Showing posts with label China/Chinese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China/Chinese. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Book Review: Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century

Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. By Benjamin Valentino. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Pp. viii, 253).

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all of human history. The consequences of two world wars left a haunting impression upon the millions of survivors, who became reluctant witnesses to the atrocities of modern warfare. Along with the millions of war victims is another body of mass casualties that is often forgotten in the muddle of twentieth century history. The approximately 60-150 million victims of genocide across the world stand as a monument to the carnage of numerous regimes that embraced mass killing as a necessity. In his book, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, author Benjamin Valentino attempts to address the causes and motivations that have inspired genocide in the twentieth century. By essentially addressing genocide as nothing more than a “powerful political and military tool,” Valentino provides the reader with a detailed perspective into the motives behind genocide.

First off, it is important to recognize the fact that Valentino’s work avoids a discussion of semantics when dealing with the definition of genocide. Instead, the author’s book centers on “mass killings” of more than fifty thousand in number (Pp. 3-4). In so doing, Valentino broadens the scope of his argument by including numerous mass killings that are often ignored in the traditional study of genocide. Valentino also argues that the traditional understanding of genocide as being motivated by “severe ethnic, racial, national, or religious divisions” does not hold up, since “some of the bloodiest mass killings in history have occurred in relatively homogeneous societies” (Pp. 2). Valentino continues his assault on the traditional historiography of genocide by also suggesting that the “traditional studies of genocide have tended to diminish the role of leadership on the grounds that the interests and ideas of a few elites cannot account for the participation of the rest of society in the violence” (Pp. 2). Instead, Valentino proposes in his research that mass killing “occurs when leaders believe that their victims pose a threat that can be countered only by removing them from society or by permanently destroying their ability to organize” (Pp. 5).

To defend his thesis that leaders are responsible for mass killing as opposed to the masses, Valentino provides a detailed comparison between several similar regimes. For example, Valentino makes special mention of the racial tensions that permeated both German and South African society, along with the various forms of intolerance that covered Asia After briefly discussing the backgrounds of these regimes, Valentino poses a question to his audience: Why does mass killing occur in only some of these regimes, which, on the surface, appear to be very similar? Valentino then answers his question by suggesting that a cohesive leadership of elites, with an objective to consolidate their power, is the catalyst for mass killing. By pointing out that perpetrators of mass killing see their actions as, “a rational way to counter threats or implement certain types of ideologies,” Valentino discards the assumption that these regimes kill simply for the sake of killing.

To support his claims, Valentino focuses on three distinct groups of mass killings: communist, ethnic and counterguerrilla mass killings. In the first of these three classifications (which Valentino claims is responsible for the largest number of mass killings), Valentino focuses on the communist regimes of China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia. Valentino then points out the fact that these regimes have resorted to mass killings in an effort to secure that their social changes are met. As Valentino points out, “the effort to engineer utopia has been the justification for some of the world’s most horrendous crimes” (Pp. 92). For communist regimes to secure this “utopia,” they are often required to redistribute land and wealth, which is understandably a difficult change for the masses to accept. For this reason, communist regimes have embarked on some of the worst mass killing policies in world history. As Valentino points out, “The history of communism in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia is a powerful demonstration of the degree to which historical accidents, serendipity, and the power of individual personalities can determine the rise of extremely radical and violent groups’ (Pp. 150).

In his second group, ethnic mass killings, Valentino pays special attention to the Nazi regime and its motivations for committing to a policy of ethnic mass killings. Valentino emphasizes the fact that the Nazi regime (along with other regimes that are guilty of mass killings) had a specific strategic goal in mind, as opposed to the traditional assumption that they were simply out for blood. As Valentino writes, “Ethnic mass killings, especially the Holocaust, have tended to be portrayed as little more than killing for killing’s sake…The strategic approach, however, suggests that ethnic mass killing occurs when leaders come to believe that large-scale violence is the most practical way to accomplish a policy of ethnic cleansing” (Pp. 155). By focusing on the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda, Valentino provides his audience with ample insight into the evolution of how these regimes came to embrace mass killings as the only plausible solution to their respective ethnic dilemmas.

In the third group of mass killings addressed in his work, counterguerilla mass killings, Valentino discusses how a number of guerilla insurgencies (particularly in Guatemala and Afghanistan) have compelled governments to adopt a policy of mass killing. Valentino points out the fact that these forms of mass killing often come about not because an army becomes undisciplined or fed-up with the guerilla opposition it faces. Instead, Valentino suggests that counterguerilla forces often see their efforts as being “positive policies designed to improve the lives of the civilian population and draw support away from guerillas” (Pp. 199). In essence, the justification for such actions embraces the notion that one must kill in order to save.

Though often contrary to the traditional understanding of genocide, Valentino’s work provides us with a unique perspective into the causes and motivations behind mass killings. By suggesting that mass killings are primarily the result of an elite leadership, Valentino also proposes that we can better prevent these atrocities from happening again, by being proactive against regimes that have committed to the rapid disposal of a specific group from their society. An objective insight into the causes of mass killing, which Valentino considers to be born out of a political motivation to eliminate a perceived threat as opposed to simple hatred, may serve to prevent future atrocities from ever happening again

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Marco Polo: A Liar?

Every elementary school child has heard of the incredible adventures of the great 13th century explorer, Marco Polo. His tales of adventure and discovery in China, Japan and other parts of Asia are standard history for most. Generations of Americans have grown up believing that Marco Polo was one of the greatest explorers in human history.

But just how true are Marco Polo's accounts?

If you ask a group of Italian archaeologists and historians the answer is: not very true at all. That's right, Marco Polo may have been a conman. According to a team of scholars, led by University of Naples historian Daniele Petrella, Marco Polo simply plagiarized his stories from the many traders he encountered around the Black Sea. In fact, Petrella believes that Marco Polo probably never went further than the Black Sea. She believes this because Polo's stories of the Orient don't fit with the history and archaeology that we now have today. For example, there are a number inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Marco Polo’s description of Kublai Khan’s invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281:

He [Polo] confuses the two, mixing up details about the first expedition with those of the second...In his account of the first invasion, he describes the fleet leaving Korea and being hit by a typhoon before it reached the Japanese coast.
The article continues:

Polo’s description of the Mongol fleet did not square with the remains of ships the archaeologists excavated in Japan, as he had written of ships with five masts, while those which had been found had only three. "It was during our dig that doubts began to emerge about much of what he wrote," added Professor Petrella. "When he describes Kublai Khan’s fleet he talks about the pitch that was used to make ships’ hulls watertight. He used the word 'chunam’, which in Chinese and Mongol means nothing. In fact, it is the Persian word for pitch. It’s also odd that instead of using, as he does in most instances, local names to describe places, he used Persian terms for Mongol and Chinese place names."

The explorer claimed to have worked as an emissary to the court of Kublai Khan, but his name does not crop up in any of the surviving Mongol or Chinese records. The famous travel book was said to have been dictated by Polo to a fellow prisoner named Pisa while he was in jail after returning from his adventures, and to be fair to Polo, it is thought Pisa embellished many of the stories. But the latest claims back those made in a book by British academic Frances Wood in 1995 entitled 'Did Marco Polo go to China?'. She argued he never got beyond the Black Sea and that his famed account was a collection of travellers’ tales.
Interesting stuff. And though I think Dr. Petrella has discovered something (though she is far from being the first to question the authenticity of Marco Polo's claims) I must admit that I am still a bit skeptical. I must admit that I am not well-versed in the history of Marco Polo and as a result, need to dedicate myself to a more in-depth study of his journeys. But the fact that Polo used Persian words to describe different things instead of Chinese is compelling evidence that he may in fact be a fraud. That seems like such a glaring mistake to make and it certainly casts a shadow of doubt onto the Marco Polo story as a whole.

Marco...

...

...

Polo.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Did Zheng He "Discover" America?

Today marks the 665th anniversary of legendary Chinese explorer Zheng He's (鄭和 / 郑和) first epic journey to explore the world. Chances are that most Americans (heck, most people in the western world) have never heard of Zheng He, and to be honest, I knew nothing about him until very recently.

Zheng He was an interesting cat to say the least, and his life story would make for one incredible Hollywood movie. As the descendant of a devout Muslim family (his grandfather and great-grandfather even made the haaj to Mecca. No small feat in the Medieval world), Zheng He was exposed to a world that few in 14th century Asia could possibly imagine. Not only was he a follower of a minority religion in China, Zheng had the unique opportunity to travel a large part of the Asian world. With the backing of a wealthy family, Zheng was fortunate to experience things that few of his contemporaries could possibly imagine.

But Zheng's life would change dramatically. After being attacked by a rival clan (a battle in which his father was killed), Zheng was captured by a group of Ming Muslims and eventually made a eunuch. But despite his terrible misfortune, Zheng rose to a position of great favor with the Ming emperor and was hailed for his bravery and fierceness in battle (some accounts state Zheng was close to 7 feet tall but that is probably more the stuff of legend than reality).

As years past, Zheng He eventually became a prominent figure in the growing Chinese naval/merchant world. His voyages throughout the "Western Sea" (Indian Ocean) were well chronicled, and the riches he brought home are the stuff of legend.

But this is the least of Zheng He's accomplishments...at least, according to some.

In his best-selling book, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, author Gavin Menzies makes the bold claim that 14th and 15th century Chinese merchant ships may have landed in the "New World" nearly 70 years before Christopher Columbus. And one of Menzies' chief explorers in none other than the legendary Zheng He.

And though I agree with Menzies' assertion that Zheng He's explorations went much further than the confines of the Indian Ocean (quite possibly all the way to Eastern Europe and certainly to Africa) there is little or no evidence that he made it to the Americas. In fact, Menzies offers extremely shaky evidence that most historians completely reject. For example, his assertion that American Indian DNA can be traced to Asian origins proves little. The overwhelming majority of archaeologists/scientists attribute this to the land bridge from modern Russia and Alaska during the last Ice Age, and the subsequent migration of those Asian people to the "New World." In addition, there are ZERO Chinese artifacts, writings or other documents that were found in America as Menzies claims. This is a complete and total lie and why he would make such a claim is preposterous. In fact, Menzies has had to retract his bogus claim that the remnants of Ming ships have been found in Greenland and North America. Again, a complete fabrication. And finally, Menzies makes the ridiculous claim that Zheng He and his fellow explorers somehow possessed the knowledge that the world was round and were even successful in their mapping and charting of North and South America. This is another complete lie. None of Zheng's maps show anything resembling current geography, nor did Ming voyagers believe the world was round in the 15th century. The following is a typical map from Ming explorers of the world they understood. As you can see, it doesn't resemble anything we might recognize as being North or South America.


Long story short: Zheng He was an INCREDIBLE explorer and his story is worthy of further study by all. However, Zheng He, DID NOT discover America. He didn't even come close. This myth, which is sadly being embraced by some who I am guessing read the title of Menzies' bogus book and take it at face value, is based on nothing.

It's a fraud.

***For more info on Menzies' bogus book click here.***

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

My Chinese Journey (Wǒ de zhōngwén Lǚchéng)

Dàjiā hǎo. Wǒ jiao Brad. Hěn gāoxìng rènshi nǐ. Wǒ xuéxí Zhōngwén.

Hello everyone. My name is Brad. Nice to meet you. I am learning Chinese.

That's right, I have decided to take on the crazy, suicidal, insane, foolish, and downright STUPID challenge of learning another language...and I chose MANDARIN CHINESE of all the languages out there (what was I thinking?).

Ever since I finished my mission in Chile (where I learned to speak, read and write in Spanish fluently) I have always wanted to learn a 3rd language. Well, 11 years later here I am staring Mandarin in the eye, locked in a showdown to see who will flinch first.

So why Mandarin? Well, to be honest, I think part of it simply boils down to the fact that so many people say it's impossible to learn. That challenge alone makes me want to do it. In addition, it's no mystery that China is an emerging giant on the global scale. More than 1.5 billion people speak Mandarin as their native language, more than any other language on earth. Also, the historian in me has always been fascinated with "The Middle Kingdom"; a history that is full of rich culture and heritage. All of these factors made it a no-brainer for me. Mandarin is the PERFECT 3rd language!

Anyway, it is likely that my attempts to learn Mandarin will make a semi-regular appearance here on this blog. If any of you out there happen to have experience in Mandarin, please feel free to chime in and point out where I get things wrong. Heaven knows I need the help.

Zàijiàn!
再见