From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*lib.org)
Date: Mon Feb 16 1998 - 23:49:58 MST
>> My impression is that xenophobic intolerance rarely depends in any
important
>> way on classifying others as subhuman.
>
>Really? I am actually quite shocked how often I hear people say of their
>enemies or their presumed inferiors that they are "animals". It pays to
>remember in this regard that the characteristic gesture of liberation
>struggles is the demand that "we will no longer be treated *as* animals!"
>
>> It appears to be largely an
>> evolutionary adaptation for creating tribal unity that is most powerfull
>> when the objective differences between the tribes are smallest (i.e. when
>> the danger of tribe members defecting is largest).
Including modern (Bismarck-Clausewitz-to-present-date) "total war" and hot
spots like the Koreas, the Tutsis vs Hutus and the
country-formerly-known-as-Yugoslavia. Your point buttresses our argument. :)
Trust me, making your enemy subhuman is also a consciously chosen and
war-college-discussed strategy for training shock troops so they'll act
with a maximum of dispatch & unit cohesion when they attack, and
ameliorating your PTS slightly after you or your troops have napalmed,
cluster-bombed, gassed, bayonetted, garroted, decapitated, silent-killed,
etc., the other side's soldiers.
Especially since the standard sentry silent kill techniques bear a close
resemblance to slaughtering an innocent pig while you embrace it (shudder).
:\ I'll spare you the details.
Peace,
MMB
"Love is the product of compassion and liberty,
not one at the expense of the other." -- Liam A. Chu
(RU a bot? If not, be advised *s are flagged as 'net address ERRORS;
MY address is thus munged. Kindly hyphenate. "Go team, beat SP*M.")
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:37 MST