First. Congratulations on making it to Thanksgiving break. Second semester is so close, I can almost taste it. I don't know if anyone is going to check the blog over break, but since the event was somewhat timely I thought I would post nonetheless.
On Wednesday, November 21th's New York Times front page there was an article about a new Supreme Court case that the justices have just agreed to hear in the spring about the right to bear arms. Everyone should remember this controversial 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. This is the first time the court will so clearly state if they believe everyday citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear firearms.
The link to the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This got me thinking about how genocides are carried out and what enables them to actually happen. We have studied about the pre-genocidal societies (and some of us even wrote an essay about it) that can lead to willing participants as well as some of the psychological and social reasons for participating or standing against genocidal actions. But this current event got me thinking about the actual action of a genocide, or the many actions that make up a genocide. If a genocide is a premeditated act committed with the intent to destroy, in part or in whole, a group of people, what factors in a society physically let a person "destroy" another? I immediately thought of weapons, firearms being in that category, and the relative freedom that many people have to own a gun which could potentially take away another person's life.
And so my questions to you all are:
Can a genocide happen without weapons available?
What methods would perpetrators have to use if guns were not easily attainable?
If individuals, albeit many consider themselves part of a group, commit acts of genocide, should those people be allowed to have weapons that could lead to mass murder?
After some critical genocide thinking I hope you all have a happy turkey day!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I believe a genocide cannot occur without any weapons at all, although it can occur without guns. Without any weapons, perpetrators would have to rely only on their own fighting ability, and so relies on immediate combat, causing it to be very hard to have such a large scale murder. also, for arm-to-arm combat to be used as a tool for genocide the number of perpetrators would likely have to equal or exceed the numbers of victims - which again would be harder to happen. also, the act of actually beating another human being could easily have a more direct impact of people's conscience and cause less people to want to participate.
just a though. but, without guns I think a genocide can still happen. there are many other forms of weaponry that can be used to kill thousands of people at a time. like bombs...
I don't think there needs to be an armed populace for a genocide to occur. Studies of genocide we've done in class, like the Holocaust, have demonstrated that genocides can be carried out in a centralized manner. The country's armed forces, like the SS in Germany, do most of the genocidal actions. The rest of the country just has to stay either uninformed or obedient, and doesn't need to participate in the killings.
In this case, not having access to arms could even hypothetically hinder resistance to the genocide: it would be more difficult to create rebel groups against the genocidal government without weapons to fight against them.
If the genocide is done in a decentralized way (like, as I learned from a classmate's essay, in Rwanda, by inciting peasants to kill using means like a radio station broadcasting propaganda) then having citizens with easy access to arms does seem essential.
I agree with Tal and Diego that genocides can occur without the use of arms. I think genocide is a lot about majority vs. minority and struggles over power. Genocides can be carried out through starvation, for instance, if one group deprives another of land, food, or resources. I think any time a basic necessity can be withheld from a group, which can be done if the oppressed group has no way of defending themselves, a genocide can occur.
I agree with Diego in that in this case, citizens losing the right to bear arms would actually make it easier for genocide to happen, if it was the government committing the genocide. The second amendment refers to a citizen's right to own guns, and was created largely to protect American citizens from the government (at the time the British Crown). In times of genocide, guns could be used, like in pre-U.S. to protect individuals from the government.
A side note: one of the measures enacted by the Nazi government before the holocaust was to rescind Jews' rights to bear arms.
Another note: I highly doubt that taking guns out of citizens' hands will lead to genocide. It will, however, be a step towards stopping what some call a genocide against low-income groups in areas prone to gang-related gun violence
Oops, forgot something.
In response to what would be used if guns were not available: in the Cambodian genocide, bullets were considered too expensive, so people were killed by being bludgeoned to death using rocks and crow bars and the like.
first, to address the constitutional right to bear arms...
there was a news story about a man in texas, where it is legal to bear arms if you feel threatened. (or something to that effect... it might be more specific than that)
anyway, the man saw two burglars steal bags of items from his neighbors' house. as he watched, he called 911 to get the police to stop the men.
the burglars then began breaking into his house. the 911 had just answered his call and was dispatching police. however, the man felt threatened, and he grabbed his gun.
he waited for the police to come as the burglars pillaged his house. the police still hadn't arrived even as the burglars were about to leave.
because he felt threatened and he didn't want the burglars to get away, he shot at them, killing one and missing the other.
in california, he would be tried for the murder of the burglar. in texas, he was acting in self-defense, so he can't be tried for murder. what do you guys think?
and as for genocides occuring without weapons... i think, sadly, people will always find ways to kill each other (whether with guns, swords, or stones). taking guns away from citizens wouldn't prevent genocide.
also, many of the genocides are committed by the government (or sect of government) that has access to military weapons. taking guns away from citizens probably wouldn't make that much of a difference.
-coe
Post a Comment