Beware Resurgence of Deadly Diseases, Part 2

This work has been released into the public domain by its author, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

By Kathie MM

In my last post , I described causes, contexts, and symptoms of a major form of social pathology—racialopathy. Racialopathy is a subtype of a much broader  social pathology—ethnicopathy. In all cases, the carriers of the disease tend to be the group with greater power within a social context, and the victims of the disease are the less powerful groups.

In the United States, the carriers tend to be extremely rich white men (who pass the pathology on to many others, male and female) and the victims tend to be men, women, and children of color—the designated scapegoats for social unrest.

Evidence for ethnicopathy abounds elsewhere, and has taken “non-racial” forms; a few examples:

White Christians (Catholics) versus White Christians (Protestants), which played out violently long before “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland .

Black (Hutu) versus Black (Tutsi) in Rwanda .

Muslim (Shi’a) versus Muslim (Sunni) in the Middle East (and elsewhere) .

Buddhist nationalists versus Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar .

Although these examples of ethnicopathy involve gruesome amounts of violence, ethnicopathy, like racialopathy, can take less violent forms—for example, disparaging,  stigmatizing, and denying rights to “the other.” These less blatantly violent forms of oppression may be a form of “ethnic cleansing,” as when White authorities in the US, Australia, and Canada seized indigenous children to “educate” them for productive work (often virtual slavery).

In the last few generations of your family, have there been any examples of ethnicopathy?

If so, did they get resolved? If so, how?

Have you ever participated in any activities designed to reduce racialopathy and ethnicopathy?

If so, what is your view of the success of those activities?

Check in again after the holidays for suggestions as to how to tackle this epidemic–and please send your own ideas and experiences!

 

Tomorrow’s Wars: A Work In Progress

 

Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License Author= UN Security Council

 

This is the first in a new two-part series by  guest author Dr. Majed Ashy.

Often, the bloody destructive assaults known euphemistically as “armed conflicts”  grow out of the operation of at least three factors. Grievances, real or perceived, need to be present in the relationships of two or more sides. These grievances can be due to historical, social, political, racial, religious, economical, territorial, or other injustices that have not been addressed or are simply denied.

 A common second factor is the occurrence of an event with the power to ignite the conflict—e.g., the killing of an archbishop (impetus to World War I), the shooting down of an airplane with a top official (impetus to the Rwandan genocide).

 A third factor is the presence of leaders who will take advantage of the event in order to escalate the conflict and stimulate destructive emotions through their speeches, propaganda, appeals to deep instincts and fears, and use of historical and current symbols and analogies to whip people up into readiness to commit violence.

Another factor, probably less well recognized, is the rampant experiencing of armed conflict by children and adolescents.  The human brain is in a state of elasticity during the years up through adolescence. Various neurological developmental processes are influenced by environmental events. Stresses due to the trauma of war and violence, experienced and witnessed, have hormonal and other physiological consequences that affect various neuro-developmental processes. In my view, the wars of the past decades contributed to the brutality we witness today, and I believe that the wars of today are the factories that will produce the hate and brutality of the future. Unless we stop them.

 

 Majed Ashy, Ph.D. is an Assistant professor in psychology, Merrimack College and a Research fellow in psychiatry, DBPRP at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

 

Rwanda Revisited

Rwanda
Gacaca Trial.
Photo by Scott Chacon. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

It has been twenty years since the Rwandan genocide in which 800,000 people were killed in 90 days and thousands more wounded or displaced. This genocide should be remembered not just for the carnage that took place, not just for the failure of the world to provide General Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) in 1993-1994, with the support he pleaded for (portrayed in “Shake hands with the devil”) and not just for the heroism of groups such as the Benebikira Sisters who refused to capitulate to the genocidal violence; it should also be remembered for the subsequent push for reconciliation led by the nation’s leader Paul Kagame.

To commemorate this genocide, the Co-Exist Learning Project Team created a documentary film that was shown on PBS the evening of April 16, 2014. This film addresses “Rwanda’s unprecedented social experiment in government-mandated reconciliation, through the stories of survivors. Can reconciliation and forgiveness be legislated?  The Coexist webpage has links for the New York Times review of the documentary and some useful teaching materials.

Another site, Insight on Conflict, has a brief but inspiring discussion of peace activities being conducted for the 20th anniversary of the genocide.

Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center,  suggests that Americans have a lot to learn from the Rwandan social experiment.

What do you think?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Globalization for good (Globalization, Part 2)

Arab Spring collage
Arab Spring collage, from Wikimedia Commons. Used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Liberal economists—the ones ballyhooing about the benefits of unfettered capitalism–have gleefully co-opted the term “globalization.” [See Forbes article]. It is this form of globalization–the one of which the multinational corporations and financial institutions are so proud–that has kept multitudes of people in near or literal slavery.

Globalization, however, involves much more than economic profits and losses, ruthless greed and numbing poverty.

Consider, for example, the United Nations. Lots of folks argue that it is an unwieldy bureaucracy failing to fulfill its mission, yet it has globalized the idea of human rights. This  achievement—anathema to the international corporate power structure–helped to change the face of the globe, and helped to free the colonies that survived not just the First but also the Second World War.

Moreover, that process has continued. Global transmission of values such as human rights, democracy, and self-determination has been fostered by globalization of systems of communication, including the social media.

The globalization of forms of quick communication is a double-edged sword, however. It can be used to promote violence as in the Rwandan genocide. It can be used by governments to spy on everyone, as in the case of the National Security Agency (NSA).  But it can also be used to promote nonviolent resistance to vicious dictators, as in much of the Arab Spring movement, and to alert people around the world to horrors being perpetrated far from their homes.

Globalization is like knowledge—it can be used for good or ill. Our goal should be globalization for good.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology