To genocide or not to genocide?

[innonimatu]

Another troublesome issue. Genocide. Of the cultural kind more that the nazi kind, though one always crosses into the other...

Consider you just contacted this foreign culture that practices warfare, slavery and human sacrifice in a huge scale. We have an historic example because as it turns out the spanish conquistadores, greedy and unscrupulous as they may have been, were not exaggerating in their narratives.

Was it bad for them to put an end to Aztec culture and religion? Or good? Or complex, relativistic... It was a cultural genocide if there is any. Should a similar thing happen today would you denounce the genocide, or cry out for a moral imperative to intervene in order to put an end to that culture? And mind you, there is no nice way to achieve that kind of change.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The genocide of the Aztec population was mostly because of disease. The elimination of their culture was a feature of the Spanish culture of the time. Spanish (European?) greed for gold assured there would be no cultural co-existence.

Looking back it is pretty easy to say that we wish we knew more about the Aztecs, how they lived and their achievements as a dominant culture of their day; and it would have been nice to have a remnant of that culture intact. Likewise with the Maya and Inca. But like the buffalo, that which stands in the way of greed and god get ground into dust.

 

[Zkribbler]

Was it bad for them to put an end to Aztec culture and religion?

So, you're speaking of cultural "genocide," not genocide-genocide.

What the Spanish did was to exchange one system of warfare, slavery, and oppression with their own system of warfare, slavery, and oppression. Human sacrifice out; the Spanish Inquisition in.

 

[Archbob]

So, are you for Thanos or not?

 

[Ryika]

I watched a far-right podcast quite a while ago where one of the guests argued that we should pay Jews to get a vasectomy; an amount high enough that most people would accept (<- he used different words there) and thus, the Jewish population would dwindle so much that most individuals would not find other Jewish partners to breed with, and thus the "Jewish genes" would over time go away.

That's an interesting concept - genocide by persuaded childlessness. Ironically of course, the remaining Members of Hitler's family are currently doing a similar thing, without being paid, and refuse to set children into this world to make the bloodline die.

Of course aside from the fact that such a genocide would still be unethical even if it were indeed fully voluntary, a state that were to implement such persuasive measures, would most probably also use force to get more people to accept that money.

Anyway. When I comes to the Aztec Culture being erased... good. Bringing Civilization to the savages, such is the civilized man's burden after all*. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a culture that brings unnecessary suffering to large parts of its population. Not that what the Spanish brought was much better, but that's a different story.

*I guess I'll better spell things out before they're misunderstood again: This sentence contains sarcasm, I am phrasing it that way to signal that I am well aware of the counter-argument to what I have said; it is not meant to be read as a genuine statement.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I watched a far-right podcast quite a while ago where one of the guests argued that we should pay Jews to get a vasectomy; an amount high enough that most people would accept (<- he used different words there) and thus, the Jewish population would dwindle so much that most individuals would not find other Jewish partners to breed with, and thus the "Jewish genes" would over time go away.

That's an interesting concept - genocide by persuaded childlessness. Ironically of course, the remaining Members of Hitler's family are currently doing a similar thing, without being paid, and refuse to set children into this world to make the bloodline die.

Of course aside from the fact that such a genocide would still be unethical even if it were indeed fully voluntary, a state that were to implement such persuasive measures, would most probably also use force to get more people to accept that money.

Anyway. When I comes to the Aztec Culture being erased... good. Bringing Civilization to the savages, such is the civilized man's burden after all*. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a culture that brings unnecessary suffering to large parts of its population. Not that what the Spanish brought was much better, but that's a different story.

*I guess I'll better spell things out before they're misunderstood again: This sentence contains sarcasm, I am phrasing it that way to signal that I am well aware of the counter-argument to what I have said; it is not meant to be read as a genuine statement.

Didn't a nonprofit pay a few thousand drug addicts to get steralized a few years ago?

Would be crazy if the idea caught on too much.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

How do you define cultural genocide ?
Destroy and repalce an entire culture ? I think that's going too far and can't be done without excessive violence anyway.

Try to modify and root out the worst aspects of a culture ? Perfectly legitimate and moral, and far easier since there are surely are many individuals within that culture that also want change.
I don't really know that much about the Aztec religion and how central human sacrifice was/is, but pretty much every religion changes over time and can be reformed.
The sun needs blood ? No, no, don't take it literally, that's a metaphor ! The sun just wants to see you're making an effort and willing to make sacrifices. Don't rip that mans heart out, just work hard and maybe fast and go vegetarian for a period every year. And while we're talking about periods, be nice to women because they're sacrificing every month.

 

[Zkribbler]

Not that what the Spanish brought was much better, but that's a different story.

That's the exact same story.

 

[Ryika]

That's the exact same story.

In a historical sense, yes, but not if we're discussing the ethics of uplifting the savages. Then taking that situation as an example tells us two different stories, that of people who were freed from their barbaric culture, and that of people who were treated badly afterwards. One can happen without the other.

 

[Uberfrog]

In a historical sense, yes, but not if we're discussing the ethics of uplifting the savages. Then taking that situation as an example tells us two different stories, that of people who were freed from their barbaric culture, and that of people who were treated badly afterwards. One can happen without the other.

It is not exactly "uplifting" if you are replacing one oppressive culture with another. I'm not sure the Spanish can claim any moral superiority when they brought their own brand of slavery to the Americas.

The point is moot because the goal of the conquistadores was not to "uplift" or "free" anybody. Their conquest, and any genocide (cultural or otherwise) that followed was purely for the purpose of enriching individual adventurers and the nascent empire they served. Any claim of a divine duty to spread Catholicism and "civilise" the Mexica is a post-hoc justification by triumphant conquerors. Likewise, those proponents of the British Empire who argue that it put an end to the practice of sati (widow-burning) in India fundamentally mistake the purpose of the East India Company. I think the (ludicrous) premise of this debate assumes some level of humanitarian motivation on behalf of the conqueror, which rather seems to be a contradiction in terms.

If Tenochtitlan existed today, and was carrying out human sacrifice on this sort of horrific scale, I'd like to think we'd go about putting an end to that practice in a slightly different way from Hernán Cortés and his Tlaxcalan allies. I don't see how genocide can ever be the moral answer.

 

[Ryika]

It is not exactly "uplifting" if you are replacing one oppressive culture with another. I'm not sure the Spanish can claim any moral superiority when they brought their own brand of slavery to the Americas.

The point is moot because the goal of the conquistadores was not to "uplift" or "free" anybody

Not sure what information I'm failing to communicate, but yes, that's exactly the reason why there are two different stories to be taken from history if we want to isolate the question of whether "cultural genocide" could be a good thing. There is what Spain did to them, and there is the question of whether ending practices that we see as barbaric is a good thing, and on which basis we can even make that exclamation, that something "is barbaric".

If Tenochtitlan existed today, and was carrying out human sacrifice on this sort of horrific scale, I'd like to think we'd go about putting an end to that practice in a slightly different way from Hernán Cortés and his Tlaxcalan allies. I don't see how genocide can ever be the moral answer.

But putting an end to that practice IS what is referred to as "cultural genocide". That's a concept of its own; it's not just a "genocide against people of a certain culture", it's the attempt to remove a culture, or people's cultural heritage from existence. In concept, not a single person has to die in a cultural genocide.

 

[Uberfrog]

Not sure what information I'm failing to communicate, but yes, that's exactly the reason why there are two different stories to be taken from history if we want to isolate the question of whether "cultural genocide" could be a good thing. There is what Spain did to them, and there is the question of whether ending practices that we see as barbaric is a good thing, and on which basis we can even make that exclamation, that something "is barbaric".

But putting an end to that practice IS what is referred to as "cultural genocide". That's a concept of its own; it's not just a "genocide against people of a certain culture", it's the attempt to remove a culture, or people's cultural heritage from existence. In concept, not a single person has to die in a cultural genocide.

There's a pretty sizeable gap between stopping an element, or even a number of elements of a culture, and eradicating it completely. The institution of human sacrifice was a pretty central component of Mesoamerican cultures, sure, but it was not the entire culture. The culture of the United States was for a time pretty well bound up with the institution of slavery, and Nazi Germany had racial segregation and extermination as a fundamental law of its society. Yet the abandonment of those practices, even after two long and bloody wars, hardly led to the "genocide" of Southern or German culture.

As for what constitutes "barbaric" practices, that obviously depends on your moral standards. Sitting here in the 21st century I can safely declare that I find human sacrifice appalling, but I also find what the Spanish replaced the Aztecs with pretty deplorable too. One cruel, exploitative empire replaced another. Naturally, I am all for the end of practices I find abhorrent, but I'm not sure what me saying that adds to anyone's understanding of the history, or ethics in general: I haven't really got anything to offer beyond stop doing bad things, but don't just do something else bad in their place.

I'm also unconvinced that you can really view them as two different stories. The end of human sacrifice came about as part of a series of bloody, plundering conquests by the Spanish that ended with them instituting encomienda. One system replaced the other. Actions do not exist in a vacuum, and I find it unhelpful to weigh up things like "stopped human sacrifice" on the one hand against "subjected the same people to forced labour" on the other.

 

[innonimatu]

Personally I am very much against interference with different societies. Shunning them, isolating them, fine. Defending against them, always justified. Invading and changing them by force.... it really must have a very good reason.

But it always struck me that people at any given time will find such very good reasons. In my "moral compass" human sacrifice is a big no-no, so I think that a war with an aim of "cultural genocide" against that would probably be one of those rare cases I'd support. I guess that my point is that, ultimately, almost everyone has some scale for what he/she agrees with or opposes, rather than stand for absolute principles?

 

[Berzerker]

so you'd sacrifice humans to end human sacrifice?

 

[Uberfrog]

A lot of people do seem to find something uniquely shocking about human sacrifice, I suppose not altogether surprisingly. But mass murder, ritualised violence and needless death seems pretty bad to me, regardless of the motivation, and whether it happens as part of a war or a religious ceremony.

I found it interesting that the original author of the article linked in the OP came under heavy criticism on Twitter for a perceived defense of human sacrifice. That's clearly not what she's doing, even if her comments about whether or not people "wanted" to be sacrificed are ill-advised and easily misconstrued. You see comments lambasting her for "moral relativism" (when I think it's pretty clear she's attempting to be impartial), oddly enough from the very people who one can imagine rushing to the defence of historical figures when they are judged by modern ethical standards.

People seem to reserve a high level of visceral hatred against Mesoamerican sacrifice, yet I wonder if they'd have the same angry reactions to the many thousands of people who died in the Roman amphitheatres, or in Caesar's very-much-not-just-cultural genocide in Gaul.

 

[Broken_Erika]

so you'd sacrifice humans to end human sacrifice?

Blood can only be washed away by more blood.

 

[innonimatu]

so you'd sacrifice humans to end human sacrifice?

Yes, I am aware of that. It's the reason why I usually oppose wars to "liberate" people. But I'm also aware that sometimes it is hard to not do anything. Ultimately it depends on how shocking that foreign practice is to one's moral framework. I can't say it will be based on rational reasoning... My point with the thread is that this is a problem. One I have not been able to find a solution to!

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure that it is quite necessary to eradicate an entire culture just because one aspect of it includes human sacrifice. Every culture has its flaws, and I believe the Aztecs were simply following their religious beliefs, which we must respect.

 

[Berzerker]

they believed a son of God had to sacrifice himself to get the sky to move, therefore humans must be sacrificed to keep it in motion

 

[FriendlyFire]

Blood can only be washed away by more blood.

Blood for the Blood of Christ God !