# Genocide: Can normal people become ruthless killers?



## badgrammar

I'd like to preface this post as I have seen done in other recent posts here:  This is not a political thread.  I hope to discuss this matter from the viewpoint of the human psyche, the power of group mentality, and the possible dabblings of dark forces that might labelled as "spiritual" (and what those forces might be).

I watched yet another very moving film about what happened in Rwanda, called "Shooting Dogs".  Yes, it was the typical tear-jerker with good guys and bad guys, and Rwanda is but one example of genocides, which are regrettably nothing new in the history of humankind... But it always makes me wonder:  How is it possible that otherwise normal, sentient, caring, thinking, human adults, not raised inside a militia or otherwise brainwashed, suddenly, or perhaps gradually, become savage murderers?  

I presume that (and let's focus on people who are not soldiers, militia men, police forces, etc...) the participation in such acts by average citizens must stem in part from some sort of group mentality...  and something, in the human psyche (perhaps something that could happen to any of us, in the right situation), that allows a person not only to dehumanize another group to an extent that they no longer care about their suffering, but to actively participate in it...  And is there some part of this that stems from "dark forces", perhaps more commonly called "evil", or is it simply the dark side of humanity that lurks in all of us, waiting for the occasion to show its ugly face? Can this happen to "normal" people?  Or are people who participate in this kind of thing somehow fundamentally different from the rest of us?

Remember, please, this is not a discussion of particular genocides, or of the political situations surrounding them, but rather a questioning of how "otherwise normal" human beings come to transgress the (presumably) universal, non-denominational, and common value of the sanctity of human life?


----------



## Veggy

Can normal people become ruthless killers? My answer is yes of course. 
What is normal for you badgrammar? For me it means average, common, everyday people.
We just invented with a very clever work of the mind the concept of "monster" to prove some poeple (the ones who commit crimes) are NOT like us, they are distant and most of all it gives us assurance that WE would not do such things. But on my opinion it is an illusion to make one feel ok.
Hanna Arendt's book La banalità del male (sorry I don't know the exact title in english) is very instructive on this subject.


----------



## xarruc

A good place to start on peering into the darkness of human group action is the Stanford University Prison Experiment. In this experiment a group of researchers simulated the prison experience with free volunteers. They found that both the prisoners and the guards stopped seeing through the simulation and "believed" the scenario. The brutality was extreme, there was a riot and hunger strikes. - all from people free to stand up and say "I'm going home now". People took on the role and played along. After two weeks it had to be called off.

The next is the Milgram experiments. Basically a look at why the Nazi prison guards (etc.) could go along with it. This guy found out that we are all weak against authority. Here volunteers inflicted incredible pain and suffering on another volunteer (actually an actor acting) in the name of scientific research. A man in a white coat was all that was needed. The various variants on the experiment show that tacit cooperation was even higher - The volunteer would inflict more pain if somone else (a researcher in a white coat) clicked the pain button for them.

The third was inspired by that murder in the states where they heard the screams and did nowt. Here they did an experiment where they had a number of people on a telephone chat-line where one would feign a heart attack. In one-on-one conversations 100% of people called for help. But as the number of participants increased, the porcentage dropped to nothing. (IE 5 people group - 40% chance that you call for help, 20 people group  - 15% chance, 100 people group - not one calls for help).

Here are the links to the first two:

Stanford prison experiment
Milgram Experiments

Sorry, I can't remember the name of the third one to look for it.


----------



## Nunty

Xarruc beat me to the Stanford prison experiment. It is well worth reading the link with careful attention.

I have personally spoken to a very nice lady who told me how she got caught up in the genocide in Rwanda. One of my Ivorian sisters (from the Ivory Coast) told me that her natural sister told her that she was watching a lynch mob from upstairs in her apartment and that she was sure that had she been down in the street she would have joined in, in spite of herself.

For more on this subject, you might want to read _Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution_.

I have no doubt that in given circumstances, under given stress and pressure, I could become a ruthless killer. No doubt at all. We human beings are very fragile creatures. This is one reason that I do my faulty best not to judge other people.


----------



## badgrammar

Great responses so far.  I had read about the Stanford and Milgram experiments before, but read them again.  Quite disturbing, to say the least.  As well as having previously read about cases of non-assistance to a person in danger when in the presence of a large group.  We'd all like to think those things could not apply to us, but as Nun-sister points out, we are all subject to this human fragility that can turn us into "monsters".

Veggy, maybe at some point we can turn into these "monsters" that people are afraid of.  And maybe, afterwards, we can go back to being "normal" again?  I guess a "normal" person to me is someone who, despite their faults and weaknesses, is not a socio- or psychopath, and is not seriously mentally impaired (mental illness, very low IQ, etc.).  A "normal" person, atleast to me, has no desire to injure or kill other living beings for sport or fun or to seek dominance and elicit fear, and does not take pleasure in the suffering of others.  (*Which is not to say I believe that mentally impaired or ill people necessarily have any more of these sadistic tendencies than other people.)

A normal person might be a banker, a housewife, a butcher, an unemployed person, a fry-cook, a homeless person, a marijuana dealer, an embezzler...  

But that is just my perception of normal.  Thanks also for the reading suggestion.


----------



## John-Paul

If there would be a "disintegrate-the-driver-in-front-of-me-button" in your car, how often would you use it? I think, as a species, we have come up with some awesome stuff, but inside we're still monkeys.


----------



## Etcetera

It's so easy to judge sitting in a cosy chair somewhere far from Rwanda or other countries with similar problems. So easy to think that we're very unlike those people. But who may guarantee that we wouldn't behave in exactly the same way under those circumstances?
That's why I don't like such questions. I can't help being shocked when I hear reports like the ones from Rwanda, and still I can't say that I would be more peaceful had someone destroyed my own home.


----------



## badgrammar

John-Paul, I guess I still believe that we're all "still monkeys" deep inside, too.  Animalistic instincts only controlled by a few more highly evolved brain cells...

Yes, Etcetera, that's just why I think it's an interesting question.  Whose to say I would not have participated in lynchings and been in the KKK had I been born a generation or two earlier back in Texas?  I am just so curious as to how that savagery can take over otherwise "normal" people.  I'm sure the answer to the question is quite elusive.


----------



## Nunty

John-Paul, back in the days of the first word processors Steven King wrote a short story about a guy who could type something on the screen, press "insert" and it appeared in real life, and he could also press "delete" and something real life would disappear. I regret that I don't remember how the story played out. (It's called "Word Processor of the Gods".) But I do know that there are many times a day that I am grateful that I do not have a death-ray button near to hand.


----------



## xrayspex

_But I do know that there are many times a day that I am grateful that I do not have a death-ray button near to hand._ 
But you have something similar: the power of prayer.  Do you ever use that to do harm to another person?  Is it in fact the same thing?


----------



## Joca

I should think that most people are potential killers or at least potential aggressors if only they are to act upon the (sudden) drive of their impulses or instincts. This is a very "normal" reaction, and only very few specimens in the human race are able to keep cool, count up to ten and do nothing in response. 

Now, this is different from an inner tendency towards crime and doing evil things, which in most cases demands premeditation or calculation. 

I would like to pose such a question to a man like LeBoyer (is he still alive, by the way?). He thought that a child born without any violence, in the most natural and loving way, would never be violent in any instance. 

JC


----------



## Etcetera

xrayspex said:


> But you have something similar: the power of prayer.  Do you ever use that to do harm to another person?  Is it in fact the same thing?


No Christian would do that.


----------



## papillon

xrayspex said:


> But you have something similar: the power of prayer.  Do you ever use that to do harm to another person?  Is it in fact the same thing?





Etcetera said:


> No Christian would do that.


Oh, I'm sure plenty would - they are just flawed human beings after all, as we all are. But though I'm far from being an expert in theology, I can assure you that a prayer doesn't quite work that way...  You must be thinking of a genie-in-a-bottle!


----------



## Nunty

xrayspex said:


> _But I do know that there are many times a day that I am grateful that I do not have a death-ray button near to hand._
> But you have something similar: the power of prayer.  Do you ever use that to do harm to another person?  Is it in fact the same thing?


I am grateful to be able to say that I have never prayed against anyone, not even when people were throwing bombs at me. I do pray for my heart -- and their heart -- to be changed. 

Honesty compels me to add that just because I have never yet prayed that someone would come to harm, I have no assurance that I never will. I repeat, because I think it is an important and basic truth, that we human beings are fragile creatures. The critical mass of circumstances may be a little different for me or for you, but we are all of us capable of the most heinous behavior. Sorry, I don't see any other way to say it.


----------



## alexacohen

If you teach children from a very early age that those who are not just like them (be it Jews, Tutsi, Sikhs, whatever) are *not *human beings, they will believe it. Teach them that Jews, Tutsi, Sikhs, whatever, are a danger and a threat. 
The children will grow up believing firmly that these people are not human beings, that they are a plague and therefore, when someone decides that the plague has to be exterminated, they won't have any pang of conscience about killing a fellow human being. 
Plus, an excited mob who has tasted blood has ceased to be human. 
Homo sum. Humani nihil a me alienum puto.
I don't know if I could have been one of the bloodlust mob. I hope not, but then, I have never been in such a situation.
Alexa


----------



## Fernando

I have no doubt The average person can become a mass-killer if society (their peers) convince them that is a right thing.

If you dislike Uganda as an example, the things that happened in Yugoslavia are a good argument.

Anyhow, the spearhead (the people that actually commits the most serious crimes) are scum before and after the killings, with a good percentage that either applauds or justify the crimes and a vast majority that turn the blind eye.


----------



## Sepia

To the main question:

No normal person would - but there are a lot of persons around who are not that normal.

------

However, before we only think of murderers with big knives who hack of arms and legs of defenseless people, don't forget

Presidents who claim they are commanding a "just war", go to church and prey - sorry pray for the lives of the heavily armed persons he sends there

some of which who fly thier machines to the given coordinates,

press the right button to drop a cluster bomb killing thousands of combatant, non-combatants or "maybe-combatants" - without asking themselves or anybody else if this is a necessary action to save lives of persons who pose no danger to the world. 
(Which in my opinion is the only justification for killing people).


----------



## maxiogee

thread title said:
			
		

> Genocide: Can normal people become ruthless killers?
> 
> .



Do you have to ask?

There is a long list of people who have turned out to be serial killers - and in almost all cases their neighbours said things like "We can't understand it - he was such a normal guy. Maybe a bit quiet, kept himself to himself."

In both the good and the bad, ordinary people can do extraordinary things.


----------



## CrazyArcher

How do you define "normal"? The kind of behaiviour accepted by the wide masses as the correct one? Oh this depends on the society you are looking at... Suicide in Japan is more normal than in Europe, for instance.

Maybe the "normal" thing is the one most widely spread statistically? If so, the researches meantioned above show that this kind of sadistic behaviour is innate to most people, so well, according to the latter definition it is normal...

My take is that all people are beasts inside. As long as they have enough food, comfort and mating partners (sorry but it is the right thing to say here IMO), people play themselves nice and moral and are worried about others' rights. But as soon as the life conditions turn ugly and one has to choose between killing or beeing killed, a man turns into a killer.


----------



## Etcetera

CrazyArcher said:


> How do you define "normal"? The kind of behaiviour accepted by the wide masses as the correct one? Oh this depends on the society you are looking at... Suicide in Japan is more normal than in Europe, for instance.


Not more normal, but more frequent, perhaps. Don't know if suicides are indeed more frequent in Japan, though; still, the thing is that you can't possibly call it "normal".


----------



## Joca

CrazyArcher said:


> ...
> 
> My take is that all people are beasts inside. As long as they have enough food, comfort and mating partners (sorry but it is the right thing to say here IMO), people play themselves nice and moral and are worried about others' rights. But as soon as the life conditions turn ugly and one has to choose between killing or beeing killed, a man turns into a killer.


 
I guess you mean to say that kindness and badness are relative (mind you, I don't mean to say they are relatives, though this could as well be the case  ). We have a saying in Portuguese that goes more or less like this: "It is the occasion that turns you into a thief." I hope you get the meaning. Given the right circumstances, anyone is able to steal or kill.

But really I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody will do so or that we are like beasts inside. There are degrees to that. Some people will fall easily prey to evil, while there are others that can endure it for longer periods. 

JC


----------



## Outsider

I think the real issue is how frighteningly easy it is to create the conditions to turn a substantial fraction of a human population into beasts.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Can we do anything about it? I don't think anyone can change the essence of the human nature, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Athaulf

CrazyArcher said:


> Can we do anything about it? I don't think anyone can change the essence of the human nature, whether we like it or not.



We can, however, recognize the political conditions that tend to lead to such events. Unfortunately, any concrete discussion of this topic is bound to arouse a lot of passion, making rational discourse about it very difficult.


----------



## Outsider

CrazyArcher said:


> Can we do anything about it? I don't think anyone can change the essence of the human nature, whether we like it or not.


Human nature is malleable. It can be softened, or hardened, by social conditions. Poverty, violence, power and injustice are factors that can typically tip the scales to one side or the other.


----------



## Joca

An aspect of this discussion must not be overlooked: self-defence.

A man or a woman that kills in self-defence is not a real killer. Self-defence is a very natural movement. 

I am usually a very meek person, but if my children, wife or myself were attacked, I would not hesitate to kill or eliminate the offender. Who would?

This is perhaps the only instance I can think of that would make me into a ruthless killer. 

JC


----------



## Veggy

Joca said:


> I would like to pose such a question to a man like LeBoyer (is he still alive, by the way?). He thought that a child born without any violence, in the most natural and loving way, would never be violent in any instance.
> JC


 
Hi, Joca. I've never heard or read such a thing. Leboyer (I think he is still alive and living in London)  surely said that human beings who did not suffer the trauma of birth would be free of fear (most important) and stress and nervousness.
To come back to the thread, as far as I know, no person who committed genocides or mass killings were considered mentally ill before they came to power. I also wonder if they themselves thought what they did was evil. Hitler did not. He thought it was right and could explain very well all of his reasons. The fact that many today would judge him as "mad" or "monster" I think is part of the way we decide to use language communication but this might get us "out or off" thread.


----------



## Joca

Veggy said:


> Hi, Joca. I've never heard or read such a thing. Leboyer (I think he is still alive and living in London) surely said that human beings who did not suffer the trauma of birth would be free of fear (most important) and stress and nervousness.
> ...


 
Hi Veggy: I might be wrong about LeBoyer. Maybe some other author on natural birth (Odent?) mentioned violence. But it makes me wonder whether a person, even if he hadn't gone through the trauma of birth, wouldn't resort to violence or be afraid, if the context really demanded it.  

JC


----------



## Nunty

Joca said:


> Hi Veggy: I might be wrong about LeBoyer. Maybe some other author on natural birth (Odent?) mentioned violence. But it makes me wonder whether a person, even if he hadn't gone through the trauma of birth, wouldn't resort to violence or be afraid, if the context really demanded it.
> 
> JC


I have trouble imagining a person who "hadn't gone through the trauma of birth" doing much of anything in any context.


----------



## Joca

Nun-Translator said:


> I have trouble imagining a person who "hadn't gone through the trauma of birth" doing much of anything in any context.


 
Good point. I take you mean to say that birth trauma is unavoidable, part of human ondition. True, but there seems to be degrees to that trauma and ways to make it less traumatic (sic). 

JC


----------



## badgrammar

Outsider said:


> I think the real issue is how frighteningly easy it is to create the conditions to turn a substantial fraction of a human population into beasts.



I think maybe this is the reflection that goes straight to heart of my original post.  The conditions that can turn a substantial part of a population into beasts, as opposed to conditions that turn individuals into beasts.  Obviously as others have said, poverty, political unrest, insecurity, scarceness of resources...  And then a little bit of Evil Pixie Dust and...  Bang!  People in these group situations flop over into a state of madness.  There is some critical point at which a spark sets off the keg of hot, dry gunpowder and causes a chain reaction.  

Some have said it, and I guess I would like to think that indeed, there are individuals of such character that it could never happen to them (and I' m not claiming that title for myself).  I'm sure that in all these kinds of conflicts there have been people who never became part of it.  Many probably see no choice, if they want to survive (and save their families), but to remain silent.  Others actively seek to help those in danger, and surely many of these people are themselves victims. 

Very thoughtful replies, thank you all.


----------



## Nunty

No, actually I meant to say that everyone who is not still rolling around in amniotic fluid has been born. Your sentence, as it stands, did not make any sense to me. But I hope you are not trying to say that the birth process is what makes people into ruthless genocidal killers. I find that a little... silly.


----------



## Veggy

Nun-Translator, now YOUR sentence is clear, I did not understand it the first time. I do not think Joca meant what you're saying, not so generally speaking. I took it as Joca was saying that the trauma of birth might influence (like other traumas) the degree of violence present in some people. I'm sorry I'm speaking for somebody else, I just wanted to say how I read it.


----------



## Joca

Nun-Translator said:


> No, actually I meant to say that everyone who is not still rolling around in amniotic fluid has been born. Your sentence, as it stands, did not make any sense to me. But I hope you are not trying to say that the birth process is what makes people into ruthless genocidal killers. I find that a little... silly.


 
Oh, I am sorry. Though there was a smiling emoticon at the end of your sentence, somehow I didn't think you were making a literal, plain statement. You see, I read much more into it. Mea culpa. No, by no means, I am not trying to say that the birth process makes people killers or whatever. It may have an influence in your personality etc, but I am not sure to what extent it does. My question is: Is having a peaceful birth the guarantee that you will never commit any act of violence in your life? Probably not. Anyway, I am ashamed of having looked silly, even if for a while, in your eyes, or of having presented a "silly" idea before you. But I am afraid this happens now and then with everybody, doesn't it?

Cheers,

JC


----------



## Nunty

Birth is always a trauma. It involves emerging from a warm, wet, cozy environment to (ultimately) a chilly, dry one. I hope no one is seriously suggesting that people become "ruthless killers" because they were born?


----------



## Veggy

badgrammar said:


> I think maybe this is the reflection that goes straight to heart of my original post. The conditions that can turn a substantial part of a population into beasts, as opposed to conditions that turn individuals into beasts. Obviously as others have said, poverty, political unrest, insecurity, scarceness of resources... And then a little bit of Evil Pixie Dust and... Bang! People in these group situations flop over into a state of madness. There is some critical point at which a spark sets off the keg of hot, dry gunpowder and causes a chain reaction.
> 
> Some have said it, and I guess I would like to think that indeed, there are individuals of such character that it could never happen to them (and I' m not claiming that title for myself). I'm sure that in all these kinds of conflicts there have been people who never became part of it. Many probably see no choice, if they want to survive (and save their families), but to remain silent. Others actively seek to help those in danger, and surely many of these people are themselves victims.
> 
> Very thoughtful replies, thank you all.


 
Thank YOU badgrammar for opening such an interesting thread.
I give a comment on your post by saying that if we speak about precise specific events than anyone, in my opinion, can turn into anything really, but the title of your thread gave me the idea that you did not only talk about "normal" people I supposed you meant in ordinary circomstances; furthermore you write in the title: genocide so it made me think of mass killing, that means not an individual killing another one but people like dictators or totalitarians.
I also strongly oppose the use of the word "beasts" that many use in this thread. It is opposite to reality and to truth to use such term.


----------



## whatonearth

I think, given certain circumstances, I think everyone of us has the capability to truly terrible things. It's a scary thought...


----------



## Veggy

Nun-Translator said:


> Birth is always a trauma. It involves emerging from a warm, wet, cozy environment to (ultimately) a chilly, dry one. I hope no one is seriously suggesting that people become "ruthless killers" because they were born?


 
I do not think anyone is suggesting such a thing. Birth is a trauma but it can be a slight one or it can be devasting. In this case, it might bring, along with other traumas, personality behaviours that are quite negative.


----------



## Joca

Nun-Translator said:


> Birth is always a trauma. I agree, but it can be more or less traumatic, according to the circumstances. It involves emerging from a warm, wet, cozy environment to (ultimately) a chilly, dry one. Bright lights and noise are also an issue, because you are coming from a dark and almost noiseless (regular noises, I mean) womb. I hope no one is seriously suggesting that people become "ruthless killers" because they were born? I can't remember the name of this figure of speech: hyperbole? irony? Whatever it is, I think yes, from the moment you are born, anything can happen. Whether you will become a saint or a killer is perhaps ultimately a matter of probability.


----------



## xarruc

Loverly theory. Is there any proof that a baby is is stressed in birth, that it remembers that stress and that the supposed trauma is forms an influential event in the development of the infants psychiatric well being and subsequent personality?


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> I have trouble imagining a person who "hadn't gone through the trauma of birth" doing much of anything in any context.



Does a caesarean section delivery skirt 'the trauma of birth' - or is the leaving of the womb the trauma?


----------



## Nunty

Joca, please do me the favor of not writing your own opinions inside a quote from my post. Even if it's in a different color, it is not clearly identified. Please post your own ideas below or above the quote, like most of us do.

I cannot quote the post I am referring to (#39) because the quote feature will not quote a quote within a post. 

Thank you.


----------



## Joca

Hi Nun-Translator:

Is this all right for you now? I apologize for the inconvenience.

JC



Nun-Translator said:


> Birth is always a trauma.


 
I agree, but it can be more or less traumatic, according to the circumstances. 



Nun-Translator said:


> It involves emerging from a warm, wet, cozy environment to (ultimately) a chilly, dry one.


 
Bright lights and noise are also an issue, because you are coming from a dark and almost noiseless (regular noises, I mean) womb. 



Nun-Translator said:


> I hope no one is seriously suggesting that people become "ruthless killers" because they were born?


 
I can't remember the name of this figure of speech: hyperbole? irony? Whatever it is, I think yes, from the moment you are born, anything can happen. Whether you will become a saint or a killer is perhaps ultimately a matter of probability.


----------



## Nunty

Joca said:


> Hi Nun-Translator:
> 
> Is this all right for you now? I apologize for the inconvenience.
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but it can be more or less traumatic, according to the circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> Bright lights and noise are also an issue, because you are coming from a dark and almost noiseless (regular noises, I mean) womb.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember the name of this figure of speech: hyperbole? irony? Whatever it is, I think yes, from the moment you are born, anything can happen. Whether you will become a saint or a killer is perhaps ultimately a matter of probability.




Thank you, Joca. I appreciate it. 

I understand your point, and I disagree with it. Far more people have been born in the most unpleasant, unattractive, and hostile environments than have turned into "ruthless killers". (My phrase is that of the thread title, which is why it is in quotes.) I find it difficult to associate the so-called trauma of birth, in the absence of brain damage, with later behavior.

Most, perhaps all, of the people who took part in Rwanda's genocidal mobs spent the first months of their lives cuddled against their mother in a pagne (sp?). Mother-child bonding in Africa is among the strongest in the world. 

I find the argument that the trauma of birth has a decisive effect on adult behavior untenable.


----------



## Joca

Nun-Translator said:


> Thank you, Joca. I appreciate it.
> 
> I understand your point, and I disagree with it. Far more people have been born in the most unpleasant, unattractive, and hostile environments than have turned into "ruthless killers". (My phrase is that of the thread title, which is why it is in quotes.) I find it difficult to associate the so-called trauma of birth, in the absence of brain damage, with later behavior.
> 
> Most, perhaps all, of the people who took part in Rwanda's genocidal mobs spent the first months of their lives cuddled against their mother in a pagne (sp?). Mother-child bonding in Africa is among the strongest in the world.
> 
> I find the argument that the trauma of birth has a decisive effect on adult behavior untenable.


 
You're welcome, Nun-Translator.

I also understand your points, and I mostly agree with them. 

Looking back, when I first posted my message onto this thread, my reference to birth and LeBoyer was quite off-topic. If you take the trouble to re-read it, you'll see that I am not asserting anything, but simply saying that I would like to ask LeBoyer a similar question. 

I feel that a good, peaceful birth is a very good and solid doorway into your human life on earth, but I am also skeptical as to whether you would be totally immune to violence, if only the later circumstances of your life were too cruel or too harsh. 

I am not quite convinced that mother-child bonding in Africa is among the strongest in the world. Maybe it was, in days before Colonialism, but I am afraid there is also a lot of dereliction and maybe even cruelty on the part of African parents these days partly because of poverty, wars and illness. 

Birth is part of your history, the very first chapter (if you don't consider conception and pregnancy), and though you may not remember it clearly, it is there on your mind. You can't erase it, can you? I believe it has an effect on your later behaviour, but I can't say how strong it is and I am sure that it is not the only influence. 

Regards,

JC


----------



## Nunty

Joca said:


> You're welcome, Nun-Translator.
> 
> I also understand your points, and I mostly agree with them.
> 
> Looking back, when I first posted my message onto this thread, my reference to birth and LeBoyer was quite off-topic. If you take the trouble to re-read it, you'll see that I am not asserting anything, but simply saying that I would like to ask LeBoyer a similar question.


Well, since it was in the context of this thread, I assumed you meant it to have something to do with the topic. Silly me.



Joca said:


> [... ]
> I am not quite convinced that mother-child bonding in Africa is among the strongest in the world. Maybe it was, in days before Colonialism, but I am afraid there is also a lot of dereliction and maybe even cruelty on the part of African parents these days partly because of poverty, wars and illness.


My statement is based on my friendships with people from and in Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso. I probably shouldn't have generalized to the whole continent. It appears that in post-colonial francophone Africa, basing myself now on second-hand reports as well as first-hand reports from people I know well, what I said is still mostly true in villages and cities. I don't know about anglophone Africa. 



Joca said:


> Birth is part of your history, the very first chapter (if you don't consider conception and pregnancy), and though you may not remember it clearly, it is there on your mind. You can't erase it, can you? I believe it has an effect on your later behaviour, but I can't say how strong it is and I am sure that it is not the only influence.


Yeah, okay.


----------



## Veggy

Fernando said:


> I have no doubt The average person can become a mass-killer if society (their peers) convince them that is a right thing.


 
Or it could be just the opposite.


----------

