Talk:Genocide

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Genocide can refer to the killing of cultural, political, or religious groups too. Thanks. [1] --WOVcenter 01:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I thought that that was referred to as ethnocide. Still, it usually ends up the same, though. Wikinterpreter
Deleted phrase
but has yet to take any concrete steps to resolve.
What is is this supposed to mean, is the US govt supposed to bring vicitms back from the grave in order to "resolve" a genocide? RobS 20:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Word of caution

I would caution against over reliance upon citations to the United Nations as being some sort of authoritve or definitive source on this subject; this may have the unintended consequence of nobody taking an issue of such vital importance as serious at all. RobS 14:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Definitions and editorialisation

1. It was not an attempt to define genocide, it was one of mant possible definitions of the term. For others, see Chalk and Johnasson, Kuper, etc. 2. Removed editorialisation re: MSF.They are beyond any doubt a humanitarian group. One may question their politics and their methodology, but that does not make them any less humanitarian.

The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.Jacobin 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

  • The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that Arabs are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. Teresita 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any sources to document your claims? Read Alex de Waal's book on the subject, as well as maybe the article in the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly to get a sense of the role of racial identity in the Darfur situation. Are you aware that the victims -the Darfurians - are Muslims? The binary of African and Arab, besides being a part of the legacy of colonialism, is a simplistic way of understanding a conflict with deep political, economic and yes, to a certain degree, ethnic roots. But to just say "it's because Arabs are doing the killing" does no justice to what's actually going on. Jacobin 11:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

It is the structure of the article that causes the concern: we have two sentence Introductory parargraph followed by this statement,
The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide"
This is clearly problematic. It creates the unfounded and baseless assertion for an unenlightened student that the Untied Nations is some sort of supra-national authority. It is pure propagandizing. There is no problem discussing the UN's role in its various paper resolutions over the years somewhere within the article, but not preseting it as authoritve of definitive. I would suggest either immediately expanding the article with some substance, or temporarily removing these references to the United Nations until such a time the undue weight is no longer a problem. RobS 13:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


History

I am a little puzzled on why this site wishes to start in the 20th century, rather than reveal atrocities of the earlier periods, e.g. 19th century, Medieval and Ancient periods.

By all means add older examples then. CPWebmaster 11:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
My definition as to what communism is all about is the Berlin Wall. Karajou 22:26, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== EDIT == This article has a VERY..ah, ignorant point of view on Communism. "Communism killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to Le Monde and more than 100 million people according to the Black Book of Communism." Communism itself has nothing to do with this. In theory, communism is strongly considered the BEST form of government. However, because humans are naturally greedy, someone WILL sieze power, and corrupt that which is pure. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many other dictators and their cohorts brought about the death of millions of people. To assume Communism as a political means of governments killed these people is absurd and an injustice. Magtheridon 22:10, 30 July 2007 (EDT) == END EDIT ==

Put new section edits at the bottom please... A system may be great in theory, but if practical application with the human condition causes a warped volatile mixture, then we must report what occurs from it, not its theory. From its conception until it was put into practice starry eyed intellectuals could talk of the great things to come, but we have seen the reality, and it isn't nearly as pleasant. Learn together 23:46, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
User:Magtheridon has been blocked and I was going to revert his comments. We don't need this kind of trolling. He's a Stalinist holocaust denier, appologist for mass murder, and accuses us of injustice. We don't need to listen to a warped, sick, mind like this. RobS 00:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Good work with this Rob. I second your thoughts. We do not need anyone trolling like this, and if they really are that ignorant, they have nothing of value to offer this project. --şŷŝôρ -- ₮КṢρёаќǃ 04:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

the worst genocides

i don´t think we should compare genocides here. for the armenian people, the genocide commited by the young turks was the most horrible, for the jews it was the holocaust. we should explain what a genocide is and we should give some examples. thank you Toolsyoucantrust 06:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

When they talk about the worst, they are talking numerically. It's not that some deaths have a different weight than others, it's just that some people killed many more. Stalin is considered to be the biggest mass murderer in history, eliminating about 20 million people. Learn together 11:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
if you´re talking about the number of victims, i don´t even know, if you´re right. as far as i remember, there were more chinese killed or starving under Mao Zedong than under stalin.
but if you compare for example the quota/percentage of the killed people, probably rwanda was worse, the holocaust sure was and the armenian genocide also was worse. if one and a half million of a two-million-people are killed, this is probably worse. if almost every jew in germany is killed (about 6 million out of ???) , this is probably worse than killing 20 million chinese out of 500 million. i don´t like top-ten-lists too much, but if you want compare, you should write: chinese genocides: xx million victims, stalin/russian genocides: xxmillion victims. Toolsyoucantrust 15:32, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Rwanda

I would agree that the Rwanda killings of 1994 constituted genocide. I'm not too familiar with the other two contested ones, though. DanH 19:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I second Dan's opinion - Dan you beat me to saying it! (And I also second not being too sure about the other ones)--IDuan 20:31, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia

These events are unquestionably genocide, and I'm unclear as to why they were removed. Here is a link which demonstrates that the International Court of Justice has officially declared the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995 as genocide. +

The Khmer Rouge murdered between 1.5 and 2 million people in the Killing Fields of Cambodia in an effort to purify the Khmer race. The Cambodian government now maintains a museum which serves partially as a remembrance to the dead, called the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.

In Rwanda, over 800,000 Tutsis were killed over a 3 month period by the dominant Hutu government. This site gives a complete analysis of events from start to finish. There's also an excellent book called "Left to Tell" by Immaculee Illibagiza who describes how she survived the genocide partially by hiding in a bathroom with 6 other women for weeks. I'm putting these three back on the page with these links as references. SSchultz 20:34, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I've got to remove the Bosnian reference as genocide. The definition given in the article versus that of the World Court aren't the same, and, as I'm sure you know, we have a tendency to be a bit skeptical of those bodies (I.E. -- Their verdict alone does not make it true genocide). The key is government sponsored, whereas in the link that you provided it specifically says the government was not to blame. Quite honestly that is an atrocity, not a genocide. Genocide is a large scale systematic effort to eliminate another group. The definition of genocide has been watered down, but it appears Andy wishes to uphold a higher standard -- and personally I am in agreement. Learn together 02:36, 12 December 2007 (EST)

So, Learntogether, you disagree with the legal definition of genocide? It's not a 'watering down', it's a way of recognising, both legally and generally those who've been victims of attempts to destroy all members of their ethnic group, and haven't been seen as worth news or academic coverage - just because people don't get them doesn't mean that they haven't been victims. --JOwen

I'm not sure where the proviso that genocide can only result from government policy came into play because that has nothing to do with the legal definition, nor is government policy or action listed as a requirement in any definition I've read. Not only was the Srebrenica massacre genocide, but this site categorizes it as such. To that end, I'm reinserting the entry, and removing the unusual definition that genocide can only occur by government decree. SSchultz 00:06, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Genocide

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [2] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. SSchultz 21:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I've been asked to comment, although this is not something that I have an opinion on. According to my Macquarie Dictionary, Genocide is "extermination of a national or racial group as a planned move". I'll add that legal definitions (as mentioned above) can differ from everyday definitions, and following the links through to the source shows that genocide is defined as it is "For the purpose of this Statute", i.e. it may not correspond exactly with other statutes, other administrations, or everyday use. This does not mean, however, that that legal definition should be totally ignored; it's still one to consider. Philip J. Rayment 00:34, 14 December 2007 (EST)
SSchultz, I'm skeptical. The UN and Clinton Administration wanted to send "peacekeepers" there, and calling something genocide is good P.R. to stir up the public. Civil war is not genocide.--Aschlafly 21:53, 13 December 2007 (EST)
No, Civil War is not genocide, but the calculated collection and slaughter of 8000 Men and Boys simply because they were Bosnian Muslims is genocide. These were civilian non combatants. Moreover, regardless of what the Clinton administration wanted to do, the Bush State Department states that genocide occurred. Please read the included link (SSchultz)
Genocide is something more than mass murder, and connotes millions, not thousands. There must be a motivation, and it is ethnic rather than religious.--Aschlafly 22:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)
First if you think 8000 people is just plain old mass murder and not genocide, then why does the US recognize it as genocide? Also, I have never seen ethnicity listed as a requirement for genocide. What is your source for this?. The UN defines it as "...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group..." SSchultz 22:21, 13 December 2007 (EST)
I tend to have similar concerns to the points that Andy has raised. When the original term genocide was created to refer to the Jewish Holocaust, was the term really meant to be used for regional atrocities? Just because it has been voted on in modern times doesn't necessarily make it so. Small changes in politics could make the Palestinian claim that the Israelis are committing genocide against them pass under the current definitions as well. In the recent shooting where the shooter wrote that he wished to kill as many Christians as possible, we would have to include that as genocide too as it was an attempt to wipe out a group would we not? The treatment of surrending Germans in Stalingrad, the German crackdown on the Warsaw uprising, the Dresden bombings -- all genocide. Learn together 01:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Non UN definitions include "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group" which would imply it's not the numbers, but an attempt to wipe out a group. As for the Bosnian Muslims, were they trying to wipe out all Bosnians? Obviously they weren't trying to wipe out all Muslims. So it's sketchy. That being said, since the Bush administration says it is genocide, I'm more inclined in that direction, but it's iffy either way. DanH 22:23, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Bosnians are predominantly Muslim, so the Bosnian Serbs were almost certainly attempting to murder a significant number of Bosnian Muslims. Keep in mind that even before the massacre at Srebrenica the Bosnian Serbs had the city under siege and refused to allow even relief convoys through. They starved the populace so that when they entered in force there would be little resistance and committing the massacre would be easier. SSchultz 22:30, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Christians v. Muslims strikes me as religious conflict or civil war, not genocide. The numbers are only slightly bigger than the casualties for 9/11. Was that genocide? 9/11 was mass murder, but I haven't heard people describe it as genocide.--Aschlafly 23:54, 13 December 2007 (EST)
No need for a red herring, Andy, you can just come out and say that you're a genocide denier. I really have very little to say to a man who denies genocide. SSchultz 00:13, 14 December 2007 (EST)
This should be discussed on the Genocide talk page, not here. I'm more inclined to go along with your definition, SSchultz, but Andy is not claiming that these things didn't happen, the argument is simply about whether they are classified as Genocide or not. So calling Andy a "genocide denier" is out of line. Philip J. Rayment 01:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Philip, I appreciate you're willing to hear out my side of the argument, but I stand by labelling Andy as a genocide denier. For example, there are individuals who admit that the Holocaust did happen, but claim that it was nowhere near 6 million Jews killed, and these individuals are referred to as Holocaust deniers. Likewise, Andy admits that 8000 men and boys were murdered in Srebrenica, but refuses to call it genocide based on various illogical technicalities. This makes him a genocide denier. SSchultz 20:33, 14 December 2007 (EST)
I'm not convinced that the holocaust denier situation is a valid analogy, because denying that the numbers were near six million is denying that much of it actually happened, not merely whether or not the word "holocaust" applies. Secondly, the issue as much as anything is why you called him that. Was it just a technical description of his views or an attempt to denigrate him? His views had already been spelt out, so putting a label to them, even if accurate, does not add anything. That and the apparent tone of your comment including your comment about being unwilling to discuss it further with him because of that indicates to me that it was an attempt to denigrate him. So I stand by my comment that it was out of line, and am taking appropriate action. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I 'd like to bring up Rwanda again - as it easily fits the genocide standard: Hutus attempted to annihilate an entire race (Tutsi).--IDuan 23:46, 14 December 2007 (EST)

As of this moment the Rwandan genocide is in the article. I haven't seen anyone question its inclusion since the initial discussion of what occurred. I'm assuming that, unless you hear otherwise, it is accepted that it belongs. Learn together 14:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Consistency

We may wish to come to an understanding that includes Srebrenica massacre as well. As SSchultz has pointed out, the Srebrenica massacre specifically calls the event genocide and has genocide as its category. It appears this is currently inconsistent with the genocide article. Learn together 02:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I think the edit that I made was quite clear. Genocide is the killing of civilians in a systematic fashion, rather than being as the result of government policy. This would be more in line with then the internationally accepted position and allow the inclusion of the Srebrenica massacre. Thank you, Learn Together for discussing this in a reasonable manner. SSchultz 20:31, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Personal tools