Poll
Question:
Got into an argument with this on FB, and I couldn't really decide.
Option 1: Herero and Namaqua Genocide
votes: 10
Option 2: Armenian Genocide
votes: 5
Option 3: Something Soviet Pre-War
votes: 0
Option 4: Other Interwar
votes: 0
Option 5: Nazi Germany's half-dozen simultaneous genocides
votes: 0
Option 6: Other
votes: 1
Option 7: Jaron
votes: 4
I'm reading Hannah Arendt and A Shameful Act simultaneously so this seems a really interesting question. I'm voting Armenia.
I'm not sure why you consider proximity to the year 1900 something significant.
Shouldn't it be the Congo Free State?
This is a really pointless question. What exactly changes if we call something a genocide or not?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 08:21:24 PM
Shouldn't it be the Congo Free State?
I thought of it as a 19th Century phenomenon.
QuoteI'm not sure why you consider proximity to the year 1900 something significant.
I think "genocide" is an actual practice that relies on a certain type of rhetorical justification and state involvement that I don't think many states were capable of in the 19th Century. That's clearly a related argument, though.
I think genocide is something that has existed for a long time. We just used to call it War.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
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.
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...
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2015, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2015, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2015, 11:53:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2015, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
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.
Quote from: PDH on April 27, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
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.
The Old Testament is filled with what qualifies as genocide by your definition. The results were probably closer to the mixing and fusion that you mention, as Ball seemed pretty damn hard to eliminate, but there was certainly attempts at the effort.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
I think genocide is something that has existed for a long time. We just used to call it War.
While massacring the male population was not uncommon, typically the women and children were spared.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 11:54:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2015, 11:53:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2015, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
I think genocide is something that has existed for a long time. We just used to call it War.
While massacring the male population was not uncommon, typically the women and children were spared.
They were raped and enslaved, their cultures destroyed.
Quote from: PDH on April 27, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
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.
What about the genocide of Boers by the British in South Africa?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2015, 12:08:41 AM
Quote from: PDH on April 27, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2015, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 11:54:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2015, 11:53:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2015, 09:27:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2015, 08:23:00 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2015, 01:03:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2015, 08:23:00 PM
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! :angry:
It's a dog.
He's the Devil. More or less.
Quote from: Martinus on April 28, 2015, 12:25:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 28, 2015, 12:26:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2015, 08:23:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 28, 2015, 12:25:07 AM
What about the genocide of Boers by the British in South Africa?
Concentration camps doesn't mean genocide.
Herero and Namaqualand.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 08:21:24 PM
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).
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.
Any pictures of the german colonial army in Namibia?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 28, 2015, 01:32:43 PM
Agree that the Herero and Namaqua was the first genocide of the Twentieth Century.
Damn Germany. You were only a Colonial Empire for thirty years.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 28, 2015, 01:32:43 PM
Agree that the Herero and Namaqua was the first genocide of the Twentieth Century.
Damn Germany. You were only a Colonial Empire for thirty years.
Well, they did get to learn from Leopold how to deal with African natives.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Any pictures of the german colonial army in Namibia?
The perpetrators:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fde%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe8%2FReiter_der_Schutztruppe_beim_Gewehrreinigen_in_Swakopmund_Deutsch-S%25C3%25BCdwestafrika.jpg%2F800px-Reiter_der_Schutztruppe_beim_Gewehrreinigen_in_Swakopmund_Deutsch-S%25C3%25BCdwestafrika.jpg&hash=fb7a1195af12e06932845bc2a7856d1faca2c60f)
And some of their surviving victims:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc6%2FSurviving_Herero_c1907.jpg%2F800px-Surviving_Herero_c1907.jpg&hash=a94e121adac8151154d3d6dd9b8a2a0e2ac2d74b)
Quote from: Zanza on April 28, 2015, 02:20:35 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc6%2FSurviving_Herero_c1907.jpg%2F800px-Surviving_Herero_c1907.jpg&hash=a94e121adac8151154d3d6dd9b8a2a0e2ac2d74b)
That pic has a certain familiarity to it, doesn't it?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 27, 2015, 08:34:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 27, 2015, 08:21:24 PM
Shouldn't it be the Congo Free State?
I thought of it as a 19th Century phenomenon.
QuoteI'm not sure why you consider proximity to the year 1900 something significant.
I think "genocide" is an actual practice that relies on a certain type of rhetorical justification and state involvement that I don't think many states were capable of in the 19th Century. That's clearly a related argument, though.
It was ongoing at the turn of the 20th century.
Plenty of native tribes in the Americas and Australia were annihilated in the 19th century. I don't think this definition holds water.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 27, 2015, 08:13:44 PM
I'm reading Hannah Arendt and A Shameful Act simultaneously so this seems a really interesting question. I'm voting Armenia.
I think the Italians were ahead of time in Libya.
It's strange that a nation that were that bad at warfare in general invented terror bombing.
The Italians have always been adept at advancing new theories. It is the practical where they take a nap.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2015, 12:42:39 PM
The Italians have always been adept at advancing new theories. It is the practical where they take a nap.
I got a laugh out of that post. :)
Thanks!