The overwhelming numbers of dead people in events like war or genocide is very difficult for the human mind to understand in the abstract. This reminds me of the old Eddie Izzard bit about mass murder:
Pol
Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can’t even deal with that! You know,
we think if somebody kills someone, that’s murder, you go to prison.
You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that’s
what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small
window at you forever. And over that, we can’t deal with it, you know?
Someone’s killed 100,000 people. We’re almost going, "Well done!
You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning.
I can’t even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in
the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch-
death, death, death - afternoon
tea – death, death, death – quick shower…
I think the sentiment is right. I also find it interesting that in some ways, the comic communicates the problem to his audience in such a clearer and direct way than the scholar. The failure to abstract in such a way is an absurdity, and the comic perhaps is better suited to tap into that and communicate it. Nevertheless, communicating "how bad" genocide is can probably never really be done with any type of conceptual precision… perhaps all we can do is tap into some sort of negotiation with it that is emotionally healthy enough to encourage us to care in the right sorts of ways. Maybe the comic has the advantage on us there too. Just some random thoughts for the day…
Posted by stevenmaloney 
