The Thin Veneer of Civilization

[Chris McKinley]

For those that ask, "Can't we all just get along?". The answer is still no.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11 ... index.html

[klonk]

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

"One sword keeps another in its sheath" --ancient proverb

[qiphlow]

For those that ask, "Can't we all just get along?". The answer is still no.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11 ... index.html

this doesn't really surprise me. it's easy for us to hold to our views of right and wrong while life is going well, but how many of us could do that if the shit really hit the fan? i'm sure there are a few, but far more would do whatever they had to to keep from being seen as one of "them."

[fuga]

The other part of the article that was interesting to me focused on the propaganda and mind control - the demonizing of the enemy and the outsider.

The propaganda machine portrays the victim group as less than human. In Rwanda, the Hutus called their Tutsi neighbors 'cockroaches.' In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge said their victims were "worms." To the Nazis, Jews were "vermin."

Dehumanization is the most powerful psychological tool used in all mass murder and genocides, Zimbardo said. "Dehumanization blurs your vision. You look at these people and you do not see them as human."

After dinner in the city last weekend, I stumbled upon this book http://www.phaidon.com/Default.aspx/Web/iron-fists-9780714848464 which shows the intentional use of branding and messaging to control the masses and drive them to support genocide.

* This provocative survey reveals how four of the most destructive dictatorships of the 20th century - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia and Communist China - used graphic design to sell their messages
* Explores each regime’s distinctive strategies for seducing public opinion and infiltrating people’s lives, in media ranging from logos, flags, typefaces and posters to children's books and figurines
* Remarkable archival photographs set the disturbingly powerful graphic devices in historical context
* The perceptive text analyzes how these four regimes established the most effective modes of visual propaganda, which were later adopted and adapted by many other dictatorships

So part of the question to ask is what eroded the values of neighborliness and "getting along" even if they are the thin veneers that separate us from savagery? How do people get dragged away from what they know is right into blindly accepting the propaganda? Are we so swayed by branding?

Or do you really believe that civilization is a thin veneer for the savagery that lies at the heart of all humans?

Unanswerable questions, but good stuff to ponder.

[Ian]

There are several interesting studies on 'us and them' - e.g. the Stanford Prison Experiment, mentioned in the article, and the Milgram Experiment.







One of Gavin De Becker's arguments - and I think he's spot on - is that if we want to understand and predict violence, it's not helpful to demonize people who commit 'inhuman' atrocities. We can only understand by recognizing our shared humanness.

[Andy_S]

Excellent point by Ian.

Want to make it much, much simpler? Virtually all societies have strictures against extre-judicial murder - Western democracies more than most. Yet, as (I think) John Keegan pointed out, it is relatively easy for any one of us males to be placed, by society, in a situation where we will murder perfect strangers in horrific ways, and be lauded and rewarded for it. In fact it happened twice to our societies in the last century. Nothing to do with genocide - this is a description of war as fought by conscript armies.

As for genocide:
Well yes, it has happened and probably will happen again. Frankly, however, it is not that common. You can be as much of a glass half-empty guy as you wish, but I don't anticipate myself, my family or my neigbours being involved, either as perpetrators or victims, in genocidal activities in our lifetimes.

There again, I have been wrong before.

[DeusTrismegistus]

You know the romans were way more civilised. They had the right idea, conquer and assimilate. Don't kill them all, make them want to be you and join you in conquering their enemies and stuff.

[Ian]

I remember reading in New Scientist that only about 20% of the allied troops in WW1 and WW2 actually fired at the enemy, even while being fired upon. The rest fired in the general direction of the enemy, but with no intention of hitting anything.

Interesting, huh?

[Daniel]

Removed.

[Darthwing Teorist]

Hotel Rwanda illustrated this phenomenon on the silver screen. It's a movie really worth seeing.

[Darthwing Teorist]

Daniel, thanks, now I have a few more items to put on my Christmas list.

[Plante]

The Dave Grossamn debate (it's always good to have many point of views) : http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

[Daniel]

Removed.

[Andy_S]

Grossman makes some interesting points (most made earlier by Keegan and Holmes - who he quotes the be-jesus out of) but his main point of reference (which Ian is also citing, though how it made the New Scientist, I don't know) is General SLA Marshall's "Men Against FIre." Based on post-battle interviews with troops, he concluded that around 15 percent of WWII US soldiers did NOT fire their weapons in combat. He continued his research in Korea and Vietnam.

But...there is a big "however" to Marshall's work.

Marshall was almost laughed out of the British staff college when he presented his findings, and I am told that US officers have pretty much the same view. In Vietnam the distinguished American combat soldier, David Hackworth, aware of Marshall's reputation, was eager to work with Marshall - but ended up questioning his integrity and his research methodologies.

"The Men Who Stare at Goats" is interesting, but laughable.

[Chris McKinley]

It's all worth perusing and pondering, but we must be careful not to go into it "pre-agendized", or we will find whatever it is we are looking for in any of those books. Also, please remember that reading books such as these shouldn't occur at the later end of one's martial arts career, when we're supposed to care about deeper subjects and have already formed our opinions, but at the beginning, so that the insights gained can guide our choices in training.