btw, so that everyone here can speak with the same therms, i´m translating the triangle of violence of Johan Galtung (norwegian sociologist) , that i could´nt find in the english wikipedia
1. Direct violence: which is visible, relates to specific behaviors and respond to acts of violence. 2. Structural violence: which is invisible, it focuses on the set of structures that do not permit meeting specific needs and empowers the denial of needs. 3. Cultural violence: which is invisible, it creates a framework that legitimizes the violence and specific attitudes.
visible, means measurable in a direct way invisible, means measurable in a subjective way
@cosimo_bullo i do not think that is good way of analysing things, been violence such a complex matter to analyse, you are probably going to end up having a more simple, therefore less real immpression, of what those statistics mean
@lolo - "i do not think that is good way of analysing things, been violence such a complex matter to analyse, you are probably going to end up having a more simple, therefore less real immpression, of what those statistics mean"
I can see how you would feel that way. And yet these recent studies pertain (as I understand) mainly to #1 on your chart, Direct Violence. I'm not at all suggesting that #2 or #3 are not valid. They are valid.
But for the sake of having a discussion based on the recent papers and based on physical violence from war and crime, I ask that you start another topic to discuss all three together. Otherwise this will get super convoluted and essentially meaningless except emotionally (which is also fine, but for another thread).
Seriously thank you though for caring to write and think about this!
Also, "violence such a complex matter to analyse, you are probably going to end up having a more simple, therefore less real immpression, of what those statistics mean"
I think re battlefield deaths and similar, the statistics can be given a fair amount of trust. There are hundreds of years of data, and thankfully the numbers - from war at least - are heading exactly the right direction.
"The world is facing a hunger crisis unlike anything it has seen in more than 50 years. 925 million people are hungry. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That's one child every five seconds. There were 1.4 billion people in extreme poverty in 2005. The World Bank estimates that the spike in global food prices in 2008, followed by the global economic recession in 2009 and 2010 has pushed between 100-150 million people into poverty."
the food prices have been going up up up. the food price index made a new record in jan 2011, and it's expected to go up higher next year.
why do you think there was uprising in egypt early this year? they were fuking hungry.
@cosimo_bullo i don´t see there is much to add about the data in wich you started this topic, (i´m mean, just look at the video i post earlier on this thread), but new immpressions,
i´m mean just look at that masterclass (wich is from the same dude of your first post), the lowers peaks and the high peaks can be attributed to history changes and those are the #2 and the #3
To be clear, I'm not saying AT ALL that the world is fixed, or good, or right. I just finished days of work on a pro-bono fundraising video for a hunger relief group (please, whoever thinks this is not a good idea, please don't bag on me for helping with a hunger relief video...).
I'm frequently mad about the state of things and I want things to get better. I've literally spent collective months of my like protesting and making a general nuisense of myself for causes I believe in. I, possibly naively, believe individuals can make a difference in the world.
But isn't it important from time to time, I'm asking, to say, "wow, we've improved in some ways"? We're physically damaging one and others bodies less than we used to. Isn't that part of the dream of making a better world over time? (yes, I know that sounds cheesy...)
No, doesn't sound cheesy. I'd prefer 'naive' people who are actually doing something to change things for a better over smartasses who know everything but do nothing but talking anytime.
i didnt say individuals can't make a difference in the world. i wanna dream about better world...
mankind had dreamed in the 20th century. we had a dream of feeding everyone: agribusiness. a dream of infinite energy: nuclear power. a dream of infinite economic growth: floating currencies decoupled from gold. a dream of global prosperity: globalization. a dream of staying health: vaccination.
we are still dreaming. but is this a sweet dream or a nightmare?
"and if you do want to change the status quo, most likely real violence will rise."
That remains to be seen. Recent changes in the Arab region, in the US currently, .. have pretty little violence in them, at least none from the protesters.
The status quo, as you call it, will of course try to defend their position, but as soon as the police and army refuse to attack civilians, they're left defenceless. Not that many people have died and i think that will continue to be the case.
@johnnym and yet, even "little violence", means more violence. and you must be blind to say that there hasn´t been any violence from the protestors, do not see only what we you wish to see...
i´m mean every conflict empowers the identities of those in conlfict, and if they are behaving in a mass way, then you shouldn´t expect much reflexion prior to action of them, meaning that even the slightest sign of frustration will end up must likely in violence, and then repression, and then a rise in the death chart.
In the arab region there has been 2 civil wars, one international and civil war, and several massacres in yemen, jordan and syria, so that means a rise in the violence...
even Ghandi, in probably the most peaceful of all the independence struggles end up murdered, and in a civil war of the british india, wich end up with two different countries that still have a conflict in cashemira, Pakistan and India, the muslim and the hindu countries
in the US (and europe, latinamerica, etc) there will be no systemic change, without a blood bath, only bandits to a body with aids
goldamn sachs, jp morgan, etc. the financial people rule, not even the chuck testa democrats rule so, even if we can expect less violence (in hystoric therms) from the "state stablishment", we should not expect that from the bourgeois, and their puppets, because humanity is unkown to the people that sees a consumer and not a person.
@johnnym "as soon as the police and army refuse to attack civilians" come on dude, that is just too much idealism, that only happens in a country with no serious state institution development the people with guns must be trained, not to think but to be puppets, so please, do not expect that, if the state-stablishment works
I agree with you on all these issues. I merely wanted to point out that casualties in all these changing systems have been quite low. Syria is quite bad, i agree, but it's nothing like a war, where for instance in Iraq a million people died after the US invasion.
Just putting these numbers in perspective, as this seemed to me to be the topic of this thread.
As for police and army refusing to attack civilians, that is what happened in Egypt pretty soon after the first protests broke out. So i'm not at all being idealistic here. Just stating facts. (If you want to read about my idealism, check the older threads where i discuss the money system with Vitaliy.)
@johnnym jhkgasdfjhk i wasn´t trying to offend you or something with that blindness, i do not speak in absolute terms, but do not place the protestors as saints, as they are not, (was just a metaphor...)
no one is a saint, that is my point.
and yeap, most of those conflicts has been, "low intensity conflicts", but nonetheless, still are violent acts
yeap, in Egypt that has indeed happened, but as i said earlier, if a country does have a serious institution development... that shouldn´t occur, that will not occur, because the people with guns will obey those with legit (in legal terms) pollitical power
an interesting article, about how the economic crisis in europe is breaking the social stability for the worst, and the nationalism rises on the population while the european union tries to become an economic federal state
Is it breaking social stability, or just the fringes of the most disenfranchised thinking 'now is the time', a little like the riots that we saw over Europe recently?
Personally, I think pure capitalism is a failed regime, as it's almost leading to a state of neo-feudalism. Capitalism and globalisation ends like a game of Monopoly.