Daniel Pipes, a renowned analyst of the Middle East, just published a list compiled, in part, by Gunnar Heinsohn, showing how many people were killed, since 1950, in all the various conflicts around the world. His point was that the Arab-Israeli conflict gets undo attention because it ranks only 49th among the 67 bloodiest conflicts, with "only" 51,000 fatalities, as compared to some of the others.
Please take the time to look at some of the numbers.
1
40,000,000
Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2
10,000,000
Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
52
50,000
Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79
53
50,000
Peru, 1980-2000
54
50,000
Guinea, 1958-84
55
40,000
Chad, 1982-90
56
30,000
Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)
57
30,000
Rhodesia, 1972-79
58
30,000
Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)
59
27,000
Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)
60
26,000
Kashmir independence, 1989-present
61
25,000
Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)
62
22,000
Poland, 1948-89 (own people)
63
20,000
Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)
64
20,000
Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979
65
19,000
Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)
66
18,000
Congo Republic, 1997-99
67
10,000
South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)
*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999,2nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M., "Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century," 2003.
___________
Incredibly, since 1950, about 85,000,000 people have been killed in bloody conflicts around the world. And that doesn't even include World War I and World War II.
I have often said that more people have probably been killed, by the hand of man, in the last 200 years, than the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence. It turns out, as dramatized in the film The Rise of Man, on the Discovery Channel, that cavemen, who lived during the 2,000,000 years before the advent of "civilization," were actually quite nice to one another. As hunter gatherers, there was no real reason to kill. Would you kill your neighbor just to steal a couple of peanuts? Why bother? Common sense told them to be good, and to help one another out, and they did.
In most instances, we demonstrate a certain sense of arrogance when we kill one another, an excessive sense of pride, and an extreme confidence in the validity of our convictions. When we kill, it is as if we cry out, for the world to hear, "We are right, and you will pay with your lives for the inadequacies of your beliefs." It is sheer arrogance to kill one another so casually, even in the name of our deeply held beliefs. Look at it this way-if we were indeed created by God in His image, then when we kill one another, aren't we, in effect, spitting at God's face?
To my mind, for what it's worth, there are only two reasons to kill: either someone is coming at you with an ax, or he's coming at your buddy with an ax. That's it; self-defense and the defense of others. No other reason to kill: not for our religion, not for our deeply held beliefs, not for politics, not for geopolitical considerations, not for the accumulation of wealth, not because we resent how someone thinks, or how he looks, or what he feels about us. Not for nothing. No other reason to kill.
Weapon systems are so advanced nowadays, that we would soon be able to kill one another in such magnitude, that previous death tolls would pale by comparison. Some of the bombs we have today are hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. We could literally wipe ourselves off the face of the earth.
Countries that are beginning to compete for scarce resources, like oil or fresh drinking water, could find themselves embroiled in a whole host of new conflicts, in the years to come. A global economy is a competitive economy, in which poor nations could easily find themselves on the losing end of the stick. But unlike previous times in history, when mostly everyone was poor, now there will be some who enjoy the prosperity that comes with economic growth, while a great many will be left behind, only to bear witness to their sense of deprivation and loss, and to their desperate struggle to survive.
The global economy offers promise for the future, but some pitfalls as well, as is often the case with new developments. The trick will be to sustain economic growth for ourselves, while allowing everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. Yes we will compete with one another, but we will invest in one another, as well. Yes we will work to augment our prosperity, but we will work for the prosperity of others, as well. Yes we will compete for scarce resources, but we will challenge one another to protect the environment, as well. Yes we will hold on to our deeply held beliefs, but we will find ways to talk to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, as well.
The secret to world peace, in contrast to the bloody history of the past, is not a secret at all. We have to find a way to connect, and to connect so cohesively, that we come to depend on one another. As such, it will be in our mutual best interest to keep the peace. By helping others, we help ourselves. Granted, it is a tall order, but it is probably the only way. Connect ideologically. Connect economically. Inspire in each other a sense of hope. And let the hope sustain the peace throughout the generations.
My wife and I live on the outskirts of a great American city, Baltimore, Maryland. For many reasons, we are proud to call this city home.
Having said that, however, we cannot help but recognize that Baltimore suffers from a whole host of big city problems-problems which are endemic to a great many cities across the US: more than 50% of babies born in Baltimore are born out of wedlock, we're close to the top in homicides averaging close to one murder a day, drug use and drug sales are exorbitantly high, HIV and other disease rates are high, gang violence abounds, educational achievement and graduation rates are abysmally low, unemployment is high, poverty is widespread, and the list goes on and on. In fact, whenever Baltimore makes national news, it's usually for some dubious distinction, like being number one in syphilis, etc.
As you well know by know, this website is all about Selling a Vision of Hope in the Middle East. But we need only look at the inner city to realize that hope is in short supply right here and right now. How can we possibly look to change the world, without also looking to change ourselves? People the world over need hope like air to breathe, and for many of our less fortunate citizens, the need for hope is crying out for our attention.
Many of the ingredients needed to Sell a Vision of Hope in the Middle East could prove quite handy to Sell a Vision of Hope right here at home. First, we would sell people on a Vision of Hope using Common Sense and Investment. Second, we would support and sustain the vision with programs that are designed to bolster the vision and to carry it forward. Third, and when absolutely necessary, we may have no choice but to fight to reclaim our neighborhoods, but to fight within a Vision of Hope.
Ideology plus Investment equals Hope. Use common sense to talk to the residents of the inner city, and to convince them, as Bill Cosby is beginning to do: that their lives could be made better, that they are in the best position to make that happen, that change has to happen from within even as help comes from without, that they may have to reassess what best works for them, that they may need to let go of some preconceived notions and beliefs, that they may want to consider some new ways of organizing their lives, and that it is time for the cynicism of the past to give way to the hope for tomorrow.
And, as with all issues of great import, we will have no choice but to invest. But we shouldn't just throw money at the problem, as we are doing in many of our schools, and in many of our social welfare programs. We should invest in ways which make sense, and in ways that inspire a sense of hope: teach kids the skills they need for good paying jobs, find ways to have those jobs waiting form them when they graduate, teach the values which are consistent with a more hopeful future, find ways to provide healthcare for the uninsured, encourage investments in better housing, and so forth.
As inner city residents begin to buy into a Vision of Hope, we should support and sustain that vision with a whole host of programs that are specifically designed to do just that: a Media Campaign could be used to help people make sense of their lives and could reinforce the promise of a better tomorrow, a program to Empower Women could encourage young women and help them to take control of their lives by getting good jobs and by having children within the framework of good and healthy marriages, a Cultural Exchange could include a mentoring program between schools in impoverished areas and schools in affluent areas, a Student Exchange could envision taking talented students from the inner city and affording them the opportunity to study at top ranked schools, an Expanded Peace Corps Program could train inner city kids to become Peace Corps volunteers around the world, and to broaden their horizons while affording them the opportunity to help others in need.
We are well advised to begin selling inner city residents on a Vision of Hope, and to support the vision with programs designed to carry the vision forward. And when the need arises, we will fight for a Vision of Hope by doing what we have to, to take back our communities-communities which have been allowed to languish and to drift gradually into a state of utter chaos. But our ability to reclaim our neighborhoods will depend on the good will we show to one another, by speaking with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, and by investing in one another, in a way that is more likely than current efforts, to make real the promise of a better day.
Yes, we can remain focused on the Middle East, as we must, but we dare not lose sight of some similar realities to be found right here at home. The hope for mankind is to recognize the needs that we all share in common, and to address those needs with a Vision of Hope. Only in this way can we build the bridges which can make us whole.
The good thing about Selling a Vision of Hope is that it is versatile. It can be used to solve almost any problem we face. Ideology plus Investment equals Hope. Use An Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to sell people on a Vision of Hope.
Global Warming is one hell of a problem. Let's put it in perspective using Common Sense. Most scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere. But even if you believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, well guess what; we still have to fix it. Try finding another environment if we mess this one up. It's time to turn down the thermostat, unless we want to get a preview of hell, right here and right now.
The idea that we should grow our economy by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels is a relatively new concept in the overall scheme of things, perhaps only 200 years old. We survived as a species for some 2,000,000 years before then. True, it was a short and brutish life that the cavemen had, but it was a life nonetheless, and we kept ourselves going, using our common sense, for some 2,000,000 years. That bears repeating, but I'll spare you.
Well, is it just possible that when we decided to modernize in this way, with our excessive reliance on fossil fuels, we may have made a wrong turn in the course of our development as a species? Could our foray into modernity, in this particular way, have been a slight mistake? If our species approaches extinction as a result, will we finally come around to the conclusion that we may have made a boo-boo, at a time when there may not be anyone around to do much of anything about it?
OK. So what do we do now? We invest. And by investing, we fix the problem, and create jobs as well. What a concept! We know roughly the parameters of a solution: cars that use less offensive fuels, hydrogen cells, bio fuels, geothermal energy, wind power, solar power, nuclear power, conservation, bicycles, etc. I love my bike, by the way. I'm not a technical person, but there are some very smart people out there who know how to fix this thing. They have to be backed up by political will. Time to bite the bullet.
So we will use common sense to understand global warming. And we will invest big time to make it right. And we will inspire people with a Sense of Hope: the hope that people will have the courage to push aside all the nonsense and to see things as they really are, the hope that people will make their will known to the moneyed interests for the sake of future generations, the hope that a problem we all have in common will give us the opportunity to come together in common purpose, and the hope that we can defy the odds, and transform a dire threat to our existence into our ultimate salvation.
Global Warming, like our problems in the Middle East, is staring us in the face. We dare not flinch. It will not go away, unless we decide to make it so. We have used our brainpower to get into this mess. It is time now to use our common sense, and the resources we still have left, to make it right. In so doing, we will realize the potential that is within us to be more than we are. On this score at least, we played God and lost. It is time to own up to our failures, to learn from our mistakes, and to find it within ourselves, to do what we have to do, to leave behind a legacy that takes into full account the welfare of our children, and of the countless generations still to come. In the final analysis, isn't that all we may ever have left, when it is all said and done?
I suppose that a speeding train could make a u-turn if you add a track that makes a gradual turn, and guides the train gently back in the opposite direction. And in fact, the faster the train is going, the more gradual the turn will have to be, so that the u-turn will not cause the train to derail. Offhand I can't give you the exact mathematical computations, but I know of some sixth graders who probably could. Brainy little tykes.
Why are we talking about trains and u-turns? Think of the Middle East as a train of sorts, a train with a lot of momentum to its motion. Certain unnamed passengers, some in first class, and some in coach, would like to make a u-turn, but there is always the danger that a course change which is undertaken too abruptly could bring the train to a calamitous halt. And yet, a great many passengers sense that a continuation of the present course could only spell trouble as well.
There are all sorts of quiet understandings in the Middle East: "Here's some money to build a madrasa, and yes, go ahead and teach what you want to teach," or "Here's some money to build a mosque, and yes, go ahead and preach what you want to preach," or "Here's some money to build a TV station, and yes, go ahead and broadcast what you want to broadcast."
In parts of the Middle East, and parts of the Muslim and Western worlds as well, ideological extremists are using Madrasas, Mosques, and the Media, as a propaganda machine to disseminate hate. And the funding for such activities is being provided by leaders of the Arab world, probably in a bid to hold on to power, and to placate extremist elements. Some of the leaders, however, are beginning to question whether disseminating hate is in their best interest. Such leaders may consider making a u-turn if it could be done without derailing the train.
There are hints in the air that change is in the offing. For example, a wealthy individual in Dubai has just initiated a 10 billion dollar foundation to promote secular education in the Middle East. Japan has just initiated an industrial zone in the West Bank. Such ventures attest to the idea, which is beginning to sink in, that Hope works better than Hate. You think?
The problem with disseminating hate is that hate is a hard thing to control. If you teach an Arab man on the street, for example, to hate the West because of its corruption, and he notices that his own government has extensive dealings with the West, then the hate could easily be diverted inwardly against his own government. Why are you dealing with the enemy, he may well ask? Similarly, if you teach young Muslim children to detest the excessive materialism of the West, and they notice signs of excessive materialism within the borders of their own country, then the hate you intended for others, could easily be re-focused internally, and disrupt the social order. Hate is hard to control. You never know where it will point to next. And many leaders in the Middle East see the hate of the young generation pointing toward them.
And so, wealthy and powerful leaders of the Middle East may well conclude that disseminating hate is dangerous, destructive, and rife with unintended consequences. They may opt to dump an Ideology of Hate in favor of an Ideology of Hope. Such an outcome, as far fetched as it may seem at first blush, may be rendered more likely if the transition could be made peacefully, and gradually, without derailing the train.
What could be done to ease the transition from hate to hope? In the first place, the more concerted and unified the effort, the better. Instead of just one Arab country acting alone, and exposing itself to undue risk, it would be better for as many of the 22 Arab countries as possible to join in, so that the shift from hate to hope is seen as a broad based movement, stretching across the whole of the Middle East.
In addition, as we all know, saving face is important in the Middle East. Insults are taken very seriously there, and are not easily forgotten. You recall the Danish cartoons. Therefore, if the West undertakes to Sell a Vision of Hope, the "sales pitch" should respect the aspirations and sensibilities of the people there. We should sell a vision that allows people to be who they are, and to become who they want to become, even if they want to become different from us.
Selling a Vision of Hope should be structured and presented as a deal that inures to the mutual benefit of the West and the Middle East, and which has been negotiated fairly and at arms length. Only in this way will the train keep its balance, even as it charts a new course.
Many religious traditions espouse the notion of the Messiah, a person who will be sent to redeem the world from sin and suffering.
In Judaism, the Hebrew Bible doesn't really mention the idea of a personal Messiah who will end evil and usher in an age of peace. But the idea became popular as a result of rabbinic teachings, after the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 C.E. It is understandable that in the wake of the Temple's destruction, and the scattering of the Jewish people, the notion of a personal savior was a source of solace for a battered and beleaguered people.
Christianity, more than any other religion, has celebrated the idea of a Messiah, and portrayed Jesus as sharing in God's divinity. Jesus is revered as the bearer of God's grace, as a sacrificial lamb whose death erased original sin and saved humanity, as a spiritual being who bridges the gap between God and humankind, and who tells humankind that it is loved and saved. Especially in the Book of Revelation, Christianity speaks of the End of Days, and the battle of Armageddon between good and evil, after which the world will experience a Second Coming of the Messiah, and a reign of peace for 1000 years.
In Islam, the Qur'an does not mention a Messiah, but he crept into Islamic tradition as al-Mahdi, the divinely guided one. He will bring peace and justice, restore the true religion, and usher in a golden age that will last seven to nine years before the end of the world. The Shi'ites in particular believe that the Twelfth Imam will be al-Mahdi, who will herald the coming of the golden age and the Last Day.
I, for one, without intending any disrespect, prefer to believe that there will be no Messiah coming; that we, in effect, are the Messiah who can usher in the golden age, if we only choose to make it so. I offer a simple common sense principle for your kind consideration: If you know something to be true, then believe in it. If you don't know something to be true, then ask yourself, "Is this thing worth believing in?" If the answer is yes, believe in it. If the answer is no, then let it go.
For me, the idea of a Messiah coming here to make things right doesn't seem to coincide with current realities on the ground. And waiting for the Messiah to come, can make a dangerous world even more dangerous. It makes more sense, and is less risky, to assume that making things right is up to us. If we've messed things up, doesn't it make more sense that it is up to us to undo what we've done, and to bring a semblance of order to this good earth?
Suppose I'm wrong. It could happen. Suppose the Messiah will eventually make his presence known. Well, if we assume that it is up to us to make things better, and if we do just that, then his coming will be like the icing on the cake. He will come only to find that we beat him to the punch by taking things into our own hands, and making things better, in preparation for his arrival. If, however, he never comes, then we would have still made the world better, relying on our own redemptive powers, instead of waiting for things to come.
You see, that's how common sense works. It covers you coming and going. Any way you turn, it's right there, ready to guide your way along the path of life, like a compass you carry with you, the universal moral compass of common sense.
