On 29 February 1704 an allied force of 250–300 French soldiers and native peoples launched a surprise attack against Deerfield, Massachusetts’ 275 English colonists and 20 garrison soldiers. About 50 inhabitants were killed in the raid, while many of the over 100 more who were led on a forced march to New France (Canada) were killed or perished along the way. The raid was systematically planned, and its tactical execution and strategic consequences were considered great successes. In August 2012 I spent a day in Deerfield in an attempt to better understand this episode of violence against civilians that happened over 300 years ago.
Why did the attack against Deerfield occur?
The colonial contest between Britain and France, encroachment of colonists on native lands, rivalries among native tribes, and “cultural acceptability” of attacking civilians implies a complex and fluid context that permits no easy answers (but for an in-depth treatment, I highly recommend Evan Haefeli and Kevin Sweeney’s Captors and Captives: The 1704 French and Indian Raid on Deerfield).
As an economist, I attempt to better understand episodes like the Deerfield raid using the lens of rational choice. The French leaders calculated that the benefits of attacking Deerfield would outweigh the costs. The native allies of the French made similar calculations and chose to participate in the raid. The French leaders concluded that attacking civilians in Deerfield was beneficial on net—that is, it was profitable.
One of the benefits was the diminished likelihood that the British would launch offensive operations against French interests. After the Deerfield raid, the British had to allocate more of their scarce resources to defend colonial outposts. Another gain to the French was that prospects of peace between the British and various native groups were undercut. Hence, possible future alliances between the British and native peoples, which could harm French interests, were rendered less likely. In addition, of course, there were benefits from looting, removing productive citizens from the British fold, and turning British subjects into 'productive units' for French and native interests.
The long history of violence against civilians
The Deerfield raid is 'just' one episode of violence against civilians among the tens of thousands of such incidents that have occurred in the course of human history. The Political Instability Task Force’s Worldwide Atrocities Dataset tracks episodes of deliberate killing of noncombatant civilians in which there are at least five fatalities. In the period between 1995 and the first half of 2012, more than 7000 deliberate episodes of violence against civilians are coded in the data set with an average of about 60 fatalities per episode.
Larger-scale atrocities against civilians, such as in Syria recently, make the headlines (and rightly so), but smaller-scale intentional attacks against civilians are shockingly common and mostly unnoticed. They occur because government leaders, military commanders, and non-state groups often view civilians as a resource to be exploited to achieve tactical and strategic objectives in the context of wider political instability.
Rationales and calculations leading to civilian atrocities encompass what I call the 'disturbing rationality' of violence against civilians. One implication of this disturbing reality is that, right now, pending perpetrators of intentional attacks against civilians are concluding that the benefits of such acts will outweigh the costs. If history, data sets and the rational choice perspective show us anything, they reveal that episodes of intentional violence against civilians have been numerous and they will likely be common occurrences in the foreseeable future.
Towards a better understanding of human choices
Economics is a social science devoted to the study of human choices. Most of the time, economists study choices in the marketplace involving the purchase and sale of goods, services, and assets. However, much more research is needed into economic choice perspectives on 'smaller' acts of violence against civilians; when and why a series of such acts can cross into mass killing or genocide; and how such atrocities can be prevented.
Of course, rationalist motives and calculations are not all that matter in attempting to understand the problem. Historical and cultural contexts and non-rational elements such as loss aversion and other forms of cognitive dissonance may matter as much or more than basic calculations of costs and benefits. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that violence against civilians is routinely seen as profitable. We need to learn much more about why this is so and then set ourselves more fervently to the policy tasks of making such acts unprofitable.
On 29 February 1704 an allied force of 250–300 French soldiers and native peoples launched a surprise attack against Deerfield, Massachusetts’ 275 English colonists and 20 garrison soldiers. About 50 inhabitants were killed in the raid, while many of the over 100 more who were led on a forced march to New France (Canada) were killed or perished along the way. The raid was systematically planned, and its tactical execution and strategic consequences were considered great successes. In August 2012 I spent a day in Deerfield in an attempt to better understand this episode of violence against civilians that happened over 300 years ago.
Why did the attack against Deerfield occur?
The colonial contest between Britain and France, encroachment of colonists on native lands, rivalries among native tribes, and “cultural acceptability” of attacking civilians implies a complex and fluid context that permits no easy answers (but for an in-depth treatment, I highly recommend Evan Haefeli and Kevin Sweeney’s Captors and Captives: The 1704 French and Indian Raid on Deerfield).
As an economist, I attempt to better understand episodes like the Deerfield raid using the lens of rational choice. The French leaders calculated that the benefits of attacking Deerfield would outweigh the costs. The native allies of the French made similar calculations and chose to participate in the raid. The French leaders concluded that attacking civilians in Deerfield was beneficial on net—that is, it was profitable.
One of the benefits was the diminished likelihood that the British would launch offensive operations against French interests. After the Deerfield raid, the British had to allocate more of their scarce resources to defend colonial outposts. Another gain to the French was that prospects of peace between the British and various native groups were undercut. Hence, possible future alliances between the British and native peoples, which could harm French interests, were rendered less likely. In addition, of course, there were benefits from looting, removing productive citizens from the British fold, and turning British subjects into 'productive units' for French and native interests.
The long history of violence against civilians
The Deerfield raid is 'just' one episode of violence against civilians among the tens of thousands of such incidents that have occurred in the course of human history. The Political Instability Task Force’s Worldwide Atrocities Dataset tracks episodes of deliberate killing of noncombatant civilians in which there are at least five fatalities. In the period between 1995 and the first half of 2012, more than 7000 deliberate episodes of violence against civilians are coded in the data set with an average of about 60 fatalities per episode.
Larger-scale atrocities against civilians, such as in Syria recently, make the headlines (and rightly so), but smaller-scale intentional attacks against civilians are shockingly common and mostly unnoticed. They occur because government leaders, military commanders, and non-state groups often view civilians as a resource to be exploited to achieve tactical and strategic objectives in the context of wider political instability.
Rationales and calculations leading to civilian atrocities encompass what I call the 'disturbing rationality' of violence against civilians. One implication of this disturbing reality is that, right now, pending perpetrators of intentional attacks against civilians are concluding that the benefits of such acts will outweigh the costs. If history, data sets and the rational choice perspective show us anything, they reveal that episodes of intentional violence against civilians have been numerous and they will likely be common occurrences in the foreseeable future.
Towards a better understanding of human choices
Economics is a social science devoted to the study of human choices. Most of the time, economists study choices in the marketplace involving the purchase and sale of goods, services, and assets. However, much more research is needed into economic choice perspectives on 'smaller' acts of violence against civilians; when and why a series of such acts can cross into mass killing or genocide; and how such atrocities can be prevented.
Of course, rationalist motives and calculations are not all that matter in attempting to understand the problem. Historical and cultural contexts and non-rational elements such as loss aversion and other forms of cognitive dissonance may matter as much or more than basic calculations of costs and benefits. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that violence against civilians is routinely seen as profitable. We need to learn much more about why this is so and then set ourselves more fervently to the policy tasks of making such acts unprofitable.
This blog post is published as part of a collaborative partnership between SIPRI and Economists for Peace and Security (EPS).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)