Although many suggestions have been proposed and are continuously arising to help prevent genocides, the authors do not believe any of them hold significant promise in providing a solution. In fact Chariot and McCauley claim that today’s modern world actually appears to be on the verge of more large scale massacres and suggest them to potentially be religion based. In today’s scenario, many of the modernized societies of the world no longer are as susceptible to genocide due to a larger acceptance of the diverse cultures people have.
However, in some places where cultures, religions, or Ideologies are seen more as right or wrong, these mass killings still hold potential until views are either accepted or the issues re depleted through agreements. Chariot and McCauley make many substantial claims In regards to why the future Is poised for more genocides, and also suggest ways of limiting such mass killings. Nevertheless, the authors make some broad claims that simply are not parallel to the realities of societies today, and are not truly applicable to our world.
Chariot and Macaulay’s claim that exogamy and intermarriage can limit the deadliness of warfare and hold a ceiling as to the scale of massacres no longer applies to today’s societies and would not have nearly the Impact they propose. They use examples of the Australian Aborigines who would send intermarry with neighboring tribes to increase alliances, and of Tameness’s promotion of Intermarriage with enemy tribes to Illustrate how It can diffuse the level of atrocity between groups.
They argue that Tameness’s scenario is, “A particularly good illustration, as his accommodating policies neither prevented wars with neighboring tribes nor produced any lasting solitaries that survived his death” (105). While this holds true to the past, it holds no parallels to society today, nor going forward. How loud exogamy possibly be forced upon enemies or contrasting ideologies today? In many cases there are either strict rules against it, or the given culture openly allocates for the diversity of marriages.
In today’s societies where one would propose to implement exogamy in order to diffuse the intensity of warfare, it has Just as much potential to raise the level of hatred amongst sides because of the perceived Impurity of the act. In addressing the issues of whether or not their proposals of exogamy are still relevant, the authors write, “In modern societies, exogamy no longer follows restricted laws (except to restrict marriages between very close relatives), but It can still be highly effective in dampening and articulating rivalries to make them less dangerous” (117).
This claim Is irrational because even if there was a large enough conflict In a modern yet technologically society described, we are still far too past the stage where the exogamy could dampen the damage. Even they described the scenario in which exogamy no longer was in accordance of law, and therefore the times exogamy certainly could have been used as they propose it to control damages, ND prevent altogether, the reality is that in today’s society there are simply no grounds in which it could be applied.
After analyzing many instances and varieties of genocides and killings the authors try to break down the possible angles of limiting genocide. McCauley and Chariot propose the statement that “Any set of rules that limits conflict, even if it does not eliminate it, is worth having” (176). In this sense they argue that rules can be formed to initiate a common level of what might be acceptable warfare actions. In addition hey believe that whatever rules can be laid out will ultimately cause each party involved to have a less violent notion whenever the conflict arises.
However, in instances where they are referring to rules which limit the potential of preexisting conflict or disagreements from exploding into mass killings, rules are not the most logically option. This claim has its issues with practically because attempting to start interactions amongst groups in conflict could Just as easily spark further disturbance than it could to ease the violence. There are so many contradicting ideologies that in any cases any proposed rules to limit conflict, could essentially lead to the troubles being worse if they were then to be violated or disagreed on.
The authors attempt to also suggest a solution for intolerance of other cultures, and to implement small scale changes which could then limit violence. Chariot and McCauley describe this as, “the slow construction of personal contacts between individuals from communities in conflict” (187). In theory the gradual establishment of such contacts would certainly allow for less hatred and would hopefully pave way or steadier negotiations amongst communities of conflicting interests. However this claim too can only truly apply in the most optimistic of scenarios.
In attempting to establish contact with a group of opposition, each group itself may very likely Just see their leader as weak for showing empathy or civil relations with the enemy. If the leader is viewed as powerful and in control of his own side, then this proposal is plausible in limiting the damage. Nevertheless, when a group is at conflict with another, the stability and uniformity of the group is sometimes at a state of unrest, which could then lead to the relationship with a perceived threat or enemy a very volatile one.
Throughout the text a multitude of past scenarios and hypothetical ones are examined and carefully broken down into causes, results, and solutions. Chariot and McCauley make significant strides in assessing genocide and why they occur, in addition to why they will continue to occur without significant changes in society. Many of the proposed solutions contain strong logic and do apply to particular aspects of the world, yet the question looms of how solutions from past genocides an be relevant to the vastly modernized world we live in today.