Discussion in 'World History' started by christos200, Jul 26, 2013.
I'm seeing a disconnect between what TF is saying and what DAG is interpreting TF as saying and I think the solution is going to require time.
Here's a paper on the Stolen Generation by Colin Tatz. I'd encourage people to read it and consider whether the same sort of argument can be made about the removal of Indian Children. (It has been but I'm not all that familiar with the literature and I don't have the time or inclination to dig it up).
More like war criminals. But, yeah I have. I had dinner with one, it was quite pleasant.
It was Soeharto family or cendana I guess, or his son in law Prabowo the criminal that want to be the next president of Indonesia, God forbid me to drink the water that they gave me.
Yeah, fair enough.
I'm not sure how I'm advocating mass killing. It's wrong. I recognize this. But it is important to also recognize that just because something is wrong people may still engage in the activity anyway because it
Aye, fine I was wrong.
While facts triumph appearances, the word "genocide" is simply a label here. It does not change what happened. It does not change that the Indians were slaughtered. Since it is a label that is not necessarily well defined, it needs recognition for it to be true.
I presented an excerpt from this article earlier in the thread.
I somehow knew this would come up.
Then please, show me the academics calling it a genocide.
You are playing with words here, you state :
mass killing is wrong and you know it, but it still important to acknowledge that peoples have right (as you use the word "may") to justify this action and do it anyway (by engage into that activity)
Isn't this mean you advocating mass killing? It's wrong but its okay
That's not literature.
Yeah, I know, wikipedia. It's referenced to the literature, though.
The key theme of the post-conquest American Indian policy was the eradication of Indian identity (up to about 1980), this is so unequivocal that I'm a bit puzzled that this is even up to debate.
(Of the top of my head)
I know I linked to the ICWA a while back
It's not useless term, you just don't want it to be associated with your country. Because it brings up unwanted parallels with Nazi Germany.
Yes, Russian history is bloody. There were episodes which can possibly be qualified as a genocide, e.g. some episodes of Caucasus invasion in XIX century. But not according to your definition, because people who had been exterminated were definitely "rebellious group" and thus the Russians were doing "sensible" thing and moreover it is not recognized as a genocide by international community. Why did you ask?
So, genocide is only when people believe what they do is not sensible? It means genocide never happened in human history.
You are using very specific definition of "sensible". If some guy kills you and takes your wallet, the fact that it was "sensible" thing to do for him doesn't change his guilt or definition of his action.
The Armenian genocide is also unrecognized by the United Nations.
Links were fine.
I'm not sure I felt the conclusion that much of the killing qualified as genocide. He seemed to be saying that while there was plenty of killing with genocidal intent, there was also plenty without it and that attempting to apply the word "genocide" to the entire conflict is useless because it groups together numerous events undertaken in a variety of places over the course of centuries.
Now to comment on the links about the taking of Native American children well into the 20th century (When the Native Americans were undoubtedly out of the way). I would wager that unless we can truly prove that the government believed it was in the best interests of the children to have them brought into American culture (which we can't, as I doubt it is true, but we can't know) then I believe this could likely be classified as a genocide of sorts.
In a way though, it seems to make more useless the term. As it groups the "kidnapping" of children with the Holocaust.
Well I'm not accusing of you genocide, so we're good. I asked because we now have another historical mass-killing of people that were certainly "in the way" to an extent.
Anyway, everyone commenting on "sensible": Do you really believe that just because something is wrong they won't do it? Especially if they believe it is beneficial to them?
I suppose it is a form of justification. It does not make the wrongness of the actions any less though.
Indeed. They got away with it.
Sure it is..?
No, it's a post on a website.
There were plenty of mass killings, most notable ones related to wars and civil wars. Though the intent to wipe out some ethnic identity happened not so often. As for parallels with Russian history, the Siberian natives are still there and well off.
I've acknowledged that like three times already (including in the very post you literally quoted about two sentences prior).
However, whether there's a killing certainly affects the weight of moral judgment regardless of whether it is or is not genocide. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Fair enough, but I don't see how the example you gave is genocidal.
This was only part of the Holocaust.
Separate names with a comma.