Kill Them, Or We Will Kill You–Rawandan Docudrama

December 26, 2008

[This is a fictional ducudrama on the Rwandan genocide first published on June 5, 2005]

I met him at a dinner party. I will never forget him. Even years later, when I see blood, mine from a shaving nick, my wife’s from a kitchen knife, or in a TV drama, I can’t help but think of him and his experience in Rwanda. There were ten of us at the dining room table, and he was a thin black man with a narrow face and large eyes who sat on my right. Soon after we sat down, he leaned toward me and said, “I’m Dr. Laurent Nkongoli.” He paused and smiled. “I’m head of medical research at the Samoeun Institute of Medicine in New York.”

He knew about my research on democide, and soon told met he had been in Rwanda during the Great Genocide. So, when a month later I was about to write an article on the genocide, I invited him to lunch. Laurent was open and frank about his experience, and oh yes, what a story he had to tell. I soon learned that he and his nephew had barely escaped with their lives. I remember well what he told me:


At the beginning of the genocide in April of 1994, Laurent’s nephew, Seth Sendashonga, was a student at the National University of Rwanda in Butare. There was some concern among Tutsi students and faculty at the university about massacres of Tutsi unleashed by the Rwandan Armed Forces in Kigali, the capital. But by Rwandan standards, that was a long distance away. Few worried about it.

So all were taken by surprise when, on the morning of April 10, the Hutu Interahamwe paramilitary militia and Hutu Army soldiers surrounded the university. Once assured that no one could escape, the head of the militia, Stanislas Munyakazi, passed out lists of the Tutu and moderate Hutu students and professors who must be murdered. Each name had a building and a dorm room or office number designated next to it. Consulting the list, squads of three men each entered the buildings and searched from room to room.

Soon, Hutu professors and students whose sympathies lay with those instigating the massacre joined the squads and helped identify those to be killed. They took up machetes themselves and joined the search, using their knowledge of the campus to seek out possible hiding places. Larger squads broke into the classrooms where classes were in session and forced Tutsi professors and students out of the classrooms, marching them through the building and into the university parking lot, where a large group of militia waited.

The militia had the greatest trouble in the university’s Leopold Library. Most had never seen the inside of a library and were unaware of the maze of book stacks. When they discovered that these provided an ideal hiding place and started to search them, they lost themselves in the winding, narrow aisles between the stacks.

This delay saved Seth. He was then a gangly young Tutsi who wanted to be a doctor like his Uncle Laurent, and work at Butare Hospital. Seth was in his second year of premedical courses. He’d been looking for a United Nations book of world health statistics in the Government Documents section on the first floor of the library when he heard shots fired in the parking lot. He rushed over to join other students who were staring out the windows. They could see the parking lot, the trucks parked there, and the militia and some soldiers moving around—all armed. Several large objects lay on the ground. They looked like bodies. Seth opened his eyes wide and gasped.

One of the students at the window called to another, “What’s going on?”

“I don’t know.”

But Seth knew. His parents had heard about the genocide in the capital, but Laurent’s cousin, who was in the local Butare government, had said that this was a minor outbreak by Hutu extremists, and not to worry. Nonetheless, they’d told Seth to take a knife with him when he went to school.

Most of the students at the window looked like Hutu. As soon as Seth realized what was happening, he backed away, whirled, and tore back through the stacks. In his haste to escape, he bounced and pushed off one shelf after another, until his flight was marked by the sound of falling books. He slammed out the rear fire escape door into the dumpster area behind Florence Hall and dashed across the pavement to the dumpster. Panting, he looked into it. No good. It was barely large enough for him to hide in. He would be trapped if the militia searched this area, which they were sure to do.

So far he had kept his backpack with him. With his heart pounding against his ribs, he knelt and opened it and tossed aside his books and notes, leaving his knife, water, and the lunch his mother had made for him. He pulled out the nine-inch knife. Sunlight trembled along the length of its blade. He swung the pack over one shoulder so that he could easily drop it, if the need arose. Hugging the building’s wall, knife in one hand, he crept on shaking legs around the corner of the building and into a narrow lane between it and the library. This led to the woods that bordered the parking lot.

His body had known. His instincts had carried him this far. Now his laggard mind caught up. As he slowly crept along, he suddenly realized how very near death he was, as close as if he were about to stumble into a pride of hungry lions. He knew that if even one militiaman or soldier with a rifle came into the lane, he was dead. His whole body started shuddering with the hammering of his heart. He had a hard time getting his breath; he almost fell away from the wall. But it was keep moving or die.

He glimpsed a sliver of the parking lot at the end of the lane. He slowed. Now he could see two militiamen with guns standing at the edge of the lot, obviously stationed there to prevent anyone escaping the massacre. Seth didn’t realize he had been holding his breath until it came out in a wheeze when he realized he was in shadow between the buildings, and the militiamen had not seen him.

Little by little, Seth slinked backwards until the parking lot was out of sight, and then he lay down and sprawled in the lane as though he had been shot. He kept his right hand with the knife in it tucked under his stomach so that he could rapidly pull it out, and he partly covered his head and one eye with his backpack. Trembling, his stomach knotted, he waited.

Now he heard distant screams and cries, gunshots, yells, and cheers—the rumbling symphony of mass murder. A slight breeze carried the acrid odor of gunpowder, the unforgettable smell of blood, and the stench of human excrement evacuated in death or deathly fear.

The cries and shouts, the gunshots and screams grew louder—they came from the parking lot now. Seth slowly inched himself forward so he could see whether the commotion would cover his escape. The two militiamen had joined others who were shooting and hacking with their machetes at a group of men and boys. The militia showed no mercy. Some seemed to enjoy the Tutsis’ pain, and cut open their stomachs or hacked off their legs or arms so that they bled to death in agony. Within minutes all the male victims were on the ground, some writhing in pain and covered with blood, some moaning.

Part of Seth’s view of this slaughter had been obscured by a large group of female students and older women the militia had separated from the males. Now they turned on the females, who were huddled together, screaming and crying. A few fell to their knees, begging for mercy. One woman cried, “Please, kill me fast. Now. No torture. Please.”

More here

Leopold’s Congo—A docudrama

December 20, 2008

I just provided the cold statistics on King Leopold’s democide in his Congo. But, how did it become his? Unfortunately, King Leopold of Belgium was an intelligent man. He used his brilliance to wield his kingly authority and prestige in conjunction with lies and deception to convince the major nations of the world at the Berlin Conference of 1885 to grant him exclusive ownership of the Congo in Africa. He was so deceptive that these nations did not even know at the time that this was what they were doing. They had no idea they were giving this man an area that was larger than that of England, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy combined. They thought, as Leopold deceived them into believing, that they were acting against slavery and promoting the humanitarian development of the African natives.

With his control over all land in the Congo, which he cleverly called the Congo Free State, no native could own land; tribes and native empires that had worked and farmed certain land for centuries no longer owned their land. Leopold owned it all—every stream and lake, every mountain and hill, every farm and plantation, every town and village. His!

Leopold granted rights to companies in which he secretly held at least 50 percent ownership. And they proceeded to exploit the Congo’s resources without competition—Leopold would allow none. He set up police forces and a governance of the Congo under his total control, and each of the companies were encouraged to set up their own company police. From then on, profit for Leopold and his companies were the first, second, and third goals of his administration.”

At the point of a gun, Leopold turned the Congo, over seventy-six times the size of his own country of Belgium, into a prison of slaves. No native had any rights. Their only purpose in life was to serve Leopold’s greed. They were forced to build a railroad for him; to transport his ships, disassembled into thousands of heavy and clumsy pieces, to inland lakes; and to produce ivory and rubber for his companies and his vast ego so that he could buy or build villas for his teenage mistress, a former prostitute, and build throughout Belgium monuments to himself.

But, these words like the statistics of his incredible democide are cold, heartless. So, to give some feeling to this horror, I wrote the following docudrama. It is based on actual reports and stories of native life under Leopold.

The Congo Free State, 1906

The white man came at midday. My wife Gili and I were weeding the village field planted with cassava and maize, while outside her hut, my sister Abo was making banana flour by pounding up dried bananas. We saw two men hurry to the Chief’s large hut in the village and soon Liamba, our Chief, came out and had the drums beaten to summon everyone from the fields.

When we all gathered around him, he told us that soldiers with red caps and guns and accompanied by white men were coming to the village.

He said that we should put out food for them so that they would eat and pass on without bothering us. So we went into the fields and collected in baskets cassava, plantains, and ground nuts and brought them back to the Chief’s hut. We also collected chickens and goats from around the village.

When the soldiers entered our village they gathered the food, chickens, and goats together, and afterward they surrounded the village and the white man strode up to Liamba and shot him in the head. At the same time, the soldiers made us sit on the ground while they searched each of the huts, forcing everyone out, including even the young children and women nursing their babies. One man tried to escape and a soldier shot him. He cut off the dead man’s hand and put it into his pocket. We learned later that the hand was proof he had used his bullet to kill a native. Sometimes soldiers would kill animals with their guns, and cut off the hands of living people to prove they had not wasted bullets.

Fida, a friend of mine, at first didn’t understand what the soldiers were demanding. A soldier prodded him with a knife to sit on the ground. A white man saw this and commanded a soldier to grab Fida and drag him by his feet to the space in front of us. A soldier told us to watch and see what happened when we didn’t obey.

Fida trembled as he was pulled to his feet by two soldiers and forced to strip. They made him lay face down on the ground, and one soldier grabbed his hands and the other his feet. A third soldier wielded what we learned to call the chicotte. This was a special whip made of a long strip of corkscrew-shaped, sun-dried hippopotamus hide. It had sharp edges that cut into the skin of those whipped with it.

The soldier started whipping Fida’s buttocks. The first stroke left a red line. As more strokes lashed his body, Fida writhed on the ground, and ended up getting his hips and stomach lashed. Some strokes fell on his genitals, and he shrieked with pain. He began bleeding badly in huge rivulets. Finally he could do no more than moan. We lost track of the number of lashes, but surely there were many more than fifty. Long before the soldier was finished, Fida stopped moving or making any sound. Out of breath, the soldier eventually stopped. He grabbed Fida’s hair and pulled up his head. Fida had bitten through his tongue. He was dead.

A man dressed in blue with a white man alongside him told us that each man would have to collect a basket full of coagulated sap he called rubber from a particular vine that grows in the jungle. If we didn’t fill our basket, we would get whipped like the one dead on the ground. To make sure that we fulfilled our quota and didn’t run away, our wives and children would be held hostage.

A soldier handed me a piece of rubber vine so I would know what it looked like, and had me pass it around. We were told the best way to coagulate the sap was to spread it on our body as soon as we tapped the vine. We must not get dirt, leaves and twigs, or stones in it. We were also prohibited from cutting the vine down, and should do no more than make a cut to drain the sap.

We were separated from the women. I saw my wife crying as she and my sister and the other women and children were driven into one of the large huts. The soldiers packed them all in, and they had hardly enough room to sit.

The soldiers gave each of us a basket and pushed us with their rifles, telling us to go. They gave us no food, nothing to protect us from the rain, nothing but a knife.

I went deep into the forest looking for the vine. I could not find any the first day. When night came, I climbed a tree and slept in a fork in its trunk. It rained during the night; by morning, my teeth were chattering. At dawn I started searching again, more to get warm than to find a vine. I ate berries along the way and found a banana patch and filled my stomach.

Toward nightfall, I found a thick rubber vine and made three cuts in its trunk. As the sap came out I cupped it in my hands and smeared it on my body. Night had fallen by the time the sap coagulated. Pulling it off my body was painful—the strips took body hair along with them. I laid the strips in my basket, then searched in the moonlight for tealeaves.I climbed a tree, found a spot to sit, and wrapped the leaves around my body for warmth.

It took me three more days to fill the basket, since I could only find two more rubber vines. On the last one I was desperate. I hacked it down and dug up the roots with my knife to get as much sap as I could. With my basket full, I headed back to the village, which took two more days. When I reached it, I handed the basket over to a soldier sitting at a table with a white man.

The white man emptied the basket on the table and moved the strips of rubber around. He said something to the soldier, who grabbed my arm and took me to the hut where they were holding my wife and sister hostage. Five or six soldiers were sitting around the hut, paying no attention to three others who were raping Oleka, a young girl. One was holding her arms. Another spread her legs. A third raped her. I tried not to look.

The soldier I was following told me to call to my relatives inside the hut. I did so, and Gili and Abo, each very thin and weak, crawled out. I felt weak myself, but I managed to pick my wife up and put her over my shoulder. With my free hand I lifted my sister by her arm and half dragged her to the shade of a tree. I got water in a bucket from the nearby stream and gave it to them, and a soldier gave me nuts and bananas in a pot from which I fed them.

When she gathered her strength to talk, Gili told me that they had been given only some nuts and a little water, and that two babies, three children, and two of the women, Ejum and Katinga, had died in the hut. She and my Abo had been repeatedly raped, as had all the younger women in the hut. Beautiful Kalonji had fought the soldiers, and had been knocked to the ground, stripped, and whipped to death with the chicotte. Her bloody body, “So cut up it looked like bloody strips of meat all entwined together,” Gili said, had been left for days in front of the hut as a lesson.

I wanted to kill the soldiers, but what could I do? They had taken the rubber-cutting knife away from me, and they would shoot me before I could kill one, then as a warning to others they would kill Gili and Abo. So I swallowed my rage, but could not prevent my tears. For one week longer the soldiers waited for more rubber to be brought from the forest. Finally the last man came out of the forest in the morning, but with a basket only partly full. As soon as the soldiers saw this, they took the basket away from him, gave it to the white man, and pulled the man under a tree. They tied his hands behind him with a long rope, threw the other end of it over a tree limb, and pulled him up by his tied hands until his toes were barely touching the ground. They tied the rope to another tree trunk, and left him like that. He watched as the soldiers brought his wife and daughter out of the hut where they kept all the women, pulled them over in front of him, and shot each of them in the stomach so they would die slowly. Husband and father, he could do nothing but watch them die. Before walking away, the soldiers chopped a hand off each of the women for proof that they did not misuse their bullets.

Gili, Abo, and I could only watch, shaking with fear. The soldiers had brought several large baskets with them. Inside were rusty chains. The soldiers told us to line up near the baskets. Then they clamped an iron collar around each person’s neck, and chained us together in one continuous line. We were given large, heavy baskets containing rubber, food, carvings, ivory, and other things stolen from our village, which they told us to carry on our heads. Some of us also carried goats. When we were all loaded, the soldiers led us onto the trail they had followed to our village.

Day after day we walked, stumbled, tottered, and staggered, sometimes pulled forward by our chains, sometimes held back. In the heat, our sweat made the iron collars chafe our necks, and soon we had open and bleeding sores around them. The soldiers gave us little food and water. We undulated and swayed up and down and sideways, like a giant millipede drunk from Tembo, its many legs seeming to move in different directions, but the body nonetheless moving forward.

I moved in a daze, tugging with or against the chains, watching my feet so that I did not trip. The chains made a continuous clinking noise. When one of us fell, others close by on the chain were also pulled down. Some spilled their baskets, and as they got up the soldiers whipped them with the chicotte. Diur, the woman in front of me, had carried her baby for the first two days, but when she started to straggle and slow up the line, a soldier jerked her baby boy out of her arms and threw him into the woods, where the animals would get him.

The older people were having trouble. They steadied the load on their head with one hand while supporting themselves with a pole or branch. Knees bent, they lurched along. The fourth day, our chains pulled us to a stop. Farther back in the line, old Mobyem sat down and refused to move. A soldier jabbed him with his gun, but he just sat there looking at his feet. Finally, two of the soldiers took out their knifes and stabbed him repeatedly, and he fell over with blood gushing from the wounds. They unchained him, took off his collar, and chained together the ones behind and ahead of him. They redistributed the load he had been carrying.

More people died or were killed, and it meant that our loads got heavier. Each day was more horrible than the last. On the most horrible of all days, I lifted myself off the ground at first light to eat a rotten piece of meat mixed with berries, nuts, and squirming larvae that a soldier passed out. My wife Gili would not get up when he kicked her. I leaned over her and gently called her name. “My lovely Gili, I said, “please get up. The soldiers will kill you.”

She didn’t move. She was dead.

The next day my sister Abo went mad and tried to run for the forest, but she only dragged the rest of us off the trail behind her, and fell screaming. A soldier shot her.

After two weeks we reached the large village of Nyangwby by the side of a lake. There were many white men around. The soldiers led us up to a large white man’s boat. Black smoke billowed out of a big pipe sticking out of the top of it. Men on the boat removed our iron collars and chains, and led those of us carrying rubber onto the boat. They told us to dump the baskets into a very large hole.

Different soldiers took us to a large hut where strangers from another village fed us. Afterward, with soldiers standing around us, the strangers branded us on the leg with a hot iron. They also told us we would be slaves of the white men in the village, and that if we tried to escape they would whip us to death with the chicotte.

That evening, members of the strangers’ kingdom attacked the village. They used arrows and knives, and killed many soldiers and white men during the battle. I escaped into the forest. Two days later Mr. Sestok, a white Protestant missionary, and two Congo converts found me on a trail. I was almost dead.

He died three days later from an infection that developed in the wounds the metal collar made on his neck. Before his death, he told his story to Henry Sestok of the Baptist Missionary Society.”

Exemplifying the Horror Of Some European Colonization—Leopold’s Congo

December 20, 2008

[The following was originally posted on the H-NET List on the History and Theory of Genocide, November 2, 2001]

 Having just read Adam Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa, and followed up on its reviews and what I could find about the Congo Free State on the internet….

I’m aghast at the democide I missed. It is probably over many millions, possibly 10 million murdered or more from 1885 when The Berlin Conference formally recognized the Congo Free State (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo-formerly Zaire) to 1908 when Belgium took it over as a colony. The Congo Free State was the private land, not a colony, of King Leopold II of Belgium to do with whatever he wanted.

And the massive killing did not stop when Belgium took it over.
But amazingly, although the death toll is in the many millions, far exceeding what Germany did to the Hereros (I get a toll of 55,000), the incredible terror, slavery, and death imposed on the Congo natives by one man has been virtually ignored in books on genocide. For example, there is nothing on it in Chalk and Jonassohn’s The History and Sociology of Genocide, Kuper’s Genocide, and Charny’s two-volume Encyclopedia of Genocide. There is one paragraph without estimates of the toll in Totten, Parsons, and Charny’s Century of Genocide.
This neglect cannot be due to lack of historical information. There was a vigorous international movement at the time led by the Congo Reform Movement, and involving many notables of the day, such as Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Booker T. Washington, and Bertrand Russell. Debates over what to do about the Congo involved the legislatures and Presidents, or Prime Ministers of the United States, England, France, and Germany.

Yet, this democide far surpassed in human corpses most every democide in the 20th Century except that by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. This mind-boggling democide has been flushed down the memory hole. Why this should be so is beyond this post, but should be the subject of study in itself.

To add embarrassment to this neglect, the French in their Congo taken over in 1900 (now the Republic of the Congo) copied Leopold’s system of rule and exploitation and thus may have murdered several million Africans as well. No work on genocide that I have mentions this.
Just to see how far off I was in my eight-year search for any and all 20th Century genocide, I went through all the tables in my Statistics of Democide and tabulated cases of colonial democide I recorded there.

For colonies by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, in Africa and Asia, 1900 and after, my grand democide total is 870,000 murdered. This measures a human tragedy by itself, but is nonetheless puny in comparison to just the many millions murdered by Leopold in his private Congo Free State.

I have only a low of 25,000 for this. I recorded no democide for Belgium, although it may have been responsible for close to a million once it took over the Congo. And I get just 22,000 forced laborers murdered by the French in building a railroad in the French Congo.

Now, we have these estimates:

  • Britannica, “Congo Free State” claims that the population declined from 20 or 30 million to 8 million.
  • A 1904 report by Roger Casement’s estimated that as many as 3 million Congolese died since 1888 (cited in Gilbert’s History of the Twentieth Century; also in Colin Legum, Congo Disaster (1972).
  • Peter Forbath (The River Congo (1977) claims that at least 5 million killed.
  • John Gunther (Inside Africa (1953) estimates 5-8 million deaths.
  • Adam Hochschild (Leopold’s Ghost mentioned above) estimates 10 million, or half the original population from 1885 to 1920.
  • Fredric Wertham, A Sign For Cain: A Exploration of Human Violence (1966) estimates that the population of the Congo dropped from 30M to 8.5M, a loss of 21.5 million.

As a result of all this, I’ve reevaluated the colonial toll. Where exploitation of a colony’s natural resources or portering was carried out by forced labor (in effect slavery of a modern kind), as it was in all the European and Asian colonies, then the forced labor system built in its own death toll from beatings, punishment, coercion, terror, and forced deprivation. There were differences in the brutality of the system, the British being the least brutal and Leopold and the French, Germans, and Portuguese the worst. We all know what the Soviet gulag was like. These colonizers turned Africa into one giant gulag, with each colony being like a separate camp.

Based on this research, I’m willing to estimate that over all of colonized Africa and Asia 1900 to independence, the democide was something like 50 million. This is way above my original 870,000. Even 50 million may be too conservative. If this figure were roughly close, however, then I must raise my total murdered by governments in the 20th Century from 174,000,000 to 223,000,000.

We should all weep. 

Some List Exchanges
on the Above”

November 6, 2003
Regarding of my reestimate of the colonial democide due to the European powers, one scholar asks: “I am curious to know, though, how Rummel’s arguments might contribute to a rethinking of the relationship between democracy and democide/genocide. I am far from an expert on fin-de-siecle and early-20th century European politics, but it seems to me that both Belgium and France could have claimed, at the time that they and/or their chartered companies were perpetrating massive atrocities, to be as democratic as any states then in existence. Does Prof. Rummel have any thoughts on this?

1. Does this change my evaluation of the relationship between power and democide, freedom and nondemocide?
No. It reinforces it. King Leopold II had absolute power over the Congo Free State. It was his. Belgium had nothing to do with it. And he created and slave and lethal land on the order of Stalin’s slave labor gulag.

2. What about when the Congo Free State was transferred to Belgium in 1908? Belgium colonial officials went to extreme lengths to prevent information about the Congo from getting out. particularly to the people.. For example, the testimony before a Commission set up to investigate what was going on in the Congo was suppressed. Even Belgium’s own ambassadors in the 1970s, over 60 years later, were forbidden from looking at the secret files. Nonetheless, due to the legislature’s demands and overview, conditions in the Congo were gradually improved after it took it over..

3. What about France, which did directly govern the French Congo in which conditions were not much different from the Congo Free State?
The Story is similar. The French colonial office kept secret information about events in the colony and tight control over who went there and what they could say. Nothing negative was allowed out.
We have here the problem in democracies, especially regarding foreign affairs, whether war, security threats, or colonialism. Although the democracy itself may be open, with freedom of speech and the diffusion of power, centers of near absolute power may be set up that operate internally and over their mandate as though a dictatorial system. The intelligence services (e.g., CIA), the military in time of war (e.g., Hiroshima), or the colonial administration (e.g., France)

4. What does the greed and bloody profits of concessions in the colonies say about capitalism?
Nothing. There was no capitalism, no free market, no competition, and no free trade. The companies that operated were given special dispensation and military protection to be monopolies over a specific region or trade. In the case of the Congo Free State, for example, Leopold only allowed most concession into the Congo if he had at least controlled 50 percent of their stocks. This was industrial socialism at its worst. 

November 4, 2003

A mystery about the black hole the Congo Free State and the French Congo have fallen into is the interest among genocide scholars in the Herero genocide that took place during this period. Here about 55,000 were murdered by the Germans, while next door and ignored by current scholars was the ongoing murder of many millions. Every book on genocide in general covers the Herero; none covers the Congo, except for a nonspecific paragraph here and there. 

November 6, 2003
German Africa was similar to the Congo in the forced labor and exploitation of the natives, with the one major exception of the Hereros. As a result of their rebellion, the Germans intentionally tried to kill them off root and branch. This meets the Convention’s definition of genocide. Otherwise, in German colonies, as in the Congo Free State, French Congo, and other colonies, natives were murdered in the process of their exploitation as slave labor, or when they got in the way. The were not killed because of their tribal membership or race as such.

But this is where the scandal of the many definitions of genocide used by scholars hits home. By the Genocide Convention’s standards, only the Hereros involved genocide, and maybe some other isolated cases of minor significance. But by Charny’s definition, and that Chalk and Jonassohn implicitly use, which is murder by government, all the mass murders in the colonies were genocide.
I suspect there are two reasons for the emphasis on the Herero. One is that it is manifestly genocide as defined by the Convention. Second, the Germans did it, which then plays into all kinds of theories about national character, precursors of the Holocaust, The Kaiser and the causes of WWI, etc.

Anyway, the significance of the different treatment is that an incredible amount of democide (genocide in Charny’s terms) has been missed, and this affects our attempt to get at causes and conditions, or most fundamentally, our understanding.

I hope some Ph.D. student takes a dissertation interest in this whole question.

Explaining Genocide

December 18, 2008

[First published October 5, 2003] There is much useful discussion on the internet of the motivations, rationality, or intentions of the Germans who participated in or planned the Holocaust. Much of this is off the mark, and perhaps I can clarify in what way.

Understanding the intentions of another person is very difficult. It is a black box that often we cannot penetrate, even for our loved ones. Even simple cases can mislead us. Say I get up from my computer, go to the refrigerator, take out ice water, pour it into a glass, and drink it. What was my intention? To satisfy my thirst seems obvious. But, it may be I had an itch in my throat and was trying to eliminate it. Or, I read that I’m supposed to drink three glasses of water a day, and though I wasn’t thirsty, I was trying to fulfil the quota. Or, I thought the water tasted odd this morning, and was just testing it this afternoon. And so on.

When intentions or so opaque, how do we deal with them? One way is to try to understand why a person does what they do. We try to get inside their head, see things as they do, look at the circumstances of their actions, see how they have behaved formerly, view what they have said about their actions, and so on. This has been the usual approach to assessing motives in the Holocaust. In effect, this treats a person’s intentions as part of their life path, which includes sayings, behavior, and associated conditions. “Sweetheart,” my wife says, “I’m going to the store” How do I know this is her intention? From my total knowledge of her. Also, she has gone out to play tennis with her friends and is an hour late returning. How do I know her intentions-why she is late? From past experience, I understand that she has probably gone shopping.

Similarly, people have tried to understand (verstehen) the Holocaust as due to, for example, believing the Jews are vermin, sheer hatred of the Jew, psychological projection and displacement, German submission to authority, economic considerations, and so on. I have no quarrel with any of this, and no doubt, readers will understand the Holocaust depending on their own unique experience and beliefs.

But, if one’s purpose is to prevent genocide or mass murder generally, understanding the Holocaust in this way is not enough, not if one wants to know as well why Jews were murdered in historic times by the Poles, Rumanians, Hungarians, Croatians, Ukrainians, Russians, etc. Nor are these understandings of the Holocaust sufficient if one also wants to know why the Rwandan rulers planned from the top to murder up to a million Tutsi; the Young Turks murdered en mass their Armenians; the Pakistan military did similarly to their East Pakistan Bengalis and Hindus; the Khmer Rouge did this to their Buddhists, Chams, and Vietnamese-Cambodians; and so on, and on, then we need an explanation.

Explanation provides the basis for predicting a behavior will occur. Understanding helps form an explanation, but also may inhibit it. That is, understanding that the Nazis characterized the Jews as vermin that they were eradicating, which is a fact, does not help in predicting genocide elsewhere, however. For example, had you looked for something like this view by top leaders as a predictor of genocide, you would not have predicted any of other major genocides in the 20th Century. Even the presence of something like this view would not have predicted genocide. I believe it is fair to say that some French and Polish political and military leaders held this view, and yet did not try to promote a large-scale genocide of their Jews.

Many sociologists and political scientists have been searching for an explanation of genocide and mass murder that would give us a warning of when it might happen. The problem has been that what seems predictive via understanding in one national/cultural context has not been in another. Accordingly, some of us have taken a different approach. Can we find a condition x, such that its presence or absence makes it more likely for the situationally unique factors given by our understanding of a people to cause genocide and mass murder? We have studied many such possible predisposing conditions, such as education, ethnic/racial diversity, population density, religion, ethnicity or race, regional location, and culture. For example, is genocide more likely when there are many ethnic groups in a country and when one particular ethnic group dominates others? The answer is no, not generally.

But, one condition does stand out in all such research, and that is the kind of political system that a nation has, and particularly, the power at the center. Virtually all genocides and nongenocidal mass murders obey the following social law. The more power those who rule have, the less the human rights and civil liberties of their people, then the more likely the rulers will commit genocide and mass murder. Democracies commit the least such murder of their citizens; totalitarian regimes the most. Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely.

This is the explanation of the Holocaust and almost all genocides. It says that when any regime, as did that of the Nazis, can command their subjects as they wish, then those unique elements, such as hatred, economic envy, threats to power, etc., can have their lethal effects. So understanding does have a crucial role. It provides insight into why, given authoritarian or totalitarian rule, something like the Holocaust can occur. But, alone this understanding will not provide much help to prevent it or other genocides.

The explanation in terms of power does, however. Therefore, how do we try to assure “Never again”? Foster liberal democratic freedom-reduce power at the center.

Note that throughout democratic Europe, including Germany, Rumania, Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine, any repeat of any mass murder of Jews, is now inconceivable. So it will be as long as these countries remain democratic.

Even Elie Wiesel Doesn’t Get It

December 17, 2008

[First published January 27, 2005] From Colleague: Elie Wiesel is a thoughtful and admirable person — whose witness to the horrors of democide is powerful and compelling. His recent (January 26, 2005) LATimes op-ed (link here) is moving and provocative . . . but even he doesn’t get it!

He asks “what made Auschwitz possible?” An important question, whose answers can be complex, theologically provocative, inspiring of despair or hope or both. Or the answer can be brutally simple and practical. We can decide that we don’t care “why” Auschwitz happened. We can say that we really don’t care about the political fanaticism or ideological hatred that motivated the holocaust. We can decide not to castigate God, or the lack of God. We simply acknowledge that humans all have the potential to be incredibly evil. Wiesel should not think this is an “abdication of mankind” — rather an acknowledgement that evil is one thing that is mankind: Jeremiah in the Torah reminds us that the heart is deceitful above all things, and Matthew in the New Testament quotes Jesus that out of the heart come evil thoughts. Evil simply is, and evil does terrible things. Enough said.

But this is not abdication or abandonment of hope. For the evil that lurks in the hearts of men needs something to translate into mass death, and that something is Power. And we do know how to take care of Power and deny it. A very effective way is simply democratic politics, where people — not tyrants — decide things; where government is chosen by the consent of the vote-holders, not the coercion of the gun-holder, where rights are protected by laws, not the whims of man. Democracy is, after all, a potent method of nonviolence. Hitler may have lost two elections, but he was able to maneuver into an appointment as chancellor and then to seize the power to rule by bullets — the structural and cultural weaknesses of the Weimar institutions of government failed to preserve and protect democracy, and so emerged a man with a horrible dream — and the Power to awaken the dream to reality.

While the resulting Holocaust holds a unique and special place in our consciousness, it is of the same category of mass murder and genocide as Stalin’s gulag, Mao’s ant-hill, Pol Pot’s killing fields, Rwanda’s nightmare of a decade ago, and today’s Darfur. In each case someone — for whatever reason — with a dream and the Power to put it in place over anyone’s objections, caused death and death and death.

We can ponder, as does Wiesel, whether the killers were human, but the process only perplexes us, and deceives us into thinking only “evil” people can do such things — answers that do nothing to solve the problem. Wiesel despairs over the guilty, and hopes about the survivors. Fine. But working to achieve democracy actually does something to solve the problem, by separating evil dreams from the capability to make them real. And promoting democracy, and protecting it, is the best solution to No More Auschwitzes.

Links of Note

\”20th””>”20th Century Democide” Chapter 1 to Death By Government (1994) By R.J. Rumme

“Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my previous work on the causes of warHYPERLINK “″1 and this book on genocide and government mass murder–what I call HYPERLINK “”democide (link here))–in this century. The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. At the extremes of Power, totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions, while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers.”

”Kofi Annan and the genocide in Rwanda 1994 (1/27/05) By Linda Lelvern

Mervern writes to correct Reeves’ (who I linked to in my last blog) charaterization of Kofi Annan’s role in the Rwanda genocide:

“I am writing in response to the message posted by Eric Reeves today in which he apportions blame for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and singles out Kofi Annan as being particularly deserving of blame.

As some list members will know I have spent ten years investigating and writing about the circumstances of the genocide in Rwanda. In my two books on the genocide I look closely at the role of the decision-making within the UN, and most particularly at “UN policy” towards Rwanda 1993-1994 formulated during secret and informal meetings of the Security Council . . . .

“To blame international civil servants at the UN for the failure over Rwanda is rather ridiculous . . . .

“In both London, Washington and in Paris there are politicians and civil servants who took decisions that cost the lives of an incalculable number of people. They should bear full responsibility for those
decisions, though it is unlikely they ever will.

“The failure over Rwanda is one of the greatest scandals of the last century.”

Yes, Linda, and now we have Darfur, Sudan, and North Korea.

Not Suicide Bombing–Its Murder Or Genocide Bombing

November 28, 2008

[First published on December 14, 2004]News today is that Israeli “Security forces recently foiled a planned suicide bombing, planned by the joint Hamas-Tanzim terrorist infrastructure in Nablus.” Another report is of, “A suicide car bomber today killed seven people at a checkpoint at Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone.”

Suicide bomber? When did this neutral term come into usage, anyway? [Like the term “militant” for terrorist] It is bereft of intention and political blame, and serves to neutralize what is an immoral, inhumane, and barbarous attempt to murder innocent people. It is a crime against humanity, but you wouldn’t know it by the label. 

To recognize the true nature of this bombing, that against Israeli Jews should be called what it is, “genocide bombing.” That going in Iraq should be labeled “murder bombing.” Then we could better appreciate what is going on.

Fox News had moved a little toward this by calling it all “homicide bombing.” But a homicide lacks the intention to kill, as does murder. Come on now, Fox News. At least you can call it what it is.

Limited Democratic Peace Glossary

November 23, 2008

This is a glossary of the major concepts I will be using in the following blogs, and a place for reference as I blog along.

Democide:  A governments intentional murder for whatever reason. Genocide is democide, but a democide is not necessarily genocide, as the democide by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, or by Stalin. Also, governmental assassinations, massacres, atrocities, mass murder, or government caused disappearances involve democide.A HREF=””>here

Democracy: Includes two meaning of democracy. One is a procedural democracy involving regular, open and fair competition for leadership, a near universal franchise, and secret ballots. The other meaning is of a procedural democracy that guarantees the human rights of its subjects. This is a liberal democracy.

Democratic peace: The peace within democratically free states and between them. Peace should be understood broadly as the absence of war, minimal violence, and the existence of human security. This not an either-or concept, but a continues one assuming various degrees of a democratic peace. It is best defined here.

Genocide: Government intentional murder of any people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or language. It does not include murder by virtue of a people because of their politics, political actions, party membership, or ideology. Murder for this reason is democide.

Government: The institution or person that monopolizes power over a territory and its people. This is not limited to national states, but also includes the governments of gangs, tribes, clans, and some terrorist groups. 

Human rights: Conventionally, and basically, the right to one’s life and liberty. But, also the right to freedom of speech, religion, organization, and legal equality. This will be my meaning here. Others, as has the UN, may add to this sociocultural and economic rights, such as food, employment, and a decent wage.

Human Security: Freedom from social and political violence, as well as the UN’s definition that includes economic security and assured access to food, good health, and safe and protected environment.

Mortacracy:  A government that commits large scale and continuous democide, as did Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Murder: The intentional taking of a life, except in self-defense, or military combat; or by a fair and open legal and constitutional process, as in a judicial execution.