To Copy an Artist- My Take on Edel Rodriguez's "Unamed Bangladesh Genocide" Piece

Here is my painted image that I created attempting to copy the original artist. Please see the original image at the end of the post.

From March 26th to December 16th, 1971, a genocide was committed against the Bengali, Bihari Muslims, and Hindu peoples in East Pakistan. The genocide lasted almost nine months and it is estimated that between 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000 were killed, became refugees or displaced peoples, or survived genocidal war crimes- these numbers are disputed with some independent researchers suggesting that the number of deaths was closer to 500,000 while the higher number is accepted and put forth by the current Bangladesh government. The perpetrators of the violence came from a few groups of peoples; the Pakistan armed forces, supporting Islamist militias which included Al-Badr and Al-Shams, and members of the Muslim League. This genocide came about during a war for independence and is thought to have started with the planned military intervention called Operation Searchlight, which was carried out by the Pakistani army to try and curb some of the nationalist groups fighting for an independent state. The Indian army joined in the fighting after tensions along its border with India erupted with Pakistan declaring war on India. When the Pakistani army surrendered unconditionally to Indian forces in December the genocide ceased and the remaining Pakistani soldiers became prisoners of war.

This genocide has had some long-lasting effects both on the country and its peoples. The independent state of Bangladesh was created out of parts of Pakistani territory, along with a full constitution that mirrored some aspects of the Indian Constitution. As many of the targeted attacked during the genocide affected students and the intelligentsia of the country, these murders led to vacancies in important positions both in government and higher education. In the aftermath of the genocide, famine, malnutrition and the extremely high number of displaced people/ refugees needed to be addressed. Cold war tensions increased around the world as the Soviet Union became aligned with independent Bangladesh’s ally India. The current Bangladesh government has instituted an International War Crimes Tribunal and laws have been introduced to make genocide denial a hate crime, but there are some critics who suggest that these laws are being used to punish political dissidents rather than the participants in genocide.

This artwork was created by Edel Rodriguez who is a fairly prolific Cuban-American artist. His illustrations and artwork have been found in children’s books, on popular magazine covers, art galleries, etc… This particular piece was published with an op-ed article titled “The Politics of Bangladesh’s Genocide Debate.” I was unable to uncover the name of the piece nor any mention by the artist on his motivation for its creation. What I see in it is a strong hand pressing down on the skulls of the dead… expressing the power that a few had over the lives of the many who then lost their lives according to the desires of that power. I also see the hand as it pushes down on the bones of its victims as an act attempting to silence them and hide the evidence of death and genocide. While this piece of art is relatively simple in its black and white coloring and lined images, it evokes the emotions and horror that acts of genocide bring to the surface.

Did the Russian State... Part V by Nils Johann (Why, and how to compare the Rule of Henry VIII with the Rule of Ivan IV?)

Maybe the best way to clear the question, of the comparability of the formation period of the Russian State, is by comparing more or less contemporary case. Noam Chomsky formulates this approach in several of his publications but the most elegant formulation stems from“Manufacturing Consent”(1992):

“Interviewer: I'd like to ask you a question, essentially about the methodology in studying 'The Propaganda Model' and how one would go about doing that?

Chomsky: Well, there are a number of ways to proceed. One obvious way is to try to find more or less paired examples. History doesn't offer true, controlled experiments but it often comes pretty close. So one can find atrocities, or abuses of one sort that on the one hand are committed by "official enemies", and on the other hand are committed by friends and allies or by the favored state itself (by the United States in the U.S. case). And the question is whether the media accept the government framework or whether they use the same agenda, the same set of questions, the same criteria for dealing with the two cases as any honest outside observer would do.”

As long as 'The Cold War' lasted, it may have seemed like there was a definite line separating “Eastern” and “Western” culture. The global political power-struggle that took place, did, or at least it seems to have, overemphasized difference. Most likely this dominantly happened as a conscious relation towards the conflict by the authors, and to a lesser degree because of the restricted opportunities to communicate and cooperate across the political divide that was formed by 'The Cold War'. It was primarily a power-political divide, but not necessarily a clear cultural divide. To most conflicts between any given parties, a certain animosity will follow. It becomes easier to dehumanize the enemy, and this is done by starting out, to look for differences, not for
commonalities. Dichotomies that support this attitude of animosity have to be found out and cultivated. When these differences are cultivated and (over)exaggerated, they will after time be held to be basic truths, and misinterpretations will happen.

Surely the period we are going to discuss; Russia, roughly from the 15th to the 17th century, is somewhat removed from the issues of the 'Cold War'. But the 'Cold War ideology' may have been lurking in the background, in the consciousness of the historians interpreting. Even if there is an honest appreciation for historical facts internalized in the scholar, this is not in itself a guarantee for an accurate assessment of the past. At least not in the environment of contagious anti-communism, before, during, and after the time of the Soviet Union.

This paper is not the first attempt at comparison. Edward Keenan already deemed it futile back in the 70's, to find any means of aligning Russian history, with its “European” contemporary counterpart. But for those who have seen his works, it becomes clear how concerned he was with “detail”. In Keenan's world there was not much room for comparing anything. Michael Cherniavsky, Halperin's mentor, however inspires an attempt at comparison, portraying the traits that make Ivan a proper “renaissance prince”. There are many traits that offer themselves as similarities.

There is no question that Russia is different from Britain during the 16th century, just like every other institution is different from the next. The biggest difference between the two units might be the size and the geographical attributes they contain. In the time, transport by boat was far more efficient than overland travel, giving a comparative logistical advantages to the English. They are surrounded by the sea, whilst the Muscovites were depending on their river-systems, to connect an area that in average was far less densely populated than England, and at least, ten times more expansive. Further difference is that far more sources have survived in England. Wooden Moscow was 'put to the torch' several times by various enemies. In addition England got its first printing press in 1476, while the first Muscovite press was set up in 1553. English sources are also more widely accessible to western scholars, than sources written in Russian variations.

Arguing for a Sonderfall still might not be the most fruitful thing one can do, even though, I must admit it could be done in any case, regarding any institution. -The refusal of the abstract concept of the forest, in favor of our favorite tree. The Crowns of both Henry and Ivan, handle their opponents and the nobility harshly, they constantly make war and their finances suffer. The way their respective parliaments function seems kindred. Behaving like prototypical Autocrats, both are good examples of the ruling-style of their period, being held up as the best form of government in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651) about a hundred years later.