What struck me most in reading this book was the circular nature of violence illustrated in chapter 3. Groups in conflict repeatedly were drawn to creating broad generalizations, criminalizing and hating a whole people, including innocents such as women and children, who played no part in violence. The general pattern appeared to be one in which a group would commit a killing. This would lead to a form of justification for the other group, which would in turn escalate the violence. Both sides would demonize the other, and whoever held the best weapons and technology would commit the most horrific atrocities and force the other group into submission. This pattern could be seen in the interactions between Europeans and the Americas, China, India, and Africa.
In each case, European intrusion lead to conflict, often resulting in European deaths. This would lead to Europeans labeling the natives as “savage”, and result in mass scale retributive killings in response. As soon as an atrocity is committed by both sides, each adversary feels completely justified. Each has an excuse by which to commit further atrocities, thus fueling more violence. This sense of justification was especially disturbing to me, as each group seemed blinded by hate. Across history, adversaries appeared unwilling to deescalate violence as each sought to achieve retribution/justice for the acts perpetrated against them. This reasoning contributed to the continuation of atrocities perpetrated against often innocent/nonviolent parties.
The main counter that I could see to this repetitive cycle of violence is the idea of self-interest introduced in the book Killing Civilians. If adversaries recognize that treating POWs and civilians with respect and care increases the chance of their own POWs and civilians being treated well, the risk of unnecessary bloodshed is diminished. While it is unfortunate that selfishness can be the main path to achieve de-escalation of violence, its usefulness cannot be understated.