Two page essay that briefly summarize the reading for a class session (in one paragraph) and

then goes on tomake some sort of argument or engagement with the text. This could be comparing to a specific case, putting it in dialogue with other readings for other sessions or other theoretical approaches, or explaining why you agree or disagree with the readings. You must quote from the reading at least once. Cambodia - the effectiveness of [state] terror depends ... entirely on the degree of social atomization. Ethiopia inverse, not submission of groups in atomized society, rather armed and organized resistance to Dergue - power struggle Ideology Exclusionary and inherent capacity for mass violence Dergue absolute national unity vs Angkar racial purity and territorial expansion Belief in noble purpose that justified policies and terror Preservation of national unity and regime continuity Ethiopia death for contesting borders and challenging rule, opposed ethnic nationalism (Oromo, Somali, etc) would lead to break up of Ethiopia Goal of ethnic pluralism led to assertion ethnic self-determination and secessionist movements Other such as Marxists opposed fascist military rule for a socialist revolution to succeed That was impossible in Khmer Cambodia's due to the racial purity ideology of Angkar Pockets of resistance arose, such as Cham muslims fighting against cultural prohibitions with knives and swords, but were easily slaughtered. Khmer Rouge surveillance and control over Cambodia made organized opposition impossible. Fear of counter-revolution due to domestic disaffection (loss of power) distorted perception reality 1997-1978 widespread killing of revolutionary leaders and friends of the regime and political moderates. Blaming 'the capitalists' for lack of productivity due to impossible agricultural policies. Mengitsu had the same goal, but no wholesale killings, purges of political oppostion. Relocation of populations to areas of government control. Difference lies in scope of reaction to perceived sabotage and insecurity. Khmer completely fragmented society, purged ethnic/religious elements, and established totalitarian control. The people accepted the horror of the situation becoming 'unchallenging subjects' as a means of survival. Ethiopians who opposed the Dergue could join any number of groups, faced greater counter-revolutionary challenges. The social fragmentation and state surveillance of the Cambodian kind did not exist.

Dergue opposition was not unified, infighting made them more susceptible to terror Secessionist ideal opposed by the Ethiopian people justified the terror and also extraction of food from peasants, taxation and drafting of youth into the national army as a means to defend Ethiopia against those who sought to dismember it. Both regimes glorified their use of terror and appropriated folk wisdom to lower moral standards and justify mass murder Altered social norms banned mourning and cultural rites as disapproval of enemies deaths

Transnationality of dergue opposition, terror and power struggle pas product of cold war politics