Of War, Slaughter, and Human Nature

[John Kilduff]

So what to make of humankind's historical penchant for slaughter and war?

Consider the following three excerpts:

-"Genocide, massacre, and human slaughter; pillage, rape, and torture have been much more common than war and revolution. But historians do not dwell on such events. And even if they do, they very rarely attach numbers to them. They prefer the glamour of war, of diplomacy, of the clash of nations and personalities. So in revenge for an arrow from Nishapur's walls that killed Jinghiz Khan's son-in-law in 1221, when the city was finally captured the Mongol Tolui massacred its unarmed inhabitants.3 So this ancient capital of Khorassan in Persia was then a "scene of a carnival of blood scarcely surpassed even in Mongol annals. . . . Separate piles of heads of men, women, and children were built into pyramids; and even cats and dogs were killed in the streets."4 So an utterly fantastic 1,747,000 human beings reportedly were slaughtered, a number exceeding the contemporary population of Hawaii, Rhode Island, or New Hampshire; a number that is around a third of the total Jews murdered by Hitler.5"

And the above occurred in the year 1221! 1,747,000 people butchered! What percentage of the population of Persia might that have been?!

-"The Mongols subsequently invaded what is Iraq and in 1258 the Mongol Khulagu captured Baghdad, sacked and burned the city, including most mosques, and reportedly annihilated 800,000 of its people.25 For good reason, as all this horrible killing of helpless people shows, the Mongols have become justly known for their bloody conquests and disregard of life. As the historian of the Mongols, J. J. Saunders, points out, there was something indescribably revolting in the cold savagery with which the Mongols carried out their massacres. The inhabitants of a doomed town were obliged to assemble in a plain outside the walls, and each Mongol trooper, armed with battle-axe, was told to kill so many people, ten, twenty or fifty. As proof that orders had been properly obeyed, the killers were sometimes required to cut off an ear from each victim, collect the ears in sacks, and bring them to their officers to be counted. A few days after the massacre, troops were sent back into the ruined city to search for any poor wretches who might be hiding in holes or cellars; these were dragged out and slain.26"

-"When the Taiping rebels captured Nanking in 1853 they killed all the Tartars garrisoning the city. But this was not enough. They also murdered all their family members. In total about 25,000 people may have been wiped out.42 When imperial troops recaptured Nanking the following year they in turn allegedly exterminated about 100,000 rebels, and in just three days.43 They followed the same quick and bloody policy in Canton and along the Pearl River. After they recaptured this area from the rebels they are said to have beheaded 700 to 800 inhabitants a day, whether rebel collaborator or not, ultimately killing another 100,000 people. Just in the province of Kwangtung, it is written that 1,000,000 were executed.44 In one province, reportedly 1,000,000 were executed! This is more than the total number of Americans killed in all the civil and international wars the United States has fought in its whole history, including the War of Independence.

But there is more. There also was the nearly concurrent Moslem uprisings with their attendant slaughter. For the province of Yunnan 5,000,000 out of 8,000,000 may have died. When the last Muslim stronghold fell to imperial forces, 20,000 men, women, and children were "put to the sword."45 In Shensi province population fell from 700,000 or 800,000 Moslems to between 20,000 and 30,000 in ten years. Even most of the 50,000 to 60,000 Moslems that fled to Kansu province perished. All told still a much larger number of Chinese were massacred by Moslem rebels or otherwise died.46 "

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM

There are many more examples described in the link.

So I have some questions. You probably do too.

I am wondering what to make of all this. Are humans truly that inherent savage and vicious? Or only some humans? Or nearly any humans under certain conditions?

Are such things as mass slaughter an integral part of humanity in large groups? Just because you and I are probably not inclined to war and/or slaughter, does not speak for all humans, or even for what we might do under far different conditions.

There are other questions but that is enough to muse on for now. Besides, it's time to catch a nap then go play some poker.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what to make of all this. Are humans truly that inherent savage and vicious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Genghis Khan was one of my favorite studies. His son once begged him to stop the slaughter of innocents. Her replied that he did not care.

[bobman0330]

Keep in mind that medieval figures are invariably exaggerated. That 1.7 million figure, for example, must be completely wrong.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what to make of all this. Are humans truly that inherent savage and vicious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Genghis Khan was one of my favorite studies. His son once begged him to stop the slaughter of innocents. Her replied that he did not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if humans are inherently savage and vicious, why did his son want him to stop?

[tomdemaine]

Most humans wish to be good, moral nonviolent people unfortunately there have always been some anomalous humans who are evil vicious bastards with a lust for dominating others. These people naturally gravitate towards structures of power. Who would have the inclination and determination to be president other than someone who wished to dominate and control others?

Government, in the Platonic style is supposed to be a few good men ruling over a world of wickedness. But by it's very nature it becomes the opposite. This is an inevitable consequence of a monopoly of force. This effect is always misdiagnosed as "well it must be human nature to be violent and evil more government please!" and so the cycle continues.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what to make of all this. Are humans truly that inherent savage and vicious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Genghis Khan was one of my favorite studies. His son once begged him to stop the slaughter of innocents. Her replied that he did not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if humans are inherently savage and vicious, why did his son want him to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people aren't violent criminals, but enough of them are to require the Second Amendment as an individual right. Most organized groups aren't savage predators, but enough of them are to require the rule of law and a common defense as collective necessities.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what to make of all this. Are humans truly that inherent savage and vicious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Genghis Khan was one of my favorite studies. His son once begged him to stop the slaughter of innocents. Her replied that he did not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if humans are inherently savage and vicious, why did his son want him to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people aren't violent criminals, but enough of them are to require the Second Amendment as an individual right. Most organized groups aren't savage predators, but enough of them are to require the rule of law and a common defense as collective necessities.

[/ QUOTE ]

So these traits are not inherent, would you agree?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what to make of all this. Are humans truly that inherent savage and vicious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Genghis Khan was one of my favorite studies. His son once begged him to stop the slaughter of innocents. Her replied that he did not care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if humans are inherently savage and vicious, why did his son want him to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people aren't violent criminals, but enough of them are to require the Second Amendment as an individual right. Most organized groups aren't savage predators, but enough of them are to require the rule of law and a common defense as collective necessities.

[/ QUOTE ]

So these traits are not inherent, would you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible they are not inherent in every individual, but I'm not going to assume they are not inevitable on a species basis.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
So if humans are inherently savage and vicious, why did his son want him to stop?


[/ QUOTE ]

To be perfectly politically incorrect about it, his son didn't understand that they were at war with devout Muslims.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if humans are inherently savage and vicious, why did his son want him to stop?


[/ QUOTE ]

To be perfectly politically incorrect about it, his son didn't understand that they were at war with devout Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes of course, those he invaded and conquered and slaughtered were the inhumane ones. Thanks for that terrific insight.