learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by phrenology12 on April 15, 2025 11:07

One main fundamental problem would be how the leaders, and soldiers of the Khmer Rouge followed a hypocritical ideology. Communism as its most basic state that everyone is on equal footing with everyone else, whether that be class or money. However, oftentimes prominent figures of the Khmer Rouge themselves indulge themselves in better luxuries than those who they forced to work in labor camps. If everyone was truly equal, then they would also be down in the field working on crops as well, instead of yelling orders with the threat of violence. Additionally, the people in the Khmer Rouge were better fed, while the unwilling workers were only given small rations in comparison. These reasons are definitely some of the fundamental problems that led to the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia. On paper, communism seems like a fine and dandy idea, however it would never work in real life. Not only does it not work for all the many real life examples of terrible communist regimes, but also because you simply cannot trust everyone. If you give everyone in the world the same amount of money there would still be those who run themselves into the ground since many people are not financially responsible. I feel like the international community could have done an extremely better job at contraining and putting a stop to the Khmer Rouge by nipping it in the bud. There were very early signs of the Khmer Rouge, and this genocide went on for years. Instead of focusing on geopolitics, the international community would have focused on the amount of lives currently being lost. Also, the international community almost punishing Vietnam financially for ending this ongoing genocide, almost helps to strengthen the resolve of those of want genocide to happen. If countries are being punished for doing the right thing, why would anyone else step forwards if that is how they would potentially be treated. The international community could’ve intervened a lot early, however, there is no way the American people would go for sending troops there especially after Vietnam just ended. I feel like national sovereignty should be overridden with the purpose to stop the immense suffering of people. In Cambodia, there was mass suffering of millions of people under the Khmer Rouge, and even if it didn’t reach the millions, that is still far too many dying to justify letting the situation “work itself out”. Vietnam clearly did not care for the sovereignty of Cambodia when the sovereignty was overshadowed itself by the mass atrocities going on in Cambodia. The way the Khmer Rouge treated children was pretty similar to the Hitler Youth. As shown in the video they were meant to do a salute when a certain phrase was said, children as young as 7 were taught how to use machine guns, and had propaganda force fed down their throat instead of being fed hearty meals that a child needs. Overall, I’d say that the Cambodian genocide should not have taken as long as it should have to end. This is due to the destabilization caused by the international community, and their lack of need to acknowledge the fact that they need to pick up after themselves.

This student's writing is quite interesting. I would agree with their viewpoints on the hypocrisy of the Khmer Rouge. Additionally I think it is important to know how the leaders within the Khmer Rouge clearly valued communism and equality with their citizens. However; this stupid highlights the flaws of this ideology by critiquing the Khmer Rouge by talking about how the elites within the Khmer Rouge clearly enjoyed the privileges and benefits that the other citizens were denied. This clearly shows how ideologies can be easily manipulated and used for a justification of violence for those who withhold the power. I agree with all the students' points of view , like how communism typically fails due to corruption and human nature.

Moreover the students' claim on international powers is intriguing and I would say I agree. I think geopolitics was valued over the life and human rights of an individual in order to preserve the “ nation's desires”. I value this student's input on how when Vietnam had intervened this was sending the wrong international messages. Thus demonstrating that a nation should not be penalized for intervening in order to protect the lives of innocent citizens who are at risk of serious danger and placed into life threatening situations. Overall I would say this student wrote a very compelling argument which I agree with.

Originally posted by TheGreatGatsby on April 12, 2025 13:22

With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world, there is a very distinct yet blurry line that can be drawn between what is ethical and unethical for bringing about change. In the Khmer Rouge and other cases of genocide, it’s painfully obvious that the line was crossed and there was excessive killing that occurred. While death will occur as a result of war, the amount of killing and death that happened in genocides severely went over what is usually seen in war. The Khmer Rouge along with other regimes that participated in genocide went beyond the ‘normal’ amount of killing that is associated with war. I don’t think that there is an amount of suffering that is tolerable to bring about a “better society” because suffering of people really shouldn’t be tolerated in a way. However, I do think that some suffering is necessary to bring about change in order to give people a better life. Often, in situations like the one presented, the amount of lives lost because of war is compared with the lives that will be saved or bettered to justify the death that incurred. However, in genocides it’s clear that the people who are being killed are seen as something to get rid of that lives being lost. In these genocides, the deaths that occur cannot be justified in any way since it’s clear that they didn’t happen due to war, but rather due to an ulterior goal that, in a way, started the war. I think that when it’s clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the international community should take action to try to alleviate any death and save more lives. However, it’s been very evident with other genocides that the international community fails to intervene until towards the very end, when the damage has already been done and the extent of the damage is extremely severe. A lot of countries are hesitant to intervene because more often than not, the country is legally obligated to go send troops and aid to that country. An example of this is the lack of U.S involvement in the genocide in Cambodia. While the U.S has no involvement in the war and the American people strongly opposed sending troops to Cambodia because they recently finished the Vietnam war, the Cambodian people looked toward the West for help. When the U.S. did start helping, the stories that were published were immense and hard to believe. However, “as soon as U.S. troops returned home, the American public's news from the region shrank,” according to “Cambodia: From Behind A Blindfold and Official US Intelligence.” Much of the international community hesitated to help, so in order to ameliorate the harm being done, the international community should’ve strived to bring the genocide to light so other countries could be influenced to take action. It’s very clear that the international community could have done much more than they had done, this was in part due to countries not feeling legally obligated to help and other countries who didn’t want to lose troops or get involved in wars.

The main idea in this response is that although suffering may be needed to bring about change, no amount should be “tolerable” or become a norm because suffering is never the goal. I agree with this person in that no amount of suffering or killing is normal because it isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be. Although death and casualties is commonplace in conflicts like war, it shouldn’t be. The goal of the Khmer Rouge, like many other groups, was to bring about a positive change for their country and they used violence in order to achieve their goal. Although it is clear that they did not have a positive impact on Cambodia, that shouldn’t be the only reason to denounce them. The amount of violence they used was unnecessary and detrimental and this level of violence in pursuit of change shouldn’t become normal. This person also touched on the lack of response from the US and other countries during the genocide, and how it’s a serious issue. I agree wholeheartedly with them and think that it is the responsibility of other countries to act during times like this. Often, factors such as cost and incentive dictate whether or not countries take action, but that shouldn’t be the case. This results in more lives lost that could have been saved if they were prioritized.

Originally posted by verose on April 15, 2025 11:02

Just one fundamental problem within the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was the eradication of self and the inflation of state sovereignty. The agency and autonomy that people were deprived of was extreme on all counts, forced to work and even simply live for the sake of progressing the efforts, whims, and desires of their leader and the Khmer Rouge as a whole. This control was such a demanding system, both for the victims and the perpetrators, and the countless moving parts -- from the effectiveness of soldiers to the subjugation of the people -- that it contributed to an air of precarious balance. By amplifying the degree of control he could exert over the people under the Khmer Rouge regime to such an extent, Pol Pot also subjected himself to a great risk: fear. His greatest weakness was the paranoia that loyalty was faked, or that enemies were pressing in on all sides. With the establishment of a state that was centered on this ownership of a people’s bodies and minds -- on the countless losses of many for the supposed benefit of many more -- the Khmer Rouge relied on their victims to not only exert their beliefs but uphold their regime. The overhanging concern of maintaining this obedience while also preventing any suspicions of mutiny or outlander interference was at the heart of the regime, its instatement not only contributing to an even more depraved and inhumane system in which its people were trapped, but also chipping away at the might the Khmer Rouge had attempted at. In correlation to the ideology of communism, I believe there is a very similar “downfall” within the beliefs. There is a stark difference between equity and equality, but the latter is what it often acted on; it would be important to have the same opportunities and base needs met and acknowledged, but not limiting a population to be reflections of what the society might need -- as in “too many” of one profession or “not enough” of another. This idea of equality hinders the role a person can play within society, in which they lose their core and are simply fit in as a slot of a machine; in this way we lose the vibrant, ever-evolving nature of humanity. It’s necessary to offer avenues of both specialized skills or individuality, and the makings of communism have the capacity of this, but have simply not been utilized as such. A great part of this is the economic aspect ingrained in communism, as one can’t “make” a people believe they are equal, and it is really only through economic restriction that we can make it possible, but that in itself is a core failure. This was similarly evident within the movie, First They Killed My Father, in which equality became equivalent to all people exerting physical labor and surviving on meager rations and dismal conditions. The camps in which Cambodians were forced to live under the regime were horrific -- but, in theory, they were “equal.” But the idealized hope for equal status and equal means does not suddenly justify what those might actually manifest as; though one might be considered the same as one’s neighbors, there is no power or validity or unification in that if one’s life is only the reflection of what the regime designs it to be -- and that, at the heart of the Khmer Rouge, was its greater flaw, a commonality within the explorations of communism in the past.

This piece does a really good job of going deep into how the Khmer Rouge took away people's freedom and tried to make everyone the same. I liked your aspect of how fear and paranoia created a very unstable system. You make a good point about how forcing people to live only for the state hurts both the leaders and the people. I liked the connection to communism and the use of First They Killed My Father to back up your argument. One thing that could be improved is the structure — some sentences are long and kind of hard to follow. Breaking them up a bit and making the main points clearer would make the whole thing stronger. Also, the switch from talking about the Khmer Rouge to talking about communism in general could be a little smoother, so it all flows better.

Another strong part of this piece is how you show the emotional and human side of what people went through under the Khmer Rouge. You go farther than the facts and get into how losing one's identity and being forced to live as just another part of the system can destroy someone’s sense of purpose. The idea of people being treated like pieces in a machine is powerful, and it makes the reader understand why the KR was so damaging.