Mass violence evolves progressively from lesser harms rather than erupting suddenly

Evidence

In short, accumulated everyday racisms dispose their object populations, exposing them to extended abjection, rendering them readier, more vulnerable targets of legitimated violence and ultimately unnoticed or overlooked death. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 143 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Other researchers have demonstrated that, contrary to Allport’s argument, violence does not require a history of animosity at either the group or individual level. Weingast (1997) has shown that social groups can become poised for armed conflict, even when they have a history of good relations and a preference for peace, if political institutions fail to safeguard each group’s interests and mutual trust is undermined. … Such organizational factors include instructions that permit or legitimize the use of violence, a chain of command that relieves perpetrators of responsibility for their acts, the assignment of anonymous identities to perpetrators, and granting pervasive powers to perpetrators without threat of retaliation or sanctions. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 655 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Harm-doing notoriously expands its circle of victims and target classes over time — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 132; Mass killing emerged as a practical last resort once removal schemes failed — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 1606; Violent contention typically grows out of nonviolent claim-making. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 726 (+5 more)

Related

• Intergroup violence can erupt without prior animosity when institutions fail and trust collapses (similarity 0.87)
• Everyday microaggressions cumulatively make targets more vulnerable to lethal violence (similarity 0.81)
• Group violence arises from interacting cultural, situational, and motivational influences, not single causes (similarity 0.81)
• Group violence can erupt without any prior history of animosity (similarity 0.80)
• Violent contention typically grows out of nonviolent claim-making. (similarity 0.79)
• The form of violence reflects institutional structure, not underlying hostility. (similarity 0.79)
• Cumulative micro-aggressions compound into vulnerability to structural violence (similarity 0.78)
• Harm-doing notoriously expands its circle of victims and target classes over time (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Everyday microaggressions cumulatively make targets more vulnerable to lethal violence #exemplifies (0.88) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 143
• Intergroup violence can erupt without prior animosity when institutions fail and trust collapses #contradicts (0.88) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 655
• Populations adapt to pervasive violence until it seems ordinary #corroborates (0.85)
• Group violence can erupt without any prior history of animosity #contradicts (0.82) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 655
• Empirical evidence on whether violence breeds violence varies by region and type #qualifies (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4364