State repression and genocide essay

This is re iterated post, on a topic that I've considered in the past regarding the subject of repression in the
political and cultural context.  At the moment I wanted to state at the outset I hoping to write this neither in the accusatory sense, or having resorted in any manner of emotional hysteria. At least writing this with some attempt at thoughtfulness, the pursuit here were with some attempt of composure in writing.  Secondly, I'd indicate that I am neither an expert with respect to this matter, or formally having had extensive dealings otherwise.  Mostly this comes from some readings and exposures to the idea of political repression through writings...everything thing from an Amnesty International diary, for instance, of an individual having lived in a Soviet era timeline of present day Russia or those imprisoned and exiled to the Soviet Gulags of Siberia, or others having lived and survived through then Nazi Germany (see Ellie Wiesel's Night), or Khmer Rouge's then Cambodian Killing Fields, or Chilean dictatorship under Pinochet, or the Dominican Republic during the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo (see In the Time of Butterflies), or then Bosnian genocide, or genocide in Rwandan  and others.

Of course, this is also a difficult and complex subject matter at times in its discussion.  I'm nearly hesitant to
discuss the detailing of ideas at an in depth view but would like to more generally speak regarding the subject of repressive governments and cultures ..mostly the topic is of consideration to me for the following question:  What signs does one look for in delineating a healthy democracy from a system that is culturally and politically repressive?  Of course, it seems more in some ways this could be telling of my mindset in some ways (subjective viewpoint) versus a truly objective and critical position, but on the other hand, because often we as individuals are often neither afforded the same positions in life, as doctors, law enforcement, politician, human rights worker, and so forth, we are still empowered much decision in the course of some level of self determination regarding how we choose to live.  Even in the more repressive
systems, for instance, I believe while self determination may be extremely difficult alongside existential problems, we still have choices to act and decide in many instances regarding individual survival.  And it seems often times, on the other hand, I am not sure exactly who might have clearly written a survival manual, or afforded the sorts of psychological advice as to what exactly to do in any given number of circumstances.  Thus, my attempt in writing maybe is with some effort of sanity, or at least in the promotion of reason which hopefully prevails above fear, in the course, of some self guidance.

Firstly, it seems to me in most of the cases (if not all), cultural and political signs seem to be embedded in the
growth of these systems...whether by nature of political and cultural trending, alongside the rise of hate crimes that could be associated otherwise.  Often at the individual level if we relied upon our own senses alone, the unfortunate circumstance is that we may not be able to clearly see or decide when thresholds may be met that gives rise to concerns of such repressive systems alone.  If, for instance, we weren't in a position to witness a crime committed against homosexuals, how could we know that a cultural trending rise in hate crimes might be occurring.  And added to problems of this, as cited in a recent study done in continental Europe, more problematic were reporting of incidence of such crimes by those victimized in some manner.  At least in this particular study, it were estimated a fairly high percentage of potential incidents went un reported because of fear (30 + percent of respondents from what I heard), or that law enforcement wouldn't take a case seriously enough.  The under reporting of statistics also makes more difficult in the governmental and humanitarian sense of finding address, for instance, through laws, help and support infrastructure.  What we don't know and how we fail to act in addressing these concerns are certainly a strong point in the consideration of how we decide our systems may be failing.  Fortunately as in the case of the study, though at least some form of open discussion is also a positive sign regarding the nature of a given civilization, country, culture, peoples.  Which raises in part some thoughts in mind to the nature of a repressive system alone.  In the modern context, census manipulation is yet a modern issue because more information apparently does exist and more in many ways maybe likely to report, or at least in the instance above, neither omission which is at least a healthier sign as opposed to census which either mis report or are neither willing to ask questions.  Another aspect of a repressive system, is that groups defined on the basis of religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender, age, and much else may often be deliberately marginalized, neither served political power (as in power sharing), or in the worst of cases face dehumanization.  If resorting to history, remember at one time suffrage were defined not only on the basis of gender but
socio-economic status...rich white landowners might have enjoyed the most of political empowerment while much else were marginalized in terms of a vote.  It would be worth noting, that in some cases, the rise of genocide, though may have been cited in the opposite context of long standing political marginalization s and having been used in the citation and orchestration of social hysteria alongside significant changes in military political leaderships have aided and abetted para military populations with arms (see Rwandan genocide), or in other words, sometimes the opposite may occur...another example, of this were also the nature of governments engaged in wholesale re distributions of society itself (in the case, having gone from, for instance, a situation of apartheid to a situation where wealthy white landowners were murdered, raped, terrorized, and having lost much in terms of equity and wealth... see Zimbabwe).  At least in the case of Rwandan genocide there may be some greater relation to this sociological model relative to a class of people having used long standing historical marginalization as excuse, and having seized power and having stripped away the auspices of a democracy that once existed...arguably though some have argued that WWI presented much sociological problems for the Germany that would come to pass during WWII, but then I have read to the opposite, marginalization and economic issues are often distorted and excused for the sake of marginalizing subset populations even more.  As in the more modern case, I might also argue, that then defined 'power' axioms and ideological drives might have been destabilizing pre cursors in their own right.  If America considered its interests vested in promoting alliances on the basis of political naming alone, the rise of problems through South east Asia, Central America, South America, and Africa, clearly having sided
and defined itself so strongly and solely on the basis of historical ties would lead to its own set of problems?!

Wholesale American bombing runs especially at the height of the Vietnam war throughout South east Asia might not have helped the situation that would later arise in Cambodia (although this perhaps may be an extremely narrow point alone regarding the complexity of social and political developments in this region), nor the alleged military training received by American western allies have helped regarding the atrocities that would later take place in then Honduras   Similarly, then Soviet ideological power axioms wouldn't have helped in Cambodia either (if help were given) to the exclusion the basis of human rights and the rule of democracy.  Or (my apologies to you Noam Chomsky if you feel that this were off in opinion) we find that the machinery and industry of large political systems instead of promoting 'democracy' had lead to the opposite of circumstances.  But why is this?  It seems in a nutshell power axioms which excluded principles of democracy would have the opposite effect, because who were there to ensure democracy but by those whom were given the weapons, money and power, and  the insurances were not there.  As Clinton, apparently would note decades ago, mistakes were made in backing the then dictator in Honduras  and finally a week or so ago, that dictator were convicted of war crimes.

Some of the key components of mention here in the social organization of both state repression and alongside this are the roles played both in terms of social media alongside military or generally some securities arrangement.  Consider a country like Egypt and generally for a long time, securities administered by then president Hosni Mubarak were seen as generally decoupled from Egyptian military, so not all repressive systems could be considered one in the same in terms of security and military power.  More crucially though greater divisions between military and police security in Egpyt are probably why to a greater extent massive genocide would be very remote in a country like this in my opinion.  This isn't to say that political violence doesn't exist, or that Egyptian people suffered as a result of state repression, police corruption, and much else.  But in the case of state repression and genocide for the examples outside of Egypt indicated above decoupling by example, a military directly or indirectly seems to be non existent...separation of powers may be, in my opinion, a strong component here, and often times as in the cases indicated above, every single instance, involves some military dictatorship in some shape or form.

 - Hate speech coupled with Hate crimes may generally represent a large part of the red flag equation of repressive systems.  It were true in the sociological escalations of violence in Rwanda as it were Nazi Germany, as it could be linked in many cases of genocide...but especially when it is on the point of dehumanization of individuals, and especially when speech is in the promotion of violence towards others.  Often times, when hate speech is wide spread and systemic, it is also in my opinion, a large red flag of potential problems that may follow, as evidenced in many of the cases of repression and genocide cited above.  Here something of the important questions that I could discern are as follows:
    a.  How many generally engage openly this way?
    b.  How many ignore and neither address those engaging in this behavior?

- Those empowered and armed.  First and foremost, one would hope that an embodying force/military were representative in some ways of the democratic systems themselves.  Demographically this would include mixed population compositions irrespective of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and political persuasions.  The problem often times of military involvement in genocide could be related to ethnic/religious and political cleansing themselves which could strong future indicators of major problems ahead.  Who polices military but the military themselves.  Who polices are those whom come from different ethnic, religious, racial, and gender backgrounds, more likely to report in a chain of hierarchy when they see something wrong occurring.  While we give rise to the notion of the ideal that anyone irrespective of background should see clearly right and wrong here, on the other hand added insurances of perspective
backgrounds makes for a less sympathetic populations to the wrongs of a genocide.  Despite training and social cohesion which have military acting under orders, there is also evidence, in my opinion, of those who would stand down if they felt that actions were unconscionable   More critically if enough defect, stand down, or provide help to address what shouldn't occur, there is a greater likelihood that a genocide could be averted.  A military should be a reflection in many ways of this in terms of equality and the democracy it serves.

Though I might also feel these sorts of address only superficially consider the problems of repressive regimes.
If you were to look at the sorts of violence demographically speaking over the course of history though, political violence ranks the highest, and how might this relate to state repressions?

Of course, the more obvious answer that likely a well enough educated reader might guess could relate to stereotypes, and scapegoats.  I won't expound into social political theory much other then to say that often these links are disastrously mis related to principles of economics, as in the case of immigrants that 'steal jobs' from its citizens, or that in some cases, the often un scientific view of superiority by way of race...I heard this theory growing up more so when I were growing up, that went along the lines...why did Africa remain the way that it remained while Europe advanced in ways in the technological sense, or that populations of already marginalized people were somehow draining to a society (for this I'd suggest a nice reading called Guns, Germs, and Steel).  As of late though, more clearly it seems that political distortions/misdirection aid the rise of intolerance if this is all that people hear through a given subjective lens.  The other crucial component to a democracy are arts, and literature, or at least as
Bradbury's fictional lens, the discomforting of ideas themselves could be a danger to a given society, the idea a sort of internal of repression of the ideas of repression itself.  Here I find myself nuanced in the manner of speech, a democracy isn't always pretty, there will be those that use hate speech in a test to the notion of freedom of speech itself alone.  Critically the difference between actions and speech are drawn. Maybe its not the nature of belief alone, but how widespread and controlling the people are that espouse their given sets of beliefs.  If a professed neo nazi, is small in number relative the backdrop of those of varied beliefs, perhaps, the idea that they in their own right might be threatening isn't the same, and that is the crucial difference.  As in the case, of a legally immigrated New York resident whom died as a result of a gang of high school students whom may have been inspired by then growing right wing debates (on illegal immigration) a few years back (covered in a NPR documentary Not in Our Town), it would seem the more
complex problem of speech and hate crimes are illustrated.  Of course, while Hate Speech has begun to emerge in legal circles over in Europe, America on the other hand, is more reticent to consider the notion of backing away from nationalized media attention to subject matter that seems more loosely defined in stirring up sentiments (whether the reporting were entirely objective or not), even if those engaged in the debate are at times sounding to the tune of hatred and anger.

 A lot though that could be lacking in presence were the sorts of objectivity in reporting data.  Mindful that as has been argued by some, Rwandan bureaucratic did much to ignore a festering problem in their country.  The complex aspect of American culture to the greater differences found in the instances above are that American media at times is represented by a complex structure...as represented by at times media consolidations and generalized monopolization of media air waves (especially to certain demographic populations) where the dissenting and arguably objective voices are less seldom heard.  It wouldn't be fair to make equivalent the voices of radio similarly to the voices found at times in once repressive or ongoing repressive systems, but on the other hand, this presents an at times difficult and challenging view to the nature of our democracy and the voices that are able to reach others.  Arguably though and hopefully to a
future, social media through the internet is changing the nature of how we hear and see others.  The more challenging aspect of information in this modern age though is the nature of how statistical information is used and manipulated.  For instance, consider past accusation by human rights groups that Russian officials have deliberately distorted census figures, for example, in Chechnya inflating population numbers to make a long standing war in this region look more benign.  Often times, the difficulty with our democracy is that we might be buried in information, or that sophisticated ways may be used in concealment of activities, or that ruling classes themselves are merely colluded with in some way in suppression of information.  As I witnessed one ABC correspondent relay, during the heights of the second Iraq war, the problem in describing violence reporting violence comes either by way of finding proportionality in relaying in events, or that the correspondent more euphemistically would relate in so many words, the American public wouldn't like the images they were seeing.  As it turns out, while Freedom of Speech supposedly abounds with respect to what we say and do hear, this may not exactly be so.  If local businesses fear that reporting crime in a certain area over loss in business, would they seek imperatively to have local media censor likewise?  Of course, this merely indicates more along the lines of pure speculation and conspiracy, and with this comes some level of faith with the nature of reporting, or at least those given larger authority to disseminate information to a given public.  The boundaries of a democracy are always being challenged in terms of technology, and  there may be examples of how governments operate in and around the expectation of basic human rights.  Certainly technology is part of this.

On a personal note that engages a bit on speculative side, if a group of people very well know the thresholds and lines of crossing, do you see transparently the defined thresholds that could be concerning if they have acted inter cooperatively working around or shielding themselves from the more obvious of implications?  As it were in Rwanda, for example, if military officials were more clearly and directly implicated in the slaughter of innocent peoples more quickly a genocide might have been averted I wonder.  It would seem while the more obvious case through enough witness testimony in retrospect eventually did lead to the outcome of implications made toward senior Rwandan military leaders, Rwandan military at the outset managed to engage enough in shielding themselves from the more obvious by arming people that couldn't immediately be directly implicated to Rwandan military which changed the nature in which United Nations at that time would deal in the legal context (secondly the arms were machetes generally speaking not guns...which also changed the nature of implication by way of proxy)...or in other words a tactic at stalling actions and complicating diplomacy, I'd imagine here.  While the UN did have some presence at such time, they idly sat by and retreated once they evacuated non Rwandan nationals.  The excuse that senior Rwandan political s and military alike had falsely given were that the genocides were a result of a civil war that extended beyond their securities grasp, but this were anything but the truth.  It would seem statistically speaking at least, some of a given population would be likely to break away from a  conformed social consensus, but would you or I of concern clearly ever hear something?  One would be inclined to say that from the sociological perspective larger groups of people should in theory make for more difficulty in social conformity here.  Someone somewhere might be inclined to say something, whether those having the power to censor in technology like it or not.  One would wonder whether it were just a matter of time.  I remember the days around the Rwandan genocide hearing some saying that the genocide merely reflected something of Africa as a whole, a sort of resort to the stereotypes that would have likened this as a form of savagery that might have existed only a century before like Zulu culture that might have been imagined in some days centuries before, but in truth the choice of weapons merely reflected enough sophistication and careful coordination...this weren't a cultural problem of violence throughout in the un organized sense.  And often this is a reflection of both genocide and repressive regimes themselves.  They are products of our modern industry, technology, communications, and often times they operate in complex ways around international legal systems to buy enough time to carry out atrocities.

  While we may think often of the social consensus of peoples alone in the submission to repressive governments, it usually isn't direct act of civilian peoples alone that leads to the coordination of violence or attempted securities arrangement that a regime would engage in...this is to say, that while sporadic violence might occur at the outset of a civil war, if it is between civilian populations, the levels may be typified well below the levels seen in the more massive cases of genocide alone.  A combination of social orchestrations alongside organization in violence are probably the two key critical components to genocide, alongside a given security apparatus working in complexly organized communicative ways to ensure lists of enemies to a given state are dealt with, and civilian populations alone are usually neither equipped with this sort of administration, technology, and information to carry out actions alone.