Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhy do some bouts of collective action end in bloodshed? This study evaluates a diverse collection of cases featuring opposition movements that experienced government‐led massacres. Historically, protest massacres originate to 19th century struggles associated with populational needs of obtaining public goods and political representation from governments. Unlike genocide and politicide which are likely to take place during heightened conflict, protest massacres tend to occur outside of war and civil war. Data on 76 incidents (1819–2017) capturing direct action strategies, preceding levels of mobilization, regime threat levels, and temporal characteristics of each massacre is analyzed.

This text aims to think of an issue that is particularly difficult to grasp, but which is at the heart of many present and past wars: the massacre. It defines it as a form of collective action most often aimed at destroying non-combatants, in general civilians. The massacre is perceived as a practice of extreme violence, both rational and irrational, resulting from an imaginary construction of another to be destroyed, perceived by the harbour as a total enemy. The aim of this text is to show the relevance of a comparative reflection on massacre. His bias is to go beyond the case study or rather to put the best of these studies (on the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) into perspective in order to gain a better understanding of the processes of the transition to massacrer. To this end, two lines of strength form the basis for the analysis. — Historical depth: it is difficult to try to understand the massacres of the 1990s without taking into account their history in the twentieth century, including those known as 'genocide'. — Transdisciplinary opening: the massacre phenomenon in itself is so complex that it also calls for the attention of the sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, which these pages would also like to attest. ; This text aims to examine a particularly difficult phenomenon to study -- slaughter --, although it is at the center of many wars today and yesterday. Slaughter is defined as a generally collective form of action that aims to destroy non-combatants, usually civilians. Slaughter is viewed as an extremely violent, both rational and irrational practice growing out of an imaginary construct pertaining to someone to be destroyed, whom the torturer perceives as a complete enemy. The aspiration of this text is to show the relevance of exploring slaughter from a comparative standpoint. It will go beyond the mere case study, or rather it will put the best of these studies (on ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) into perspective. To better understand the process by which the slaughter is put into ...

[p. 2] ; column 2 ; 7 ½ col. in. ; The Mormons are thought to be complicit in the massacre of 130 emigrants at St. Bernardino. Mr. Geo. Powers reports at a meeting in Los Angeles that the Mormons are making extensive preparations at Fort Bridger and at Fort Supply to fight the United States government. Mr. Henry Magridge reports that he has heard Willard Richards give orders to missionaries to establish a mission amongst the Indians, to form treaties and alliances with them, and then to marry Indian women to solidify the alliance. The Mormons teach the Indians that Americans are their enemies and that they should kill all Americans they meet.

Le chercheur qui s'efforce de penser les violences de masse se heurte à un certain nombre d'apories. Le massacre est-il un comportement rationnel ou irrationnel ? Sans doute répond-il à la logique d'une « rationalité délirante ». Afin de dépasser le dilemme entre le normal et le pathologique, il semble pertinent d'aborder les phénomènes de violence de masse à travers les représentations collectives de l'autre qui sont véhiculées, notamment, par les intellectuels, les politiques et les religieux. Ceci nous conduit à remettre en question la notion harendtienne de « banalité du mal ». [Résumé de l'éditeur]

Le chercheur qui s'efforce de penser les violences de masse se heurte à un certain nombre d'apories. Le massacre est-il un comportement rationnel ou irrationnel ? Sans doute répond-il à la logique d'une « rationalité délirante ». Afin de dépasser le dilemme entre le normal et le pathologique, il semble pertinent d'aborder les phénomènes de violence de masse à travers les représentations collectives de l'autre qui sont véhiculées, notamment, par les intellectuels, les politiques et les religieux. Ceci nous conduit à remettre en question la notion harendtienne de « banalité du mal ». [Résumé de l'éditeur]

Le 25 janvier dernier s'éteignait à Paris le photographe Elie Kagan. Le Monde du 21 janvier lui rendait hommage dans un article intitulé : "Elie Kagan , un photographe engagé et libre" où il était essentiellement question du legs visuel du photographe à l'histoire. Parmi ces témoignages photographiques, il en est d'une très grande valeur historique : celui de la nuit du 17 octobre 1961 durant laquelle un massacre fut perpétré par les forces de police. Elie Kagan est en effet le seul photographe à avoir eu le courage d'utiliser son appareil pour dénoncer les brutalités policières.