| Why Not Kill Them All?by Daniel Chirot & Clark McCauley, 2006, new edition 2010  
	
		| The authors begin their analysis by pointing   out four main, often-overlapping motives for mass political murders:   convenience, revenge, fear, and fear of pollution.  |  Review in Political Science Quarterly, Sept. 22, 2007  Why Not Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder   by Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley. Princeton, N J, Princeton   University Press, 2006. 268 pp. $24.95. 
 Daniel Chirot and   Clark McCauley, in their superbly written book, rhetorically ask why a   dominant group with overwhelming power would engage in genocide of its   weaker rivals, and having established reasons for fratricidal frenzies,   they proceed to lay out measures that could prevent such human rights   catastrophes. In their way toward to a comprehensive explanation, they   not only draw examples from many cases of mass killings in history--some   well-known, some obscure--but also traverse an amazingly wide range of   disciplines, from cognitive science and psychology to most branches of   the social sciences. The result is a highly readable synthesis of the   extant theories, and should be seen as a significant contribution to the   understanding of these deplorable manifestations of the darker side of   human nature.
 
 
  The authors begin their analysis by pointing   out four main, often-overlapping motives for mass political murders:   convenience, revenge, fear, and fear of pollution. To Chirot and   McCauley, convenience represents the instrumental benefits of ethnic   cleansing and genocide, in which a group undertakes mass murder because   it believes that it is "cheaper" to kill the others than to share   resources with them. From William the Conqueror's cleansing of the   Anglo-Saxon tribes of Yorkshire to the expulsion of the Cherokees by the   United States government, eliminations of groups have followed the   logic of convenience. Although such campaigns have been motivated by   convenience, the perpetrating group has often hidden its intentions   under the pretense of moral equanimity. Thus, as an incredulous Alexis   de Tocqueville remarked, "The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the   Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities with indelible shame ...   but the Americans of the United States have accomplished this ... with   singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically.... It is   impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity"   (quoted on p. 22). 
 When a group feels that injustice has been   done to them, they seek revenge. The fine line between justice and   revenge is often blurred. The authors point out that many acts of mass   killings, from the Biblical massacre of the Midianites by the ancient   Israelites to the "Rape of Nanking" by the Japanese during WWII, have   been undertaken to avenge past humiliations or to restore wounded   collective pride.
 
 Perhaps the most potent source of genocidal   frenzy is simple fear. When a social group feels that its very   existence is at stake in the face of an actual or perceived threat, it   can often react with extreme violence. The "prospect theory," originally   proposed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, supports evidence of   people framing their fear of losses at a higher level than the   corresponding possibilities of gain. Such risk-averse behavior plays   into the hands of those who advocate the immediate elimination of threat   through extreme violence. From deadly ethnic riots around the world to   the genocide of the ethnic Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda, elimination of   groups...
 |