State Mass Killings in Indonesia 1965 to 1966 Essay

In the 1960s, Johan Galtung posited the construct of violence as a phenomenon generated by the existence of social barriers that deny needs satisfaction in certain sectors of society. Galtung's conceptual framework illustrates the relationship between the structure of society and the inequalities experienced by its citizens. Gilman's seminal definition of structural violence reads, “physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political, and economic systems” (1983, p. 8).

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

Violence is one of the most exaggerated forms of physical aggression and it can exist for a series of reasons. It involves a person or a group of persons acting against another person or groups of persons with the purpose to achieve one or several diverse goals. In many cases violence results from individuals perceiving the acts of other people as hostile and thus wanting to act against these people before it is too late. Depending on the situation, more or less individuals might get involved in an act of violence, especially when they consider that it would be essential for them to do so.

The history of the Islamic world has been one of weak state institutions and state underperformance, coupled with a high prevalence of violence, both by the state and by individuals. A major reason for these negative trends has been the role of political Islam in privileging homogeneity over diversity, in stifling dissent in public and private life, and the societal stagnation that follows such rigid controls. Malaysia and Indonesia have been notable exceptions to the underperformance of Islamic cultures.

Throughout history, instances of genocide, mass murder, and extreme acts of violence are widespread and pervade through every culture and society. As demonstrated by Panh, Lifton, and O’Brien, similar examples of excessive violence can occur in widely different situations. In order for such violence to occur, there first must exist certain systematic factors. In this paper, I will argue that conditions of instability within a country allow for changes in belief and perception, and these changed perceptions leads to dehumanization and the loss of human rights. The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnam War, all follow this pattern to some extent. First, I will compare and contrast the ways in which the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide follow this pattern, as well as explore the separate factors within each and possible solutions to these factors. Next, I will discuss the dramatically different Vietnam War, compare and contrast it to the other two, and explore how the uniqueness of the Vietnam War impacts the possible solutions for the loss of human rights within this situation.

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

Galtung, (1990) taxonomic view of violence and pragmatic solutions address cultural violence as “any aspect of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct, or

Political violence in violence outside of state control that is motivated by politics. The three main explanations for political violence are institutionally, ideationally, and individually. An institutional explanation focuses on how institutions of the state contribute to political violence. Ideationally, political violence can be explained by political or even religious ideas or beliefs. Individual motivated political violence focuses on the internal factors that make individuals seek out violence. Political violence can be sponsored by state organizations and non-state organizations and can target both civilians and the state itself. Some factors that play into political violence are ethnicity, nationalism, religion, ideology, political

In order to discuss the modes of violence inherent in any symbolic order, a discussion of violence must precede its effects. It is easy to observe what I will call ‘subjective’ violence; however, doing so taints an ‘objective’ assessment. By subjective violence, I mean acts that we can describe as breaking the status quo or utterly unacceptable; spewing a spit ball, punching a friend, engaging in armed conflict, and so on. Objective violence is the status quo, or systemic acts maintaining the existing order; profit schemes enabling the last recession, government institutions that motivate resistance, etc. For the sake of brevity, I only wish to note that I am conceptualizing the notion of violence in an operative sense, as, I believe, it is the only way to provide an effective critique of

When the subject of the matter is internal conflicts, identifying key causes of the conflict is difficult when not knowing all the facts. For many other observers, including those from the Government of Indonesia (GOI), the conflict arises due to particular grievances in Acehnese society about economic, human rights, religious and other issues. Acehnese nationalists are apt to downplay grievances and

violence in their own institutionalized way. Violence is the opposite of Peace as peace is

Structural violence can come from individual, social and political bearings. Although structural violence is not derived from anyone

The article ‘Long Term Effects of Political Violence: Narrative Inquiry Across a 20-Year Period’ was co-written by Professor Karola Dillenburger, Director of the Centre for Behaviour Analysis, Dr. Montserrat Fargas Research Fellow School of Sociology, and Rym Akhonzada, Research Co-ordinator, all at the Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.

Ethnic violence in the late 1990s broke out due to the sudden emergence of a political space to contest this national model. Bertrand argues that complete legitimacy was not achieved because of the emergence of a narrow ethnic conception of the nation. Two factors of this were the strife in Kalimantan, and another in the role of Islam in Indonesia's political institutions. This began to threaten Christian minorities in Indonesia. These conflicts between Muslims and Christians situate the violence in Maluku in relation to the evolving role of Islam in Indonesia’s national model.

October 12, 2002 would become a decisive turning point for foreign and domestic politics in Indonesia. On that day, the lives of over two hundred and two people were claimed after three bombs were denoted simultaneously in Bali and one in Sulawesi. This act of violence was to become the most devastating act of terrorism on Indonesian soil. The Bali bombing can be viewed as the most devastating act of terrorism not only because the bombing was the first attack against the country, but also because the attack itself can be viewed within the typical framework of the ~{!.~}revolt against the West~{!/~} as Bellamy (2005) has argued.