Mass grave of Caesar's victims found, remains of 150-200,000 Germans

[Drakken]

My impression is that genocide is a word for a physical action, not (just) a legal term that is dependent on legislation in place at the time of said action.

We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".

Hence why President Clinton resisted calling the Rwanda genocide a "genocide" in 1994 when the events were making it obvious it was one. It implied legal and political ramifications.

[Duque de Bragança]

Calling him a Frank makes more sense than calling him German or French. The earliest reasonable date for Germany is the Treaty of Verdun in 843.

Incidentally, the same can be said about France, the treaty of Verdun used to be cornerstone of traditional historiography. Not so much now with PC/white guilt/no historical dates to learn trend.
Though Clovis/Chlodwig fans say 496 with the move to Paris as capital in 508 being another possiblity.I guess Karl/Charles Martel and even more so Dagobert (not Onkel) stay Frank(ish).

[The Brain]

My impression is that genocide is a word for a physical action, not (just) a legal term that is dependent on legislation in place at the time of said action.

We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".

Hence why President Clinton resisted calling the Rwanda genocide a "genocide" in 1994 when the events were making it obvious it was one. It implied legal and political ramifications.

Same can be said for lots of terms. I don't think discussions of ancient history necessarily have to tread as carefully as a politician talking about current affairs.

[Ed Anger]

Dreamy.

[grumbler]

We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".

We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances.  Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest. 

[Jacob]

We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".

We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances.  Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.

I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).

Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?

[Eddie Teach]

"War".

[Admiral Yi]

Does the English language distinguish between Germanic people (those of antiquity and the great migrations and encompassing many tribal groups) and Germans (perhaps starting with Louis the German or Otto the Great and becoming eventually the modern Germans)? Is the noun for members of these groups the same?

Yes, no. 

[alfred russel]

We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".

We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances.  Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.

I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).

Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?

Yeah, im typing on a phone so cant provide links, but there are plenty of reputable dictionaries that have definitions of genocide that dont reference the legal status of the act. Based on dictionary definitions, this act would seem to qualify.

[grumbler]

I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).

Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?

I think that many people misuse the word "genocide" for its emotive impact, as in this case.  Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" according to Mirriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide and pretty much every other dictionary, other than the Urban Dictionary (which argues that it just means mass killing, because the word has "suffered the usual media sensationalism and over the years has lost much of its meaning. In the eyes of society these days, genocide is no longer the profound offense to all of civilization that it was taken to be in 1945, but just an obscure problem in an equally obscure nation by an equally obscure dictator").   Note that the UD definition predated this article that fits it by 11 years.

"Massacre" describes what happened well, as does your choice, "slaughter." 

[crazy canuck]

Obviously grumbler and Jules were drinking buddies.

Some say Grumbles ordered the slaughter and Jules covered for him.  Explains why he is so touchy on the subject.

[jimmy olsen]

I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).

Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?

I think that many people misuse the word "genocide" for its emotive impact, as in this case.  Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" according to Mirriam-Webster

The Romans were quite deliberate and systematic about whipping these tribes out.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[grumbler]

The Romans were quite deliberate and systematic about whipping these tribes out.

I don't think they engaged in any systematic whipping of these tribes - too busy fighting them.

[Martinus]

We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".

We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances.  Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.

There are many other legal term that are also used more loosely when talking in a historical, especially pre-modern, context - war, treason or truce come to mind.