Dean's World

"Who Are The Mortacracies? Part VI—The Answer Who Are The Mortacracies? Part VI—The Answer"

Derek said:

Professor Rummel, 

I left similar comments over at your cross-post on Dean's World, but I'm not sure you read Dean's comments. So I am summarizing them here.

I agree that "mortalize" is the wrong word to use, particularly since its existing meaning is "to make mortal" rather than "to make dead." However, I think you have misapplied the -cide suffix, producing a word that produces confusion rather than clarity.

The Oxford English Dictionary notes that adding the -cide suffix forms "nouns with the sense ‘the killing of (the person, animal, etc., indicated by the initial element)’. This produces nouns such as the following:

 fratricide - the killing of a brother
 regicide - the killing of a king, queen, etc.
 pesticide - the killing of a pest/insect
 vaticide - the killing of a prophet
 ceticide - the killing of a whale
 suicide - the killing of oneself
 democide - the killing of the people (directly by government action)

Mortacide, as a word, does not fit with the collection of currently existing "-cides." Following the existing pattern, it conveys "the killing of mort (death)." I comprehend the benefit of having a term that replaces "death by government inaction, incompetence, or apathy." But I do not think that mortacide fills that need. Coining a word isn't helpful if you have to explain what it means every time you use it.

In fact, your description of mortacide as "corruption, misrule and violence that increases the mortality of the people" reads like a definition of mortocratic government, not of the resulting deaths themselves, which differs from the very direct "democide" - murder by government.

I had suggested, over on Dean's World, that you are seeking a term for the governmental equivalent of "manslaughter". Given the established use of "democide," would not "demoslaughter" be more appropriate to describe death by government incompetence, inaction or apathy?

However, the more I think about this terminology, the less I think that governments deserve the consideration of innocence that "demoslaughter" might convey. If government policies continue to kill people indirectly and the government does not act to stop it, this is "negligent democide," in my opinion, and should be labeled as such.

Thanks for your time.

RJR: If government places people in life threatening circumstances, as in a forced labor camp where the conditions are so bad the prisoners die in months, and the government knows this but still uses these prisons, I do call that democide. But what I am writing about is when the connection between deaths and actions or policies is so attenuated, as with life expectancy, as to be unknown, or unappreciated. I agree with you that mortacide is not a good term for this. It was the best I could think of at the time, but now your suggestion sent me back to the dictionary. I had not thought of manslaughter, which the dictionaries agree can mean to kill without "malice aforethought." Thus, in law, it is a lesser crime than is homicide or murder. So, your suggestion of "demoslaughter" is a good one. I was turned off by this at first because of the connotation of mass killing, and I have so used in describing, for example, the Japanese slaughter of Chinese during the Rape of Nanking. But, the denotation persuades me and so it will be: Democide for murder by government, and demoslaughter for death caused by government unintentionally (without malice aforethought). Thank you, indeed, Derek.

(See the rest here)