1/7 Podcasts - The Economist Asks: Margaret MacMillan

E - Economist host; M - Margaret MacMillan

E: Now, what did you make of the event in Washington scene from a historical perspective in a week when there has been so much true mode, mob violence on the streets of Washington and the Capitol.

M: I was absolutely stand. You know, we’ve seen such scenes elsewhere in the world. I wasn’t around when the Russian revolution happened and I wasn’t around when the French revolution happened, but, those resolutions had people storming parliament buildings, taking over palaces, and trashing them. And, we’ve seen upheavals in Washington before I remembered during the Vietnam War that were demonstrations in Washington and there were times when the tear gas could be smelled apparently in the White House. But I never expected to see anything like this in Washington. I never expected to see the American Capitol occupied by people who came in, apparently believing that the election have been stolen. I never thought I see it.

E: And, what is it like in terms of broad sweep of history of this kind of uprising. And what is it not like? There were a lot comparisons flying about with coups, with insurrections. We should choose our words quite carefully. So you choose yours.

M: I think I probably go for insurrection. I don’t think it’s a coup. I think possibly Trump is trying to delay the handover power. So you could say that Trump is trying to carry out some sort of coup, but it’s inapt and not terribly coherent. I mean, normally in the coup, you get people very targeted and taking over radio station in the old days, or today taking over social media, and taking over the institution sort of important for government. I didn’t get the impression that this was anything of the sort. I mean, when I looked the people who got into the capitol building, they didn’t actually seem to know what to do once they were there. The purpose was to get in, and then, they sort of wondered around, taking selfies themselves, and sending pictures of themselves to their families. So I think it was more a mob violence. Although clearly there were some planning there, I think, and certainly an encouragement from president himself who had been talking on social media even before these people came to Washington saying come to Washington is gonna be wild. And then, in his speech yesterday, to the assembled crowds, had urged them to go down Pennsylvania Avenue and put pressure on congress. So it was an odd combination of mob violence but with a certain amount of organization and a certain amount of direction from the very person who should have been trying to stop it.

E: You range very broadly about warfare, but are you clear where the board line is between acts of random, if encouraged, violence like this, and civil strife if before we get to talk about warfare.

M: It’s always slightly blur but I think I would make the distinction between random violence and disorganized violence which may have a purpose or may not. I mean it seems to me that the purpose yesterday was to somehow disrupt the process in congress but I’m not sure there was much purpose beyond that. And I would see war as something that highly organized and I define it as one organized group using violence against another organized group and both have a purpose in mind, a political purpose, some sort of , some sort of reason why they are fighting.

太难了。。。听写1小时才写出3分钟的内容。。。