What the Soviet Union and Khmer Rouge Share

*I couldn't find the original article, so I've posted here, with credit due to Ms Murray.  I spent two years in Cambodia as a service missionary, so I found this particularly fascinating:

27 November 2013 - By Marilyn Murray

I toured the Nazi death camps of Dachau in Germany and Terezin in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and have stood in front of the Lubyanka in Moscow, where thousands were annihilated by the KGB. I also learned of the horrors of Soviet gulags from members of my own family and many of my Russian students. But the reality of inhuman torture never impacted me as deeply as walking through the Killing Fields and S21 prison of the infamous Сommunist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Two weeks ago, I presented an all-day session in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, regarding the treatment of trauma to more than 100 health professionals from 21 countries. In preparation, I twice watched the award-winning movie, "The Killing Fields" and two documentaries regarding the period from 1975 to 1979, when the Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia, and read more than 1,000 pages written by survivors of this reign of terror.

As I walked though Cambodia's bloody history, I was struck by the similarities of the Soviet and Cambodian Communist regimes. But I also was intrigued by the things that were different: Why did one last more than 70 years and the other only four?

Their similarities were:

• Citizens were required to pledge their highest loyalty to the Communist parties in both countries.

• Religion was not allowed. Places of worship were destroyed, and clergy were killed or imprisoned. The Party, called Angka in Cambodia, replaced God.

• The Party was never wrong. It was infallible and had to be obeyed without question. Violators faced imprisonment or death.

• The individual had no rights or value.

• If millions died to fulfill the goals of the party, their deaths were justified.

• Leadership was extremely paranoid and saw "enemies" everywhere, destroying anyone deemed to be a threat or disloyal.

• They confiscated all property and imprisoned or killed persons declared to be "enemies of the state": noble families, anyone connected with prior government, clergy, owners and management of business and industry, intellectuals and artisans who did not follow the Party line, and industrious peasant farmers.

• Collective farms were created where peasants were forced to turn over all private property and work only for the collective.

• Food shortages were widespread.

• Families were separated. Parents were told their priority was to work, and the Party would take care of their children.

• Everyone was declared equal, but the lives of Party leaders were radically different from the common citizen. They had better living conditions and food along with other special privileges. Meanwhile, they told the average person he must work harder and sacrifice more for the Party.

• Bribery and corruption were endemic.

But at the same time, there were many differences. Russia had a long history of education and culture. The Soviets saw education as one of their top priorities and had a literacy rate nationwide of about 98 percent. By demanding that every citizen had a good command of Russian, it guaranteed the absorption of nonstop Communist propaganda. Education was free, and many citizens had university degrees.

Music, literature, theater, art and the cinema were encouraged by the Party but were often heavily censored as was all the media.

Soviet leadership realized Russia was far behind Europe and the U.S. in industrialization. They determined not only to catch up but to exceed them. Urban industrial growth became the primary focus. New cities were established throughout the entire Soviet Union. Dams, electrification, water canals and railroads were primary projects.

They created a strong Communist youth movement starting in preschool to prepare children to be faithful Party members. Many Russians today have warm youthful memories of parades and patriotic events. Russians in general had strong national pride in the great accomplishments of their country.

In Cambodia, however, the Khmer Rouge was very different. Their major leaders came from landowner or civil servant families. They were intellectual urbanites largely educated in Paris, where they were introduced to orthodox Marxism-Leninism. Yet they initiated a paradoxical political program in the name of communism that made the destruction of all cities a primary goal and created a forced evacuation of every city dweller to the countryside. A primitive, rural agrarian culture devoted to Angka was declared to be the only path acceptable to the Khmer Rouge.

They closed all schools, hospitals, government offices, businesses, factories, the media and cultural activities. They executed anyone who worked for the previous government, police or military. Professionals, teachers, doctors and business owners were killed. Any connections with a foreign country or knowledge of a foreign language meant being accused of being a CIA agent and certain arrest and likely death. Anyone who wore glasses was labeled a member of the "intelligentsia" and subject to arrest and execution.

The majority of the Khmer Rouge soldiers were illiterate peasants armed with weapons from Russia and China. Their AK-47s gave them rank and authority. They seemed to enjoy shooting innocents at random. They were boys and girls starting from age 10. The average age was 15.

Men, women and children from the cities became "war slaves" who were forced to work from 12- to 20-hour days at hard labor in the fields, building roads and clearing jungle. They were overworked and starving. Each day, the sadistic Khmer Rouge picked people at random to torture and beat to death with shovels and axes. They did not want to waste bullets.

S21 prison, a former high school in the middle of Phnom Penh, had 17,000 prisoners, including children and babies. Only seven people survived. All the rest were savagely tortured then slaughtered and buried in the Killing Fields a few miles from the city.

Cambodia had a population of 7.3 million before the Khmer Rouge enslaved the country. It is estimated they created a genocide that annihilated about 2 million people, more than one-quarter of the entire population in four years. Those who survived suffered post-traumatic stress from their great loss of family, health, home, culture and country.

The Soviets enslaved and killed innocents, but they also built a country of educated people, many of whom were loyal Party members. The system, however, was flawed and thus eventually imploded. In Cambodia, the atrocities were so vicious, extreme, and widespread they gained no public support except within the ranks of the Khmer Rouge. Foreign invasion finally drove them from power after four years.

A person or entity that is obviously evil often is disarmed early on. But others who are able to hide their malevolence by appearing healthy and strong enjoy power and longevity.

Marilyn Murray is an educator specializing in the treatment of trauma, abuse and deprivation, with more than 2,000 people attending her classes in Russia over the past 11 years. Her latest book, "The Murray Method," is available in English and Russian.

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/what-the-soviet-union-and-khmer-rouge-share/490267.html#ixzz2lshyehFT 
The Moscow Times

BWJ

Why Facebook is Better than Twitter:

The debate has raged on for years - some people are die-hard Facebookers, and others live for the Tweet.  Let me weigh in on the issue briefly - and I'll tell you why Facebook has the upper hand.

If you boil them both down to the core, they are essentially the same thing - a platform with which to broadcast yourself to your friends, family and followers.  It's a place to brag about yourself and your family, job, car and the family cat.  It's a place to ask questions and get advice of your cohorts.  It's a place to anonymously stock your friends.  The core virtues of both networks are the same.

When it comes to weaknesses, Twitter leads.  Some scream about the brevity of the 140-character limit and say that this stops people from blabbing on and on.  In reality, people get around this by sending out a series of tweets or by taking you to their blog or website where the blabbing is unrestrained.  (Also, most posts on Facebook are under 140 characters anyways).  
Twitter also doesn't allow pictures and videos to be posted to your feed directly, but rather as shortlinks.  We don't like the extra click, and not being able to see the picture immediately throws off the newsfeed browsing groove.  

On the other hand, Facebook is desperately trying to make revenue from their billion+ user base.  The ads are getting annoying.  My personal opinion is that Facebook is ramping up to offering a 'Facebook Premium' sometime in the future - a monthly or annual subscription that will allow you to use Facebook without the ads, for a price... (remember that you heard it from me first).  

I could extol the virtues and weaknesses of each all day long - let me instead offer a solution.  Combine the best of both worlds by making Facebook act like Twitter.  Think about it - most people that you follow on Twitter will broadcast the exact same message on Facebook, except that Facebook makes it more accessible - no extra clicks to see pictures or watch videos.  

TAILOR YOUR NEWSFEED!  Most people are either inept, lazy or unaware, but Facebook gives us a lot of freedom in the way that we use our newsfeed - so FIX IT!  Here are some ideas to get going:

• If there is someone that is constantly showing up with pictures of dinner, political commentary or sob stories of teenage romance - Take them off your newsfeed!  You don't have to deal with them - and they won't know, so don't worry about hurting their feelings.  Notice the small arrow in the upper-right hand corner of the post that appears on EVERY post once you've hovered over it.  Click on this and select the option to "Hide".  Once you've hidden the post, Facebook gives you more options.  You can choose to hide all future posts, or unfollow the person altogether.  Again - they will never know, so you can now enjoy your newsfeed in peace.

• You also have the option of never showing someone in the newsfeed, or subscribing to always show them.  Simply hovering over someone's name or profile picture will bring up their mini-profile box.  At the bottom-right, hover over the 'Friends' button.  Another list will come up, and you can select "Show in Newsfeed" or "settings" to choose exactly when you see them and how often.  

• I would strongly suggest that you find your true interests on Facebook and make them apart of your normal newsfeed habits.  If you're into politics, then find political pages and LIKE them (you must also hover over the LIKE button and select "Show in Newsfeed").  If you're into biking, do the same.  Fitness and body-building, Barack Obama, Fox News, Single Women, Religion, you name it and I promise that Facebook has pages for it.  LIKE these pages and turn your newsfeed into a live-action newsreel of the things that are most important in your life.  

So there are my tips for turning your Facebook into Twitter-on-steroids:

1. Remove, hide and unfollow the things and people that annoy you and waste space on your newsfeed.
2. Make sure to follow/ unfollow friends and adjust the frequency that they will show up.
3. Seek out your interests and supersize your newsfeed by LIKE-ing and following pages.  

More to follow on how to bring out the best of Facebook and Twitter.

Our Small World

        For lunch today, I broke bread with seven other people and had a conversation that seemed to wander comfortably.  We chatted about many different things, and everyone was eager to participate and be heard, but even more eager to sit back and listen.  Even after the food was gone, we remained there for another 40 minutes.
        As I sat, I looked around the table and was immediately impressed with the people around me.  We represented a diverse group of cultures: three of us were from different provinces of China, one of us was from Hungary, another from Korea, one from New York, one from Wyoming, and the last one - you guessed it - claimed Utah.  The two people to my right and to my left both had a PhD in economics.  The man immediately across from me was an expert in inter-systems development (whatever that means).  The remaining four of us are undergraduate student in our final semesters at Weber State University.  
        I don't tell you this so that you'll be impressed with the caliber of my lunch-mates.  Almost the opposite - it occurred to me how humbling it can be when we consider just how large this world is, and how it very much exists at our fingertips.  Here I am, a normal ("normal") mormon kid from northern Utah who suddenly finds himself surrounded by friends from all corners of the globe (Yes, I understand the expression, and yes, I know that the globe doesn't have corners).  We were completely comfortable with one another, shared experiences about our education and our aspirations, and laughed.  A lot.  I was surprised at how much our collective senses of humor matched up, despite our cultural differences.  
        In the next few months, my beautiful wife and I will be moving to Glendale, Arizona so that I can start my masters program.  I've chosen a Masters of Global Finance from the Thunderbird School of Global Management.  I said the full name (quiet a mouthful) because I wanted to highlight the 'global' part.  Thunderbird cares very much about people being able to connect across borders.  I'm thrilled and excited about the opportunities I'll have in continuing my education in an institution that is so concerned with the global aspect of the future.
        This is a short post.  I don't have much more to say - I was just thrilled that this world is so small, and getting smaller.  I'll share more about Thunderbird later, but for now, I just wanted to highlight how wonderful it is that we can have friends from many and diverse places, and that we can grow, even as this world seems to shrink around us.

The Psychology Behind the Set-Up

What is it about our strange culture that seems to thrive on setting-up our single friends?  It seems that if there's is a non-committed acquaintance within sight, our first thought is to find a match for them.  I'm happily married, and the best part of how I met my dear, sweet wife is something that I'm proud of:  I did it by myself - no set-ups, no connections, no middle-men.  It was actually three or four dates in before we realized that we had a few friends in common.
That's not to say that I've never been on a blind date.  Most of us have - and for those of us who haven't, you're not missing much.  I have a few issues with blind-dating:

• Anytime you're being set-up with another person, they're either doing you a favor, or you are the favor.  Which one is it?  Chances are, unless the setter-upper is your best friend, or your aunt, YOU are most likely the favor, NOT the favored.  This might sound harsh, but I'm just saying it - everyone who has been on a blind date has thought about it.  A close friend, who had recently been on an unsuccessful blind date, expressed it in these words: "The lady that set us up, does she really think that little of me?!"
• Compatibility (courtesy of Ryan Jones): Let's be honest here, when you are the setter-upper, it's more of a selfish endeavor than an altruistic motive.  How awesome is it going to be when you can claim that YOU were the sole reason that these two people met each other, hit it off, engaged, married, kids, career, grandkids, retirement, eternal happiness, and so on.  They're going to be so grateful to you.  And beyond that, you now have a story for every dinner party or luncheon you go to for at least 5 or 6 years.  Why wouldn't you do this???  This is the kind of motive that leads people to think, "Hey, he's a good guy, and she's a nice girl - so it's bound to work out.  I'll get started making matches right away." There's very little consideration of the fact that she is a republican rifle-range instructor from Alabama and he's a democrat psychology teacher from the north-east.  He likes cats, she likes dogs. I'm not saying that opposites don't attract, but the point is, there is usually very little consideration as to the compatibility of the two victims, but rather to the glory that the match-maker is going to reap.
• The date itself is usually an awkward train wreck that is getting the count-down from at least one, if not both parties.  In the words of Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn): "You're sitting there, you're wondering do I have food on my face, am I eating, am I talking too much, are they talking enough, am I interested I'm not really interested, should I play like I'm interested but I'm not that interested but I think she might be interested but do I want to be interested but now she's not interested? So all of the sudden I'm getting, I'm starting to get interested... And when am I supposed to kiss her? Do I have to wait for the door cause then it's awkward, it's like well goodnight. Do you do like that @---out hug? Where you like, you hug each other like this and your @-- sticks out cause you're trying not to get too close or do you just go right in and kiss them on the lips or don't kiss them at all? It's very difficult trying to read the situation. And all the while you're just really wondering are we gonna get hopped up enough to make some bad decisions?"
• The follow-up is also rough.  What happens if it's a terrible time, and then you see the setter-upper at church on Sunday?  What if the setter-upper is family?  Now you're going to have to spend the next few weeks coming up with new excuses about why you haven't been out with the blind date again.  Basically, unless you end up marrying this person, you're going to have to disappoint someone who has voluntarily stuck their nose in your dating life.

Having said all of this (and me being on the other side of it all), I admit to being fully and completely guilty.  I have a younger brother who is still single (Blake Jenkins - ladies, you can Facebook him), and I feel like it's my responsibility, nay, my duty to make sure that he is happily involved with someone.  The great irony is that I can justify this because 'I'm concerned about his happiness' and 'I want to make sure that my future-sister-in-law is cool'.  And true to blind-dating form, anytime I can successfully connect Blake with someone, I follow-up ruthlessly until the spark has either blossomed (which it clearly hasn't yet), or until it has died.  
As rough as this sounds though, we all know that it's nothing compared to being single and having sisters and a mother (which most of us have).  So at the end of the day, if you're still single, you'd better buckle up - it's the easiest way out.  Just sit back and hope that you're the favored, not the favor.

Special thanks to Ryan Jones and Vince Vaughn.

BWJ