your points are good toyin.
but if you look at any historical instance of war, with civilian deaths, etc, you can definitely find virtually all the attributes you list below.
i remember reading about the atrocities the athenians visited on a small polis, rounding up all the civilians, putting them into a stadium, and stoning them all to death. this was in the course of the Peloponnesian war. read machiavelli on the wars of the times he writes about, and it was brutal, inhumane.
the first world war and the second spared civilians very little. think of the fire bombings of tokyo and the atomic bombs.
anyway, we should go back to first principles, and ask not simply what genocide it, but what are we condoning in wartime circumstances by rationalizing or justifying such abhorrent practices. what do you think ought to be condemned, if we can't simply say war is hell.
we have to try to draw reasonable lines.
the problem i have in reading these threads on yoruba war-like nature or genocide in biafra is that there seems to be such bitterness that there isn't even agreement on what wrongs were committed.
in vietnam, lt calley slaughtered villagers in my lai, and although he served a small amount of time for having ordered the killings of hundreds of villagers, lots and lots of americans had no problem with killing "geeks."
the lines you evoke, between civilians and combatants, are always always crossed. when civilians pay taxes, or raise money for the war effort, what is that?
i want us to imagine that we can ultimately decide that something politically, ethically, is wrong, and we have to say, NO.
we have to come to that position together, to be ethical.
and it isn't easy if we are partisans.
in two words i can evoke that, outside of nigeria: israel/palestine
or, in one word: terrorists!
ken
but if you look at any historical instance of war, with civilian deaths, etc, you can definitely find virtually all the attributes you list below.
i remember reading about the atrocities the athenians visited on a small polis, rounding up all the civilians, putting them into a stadium, and stoning them all to death. this was in the course of the Peloponnesian war. read machiavelli on the wars of the times he writes about, and it was brutal, inhumane.
the first world war and the second spared civilians very little. think of the fire bombings of tokyo and the atomic bombs.
anyway, we should go back to first principles, and ask not simply what genocide it, but what are we condoning in wartime circumstances by rationalizing or justifying such abhorrent practices. what do you think ought to be condemned, if we can't simply say war is hell.
we have to try to draw reasonable lines.
the problem i have in reading these threads on yoruba war-like nature or genocide in biafra is that there seems to be such bitterness that there isn't even agreement on what wrongs were committed.
in vietnam, lt calley slaughtered villagers in my lai, and although he served a small amount of time for having ordered the killings of hundreds of villagers, lots and lots of americans had no problem with killing "geeks."
the lines you evoke, between civilians and combatants, are always always crossed. when civilians pay taxes, or raise money for the war effort, what is that?
i want us to imagine that we can ultimately decide that something politically, ethically, is wrong, and we have to say, NO.
we have to come to that position together, to be ethical.
and it isn't easy if we are partisans.
in two words i can evoke that, outside of nigeria: israel/palestine
or, in one word: terrorists!
ken
On 8/24/13 7:00 AM, Oluwatoyin Adepoju wrote:
The Biafran war effort was significantly sustained by civilians in the form of scientists who manufactured bombs, modified weapons, and refined fuel, by civilians who served as propaganda agents as well as by increasing conscription into the army as the war situation became more desperate.Biafra fought what is known as total war. Total war involves mobilizing an entire population into a war effort.To Kenneth HarrowMay one not perceive a significant difference between direct attacks on civilians and an effort to make an opponent submit by blocking food into a militarized zone containing both combatants and non-combatants?Such situations complicate the civilian/combatant distinction.I am not claiming to have definitive answers.We must also acknowledge, though, that Biafra was also guilty of a swath of brutal attacks on civilians even outside such complicated situations.This guilt extends from the efforts to conscript non-Igbo South-East ethnicities into the Biafran side, horrors in the Midwest and one or two bombings in Lagos.I point this out to help provide a broader picture while noting that the starvation blockade is on a different scale of devastation entirely and that Nigeria inflicted much more direct attacks on civilians.My problem with these discussions is that they are often based on diametrically opposed readings while we need more complex and nuanced interpretations as befit a critical approach to history, in terms of the exigencies of military strategy and its morality at particular points in time.thankstoyin
--On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:54 PM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:the geneva convention prohibits attacks on civiliansOn 8/23/13 11:19 AM, Oluwatoyin Adepoju wrote:"It is your opponent's duty to make sure you dont have food so you may surrender quickly and save everyone more deaths."
Here is what it says:
Part III and several chapters of Part IV (Articles 35-60) deal with the conduct of hostilities, i.e. questions which hitherto were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and by customary international law. Their reaffirmation and development is important in view of the age of the Hague Conventions and of the new States which had no part in their elaboration. Article 43 and 44 give a new definition of armed forces and combatants. Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. They contain a definition of military objectives and prohibitions of attack on civilian persons and objects. Further Articles (61-79) deal with the protection of civil defence organizations, relief actions and the treatment of persons in the power of a party to a conflict.
But i don't need the geneva convention to tell me what is right or wrong. none of us does.
ken-- kenneth w. harrow faculty excellence advocate distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839harrow@msu.edu--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
-- kenneth w. harrow faculty excellence advocate distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu