Mass killing
Mass killing is a concept which has been proposed by genocide scholars who wish to define incidents of non-combat killing which are perpetrated by a government or a state. A mass killing is commonly defined as the killing of group members without the intention to eliminate the whole group,[1] or otherwise the killing of large numbers of people without a clear group membership.[2]
This article is about the concept proposed by genocide scholars to define incidents of non- killing by government or state. For multiple killings committed by an individual or group, see Mass murder. For other multiple killings by government or state, see Homicide by state actors.Mass killing is used by a number of genocide scholars because genocide (its strict definition) does not cover mass killing events in which no specific ethnic or religious groups are targeted, or events in which perpetrators do not intend to eliminate whole groups or significant parts of them. Genocide scholars use different models in order to explain and predict the onset of mass killing events. There has been little consensus[3] and no generally-accepted terminology,[4] prompting scholars, such as Anton Weiss-Wendt,[5] to describe comparative attempts a failure.[6] Genocide scholarship rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals.[7]
Several different terms are used to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants,[5] but there is no consensus or generally-accepted terminology.[8][9][10][11] Mass killing has emerged as a "more straightforward" term than genocide or politicide.[12] Mass killing was proposed by genocide scholars in attempts to collect a uniform global database of genocidal events and identify statistical models for prediction of onset of mass killings. Atsushi Tago and Frank Wayman reference mass killing as defined by Valentino and state that even with a lower threshold (10,000 killed per year, 1,000 killed per year, or even 1), "autocratic regimes, especially communist, are prone to mass killing generically, but not so strongly inclined (i.e. not statistically significantly inclined) toward geno-politicide."[13] Other terms used by several authors to describe mass killings of non-combattents include:
In the United States, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, clarified the statutory authority for federal law enforcement agencies to provide investigatory assistance to the States, and mandated across federal agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, a definition of "mass killing" as three or more killings during an incident, while making no reference to the choice of weapon.[28][29][30][31]
Analysis[edit]
Benjamin Valentino does not consider ideology or regime-type as an important factor that explains mass killings, and outlines Communist mass killing as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing, which is considered as a complication of original theory his book is based on.[13] About why it occurs,[34] Valentino states that ideology, paranoia, and racism can shape leaders' beliefs for why genocide and mass killing may be justified.[35] Unlike Rudolph Rummel and first-generation studies, Valentino does not see authoritarianism or totalitarianism as explaining mass killing;[36] it is not ideology or regime-type but the leader's motive that matters and can explain it,[37] which is in line with second-generation scholarship.[37]
Manus Midlarsky also focuses on leaders' decision making but his case selection and general conclusions are different from Valentino's. Midlarsky has a more narrower definition of the dependent variable and only analyzes three case studies (the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide). Midlarsky tries to explain why individuals may comply with the culprits, why politicide rather than genocide happened in Cambodia (Cambodian genocide), and why ethnic minorities, such as Greeks in the Ottoman Empire and Jews in the Second Polish Republic, were not targeted for genocide. Like Michael Mann and Valentino to a lesser extent, Midlarsky mainly addresses genocides that did not take place. Both Midlarsky and Valentino mainly focus on proximate conditions, while Mann considers genocide within the broad context of ideologies and nation-states development.[38]