controlled mostly by the governments) are saying the same?
Your governments are not “in bed” with the West. Your governments are saying one thing to the West and the people in the West and quite another to you through the newspapers, government controlled clerics and through television . In fact, some people in your governments would say anything to anybody just so they will stay in power.
Hmm, Hitler may have supported Indian National Army because INA was helping japanese army and kempeitai in Asia, they were useful fools, but that does not mean that he would accept Indian self-rule after getting conquering Brits and making slaves of slav people.
Anyway ……….do you compare Pipes to Hitler, just because he is against islamists?
Firstly, Jina is a Canadian citizen. “Your” and “you” does not apply here. Don’t make this personal.
Secondly, you couldn’t be more wrong in stereotyping ME governments as if they all do or are guilty of exactly the same things. Some are pro-USA, some are anti. Some are much more liberal than others. Fact is, they are all very different, because if they were all the same then we wouldn’t have as many political conflicts throughout this region. Stop generalizing with an “us” vs. “them” attitude, it’s tedious to sit through. Certain Western governments also regard us as “immoral” or “terrorists” and try to convince their public of us being so, it’s not just us with a problem.
I would suspect that Hamas would take the aid to themselves and put it to good use for themselves… like send in more suicide bombers into Israel.
Kinda like little Kim from Korea did… West gives him aid to feed his starving people and he fucking builds a fucking nuke and wags his little dick at us.
All these times I though my government was part of the West… thanks for showing me the light. Wow, Canada, a Middle Eastern country… dang… knew people in this part of the world are illiterate when it comes to geography, but damn…
And INA weren’t fools… I would have supported Hitler too if I were them. British only killed what 12 million Bengalis in the first 2 years of WWII and thats on top of millions they killed whilt their centrues old occupation. While it took Hitler 4 years or so to kill 6 million Jews? Where I stand Hitler is the lesser of two evils. Only reason history is not so kind to Hitler is because he lost and the Allies, who are responsible for as much genocides and destructions as the Fascist, but they won, and everyone knows that it’st he victor who writes history, not the loosers.
I showed an extreme example of the very point you made. Nothing more and nothig less.
That would be a different story: deliberately trying to mislead his readers. Is he doing that with these stats about the number of dead?
I can see that Daniel Pipes is evoking quite a controversy here. My intent was to use the numbers, which I don’t think he came up with in the first place. He just published them.
Daniel Pipes is a right winger, to say the least. It is not the case that he is always wrong in what he says. The problem is that he looks at the issue of ideological extremism through a very narrow perspective. He wants the West to be tough on extremists. That will not cut it. It’s not enough to be tough, even though at times, you have to be. You also have to inspire a sense of hope in those who may opt to help you, if you can give them good reason to.
We in the West have no choice but to empower Muslim moderates if we are ever going to make a dent in the appeal of extremists. That strategy is even more important, in my opinion, than being tough. I heard a news story today in which the wife of an American soldier decided to collect school backpacks to give to Iraqi children. They were quite greatful to receive them, and the teacher said it would motivate them to learn.
I realize that such a story would be viewed with great cynicism by a great number of people. It may seem self-serving to a great many, and even hypocritical. But there is something to be said about a soldier giving backpacks to children. It is an image that underscores the possibilty of empowering the innocent, even as you fight the enemy. That duality of purpose is indispensable to the fight that lies ahead.
Because Israel/Palestine issue is not like any other, out of those on the list, tell me, how many of them involved a nation being created by kicking out those who lived in it initially.
Number of people killed isn’t the only issue here, it’s the the uniquness. The uniqueness is what makes this conflict more famous than anythign else. Kind of like how British managed to kill 12 million Bengalis and tell me, how many people know what exactly what I am talking about? Now if I say Jews and Holocuast… well we all know because of the way the Jews were butchered. It’s the way Nazis wanted to erradicate the Jews what made that genocide more famous than what happened to the Bengalis. I can actualy offer more examples if you want.
Last time I checked Pipes was one of the key supporters of Saddam. Support that lead to USofA giving away shit load of weapons to him. Or does your definition of extremist different than mine?
Don’t you know, Jina? These days, anything slightly brown qualifies as an “extremist.”
Whether or not Pipes supported him, Saddam was one hell of an extremist, who caused the deaths of between one and two million people. He not only had weapons of mass destruction, he used them to kill thousands. The fact that he ran out does not make him a saint.
Esra’a, an extremist does not have to be brown, or Muslim, or of any particular ethnic or religious group. An extremist is someone who takes his ideological perspective so seriously, that he is not willing to conceive of the possibility that he may be wrong, and that is willing to take action that is detrimental to his people, and that defies notions of common sense, and human decency. There are plenty of extremists to go around, on all sides of the political fence. We have to be wary of these people. We have to detect their presense and undo their influence.
Jina
At a glance I’d say none, and of course the worst (if you measure by counting bodies) were where the killers and the victims were the same nationality.
I’d agree with you that the number of people killed isn’t the only issue, but is any other issue really more important? I have to admit that I view displacement as less of a tragedy than death. Do you think the Israel/Palestine conflict deserves more attention than, say, Cambodia (close to 2 million dead) because it involved the displacement of maybe 200,000??
Esra’a
And that qualifies as “racist.”
I agree that displacement is less tradgic than deaths, but people don’t give a damn about that. People want to see something unique, and Israel/Pal issue is a unique one. Another reason is the media coverage it recives around the world do to the people involved.
Who the hell give a damn about someone whom the world don’t know anything about?
When a brown person says that u know it’s not racist
True; you mentioned the Bengalis, which is a great example. Yes, I know about them: 10 + 2 = 12. Mass starvation is sadly
unique, and of course the Palestinian issue is all over the Western media, as you said.
Oh? And who is she talking about — who is she accusing of racism — these folks to whom “anything slightly brown qualifies as an ‘extremist.’”?
Opps: that “not” was supposed to be bold, not boxquoted.
Wow, MyTwoCents, you’re a lot more dense than I thought. Do you really not understand sarcasm? Not even a little bit?
Nothing about what I said is racist – I was mocking racism through sarcasm. Try to improve your comprehension skills.
His/her sarcasm detector is broken. Let’s see if he/she is going to insist that I’m racist against my own people now. Us brown ones. Oh snap, I did it again! Will he/she get it this time? Let’s hope so.
I am talking about us, genius. I am mocking how suspicious we have become to you as people simply because of who we are and how we have been portrayed in mainstream media outlets everywhere. It couldn’t be any more obvious, but I guess we have to start spelling things out for you.
Daniel Pipes renowned?
Do some research on the guy, he’s a laughing stock of intellectuals.
Jina,
Where did you get the figure of 12 million from? I’ve never heard of that claim before. Can you direct me to some sources that make the claim? Thank you.
Ya… according to you, you are saying that Hitler didn’t gas the Jews, Jews just walked into a chamber that was about to be filled with poisonous gas and died.
Rare to come across online reference for this but here are some links…
http://www.samarthbharat.com/bengalholocaust.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s19040.htm
http://www.stateofnature.org/blairScienceHistory.html
I heard there are hand full of Bengali sources. Wish someone would translate them into English since they are the only remaining work written during the genocide and partially documented. No Westerner ever wrote anything about these till recently. That’s why it’s a forgotten genocide.
12 million is a final estimate because after few months into the famine, people stopped counting the dead and just started to burn the bodies.
I heard about this when I first read an academic work of Jane Austen. If you live beside a large library, maybe you can get a hold of this if you cross reference Jane Austen with Bengal.
Thanks for the links Jina.
I’m surprised there is something worse than the Bengali genocide committed by the General Yahya Khan in the early 70′s.
Ohh ya the 70s one is nothign compared to this one, this one didn’t just include starving them to death, it also included something similer to what the Japanese did to the Chinese and the Korean women and girls. While these Bengali women and girls were starving, the British soldiers would rape them, turn them into sex slaves for FOOD.
Wolfgang Pfitzner, he wrote about this. Find his book and read it… it’s sick what the British did, this was worse than the concentration camps of the Nazis if not the same.
And this is the second of the Bengali genoicdes the British were responsible for, the first one was in the 1700s when 10 million were killed in a similer fasion.
Pitty no one gives a damn about these people… ohh well…
Esra’a, I know what you mean about sarcasm. But there is often a hint of truth to sarcasm and humor. And it is true that people easily fall into the trap of stereotypic thinking.
So how do you break the inclination to stereotype others. You talk to one another. And gradually, you come to know one another. And you build the courage to speak on behalf of one another. So that if someone says, “Muslims are terrorists,” you could say, “I personally know many Muslims, and the vast majority of them are peace-loving people.”
But to talk to one another, you have to have a common language. This website is a great example. We can talk to one another, because you insisted that everyone use English. Not that it had to be English, but you picked it because it was a “common language.”
Well, guess what? We need a common language for peace to happen, and for people to think “Us” instead of “Us and Them.” And the best common language that we can all relate to is the universal language of common sense. If people begin to talk to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, then it will be a lot harder for the extremists to sustain the stereotypic models that they thrive on, because the models will fall in the face of what people really come to know about one another.
Your’re absolutley right, Esra’a, “It couldn’t be any more obvious” that you’re accusing all whites (or not-browns) of being racists. Thank you for answering my question, though.
I asked,
And you answered,
Emphasis added.
Urgh, are you making an extra effort to be annoyingly misleading?
Still dense. Maybe one day you’ll get over yourself and figure all of this out. I won’t hold my breath, you seem to be very fond of creating things in your head. So whatever, have it your way, I’m a raving racist. Now do us all a huge favor and stick to the topic at hand.
Nissim, thanks for your insightful comment.
MyTwoCents,
Here is a definition of sarcasm.
Do you get it now?
Jina
The Bengali faminie may have been bad, and I do tend to think that British policy was one of the reason for that famine but you implied rape, and other atrocities which you based on reading of one book (both english links refer to the same book) and untranslated Bengali documents……..I assume you read Bengali?
I also do tend to be somewhat skeptical of the people (Wolfgang Pfitzner) who write in the journal which in blurb regarding its publisher (http://www.vho.org/tr/) is stating :
The connection I see is ………some things are bad and some people were bad, but really, some things and some people were more bad than these others which are “oh, so widely” publicized, which may even be faked
I got it from the beginning, Murad. She made a racially defined group (not brown) the “the butt of contempt or ridicule.” Then she started in with the personal insults.
Murad don’t bother, this overly-sensitive imaginative individual is gonna cry us a river if you provoke him/her any further.
There, there, hush the whining now. It’s time for this thread to get back on track.
Okay, let’s return to the original topic, with the understanding that generalized accusations against racial groups are not racist insults as long as they’re done sarcastically.
Sarcastically speaking, perhaps the reason for the disproportionate world-wide attention paid to the Palestinian issue is that the Palestinians wail so loudly about what pitiful victims they are?
Yeah, let’s all learn how to take a sarcastic remark without pounding others about it obsessively like a crying wolf, and return to the original topic. Because otherwise he/she just wouldn’t shut up.
So what’s your comment on the topic? Do you think that there is an organized effort to keep the Palestinian issue front-and-center on the world stage?
I better step in before we generate another statistic on the chart. By the way, you see how wars happen? It doesn’t take much.
The Palestinian issue is front-and-center because for many people it is symbolic of much greater issues. It is a microcosm of much larger trends.
For example, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians can be viewed as a playing out of the conflict between the Western and the Muslim world. How the smaller crisis gets resolved is a harbinger of how the larger crisis gets resolved. That is why it is very important to bring justice to the Palestinians and to the Israelis, because a just result will pave the way for an accomodation between the larger global forces.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians can also be viewed as a conflict between the haves, and the have nots, which has worldwide ramifications.
Also, the conflict there can represent the religious debate as to whose religion is valid. We let them fight it out, and whoever wins gets to claim that God is on their side.
In many ways, the conflict attracts attention because people with many different agendas can relate to the goings on there. Sometimes I wish that it wasn’t so publicized because it is hard to resolve anything in such glaring limelight.
You must have missed this part
That book was the only recent Western source I could cite, I already said this. Also, you must have missed this link http://www.stateofnature.org/blairScienceHistory.html In this, the author actually cites another English reference.
Learn Bengali and go talk to the survivors or talk to their living reletives… that would confirm what I said. Or just goto India, few other books are there written in either Hindi, Bengali and Tamil which discusses this topic. Find one and read it.
And your reply is very typical… I have no time to argue with a holocost denier, you weren’t the first and you won’t be the last. Until then consider yourself as one of the holocaust deniers and burn in hell.
Jina
It seems that you still don’t understand. There was one book, and even the references you gave go back to the same book.
There are other references which have different take on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
So I am neither denying that there was a genocide or saying that there was not I do not have enough materials to make mine mind one way or the other.
Therefore, do not accuse me of being “holocost denier”. That is insulting, not to me, I know I am not the one, but to your own intelligence.
BTW you speak bengali, do you?
Are you stupid… there are multiple references… read the shit instead of proving how much of a racist you are…
ROFL… hhahahahaha I can’t belive this… they actually partly blaming the Indians for the famine and pating the Brits for doing their best… dang…
holocaost denier is a holocost denier… stop deluding yourself…
Stalin starvs Ukranian… GENOCIDE
Mao starves Chinese… GENOCIDE
Kim starves Koreans… GENOCIDE
French butcher millions in Kampoochia… domesticating and educating the uncivilized…
Belgians rape and butcher millions in central Africa…. domesticating and educating the uncivilized…
British starve and butch and rape millioins in South Asia… tradgidy… they probably deserved it since they are uncivilized..
FUCK YOU… I have enough dead ancestors to prove what the Brits did to my people… I guess to you fuckers, brown people
I heard it all, from us being stupid, lazy, uneducated etc… some are listed on the wiki entry you linked…
Next time why don’t you ask a Jew for proof when he/she talks about the genoicde of their people?
There’s a lot of passion here, Jina.
And passion that springs forth from our memories of those who were killed unjustly is an honorable thing.
But let me ask you this: Is it possible to tap into some of that passion to turn the world around?
Is it possible to take our memories of the dead and use them on behalf of the living?
And if so, where would you begin?
Yes, but to do this a single condition must exist.
Education, everyone must know what happened in the past. World has to know about the Bengali genocide as much as people know about the Holocaust. Japanese must know about what they did to Chinese and Koreans during WW2 or the genocide of the people of the First Nations in the Americas.
Like Germany did, these atrocities have to be acknowledged by the perpetrators and taught in our schools as for what they are instead of what we want them to be. I learnt about the Holocaust in my grade 6 history class, Soviet genocide of the Ukranians in grade 7 and Mao’s genocide in grade 9. I wasn’t taught about the genocide of the First Nations’ people in any of my history classes. This is what I call injustice. Injustice to the very people who ones inhabited these lands long ago and their descendants.
These governments have to acknowledge the crimes committed before our times so we can teach it to your future generations so they’ll know the horrific outcome.
It is quite easy to see through Daniel Pipe’s propaganda by cross-checking his list. The one thing you will notice that the list glosses over any conflicts where the US government has been involved.
For instance, in the Vietnam war, the list does not mention who were the fighting parties. On the number of casulties, it says 1.8 million (which roughly equates the number of dead combatants). In 1994, the Vietnamese government declassified the total number of dead civilians which amounted to 2 million in the North and another 2 in the South. Considering the population of Vietnam at the time (38 million), the number of casulties amounted to 12-13% of the population. Had the US been subjected to a similar attack, it would have lost 28 million people. The US government has left 300,000 tones of unexploded explosived that have not been cleared. According to statistics from 2000, over 38,000 vietnamese have been killed and over 64,000 injured from these explosives since 1975. The US government also sprayed 13% of the land in Vietnam with agent orange which still kills thousands of people (dioxin poisoning) and causes thousands of birth defects.
On the first Iraq war (desert Storm), against little detail on the excessive force that has been used (highway of death) or on the fighting parties. No count of the casulties of the harsh sanctions that were primarly imposed by the US government (Kuwait at some point wanted to lift the sanctions but the US government refused and threatened to veto it).
On the current war and illegal invasion of Iraq by the US government, the figure given (75,000 vs the over million deaths) does not even warrant a reply.
Jina said:
What about this one?
http://bangla-translator.net/index.html
Nissim Dahan, you wrote:
“We in the West have no choice but to empower Muslim moderates if we are ever going to make a dent in the appeal of extremists. That strategy is even more important, in my opinion, than being tough. I heard a news story today in which the wife of an American soldier decided to collect school backpacks to give to Iraqi children. They were quite greatful to receive them, and the teacher said it would motivate them to learn.”
No you do have many choices, which can be a combination of the following:
1- With all due respect, please do mind your business. The so-called “Muslim moderates” in the US-Western lingo actually means “any Muslim who supports the US government policy whatever that may be including invading our own countries”.
2- Show respect towards other countries and accept the fact that they can disagree with your government policy (ie you shouldn’t bash the French because they thought the Iraq war was wrong)
3- Manage conflicts within the international consensus.
4- National interests never justify melding in other sovereign countries affairs (South America, Middle East, etc).
5- A freeze in the sales of weapons around the globe that have been used to kill people in much higher numbers (modern weapons). It is unethical to engage in such business (of death) and to call oneself civilized.
6- US policy is at odds with many European ideals. As such, saying “We in the West” is not only disingenious, it is inaccurate. Many polls in Europe (and even in Canada) showed that a good portion of the population does not even identify with US style democracy, let alone the foreign policy that has caused so much havoc.
7- It is so cheap to buy the innocence of children by giving them “gifts” after killing their families, neighbors and destroying their basic infrastructure. The only thing I would like to see from a US soldier in Iraq is to have enough balls to stand up to the crimes their government have ordered to commit in foreign lands against people they never met or knew. It almost sounds like your work for PSYOS division of the Pentagon.
8- When I read what you wrote, people like me feel like I should turn my back against you. I feel like you want to run our lives, you want to tell us what to do, you want to dictate to us what we should teach our children, what to write in our laws, what clothing we should wear, what policy we should support, what kind of news we should broadcast, what kind of government we ought to have.
Well why do I become your slave? would that make you stop the violence committed by your government against our people?
Jina, I agree that knowing the past, and acknowledging the past are important prerequisites for peace. But once you know, and once you acknowledge, to my mind, ypu will have to do 5 more things to bring peace:
1. We will have to find a common language and talk to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. We will let common sense inspire our thinking, and inform our speech, and to make room for the sensible, we will chuck all the nonsense that constipates our minds.
2. We will have to invest in one another with projects which resonate with hope, which create jobs, and which protect the environment. A Global Economy which is not global is a lie.
3. We will use a new Ideology, along with some well placed Investment Dollars to Sell a Vision of Hope, because without hope there is no life.
4. We will sustain the Hope with programs which are specifically designed to prop a Vision of Hope up and to carry it forward, because a vision is only as good as our success in giving it substance on the ground.
5. And finally, we will fight those who would render our Vision of Hope null and void, but we will fight them emoldened by hope for the future. We will not fight a “War against Terror.” We will fight to realize a Vision of Hope. There is a big difference.
To me, Jina, after knowing the past, and after acknowledging the past, we would have no choice but to sell one another on a Vision of Hope, in order to move this world in a slightly different direction, one that points to the possibility of peace.
Karim, thank you for your post. It certainly gives me plenty to work with.
Let’s take your points one by one:
1. You want me to mind my own business. My business is world peace. Who gave me that job? It just made sense to me, so I choose to do “my work” as best I can.
You say that “Muslim moderates” is just another term for people who support U.S. policy. Not really. Muslim moderates are people with an open mind who are not hell bent on destroying the West for the sake of imposing their extremist version of Islam upon the world.
2. You would like the U.S. to show respect to other countries. I agree. Without respect there is no basis for brokering a peace.
3. You want to manage conflicts with international consensus. That’s great whenever possible, but sometimes you have to do what’s right even at the expense of consensus.
4. You say that: “National interests never justify meddling in other sovereign countries’ affairs.” By that logic Hitler should have been given carte blanche to pursue his evil intentions.
5. You would have us freeze the sale of weapons. Sounds good, but what do you do when the weak justly need your help to fight the evil designs of the strong?
6. You feel that it is wrong to think of the West as one entity, because Western countries disagree about quite a lot. I think it is a term of convenience to express a convergence of common values, one of which is the right to disagree.
7. You feel that it is hypocritical for a soldier to give gifts to a child. I predicted you would. But I used the example to illustrate the possibility of using military power, while at the same time inspiring a sense of hope. I believe in that duality of purpose.
I don’t know what the PSYOS division of the Pentagon is, but it doesn’t sound pretty.
8. You want me to stay out of your life. The trouble is that your life is a part of my life. If I stay out of it, as you wish, I can’t complain later when both of our lives have fallen into disrepair because we paid too much attention to the boundries between us, instead of the commonality we share.
You say I make you a slave. Not really. We are all slaves to the dictates of Common Sense. We either yield to her power, or we’re going down, even as our backs are turned to one another.
Karim, do you really disagree with any of the 5 propositions I addressed to Jina? And if so, exactly why? Because to me, for what it’s worth, there is no sensible alternative.
Jina
I am not exactly white. So fuck you too.
Do I give a fuck if your white or not? Racist holocaust denier is a racist holocaust denier…