Valuing Genocide

Quote:

---

What sarcasm ? My question was in no way rhetorical, and I rather fail to see how you could give an answer that did not ultimately amount to as much.

---

I was being sarcastic about the flying spagehitti monster.

Quote:

---

Right. And how would you propose to identify those merry fellows once they catch up with the program ?

---

Ill give them the benifit of the doubt until proven differrntly. Remember this is hypothetical. Like a story in the bible. Why do you all have to complicate it with reality :laugh4:

Quote:

---

So you would have to kill them all just in case they radicaslised .

---

Dont put ideas in my head :skull:

Quote:

---

Are you free-basing again Gawain ?

---

Now was that called for? You know i quit years ago :oops: But have you had one too many again ? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Now was that called for?

---

sorry .:embarassed:
its just that your hypothetical is so obviously self defeating I wondered how it had sprung to mind ?

Quote:

---

its just that your hypothetical is so obviously self defeating I wondered how it had sprung to mind ?

---

Its not self defeating. The whole world would attack this nation not just us and they would be wiped out to a man. No one to retaliate. Its strictly hypothetical. Theres a huge IF in there in case any of you didnt realise it. I know its not possible lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I was being sarcastic about the flying spagehitti monster.

---

Which is about what any conceivable source for the certain fact about bringing about world peace and free popcorns for everyone would amount to, as far as credibility goes. ~;p
Methinks your hypotethical scenario has a big hole in it - could probably fit that proverbial camel through, actually.

Quote:

---

Methinks your hypotethical scenario has a big hole in it

---

A hole that would fit several hypothetical camels and a whole herd of elephants too .

Quote:

---

Methinks your hypotethical scenario has a big hole in it - could probably fit that proverbial camel through, actually.

---

Again your just complicating things. I asked a simple question, If wipping out a certain race nation or ideology would garuntee world peace forever would you favor it, Its a simple yes or no question. There are no holes in it. No maybes. No other what ifs. You wipe them out no more wars. Forever.

Sure, but where does our hypothetical subject get the assurance this is indeed so, and he will not just be committing a horrible act for naught ? Because even if this objectively were so, human actors never have access to hundred proof objective data... so it really just comes down to blind faith when all is said and done.
:shame:
And we have several rude terms for people who think like that back at my farm. :beam:

As for why I keep insisting on complicating the scenario, it's simple enough. The way you've kept stacking tendentious conditionals on it to railroad the question to the very specific dicothomy you're looking for annoys the snot out of me on general principles, so I might as well undermine the whole effigy by solidly kicking the rather glaring weakness inherent in the premises.

Quote:

---

Sure, but where does our hypothetical subject get the assurance this is indeed so

---

Lets say god comes down in person and tells everyone. Thats why i say If you knew. Were taking it for granted that you know. There is no doubt.

And you know, I have absolutely no reason to just accept that premise at face value. :beam:

Plus, there's certain terms used of people who talked to God in person and were told to go forth and lay waste to the, uh, whoever. They're not terribly polite either, I think.

Quote:

---

And you know, I have absolutely no reason to just accept that premise at face value.

Plus, there's certain terms used of people who talked to God in person and were told to go forth and lay waste to the, uh, whoever. They're not terribly polite either, I think.

---

Your obvuscating here. Were talking god came to you personally , proved he was god and told you this. And you believed him lol :wall:

Right. And what's the word for people who go around believing things like that ?

Gawain,what are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the houlacuast. Im almost sure God didnt come down to Hitler and say"hey if you wipe out the jews I'll give you the biggest cookie you've ever seen.the biggest!" Are you saying Hitler was like God to the German people and they would follow him to the end and thats why they did this? I find it abhorrent no one (or very few) tried to stop this. I understand the jews wernt exactly your best friend but come on. If the president came on the tele tommorow and said any group needed to be excluded based on race or religon he would be done away with. That is the biggest tragdey in this whole thing, very few tried to stop Hitler. They Germans put all there faith in a man who in the end was only responsible for German dead and lost German terrioritory.

Quote:

---

Right. And what's the word for people who go around believing things like that ?

---

In this case it would be Watchman:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Gawain,what are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the houlacuast. I

---

I never said it did. I said the title of this thread reminded me of a hypothitical idea i had. I went on to ask about it. Its not really so hard to grasp.

Carthage aside, during the praetorship of Galba in Spain (150 BCE), the Lusitanians had revolted, and since he couldn't defeat them in the field (he did, but his pursuit scattered his army, and the Lusitanians smashed them) he sued for peace. He 'understood' their plight, sent them to 'richer' lands.
The 'richer lands' were slaughter pens that his army set up, after they had been disarmed. They were slaughtered by the thousands.

Sounds like a genocide to me. Galba profited from the bounty. The Romans had to constantly put out the guerilla forces of the remaining Lusitanians for years afterwards.

Don't trust me? Look at 'Chronicles of the Roman Republic'.

Anyway, genocide was used to gain quick profit, and long-term benefits if you were able to wipe the entire population out. However, with modern society, a genocide isn't called for, and thus society has looked down upon it.

My 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Lets say god comes down in person and tells everyone. Thats why i say If you knew. Were taking it for granted that you know. There is no doubt.

---

Well, first I would ask him why he didn't fix it himself (getting world peace forever is much harder), second question would be what's the catch is. How would this world peace come? How is overpopulation stopped? Then I would check out his credentials, as 1 existing divine being indicates more, so how can I be certain that this is a good one?

Then I would probably still say no, simply on the mere suspicion.

The problem with you hypothetical scenario is that it's practical application will simply be that your utopia is always one group away, no matter how many you've killed before... Making the original question moot.

That is unless your utopia is some kind of oppressive "Big Brother" state, then you can probably maintain it relativly easily during your lifetime after the first kills of the opposition, although making it maintain itself during your successor is way harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

In this case it would be Watchman:laugh4:

---

I don't recall ever identifying myself with the nameless hypothetical subject of your hypothesis, and would appreciate if you kept me out of your kinky fantasy scenarios in public. :blank2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Carthage aside, during the praetorship of Galba in Spain (150 BCE), the Lusitanians had revolted, and since he couldn't defeat them in the field (he did, but his pursuit scattered his army, and the Lusitanians smashed them) he sued for peace. He 'understood' their plight, sent them to 'richer' lands.
The 'richer lands' were slaughter pens that his army set up, after they had been disarmed. They were slaughtered by the thousands.

Sounds like a genocide to me. Galba profited from the bounty. The Romans had to constantly put out the guerilla forces of the remaining Lusitanians for years afterwards.

Don't trust me? Look at 'Chronicles of the Roman Republic'.

Anyway, genocide was used to gain quick profit, and long-term benefits if you were able to wipe the entire population out. However, with modern society, a genocide isn't called for, and thus society has looked down upon it.

My 2 cents.

---

You're confusing "ruthless massacre" with "genocide" here. The Romans never had any interest in eradicating the Lusitanians as a people (and indeed would probably have had considerable trouble even comprehending that kind of thinking); destroying them as a power and opponent was an entirely different thing - and given that Galba's little escapade (I understand his men just killed the men of military age and sold the others to slavery incidentally - sounds almost more like a fairly elaborate and large-scale slaving operation for quick profit than anything else) was before the Lusitanian War with Viriatus at the head, where the Romans lost several whole armies against them, I'd say the Lusitani losses in that were not exactly massive in proportion to their actual population. It's not like Galba seems to have exactly followed up that piece of nastiness with any further operations either, and one suspects he would not have been able to even if he wanted.
Plus his head nearly rolled for the whole business back in Rome. The Romans weren't exactly the kindest of people, but one would imagine such reneging on treaties on your own account was not well thought of.

Anyway, once the Romans finally subdued the Lusitanians they treated them pretty much like any other subjugated provincials and over time more or less Romanized the lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

All in all I find it funny people get so attached to being "German" Every time wurstfest happens I get nuaseted when all these white trash country bumpkins stop being Americans and put on leederhoosen try to stuff nine inches down there thorat and run around speaking broken German. Your family came over in 1850 get a job. I swear between this and Fiesta Im surprised I havent burned the city down.

---

Strrrrrike!

SftS, some of your posts make me laugh so loud my colleagues start phoning the men in white with the shot and the straight-jacket.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Strrrrrike!

SftS, some of your posts make me laugh so loud my colleagues start phoning the men in white with the shot and the straight-jacket.
:bow:

---

Well said.

I think the reason that the Holocaust was so big lays in its location. It happened in Central and Western Europe, a place that to most Americans at the time would probably have been viewed as "cultured" while everyone else were savages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Carthage aside, during the praetorship of Galba in Spain (150 BCE), the Lusitanians had revolted, and since he couldn't defeat them in the field (he did, but his pursuit scattered his army, and the Lusitanians smashed them) he sued for peace. He 'understood' their plight, sent them to 'richer' lands.
The 'richer lands' were slaughter pens that his army set up, after they had been disarmed. They were slaughtered by the thousands.

Sounds like a genocide to me. Galba profited from the bounty. The Romans had to constantly put out the guerilla forces of the remaining Lusitanians for years afterwards.

Don't trust me? Look at 'Chronicles of the Roman Republic'.

Anyway, genocide was used to gain quick profit, and long-term benefits if you were able to wipe the entire population out. However, with modern society, a genocide isn't called for, and thus society has looked down upon it.

My 2 cents.

---

Yes I've heard of Galba, however he wasn't seen as representing Rome but he was a local governor gone mad. Rome tried all they could to dispose of him after the event. I think he got away IIRC, but I don't recall exactly how the story ended.

There is NO value to genocide.

Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush. Dave has got it .:2thumbsup:
Gaqwain cn you see the fauklt yet ?

Quote:

---

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

---

That sounds like the Lusitanian massacres.
Galba tried to kill an entire group (or a good portion), he caused mental harm, and he forcibly transferred the group to another (slavery).
Where does mass murder stop and genocide begin, because I have the feeling that this is a genocide.

If one wants to get nitpicky, perfectly normal warfare already falls within the defintions of the bit you quoted... since two warring nations' armies are by default "killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" and so on. By that same token the Lusitanians were engaging in "genocide" every time they bushwhacked a Roman army, and the Cisalpine Gauls every time they raided into Italy proper... heck the Celts and Germans and all the others with traditions of raiding their neighbours would have been engaging in "genocide" against themselves, Alexander the Great against the Greeks when he had Theba razed, and let's not even get started on everyone involved in the Thirty Years' War...
:dizzy2:
I don't particularly like this way the concept of "genocide" tends to get banalized these days. It dilutes the weight and meaning of the term when it is applied to simple bloodbaths and massacres. IMO it only becomes valid for those when they are part of an actual campaign to genuinely exterminate a people - but hardly when the ultimate goal is defeating and subjugating the other.

Precisely.

A genocide is when, if all goes according to your terrible plan, you no longer have anyone of that particular ethnicity to rule over.

Anything else, including massacres to subdue and control, falls short.

Edit:

To compare "genocides" and decide which is the most terrible is frankly wrong. In this case it may well be an attempt at self-justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Where does mass murder stop and genocide begin, because I have the feeling that this is a genocide.

---

That's one of the biggest problems with our current definitions of genocide. It's a little vague when something becomes a genocide, especially since half of the definition is intention rather than action.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I find it abhorrent no one (or very few) tried to stop this. I understand the jews wernt exactly your best friend but come on. If the president came on the tele tommorow and said any group needed to be excluded based on race or religon he would be done away with. That is the biggest tragdey in this whole thing, very few tried to stop Hitler. They Germans put all there faith in a man who in the end was only responsible for German dead and lost German terrioritory.

---

Why ? It is quite simple. Cult of OBEDIENCE and uniform which is often linked to the first one.
From the time of first kings in Prussia (official title) military discipline was getting more important in the whole state. Add to this lutheran obedience born from grim assumption your fate is sealed already and you have all you need to follow anyone.
In additionlets not forget that Hitler was victorious and there was this historical 'luck' which often followed Prussia in worst situations ( 1763, 1807) where despite catastrophic situation it got away without a scratch or even larger than before.
Even in 1945 this belief existed - Hitler persoanlly believed in another miracle just like the one during the 7-years war namely - a split between the Allies and the Soviets.:yes:

Quote:

---

born from grim assumption your fate is sealed already and you have all you need to follow anyone.

---

That sounds like Calvinism.


So war is genocide, so war is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

So war is genocide, so war is bad.

---

Not necessarily.

Slyspy (and others) sums it up pretty well: war is not necessarily genocide. A genocide requires an intention to exterminate for the sake of extermination. There is nothing less than that and that's why it's a pretty chilling thing. You die because you are Tutsi and Tutsis are to die; not because I want to subjugate you, rob you of money, rape your wife and enslave your children for power and profit. I just want you dead no matter what.

The Romans are different. They want the slaves and the gold. They are just a little too willing to slaughter entire cities for it. Mind you, the slaughter on Carthage could be argued as a proper case of genocide, if there is enough evidence that the Romans pretty much carried out the task because they want no Carthaginians left in the world to oppose them.

That the public imagination of genocide is focused on the Holocaust does not bother me except in cases where people ignore other genocides in favor of this one, which I tend to blame on the average audience's ignorance rather than the Jewish filmmaker's choice of subject anyway. People who blame Spielberg for filming Schinder's List and not Hotel Rwanda tends to be a little...ah...anti-semitic. A little.

hm, interesting thread. What about the genocide against the Phillippinos conducted by American soldiers during the rebellion?

or worse, what can only be termed genocide by Columbus and his cronies in the New World?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

hm, interesting thread. What about the genocide against the Phillippinos conducted by American soldiers during the rebellion?

---

I wasn't aware that there was a genocide...? :balloon:

well yeah, they dont teach that stuff in high school unfortunately.. At least one million civilians perished from outright slaughter, disease, and famine between 1899 and 1913, and American forces burnt large areas of crops and placed many Filipinos in internment camps. Such a massacre happened in the town of Balangiga, where they killed males from ages 8 to 60. This was called the "Kill and Burn" method. General Arthur MacArthur, Jr. boasted that 15 Filipinos were killed for every one wounded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well yeah, they dont teach that stuff in high school unfortunately.. At least one million civilians perished from outright slaughter, disease, and famine between 1899 and 1913, and American forces burnt large areas of crops and placed many Filipinos in internment camps. Such a massacre happened in the town of Balangiga, where they killed males from ages 8 to 60. This was called the "Kill and Burn" method. General Arthur MacArthur, Jr. boasted that 15 Filipinos were killed for every one wounded.

---

Ah yes, genocide seems to be the only answer one can think of during a guerilla war.

...which, whether I believe you or not is unnecessary, as it is not genocide still, as explained earlier by various people?

The term is specific: it refers to a particular type of mass-murder with a definition that focused on the intention and not just the mere act. I'm not convinced the USA went to the Philippines for a specific desire to exterminate every Filipino in existence. Subjugation, conquest, evil misguided foolishness and damnable Imperialism, maybe, depends on your point of view, but not genocide.

Its started because a Filipino soldier crossed into American territory (or side, whatever) and it was believed the American gave fair warnings before firing.

The Filipinos could not beat the U.S., so they turned to guerrilla tactics, which angered the U.S. and so they started to shoot surrendering troops and set up camps for suspected guerrillas.

Still, I don't understand the title. There is no value to Genocide.

Based on the first post, I would guess that the meaning behind the title was evaluating genocide, and that it was just poorly expressed.

Ajax

I think the key concept to determining 'genocide' is the idea of eradication. You are seeking to extinguish not an uprising, not a revolt, not even an idea but a population. As such, genocide has more to do with motivation than it does with numbers or methods employed. Certainly, what the Soviets did and what the Chinese did and what the Khmer Rouge did, and what the Japanese did, and for that matter what the Americans have done at times are all atrocious acts.

But the German holocaust stands in very sparse company indeed. We were not trying to annhiliate the Sioux, we were trying to end Sioux autonomy and Sioux culture. The Japanese were not trying to annhiliate the Chinese, they were trying to assert themselves over them. In fact, of all the examples I've seen cited, I believe the only one that matches the Shoah in terms of reaching the level of genocide was the Hutuu agression against the Tutsis. They really did want to annhiliate not just Tutsis in Rwanda, but the very idea of Tutsis, anywhere they lived.

Anyway, what's the point of this thread? If I rob an orphan or a widow, am I any less a thief? If my goal is to line my own pockets or to enviously deny them what limited resources they have, am I any less wicked?


As for the sub-thread Gawain started, @Gawain I'm aware you were raising a hypothetical in the 'I get to set all the rules and assumptions' hypothetical sense. Tribesman and Watchman weren't being obtuse, they were refusing to acquiese to the terms you laid. Even assuming what you posed was possible, I would have to say such an act would be self-defeating. How can you eradicate a population to create peace? That's the peace of the grave. Doc Bean gave you the best possible answer... the only way your scenario would work would be if the 'race' in question were the human race.

What's more, let's just suppose human behavior in Gawain's universe doesn't mirror reality, and with the extermination of the last 'bad guy', no new 'bad guys' arose. It would still be wrong, for several reasons. 1) Desire to do evil is not doing evil. Killing all people that have that desire would be wrong, as they may never actually act on it. 2) You leave no room for redemption, or remorse. Yes, human history is filled with dark deeds of depravity. But it's also filled with inspiring stories of leopards that changed their spots.

Eradicating them, or even entertaining the fantasy of eradicating them misses the mark. The cure for hate is not a bigger stick. You have to address it and cure it with philios. Yes, violence to make the hateful pause in their mayhem may be necessary. But it can never be viewed as the solution in and of itself.

The thread title was meant to question the value or importance placed on some genocides over others.... ie. Why is the Holocaust given far more attention than the Armenian Genocide. I think that question has been answered quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think the key concept to determining 'genocide' is the idea of eradication. You are seeking to extinguish not an uprising, not a revolt, not even an idea but a population. As such, genocide has more to do with motivation than it does with numbers or methods employed. Certainly, what the Soviets did and what the Chinese did and what the Khmer Rouge did, and what the Japanese did, and for that matter what the Americans have done at times are all atrocious acts.

---

Going by that, the Russian genocide(s) are far worse than the German one, as they completely eliminated many ethnic groups within the USSR and Eastern Europe.

PJ you are trying to convince a bunch of people whose granpappys beat your granpappy that the nazis wernt that bad. It isnt going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The thread title was meant to question the value or importance placed on some genocides over others.... ie. Why is the Holocaust given far more attention than the Armenian Genocide. I think that question has been answered quite well.

---

because America won the war, was the only superpower, and wrote the history books. That's your only reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

PJ you are trying to convince a bunch of people whose granpappys beat your granpappy that the nazis wernt that bad. It isnt going to happen.

---

You did not read the first post. :no:

As for my grandfather, only Russians can claim that. He was quite successful in the West. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

because America won the war, was the only superpower, and wrote the history books. That's your only reason.

---

No, quite wrong.

The Holocaust gets the attention because it was us.

The killers were us, the methods were ours, the victims were us.

The Armenian Genocide (to give it your label) was them.

Easy.

Quote:

---

Why is the Holocaust given far more attention than the Armenian Genocide.

---

There is none.

I had forgot, sorry. I tried to clarify in my previous posts why Holocaust is such a hot topic beyond what Americans had done to Native tribes and the likes.

No. No more please. I'm not intending to argue on a "lie drama" of which authors fear debating on despite all invitations been made.

The old thread died, LEN, let's not turn this one into a pointless debate in which both sides will not listen to the other.

Seriously I'm trying to avoid it as much as I can. I saw PJ needed some attention and I gave it.

Done with me. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

As for my grandfather, only Russians can claim that. He was quite successful in the West. :2thumbsup:

---

:laugh4: nice. :whip: