First Genocide of the 20th Century?

[alfred russel]

Genocide or Ethnocide is a more recent phenomena.  It describes intent to destroy not only the people, but a culture they embody.  Previous wars, conquests and invasions saw not the extinction of culture, but the mixing and fusion of cultures. 

Germany trying to eradicate European Jewry is Genocide.  The Bell-Beaker people conquering previous societies over time and adopting their technologies and rituals when they could is not Genocide.  Given my definition (your mileage may vary), the German colonial attacks were Genocide.

n.b. my statements might be framed in such a way as to elicit discussion...

The Third Punic War seemed to involve a good faith effort on the part of the Romans to commit genocide against the Carthaginians. At the very least, there is evidence that leading Romans had genocidal intent.

It should be noted that if success is a necessary criteria for genocide, then the German actions against the Jews should not qualify. In fact, the Jews today have a state of their own, and are seemingly more numerous and powerful than before the Nazi regime took power. On the other hand, Carthage was destroyed, its language died out, and the history of it is rather sparse because of the near absence of sources surviving from its point of view.

[Martinus]

What about the genocide of Boers by the British in South Africa?

[Martinus]

Genocide or Ethnocide is a more recent phenomena.  It describes intent to destroy not only the people, but a culture they embody.  Previous wars, conquests and invasions saw not the extinction of culture, but the mixing and fusion of cultures. 

Germany trying to eradicate European Jewry is Genocide.  The Bell-Beaker people conquering previous societies over time and adopting their technologies and rituals when they could is not Genocide.  Given my definition (your mileage may vary), the German colonial attacks were Genocide.

n.b. my statements might be framed in such a way as to elicit discussion...

The Third Punic War seemed to involve a good faith effort on the part of the Romans to commit genocide against the Carthaginians. At the very least, there is evidence that leading Romans had genocidal intent.

It should be noted that if success is a necessary criteria for genocide, then the German actions against the Jews should not qualify. In fact, the Jews today have a state of their own, and are seemingly more numerous and powerful than before the Nazi regime took power. On the other hand, Carthage was destroyed, its language died out, and the history of it is rather sparse because of the near absence of sources surviving from its point of view.

If success is a necessary criteria, I would say 90% of all cases we consider genocide would not qualify.

[jimmy olsen]

I think genocide is something that has existed for a long time. We just used to call it War.

It was probably really common in the, I don't know, Stone Age or something.  I don't think a tribe expanded by moving into unoccupied land.  They probably killed everybody to move in.

I don't think that the land was crowded enough to support endemic warfare until agricultural societies began to emerge.

Well you would be wrong.  The Inuit wiped out the Dorset culture.  It's thought that interbreeding was minimal.  Just destruction of one culture by another.

That event occured after the emergence of agricultural societies.

Neither culture was agricultural, or even pastoral.  They were strictly hunter-gather.

They didn't live in a vcauum, they were influenced by the agricultural societies to the south.

[Razgovory]

The people to the south tended to be hunter gatherers as well.  They probably had minimal contact with other peoples anyway.  The Dorset for instance, lacked knowledge of bows.  I should note, that fairly large settlements have been uncovered predating agricultural towns of around 10,000 people in the middle East seemed to have exited prior to agriculture.

[The Brain]

This is a really pointless question.  What exactly changes if we call something a genocide or not?

It is a bit weird, this obsession with labels over content. Like the whole Pluto thing.

[jimmy olsen]

This is a really pointless question.  What exactly changes if we call something a genocide or not?

It is a bit weird, this obsession with labels over content. Like the whole Pluto thing.

Pluto is a planet!

[Syt]

It's a dog.

[Eddie Teach]

He's the Devil. More or less.

[Valmy]

What about the genocide of Boers by the British in South Africa?

Does genocide mean 'treated really mean'? Because the British were not slaughtering the Boers, they were imprisoning them.

[Valmy]

If success is a necessary criteria, I would say 90% of all cases we consider genocide would not qualify.

Yep. There has to be an intent to destroy the culture or peoples and you need to have started to carry that out. This is distinct from trying to beat the crap out of them until they surrender in a war. The end goal needs to be their destruction.

[crazy canuck]

This is a really pointless question.  What exactly changes if we call something a genocide or not?

At least in the Case of the Armenian genocide, if Turkey admitted it was a genocide such an admission would likely result in large restitution claims and perhaps territorial concessions.

[Sheilbh]

What about the genocide of Boers by the British in South Africa?

Concentration camps doesn't mean genocide.

Herero and Namaqualand.

[Josquius]

Shouldn't it be the Congo Free State?

In terms of scale certainly.
Though in terms of motivation...that was nothing personal, just capitalism. I think genocide needs the factor of an active desire to destroy a people (or a significant chunk of them).

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Agree that the Herero and Namaqua was the first genocide of the Twentieth Century.

Also agree that this cutoff is arbitrary and there were plenty of pre-1900 genocides to go around.