Valuing Genocide

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

In this case it would be Watchman

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.

[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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

There is NO value to genocide.

[Tribesman]

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

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[Watchman]

In this case it would be Watchman

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.

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.

[cegorach]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[AntiochusIII]

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.

[Zaknafien]

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?

[AntiochusIII]

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...?

[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.