WTF is wrong with you Americans?

[bailewen]

No, I don't see this the same way that you do. I do not think that economic violence is preferable to physical violence. It's better to deal with a problem when it's obvious than when it's obscure.

All I can say to that is....wow. Good luck convincing the world of that one. Especially when the physical violence used to be so often used as a primary method of enforcing economic "violence" (have to put it in quotes because it's really only metaphorical violence) But that's sort of a another topic as this thread was supposed to be about gun violence, you know, the physical kind where you shoot people.

In addition to physical safety, what about quality of life?

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

-Thomas Hobbes, 1651

And that was during the age of enlightement. The middle ages were much, much, much worse.

I'd rather have a meaningful life for a shorter period of greater freedom and risking physical safety than to be removed from such danger and challenge at the cost of my life being dull and perfunctory, lived according to endless rules that can eliminate violence only in proportion to their elimination of freedom. See "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) film by Kubrick or novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess.

Well in the middle ages, since you asked, there was neither longer life, nor greater freedom. You would, in the west anyways, have lived under an absolute theocratic autocracy with zero freedom of thought in a society where knife fights often broke out at dinner tables and murder/assasination was still the primary form of governmental change.

Regarding "Alex", I just got through readind a section in the book today that spefically talks about him in a chapter Gladwell calles, "Women's Rights And The Decline of Rape and Battering". During the 1960's in America, we experience a counter-humanitarian revolution. "Civilization" was critiqued and there was a romanticization of our "natural" instincts. Clockwork Orange was certainly part of that national dialogue. It glorified rape and, it should be pointed out, during the "peace and love" era of the 60's, violence in America went up. Our overall trend has still been down but the Kubrik argument kind of fell out of fashion after more and more people (especially women) started noticing that the one's who were really "risking physical safety" in the name of freedom were mostly battered women.

Maybe there is a trend more obvious to you from reading your book, but I don't think it's conclusive in this simple comparison of Vietnam to Afghanistan.

Yes, the trend is less causulties from ALL wars. It's not a simple straight line down. There are spikes here and there. The overall trend has been actually to have more intense, shorter wars. More deaths/day but fewer deaths overall.

I'm interested in your book, but at the moment my attitude is that society is too complex for me to agree with all of your conclusions about the meaning of lower unnatural death rates, war casualty rates, etc.

Well that is where the discussion is. That people are dying violent deaths far less than ever before is an objective fact. Why that is and what it means about our society is entirely open to debate.

But like I said, I do think there's a strong correlation with increased literacy to a reduction in violence among some people, unfortunately not those with power to avoid war.

Interesting you should say that. That was Gladwell's argument too. He says outright that the "why" is hard to say but his theory is that the great humanitarian revolution was kicked off by the creation of non-religious books starting to spead around the world. The act of reading fiction inculcates empathy by putting you in the shoes of someone else. It creates a habit of seeing the world from someone elses point of view and therefore, blurs the "us/them" paradigm. It makes it harder to see "them" as simple less than human monsters. It's an interesting theory.

[gzregorz]

This is what was meant by well regulated militia.

http://www.potowmack.org/knox.html

[Bill]

The middle ages had music and art, philosophy and great buildings. Modern historians now know much more than before about the middle ages.

[gzregorz]

The militia act of 1792 explains what the second amendment is for. There is nothing about overthrowing the government in there.

In fact when the federal government taxed Pennsylvania and meant resistance Washington called on the militia to end the violence.

It's important to know your history and separate it from the propaganda no matter what side of the issue you're on.

[bailewen]

The middle ages had music and art, philosophy and great buildings. Modern historians now know much more than before about the middle ages.

I agree completely. I'm never said they didn't have culture. It's just that part of that culture included bear baiting, cat burning, public torture and so on for entertainment. The reason the life expectancy in the middle ages was around 35 or 40 not because humans were old men at 40. It's because of how the math works out with averages when so many people die violently in their first few years of life. I mentioned the An Lushan rebellion. That was the bloodiest war in all of human history. It took place in China during the Tang Dynasty. The Tang Dynasty, for those who don't know, is generally considered to be the time of the absolute pinnacle of Chinese culture. It's lke their rennaisance. As feudal societies go, they were very cosmopolitan. Most of China's most famous art, calligraphy, poetry etc. dates to that period.

So flowering culture is not realld at odds with mind boggling violence and destruction.

edit:
I found a summary of the death counts online:http://theseedofreason.typepad.com/the_seed_of_reason/2008/05/was-the-20th-century-the-bloodiest-ever.html

...The relevant quote "If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths..."

The precise figure is debatable but even if its out by a factor of 5 the conclusion still holds: For most of human history we were tribal (or mostly tribal) so most of human history was more bloody than the 20th century was.

Secondly I shall show that the 8th century and the 13th century were both more bloody than the twentieth.

In the 8th Century 36 million people died as a result of a single civil war in China known as the "An Shi Rebellion". Adjusting for world population (210 million) this is almost twice as bad as the death toll for the entire 20th century (I assume a high estimate of 231 millions dying in the 20th century). A comparison based on all the warfare, famines and genocides would almost certainly be much worse.

In the 13th Century 40 million people were killed in various wars that can be grouped under the heading of the "Mongol Conquests". The population of the world had grown to 442 million. Never the less, the figures for this campaign itself are enough to show the 13th century to be more bloody than the 20th....

[Steve James]

The Middle Ages are usually defined by the difference between the cultural output in Europe after the fall of the western "Roman Empire" and the "Age of Enlightenment." It doesn't mean that there was no culture. There was plenty in Latin, and the Scholastics translated much Greek philosophy from Arabic. English literature was born during that time, and so was the Magna Carta. Otoh, living conditions led to the plague/s that killed off 1/3 of the population. Of course, since this is a thread on arms, during this period the English made archery training compulsory. Well, then again, it was in preparation for invasions and wars on the continent. Ya know, if anyone thinks people were healthier then, it'd be a great idea to have a reality show where people tried to live that way. I don't mean a survival show. I mean living the same way the average medieval person in a village would live for a year. Did ya'll see "Pillars of the Earth"?

[gzregorz]

Not sure if it was this thread but I read somewhere on the board that the troops used to crush the democracy protests were from Inner Mongolia yet according to what I've read here they were from northern Shaanxi province.

Execution of the Martial Law Order

The 27th Army was tasked with relieving the 38th unit in taking Beijing and securing Tiananmen Square. According to Beijing citizens, the 27th were deemed to be the most brutal during the Tiananmen repression of June 4.[11] The troops of the 27th Army were heavily equipped and seen by citizens as "illiterate 'primitives' who know only how to kill"[12] because most of the troops came from the northern Shaanxi Province. Contrary to widespread rumors at the time, the 27th Army was not under the command of President Yang Shangkun's relative.[13] Often seen as having direct control over the 27th Army,[11] President Yang Shangkun reinforced the belief that it was up to the 27th to suppress the "counterrevolution" in Beijing.[12] Some soldiers had also allegedly been drugged with stimulants and been issued altered ammunition to increase injuries.[2] There were reports of violent shootings of unarmed civilians in the back "without warning"[14] and even reports of the 27th coercing other army troops to kill student protesters.[15] The Washington Post wrote how "The 27th Army [was] widely hated in Beijing."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_L ... ts_of_1989

Here they are from Inner Mongolia.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/06/world ... china.html

On this link they are from Hubei.

The 27th Group Army is a military formation of China's People's Liberation Army and one of three active group armies belonging to the Beijing Military Region. It is based in Shijiazhuang, Hebei and is composed of one armored brigade, two motorized infantry brigades, one artillery brigade, and an anti-aircraft artillery brigade. Its unit ID number is 66267.

Chinese Civil War

The 27th Group Army traces its lineage to the Second World War as part of the 8th Route Army. Sometime following the end of the war the unit was reassigned, redesignated and reorganized as the 9th Column of the Eastern China Field Army. It was initially organized with the 5th and 6th Division and the 3rd Reserve Brigade. The unit was reorganized in March 1947 with the 25th, 26th and 27th Division. Following its reorganization the unit participated in the Shandong campaign. The unit also took part in the Battle of Wei County, where the 29th Regiment, 25th Division earned the title "Wei County Regiment" for the unit's gallant service.

In September 1948 the unit took part in the battle for Jinan. The 9th Column then participated in the battle of Huaihai where it confronted and destroyed the KMT Huang Bo Tao Army Group.

In February 1949 the unit was redesignated and reorganized as the 27th Army. In 1949 the 27th Army was composed of the 79th, 80th and 81st Divisions. The unit took part in the assault on Shanghai.

Korean War

The 27th Corps was part of the first contingent of Chinese forces to be deployed to Korea in October 1950 to fight against United Nations forces. It consisted of the 79th, 80th, 81st and 94th Divisions, though the 94th Division was attached to the 27th Army from its parent unit, the 30th Army.[1][2] During the War, the 27th Army was commanded by Lieutenant General Nie Fengzhi.[3]

In 1950 the 27th and its officers were considered some of the very best within the PLA. During the war roughly 80 percent of two "Hero Regiments" of the 27th Corps were lost to disease. The 27th returned to China in 1952.

Tiananmen Square Protests
Main article: Activities of the PLA During Tiananmen Protests of 1989
In June 1989, the 27th Group Army actively participated in suppressing the student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and imposing martial law on Beijing.

[Michael]

I said it. I was talking about the province of Inner Mongolia within the PRC. What I understand about Tian-a n-men is that the first group of soldiers communicated with the students and sympathized with them quite a bit, so the next group brought in was not proficient in Mandarin and was told the protesters were not students, but were evil baby killers, blah, blah. Maybe I was wrong about the province of origin, or maybe there was a mixture. Several guys on the forum (YM and Kevin) know this topic very, very well, but I just know some of the outlines.

[gzregorz]

Thanks, I just edited my post because I'm finding conflicting reports as to where they are from. I also found this. Which is a report of a possible oncoming civil war between the 27th and the 38th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... PhG65pYr5I

This is discussed on the George Washington University website.

Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 35: June 6, 0500 Hours (June 5, 1989) Two days after the crackdown, this report from the U.S. Embassy stated that a western military attaché had told the U.S. military representative that one PLA unit, the 27th Army, "was responsible for most of the death and destruction at Tiananmen Square on June 3." The 27th, the cable notes, was commanded by the nephew of PRC President Yang Shangkun, a noted hardliner, and was even accused of killing "soldiers from other units run over by the 27th APC's and tanks." The document also indicates that a large contingent of soldiers from the 27th had taken up position on a highway overpass, "and seem poised for attack by other PLA units."

Secretary of State's Morning Summary for June 6, 1989, China: Descent into Chaos

By the morning of June 6, it appeared to some in the State Department that the situation in Beijing was teetering on the brink of political chaos or even civil war. This Department of State morning summary describes clashes among different PLA units, with sources claiming that in many cases the soldiers were sympathetic with the demonstrators and often complicit in the destruction of their own military vehicles. "At least some of the troops still entering Beijing," the document notes, "are arriving without authorization and are intent upon attacking the 27th Army." The document also appears to be anticipating an intensification of the current leadership crisis, reporting rumors that senior leader Deng Xiaoping has died or is near death, and an attempt on the life of Premier Li Peng by one of his own security guards in the Great Hall of the People. Moreover, Shanghai also appeared to be heading toward some kind of violent military crackdown as PLA troops assembled outside the city, ready to move on striking citizens if necessary.

Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, TFCH01--SITREP No. 37: June 7, 0500 Hours Local (June 6, 1989) In this document, Embassy officials report continuing large-scale troop movements around Beijing amid persistent but unconfirmed rumors of splits and clashes among Chinese military units near the Nanyuan Airport. The cable also reports the harassment of citizens by troops trying to enforce martial law.

[Darthwing Teorist]

I said it. I was talking about the province of Inner Mongolia within the PRC. What I understand about Tian-a n-men is that the first group of soldiers communicated with the students and sympathized with them quite a bit, so the next group brought in was not proficient in Mandarin and was told the protesters were not students, but were evil baby killers, blah, blah. Maybe I was wrong about the province of origin, or maybe there was a mixture. Several guys on the forum (YM and Kevin) know this topic very, very well, but I just know some of the outlines.

This is typical of how totalitarian regimes use violence to put down democratic demands: lie to a group of ignorant and violent people in order to pump them and then send them against the demonstrators. A similar thing happened in Romania but miners were used instead of the army (though there were security forces agitators working with the miners): the Mineriads. The first three display this pattern, the others were just violent demonstrations to my knowledge.

[gzregorz]

Yeah, I believe the Soviets did the same in Prague and Budapest back when they were protesting.

[Michael]

Now, in North America, the pattern is that the police install provocateurs into large peaceful protests and these agents do some simple violence like lighting a conveniently abandoned cop car on fire, which is used as a pretext to declare the entire protest illegal and crackdown on everyone present, except those who are actually violent.

[Darthwing Teorist]

I am sure that the above is true. But in Montreal, police tolerated a lot of manifestations that were already illegal (thanks to an emergency law passed by the old provincial government). OTOH the provincial police was cracking up similar manifestations elsewhere in the province which means that either the provincial police is use a political police or that Montreal City Police was more sympathetic to the manifestants (probably someone high up in the hierarchy because a lot of the officers on the ground had enough of these problems: the manifestations lasted quite a while).