I often hear that it’s a moral imperative to learn from the great 20th century atrocities, that these events are a window into what humans are capable of, and we must find those impulses in ourselves to make sure we do not follow in their footsteps.
The Unthinkable by Amanda Ripley, a book about the psychology and sociology of disasters, offers some clues to your mystery. Contra to movie depictions, in real life disasters people rarely panic. Instead, they pick up their belongs, gather together with others, and calmly wait to be told what to do. The average person becomes passive and sheep-like. On the flip side, in the presence of one or a few people who give a call to action, people perform well and are surprisingly pro-social. Of course, this raises two questions. First, what makes leaders different? And two, why did humans evolve to be this way?
Two reasons come to mind. One is hope. Something may yet change just before it's your turn. A last minute reprieve or change of orders. The second is fear. Maybe there are things worse than death (pain, torture, humiliation... not just of self but of loved ones to be made an example of). Horrible thoughts to think but plausible.
It's just exhaustion most of the time when it gets to the actual point. You see it in how folks stumble forward to be shot in Ukraine or Syria in modern times on camera. It's a walk on wobbly legs that someone who's does something like Muay Thai or equivalent recognizes where someone knows they have to move but are too gassed to comprehend or care what's going on anymore at that moment.
I feel the article and comments written around this dance around that there is a physicality to the events here that go beyond sheer will (couple comments here even reek of 'rip to those guys but im built different). You can say you will have the strength of will to keep your hands up in the 5th round of a fight but will means fuck all when all you can think about is the burn of exertion on your lungs as you eat jab after jab. The same principle applies except its illness, lack of food and sleep.
I think the answer to the question "why didn't they physically fight?" is very simple: people who've lived in a civilized (i.e. pacified) country are uncomfortable with using force towards others, even when they feel they're in the right (as someone who escaped from a super violent country, I see that as a really good thing, actually).
What are you going to do with your life the day after you kill someone to escape? That'd destroy your self-image as a civilized person.
I think a better question to ask is why didn't they foresee such a massacre and argue against it (or just escape) before it was too late? Movements like Nazism don't come into power overnight.
Most of the survivors I have heard of were left for dead among the bodies of others shot at the same time. No one has time to check that everyone on the pile is really dead. Genocide is a lot of work
But if you are the only one to try to escape you'll for sure receive a lot of attention and bullets. My grandpa chose the latter and it went down exactly as expected.
>"that those behind you also run and a few slip away in the chaos"
Not to say that everyone was acting rationally, but this suggests a game theory issue that explains why people who were thinking about making a move didn't want to be the first to do so, so no one did. Your best survival odds from making a move come about 5 seconds after someone *else* does so first.
This piece is so naive, and so insulting to the memories of those who have been victimized by monsters. Being tortured to death and watching your community be tortured to death because of your actions is actually worse than being shot point blank. That is what happened to people who stepped out of line.
Stuff like this also happens if you’re in a literal army.
I was reading about the battle of Cannae, where a Roman (and Italian) army of 60-80,000 was slaughtered by a Carthaginian (plus Spanish and Celtic) army of 40-50,000, to the point where all but 20,000 Romans sided and about 5,000 Carthaginians.
A lot of people question, even if surrounded, how a larger army could be slaughtered to such an extent by a smaller army using swords and spears. Why didn’t they fight to the death?
There are some explanations- the Romans panicked and were disorganized as a result and 20,000 did escape. Another is that many died in a crowd-crush. And some reports talk about how Roman soldiers, panicked, exhausted, and despairing, basically just waited for their turn to be killed.
I’m sure there’s a unique type of group psychology at work in these situations. Counterpoint to Cannae is Rourke’s Drift or Reno’s company at Little Bighorn, where absurdly outnumbered units with no hope of relief maintain a disciplined resistance for multiple days.
The real question is, “Why didn’t they fight when they had a chance, well before they were led to be slaughtered?” That was the only time they had a chance to do something. They let that window of opportunity go past. Why didn’t they try to escape? There had to be a chance or two along the way.
Then the moment of slaughter and they go right along.
Well think of how this goes down. A leader takes control, focuses on some small fraction of the population (immigrants, some ethnic minority, etc) and targets them. Not out right jail/death to start with, economic penalties, social penalties, shame, bigoted talk/media/policies, and related all hidden behind patriotism. Of course the most aggressive defenders of said minority are jailed/killed/disappear. Things keep ramping up till the targeted minority is in jail/concentration camps. Suffering endless indignities, possessions confiscated, families broken up, terrible food, terrible bed, lack of sleep, bullying, no medical care, rape, etc. Somewhere along the line the most aggressive will lash out, might hurt a guard, etc.
By the time you are being shot that's a long journey where if you had it in you to fight back you already would have, your spirit is broken, your body is broken, you are hungry, have malnutrition, likely sick and have been beaten for the smallest or made up offenses for months.
Question is, have we learned our lesson and speak up and organize as soon as leader targets whatever the most unpopular minority is?
I also wonder if there’s fear of making the pain or death worse. E.g., if making it difficult would increase the odds of you being killed brutally or being tortured, or having the collective/people after you punished for your actions.
The Unthinkable by Amanda Ripley, a book about the psychology and sociology of disasters, offers some clues to your mystery. Contra to movie depictions, in real life disasters people rarely panic. Instead, they pick up their belongs, gather together with others, and calmly wait to be told what to do. The average person becomes passive and sheep-like. On the flip side, in the presence of one or a few people who give a call to action, people perform well and are surprisingly pro-social. Of course, this raises two questions. First, what makes leaders different? And two, why did humans evolve to be this way?
"humans" didnt evolve this way: a certainsect of them did.
SDO/RWA personalities.
To deal well with natural and other disasters.
Two reasons come to mind. One is hope. Something may yet change just before it's your turn. A last minute reprieve or change of orders. The second is fear. Maybe there are things worse than death (pain, torture, humiliation... not just of self but of loved ones to be made an example of). Horrible thoughts to think but plausible.
Rather, it was hopelessness. Resigned to fate. Also, executioners may have made gruesome examples of others who resisted.
I think that's very plausible. On another note thou, hope might be the worst killers of them all. And puts this tweet into context.
https://x.com/naval/status/1027776399329898496
It's just exhaustion most of the time when it gets to the actual point. You see it in how folks stumble forward to be shot in Ukraine or Syria in modern times on camera. It's a walk on wobbly legs that someone who's does something like Muay Thai or equivalent recognizes where someone knows they have to move but are too gassed to comprehend or care what's going on anymore at that moment.
I feel the article and comments written around this dance around that there is a physicality to the events here that go beyond sheer will (couple comments here even reek of 'rip to those guys but im built different). You can say you will have the strength of will to keep your hands up in the 5th round of a fight but will means fuck all when all you can think about is the burn of exertion on your lungs as you eat jab after jab. The same principle applies except its illness, lack of food and sleep.
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
I think the answer to the question "why didn't they physically fight?" is very simple: people who've lived in a civilized (i.e. pacified) country are uncomfortable with using force towards others, even when they feel they're in the right (as someone who escaped from a super violent country, I see that as a really good thing, actually).
What are you going to do with your life the day after you kill someone to escape? That'd destroy your self-image as a civilized person.
I think a better question to ask is why didn't they foresee such a massacre and argue against it (or just escape) before it was too late? Movements like Nazism don't come into power overnight.
why embrace civ at all for an identity?
Why not bask in feral barbarism?
Most of the survivors I have heard of were left for dead among the bodies of others shot at the same time. No one has time to check that everyone on the pile is really dead. Genocide is a lot of work
But if you are the only one to try to escape you'll for sure receive a lot of attention and bullets. My grandpa chose the latter and it went down exactly as expected.
>"that those behind you also run and a few slip away in the chaos"
Not to say that everyone was acting rationally, but this suggests a game theory issue that explains why people who were thinking about making a move didn't want to be the first to do so, so no one did. Your best survival odds from making a move come about 5 seconds after someone *else* does so first.
This piece is so naive, and so insulting to the memories of those who have been victimized by monsters. Being tortured to death and watching your community be tortured to death because of your actions is actually worse than being shot point blank. That is what happened to people who stepped out of line.
But the author is clearly describing a situation in which said community is already being tortured/shot to death
Stuff like this also happens if you’re in a literal army.
I was reading about the battle of Cannae, where a Roman (and Italian) army of 60-80,000 was slaughtered by a Carthaginian (plus Spanish and Celtic) army of 40-50,000, to the point where all but 20,000 Romans sided and about 5,000 Carthaginians.
A lot of people question, even if surrounded, how a larger army could be slaughtered to such an extent by a smaller army using swords and spears. Why didn’t they fight to the death?
There are some explanations- the Romans panicked and were disorganized as a result and 20,000 did escape. Another is that many died in a crowd-crush. And some reports talk about how Roman soldiers, panicked, exhausted, and despairing, basically just waited for their turn to be killed.
I’m sure there’s a unique type of group psychology at work in these situations. Counterpoint to Cannae is Rourke’s Drift or Reno’s company at Little Bighorn, where absurdly outnumbered units with no hope of relief maintain a disciplined resistance for multiple days.
It is probably at least partially denial. Few people have ever faced the choice before and most of them are dead.
You risk however blaming the victims by impugning their behavior in situations you I assume have never had to face.
I believe this is why we have a constitution and the rule of law.
Which system of government routinely does this?
The real question is, “Why didn’t they fight when they had a chance, well before they were led to be slaughtered?” That was the only time they had a chance to do something. They let that window of opportunity go past. Why didn’t they try to escape? There had to be a chance or two along the way.
Then the moment of slaughter and they go right along.
Except the Holocaust didn't happen. You cannot get at the truth when you start with false assumptions.
Well think of how this goes down. A leader takes control, focuses on some small fraction of the population (immigrants, some ethnic minority, etc) and targets them. Not out right jail/death to start with, economic penalties, social penalties, shame, bigoted talk/media/policies, and related all hidden behind patriotism. Of course the most aggressive defenders of said minority are jailed/killed/disappear. Things keep ramping up till the targeted minority is in jail/concentration camps. Suffering endless indignities, possessions confiscated, families broken up, terrible food, terrible bed, lack of sleep, bullying, no medical care, rape, etc. Somewhere along the line the most aggressive will lash out, might hurt a guard, etc.
By the time you are being shot that's a long journey where if you had it in you to fight back you already would have, your spirit is broken, your body is broken, you are hungry, have malnutrition, likely sick and have been beaten for the smallest or made up offenses for months.
Question is, have we learned our lesson and speak up and organize as soon as leader targets whatever the most unpopular minority is?
I also wonder if there’s fear of making the pain or death worse. E.g., if making it difficult would increase the odds of you being killed brutally or being tortured, or having the collective/people after you punished for your actions.
Because they dont know
People in the ghetto were weakened first by starvation, disease. They had already reached a very hopeless state of mind.