tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071757402186489670.post515345835369541457..comments2023-03-25T21:50:50.891+13:00Comments on Bavardess: The history of violenceBavardesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10737120234578385755noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071757402186489670.post-49174883559321145562009-07-31T12:27:06.682+12:002009-07-31T12:27:06.682+12:00Thanks for that ref re: homicide rates. It's i...Thanks for that ref re: homicide rates. It's interesting that there is evidence to show homicides have declined (I'm assuming that is as a percentage of the total population, rather than raw numbers), whereas I bet most people's gut reaction would be to say that rates have gone up, and are going up all the time. <br /><br />On genocide, I think it would depend to some degree on what is considered as included in such acts. If you just counted direct killing (e.g. with guns/weapons and organised forces) I imagine the 20th century would probably far outstrip earlier centuries. But if you include things like smallpox, alcohol and other western European 'gifts' to non-European societies, the numbers might stack up differently. Although perhaps another difference in the 20th century is the deliberate intention to wipe people out, rather than it being a result of imperial or colonising projects.Bavardesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10737120234578385755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071757402186489670.post-8249016846897974332009-07-31T07:41:14.093+12:002009-07-31T07:41:14.093+12:00One of the problems is how many things violence co...One of the problems is how many things violence covers. There have been studies showing that homicide rates have declined substantially since the Middle Ages: Manuel Essner, 'Modernization, self-control and lethal violence', British Journal of Criminology 41 (2001), 618-638 lists some of the studies. <br /><br />On the other hand, the effectiveness of weapons and the ability to maintain large armies has increased dramatically since the Middle Ages, so that it's easier to kill more people, particularly in wars. And <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/global_history_genocide" rel="nofollow">Ben Kiernan</a> who writes on the history of genocide argues for the twentieth century as having a greater scale and intensity of genocide.magistrahttp://magistraetmater.blog.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071757402186489670.post-33454176680573362822009-07-29T09:04:54.224+12:002009-07-29T09:04:54.224+12:00I was thinking about this some more over the last ...I was thinking about this some more over the last few days, and I think it really is a matter of perception of what constitutes 'violence', and of how that violence is conceptualised and represented. Certainly, technology has enabled the level of state violence perpetrated against civilians to reach frightening levels in the 100 years. But I was also thinking about the change in what we consider violence (at least in western societies). I went to an exhibition of Hogarth engravings recently that was full of depictions of casual cruelty to animals and children. Now of course, Hogarth was trying to make a point about his society and not just reflecting an objective reality, but it did make me think about things that weren't even considered abusive then, which are generally seen as wrong now (though they still happen). <br /><br />It's interesting that in the UK and NZ (maybe the US too) the movement against cruelty to animals/ vivisection (founding of the RSPCA etc.) developed alongside movements for women's rights/suffrage, and seems to have frequently engaged the same people as activists.Bavardesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10737120234578385755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071757402186489670.post-50436376256447254632009-07-27T02:54:03.147+12:002009-07-27T02:54:03.147+12:00The violence remained violence, but perhaps it is ...The violence remained violence, but perhaps it is our perception that the motivations and actors shifted. I mean, the 30 Years War was an incredibly bloody period; I seem to remember a prof telling us that about 30 million died by the violence of the period. Certainly the FR brought new 'reasons' for war and violence, but I'm sure I wouldn't draw a line from the FR to Stalin/Hitler that could stand up to scholarly scrutiny. We've certainly got better records of the carnage, don't we? Or do we?Bellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849272391043604637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9071757402186489670.post-18604958496756510832009-07-25T10:15:01.586+12:002009-07-25T10:15:01.586+12:00I think the people who see the glass as half full ...I think the people who see the glass as half full have a sense of history as progress; that things are better now. Those who see the glass as half empty have a sense of "The Good Old Days, when things were simpler."<br /><br />I don't know that the world is a more violent place than it once was; I think the violence is different. I was going to comment on structural violence as an example, but would need to ponder more.Diggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851524413793098615noreply@blogger.com