Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP) (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 23. April 2018, 15:42 Uhr

76 Bytes hinzugefügt , 15:42, 23. Apr. 2018

→‎The History and Future of Homicide

Tiao

Bürokraten, Administratoren

31.738

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 135: / Zeile 135: @@
 #Exclusion. Restricted citizen rights, e.g. "hukou" in China - a kind of passport system, which limits access to public services, based on the birthplace of the holder. First established in 1954 to immobilise China's large rural population, it is still a central instrument of population control. The rural population and migrant workers do not enjoy the citizenship rights that international conventions see as essential. - Divide et impera: varying types of passports with differentiated access rights for different subjugated populations. Restrictions of movement (see: Egyptian military policy in the Sinai Peninsula 2017/2018). - Withholding citizenship (Rohingy in Myanmar).
-These populations are not in chattel slavery, they are not possession of individual slave owners. Rather, they could be compared to earlier precedents where people were without rights because they were seen as possession of the state. One example that comes to mind is that of the helots (εἵλωτες), a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia, the territory controlled by ancient Sparta in the first millenium B.C.; while their exact status was disputed - some put them between free men and slaves while others called them "slaves to the utmost" - their function was clear: tied to the land, they primarily worked in agriculture and economically supported the Spartan citizens, whom they outnumbered by around seven to one. This also may explain the methods of control used by the Spartans, who regularly and even ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered helots: every autumn the Spartans would declare war on the helots so they could be killed without fear of repercussion. All this having the effect that uprisings and attemtps to improve the helot's lot remained unsuccessful.
+These populations are not in chattel slavery, they are not possession of individual slave owners. Rather, they could be compared to earlier precedents where people were without rights because they were seen as possession of the state. One example that comes to mind is that of the helots (εἵλωτες), a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia, the territory controlled by ancient Sparta in the first millenium B.C.; while their exact status was disputed - some put them between free men and slaves while others called them "slaves to the utmost" - their function was clear: tied to the land, they primarily worked in agriculture and economically supported the Spartan citizens, whom they outnumbered by around seven to one. This also may explain the methods of control used by the Spartans, who regularly and even ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered helots: every autumn the Spartan ephors (a superior council of five men) would declare war on the helots so they could be killed (by the Krypteia - κρυπτεία) without fear of repercussion. All this having the effect that uprisings and attemtps to improve the helot's lot remained unsuccessful.
 :Diferentemente dos escravos, os hilotas eram propriedade do Estado, que administrava a produção econômica. Durante a Cripteia um grupo de jovens espartanos era designado para assassinar líderes em potencial entre os hilotas.