Michael Mann’s Genocide Argument and Rothschild’s Security Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

Michael Mann defines genocide as the “the deliberate, systematic attempt to wipe out a particular population” (Mann, p. 22).

Mann points out that most of the genocides that have occurred in the history of genocidal history were perpetrated by the political government in power and the ethnic cleansing that they intended to do in order to attain a homogeneous state. In the same line, Rothschild showed that security in modern day is actually a relation between individuals and the state (p.54). So we can interrelate both Mann’s and Rothschild’s thoughts and deduce that genocide and security are concepts which are dependent on two factors i.e. the individuals and the state.

Main body

Mann describes the different forms of ethnic cleansing process such as coerced, biological, etc. all these are milder forms of genocide. As he describes in the case of Nazi Germany, the forerunner of the genocide was biological cleansing, where thousands of handicapped people were sterilized to bring about ethnic cleansing. Similarly, Rothschild described security to be transferred from nations to individuals or groups.

In all the examples of genocide provided by Mann are ones perpetrated by states. He believes that the higher the degree of autocracy. More will be the tendency to commit genocide. Rothschild’s theory of security in the modern world posits that even though the individuals or groups who are victims of violence, are unaware as to whom they should turn for support. Even though there exists international institutions and NGOs, the victims violence “The individual who is “troubled by violence” does not know who to ask for protection (which agency of the United Nations, which nongovernmental organization, and in what language?), and she has no political recourse if the protection is not provided.” (Rothschild, p.57).

Mann believes that the modern democracies are highly stratified on the basis of class and this leads to tremendous conflict (p. 25). This class conflict is also noted among colonial settlers and the original inhabitants. But the modern democratic states are not all birth-child of genocides (p. 27). Organic concept of democracy as described by Mann was dependent on the people of the state where it is the people who made the stare (pp. 29-30). He wanted to impose that this kind of democracy would reduce genocide of any kind. But this failed in the light of international pressure. In similar lines Rothschild brings about the concept of “civil-society strategy” which wherein the society actually participates in ensuring security. But in-depth analysis showed that “It has been suggested that the “civil-society strategy” is an insufficient source of individual security because it is insufficiently political. As civil society is (by self-definition) nongovernmental; individual security is (by the definition of liberal political theory) both the objective of and the justification for government.” (pp. 81-82).

Conclusion

Hence we may conclude that Mann’s theory of genocide and Rothschild’s explanation of security has connections in their being a relation between state and individuals, the interplay of democracy, biological or ethnic cleansing and security, and organic democracy and civil-society strategy. We find that in all these areas the two thoughts can be correlated.

Reference

Michael Mann, “The Dark Side of Democracy”(p.18-45).

Emma Rothschild, “What is Security?” (p.53-98).

Click Here To Order Now!

Michael Mann’s Genocide Argument and Rothschild’s Security Analysis

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)