Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?

[paarsurrey]

Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?
And it was seculars and nationalists who made it murderous.
Does one agree with the above notion?:

The bloodiest war ever, started by the actions of a secular nationalist party.
The 2 most murderous regimes ever, both secular.
The first nation to industrialize a genocide, secular.

Regards

____________

This thread was conceptualized from:
Post #14 of our respected friend @Augustus , thanks to him and regards.

 

[paarsurrey]

One may like to read post #21 in another thread that is relevant here also. Please
Regards

 

[Kirran]

Also worth noting that there were a lot more people around to be killed than in previous centuries. Overall, the 20th Century was pretty good percentage-wise.

 

[paarsurrey]

Also worth noting that there were a lot more people around to be killed than in previous centuries. Overall, the 20th Century was pretty good percentage-wise.

One may like to read an interesting article on the topic:
"Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?"
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?
Please
Regards

 

[Kirran]

One may like to read an interesting article on the topic:
"Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?"
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?
Please
Regards

That is interesting, highlights the figures nicely.

So I'd venture 20th Century secularism is not really to blame.

 

[Augustus]

Also worth noting that there were a lot more people around to be killed than in previous centuries. Overall, the 20th Century was pretty good percentage-wise.

I'm not so sure about that. Percentage wise it is still right up there, and might even be number 1. Am pretty sure it would be at least top 3.

WW1, WW2, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and probably dozens of other incidences involving hundreds of thousand or millions of deaths.

Also historic casualty numbers are so hard to tell and are often vastly overstated (Mongols, An Lushan, etc.)

One may like to read an interesting article on the topic:
"Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?"
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?
Please

The figures in this are suspect. They are taken from Steven Pinker who, somewhat disingenuously, used the highest possible estimates for many historic events but more moderate estimates for 20th C ones because these suited his thesis better. Also many of the listed things lasted many centuries so are misleading.

So I'd venture 20th Century secularism is not really to blame.

For some context, in the other thread that this was lifted from, my argument was that, based on the evidence, secularism could not be said to have made us less violent. It wasn't that it was specifically to blame for the violence.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?
And it was seculars and nationalists who made it murderous.
Does one agree with the above notion?:

The bloodiest war ever, started by the actions of a secular nationalist party.
The 2 most murderous regimes ever, both secular.
The first nation to industrialize a genocide, secular.

Regards

____________

This thread was conceptualized from:
Post #14 of our respected friend @Augustus , thanks to him and regards.

Clearly them was much turmoil and tribulation and the overall number while being the worst, needs to be considered in regards to overall percentage of population.

I think its more thought provoking to consider some of the major changes. Before world war l much of the planet was ruled by European Colonial powers. By the end of world war II all that changed.

Racism, nationalism, and communism contributed to unprecedented atrocities and injustice. We've seen a decline in religion and rise in secularism. Part of that has been fuelled by religious fundamentalism and outdated doctrines and dogmas that no longer work for the 21st century. People are abandoning faith, finding new avenues for spiritual fulfilment, or defining their Faith around new paradigms.

We witnessed a moved to increased international cooperation with the League of Nations and then the United Nations. We also began to see ourselves more as one people inhabiting one planet with barriers of race, nationality, gender, and religion breaking down. The world really has become a global village and we are so well connected now in ways that weren't present a few generations ago.

The twentieth century was violent for certain. Although its uncertain times ahead, we have a great deal to be positive as well. Lets hope we have a better 21st century.

 

[Kirran]

For some context, in the other thread that this was lifted from, my argument was that, based on the evidence, secularism could not be said to have made us less violent. It wasn't that it was specifically to blame for the violence.

Yes, that seems fair enough. Perhaps certain variations on it do help to engender non-violence though - within democratic systems we seem to see less violence, although there is still substantial projection of violence into areas governed by non-democratic paradigms.

 

[LuisDantas]

The 20th century (more like the century from 1880 to 1979, actually) was certainly remarkably bloodthirsty.

But certainly not because of secularism of all things!

Rather, it was plagued by the emergence of widespread use of efficient firearms, coupled with a lack of anthropological maturity to know better than to use them and a social-political structure that was much too enamored to the lure of nationalism for anyone's good.

 

[Kemosloby]

Perhaps, but only because Ghengis Khan ran out of enemies.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps, but only because Ghengis Khan ran out of enemies.

The Mongol invasions were really 50 or so smaller wars that lasted over a century.

The Mongol slaughter was vastly overstated to intimidate those who might prefer to fight rather than submit and pay tribute. These exaggerated figures then became part of the historical record simply by being repeated. A huge number of people died, but nowhere near the numbers often claimed otherwise the regions would have taken far longer to recover than they did.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Mongol invasions were really 50 or so smaller wars that lasted over a century.

The Mongol slaughter was vastly overstated to intimidate those who might prefer to fight rather than submit and pay tribute. These exaggerated figures then became part of the historical record simply by being repeated. A huge number of people died, but nowhere near the numbers often claimed otherwise the regions would have taken far longer to recover than they did.

"The Mongol slaughter was vastly overstated to intimidate those who might prefer to fight rather than submit and pay tribute."

How did you come to that conclusion? Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The 20th century (more like the century from 1880 to 1979, actually) was certainly remarkably bloodthirsty.

But certainly not because of secularism of all things!

Rather, it was plagued by the emergence of widespread use of efficient firearms, coupled with a lack of anthropological maturity to know better than to use them and a social-political structure that was much too enamored to the lure of nationalism for anyone's good.

"But certainly not because of secularism of all things!"

The bloodshed was not due to any religious fights, so why should not secularism lift the burden, they were definitely responsible fo?.
Why be lenient towards secularism? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, that seems fair enough. Perhaps certain variations on it do help to engender non-violence though - within democratic systems we seem to see less violence, although there is still substantial projection of violence into areas governed by non-democratic paradigms.

We should concentrate of the end-product rather than the name.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Clearly them was much turmoil and tribulation and the overall number while being the worst, needs to be considered in regards to overall percentage of population.

I think its more thought provoking to consider some of the major changes. Before world war l much of the planet was ruled by European Colonial powers. By the end of world war II all that changed.

Racism, nationalism, and communism contributed to unprecedented atrocities and injustice. We've seen a decline in religion and rise in secularism. Part of that has been fuelled by religious fundamentalism and outdated doctrines and dogmas that no longer work for the 21st century. People are abandoning faith, finding new avenues for spiritual fulfilment, or defining their Faith around new paradigms.

We witnessed a moved to increased international cooperation with the League of Nations and then the United Nations. We also began to see ourselves more as one people inhabiting one planet with barriers of race, nationality, gender, and religion breaking down. The world really has become a global village and we are so well connected now in ways that weren't present a few generations ago.

The twentieth century was violent for certain. Although its uncertain times ahead, we have a great deal to be positive as well. Lets hope we have a better 21st century.

"Lets hope we have a better 21st century."

I agree, and we all must pray for that.
The odds are certainly there and not small, and must be checked to find peace for humanity.

Regards

 

[Kirran]

We should concentrate of the end-product rather than the name.
Regards

Yeah, I never said otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

"The Mongol slaughter was vastly overstated to intimidate those who might prefer to fight rather than submit and pay tribute."

How did you come to that conclusion? Please elaborate.
Regards

It's quite common in pre-modern history. Nobody wanted to fight battles unless they had to, much better to get people to be so scared of you they simply surrender. As such overstating casualties serves a real purpose.

Also the numbers are improbably high in many places, slaughtering a million people at a time as sometimes claimed is not very practical logistically.

Numbers are also sometimes taken by comparing a pre/post invasion census but this is very unreliable as a method because population displacement and/or degradation of governmental infrastructure can cause these figures to give greatly overstated numbers (see An Lushan Rebellion)

It is possible that many people died from the aftereffects of war - disease and starvation, although this is almost impossible to know with any degree of accuracy. If the numbers of deaths are relatively accurate (big if) then the vast majority of deaths would be from disease and famine anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?
And it was seculars and nationalists who made it murderous.
Does one agree with the above notion?:

Let me show you a picture of history's most infamous Xian....

Now, it's quiz time.
But there are some trick questions......
Which secular organization systematically enabled child rapists by moving them from parish to parish for fresh meat?
Which secular organization taught pilots to land planes on skyscrapers?
Which secular organization promises 57 virgins to martyrs who kill innocent people?
Which secular organization invented the auto da fe?


There's one thing which evil people have in common.
It's not religion or the lack thereof.
It's that they perpetrate evil acts.

 

[sun rise]

Let me show you a picture of history's most infamous Xian....

Now, it's quiz time.
But there are some trick questions......
Which secular organization systematically enabled child rapists by moving them from parish to parish for fresh meat?
Which secular organization taught pilots to land planes on skyscrapers?
Which secular organization promises 57 virgins to martyrs who kill innocent people?
Which secular organization invented the auto da fe?


There's one thing which evil people have in common.
It's not religion or the lack thereof.
It's that they perpetrate evil acts.

Godwin's law time.

I'm a libertarian because I say I am no matter what I espouse and no matter what I do and no matter what the moral standards I violate. So when I confiscate all your worldly possessions you must call me a libertarian because my actions which prove the opposite don't count.

(back to the OP):

WWII and the Cold War was a climactic struggle between good and evil with the entire world involved. Tel Megiddo writ large. And we're all here today because of the action of one Soviet sub commander who prevented WWIII.

It was not a matter of secularism but of a deeper current of life.

 

[LuisDantas]

"But certainly not because of secularism of all things!"

The bloodshed was not due to any religious fights, so why should not secularism lift the burden, they were definitely responsible fo?.

I don't know about that. The big late 19th and 20th century conflicts had a serious tendency to be justified by theistic beliefs in White Man's Burden, Manifest Destiny, Divine Rule of Monarchs and the like.

Why be lenient towards secularism? Please
Regards

Just a tip on vocabulary: "lenience" is a form of forgiveness. By calling for it, you are implying that secularism has to be forgiven for some reason.

It is possible that you would be better served by a word such as "receptive".