Which genocide is more important to you?

[S.A.M.]

This is in an attempt to understand what makes some genocides "better" than others, I've omitted the holocaust since there is already a thread on it and I'd like to see the relative importance accorded the "other" genocides, the ones which don't merit recognition.

Pick one genocide of choice and if possible give a few words why it is more important.

Wait for the anonymous poll.

 

[CheskiChips]

Other; the Germans against the Jews, because my family was from Poland and Western Russian Baltic states. I now have very few distant relatives as a result.

 

[spidergoat]

I picked the Hutus, since it was so recent and well-known. The reasons are fascinating and have implications about human nature, ecology, politics, even evolution. Most of those other ones are debatable, they were not all one-sided or clear genocides, but rather a clash of cultures resulting in some deaths.

 

[pjdude1219]

I chose the european genocide of the native americans mainly because that has had the greatest effect on geopolitics

 

[Orleander]

The British genocide of the Scots because it had the biggest impact on my family. My dad told stories of cannibalism in our family history. I never wanted to find out if he was serious.

 

[Asguard]

um SAM, there WAS no Australia when the tasmanian and NT Aborigionals were slaughtered. The state goverments at the time were still under the control of the British not the Australian Goverment. Oh and BTW Tasmanian's still exist (they still have both there heads too), the group you are refering to are just Aborigionals who happen to come from tasmania rather than Victoria or NSW or any other state. The only distintion made is for people of Torris Straight Islander desent

Oh and dont take this to mean the Australian goverments were much better. The stolen generation was a blight on the history of this country which was only recently fully recognised

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks Asguard, I need to brush up on Australian history.

My own choice: other

The partition of India, it was like tearing off the limbs of a person. My own family was split across the borders, both maternal and paternal and we still don't know what happened to everyone.

 

[Bells]

Edited because I fail at reading..

They are all important. And the reason for their importance is simple. We still do nothing about stopping them.

 

[skaught]

European genocide of natives. To the best of my knowledge, it was the largest scale holocaust in history. The Europeans did successfully wipe out entire nations of people. Most people think of native Americans as a single ethnicity or single people, but they were in fact many nations of people with their own distinct cultures and languages and people. Only a few remain. I'm glad to say that most of my ancestors came to the U.S. relatively recently, and did not partake in these mass killings.

 

[iceaura]

Most of those are not genocides.

There has been no American genocide of the Vietnamese, for example. Neither was there a British genocide of the Scots.

The European genocides north of the Rio Grande were multiple and specific by tribe or even subtribe, not universal, and most of the general loss of population was from diseases killing far away from even the sight of a European. There were few massacres of any size, and they are mostly well known individually. Of the many dozens of tribes that vanished, very few were slaughtered into extinction by European violence. Cholera, smallpox, the flu, killed far more. Other tribes killed many.

 

[Tiassa]

And crown Thy good

I chose the European genocide of Native Americans. It is estimated that within a generation of the commencement of the colonization of the American continents, as much as ninety-five percent of the indigenous population was destroyed. (Old history textbook; I thought I still had it, but I don't.)

This leads to my original choice: Other - Manifest Destiny.

To put it simply, the story of the Nez Perce ought to be enough to explain the cruelty of that one. Not only did we use biological warfare against tribes as we moved westward, but it was about more than just land. The Nez Perce sought to flee to Canada. That should have been enough for the Americans, but it wasn't. If it was just about the land, there was no reason to not let the tribe run to Canada. Instead, we pursued them through what constitutes three states today, stopping them in Montana, and hauling them back to the reservation. It wasn't enough to just steal the land. We wanted to make them miserable.

And all because God said we should hold this land from sea to shining sea.

 

[quadraphonics]

I chose the European genocide of Native Americans. It is estimated that within a generation of the commencement of the colonization of the American continents, as much as ninety-five percent of the indigenous population was destroyed. (Old history textbook; I thought I still had it, but I don't.)

I'm given to believe it was substantially less than a generation, at least in North America (the tropics are an entirely different story, what with most of Amazonia being only nominally "colonized" in the first place). That is, the Eurasian diseases introduced by the initial transatlantic contacts spread far in advance of any organized colonization. By the time any European explored (let alone, colonized) the Mississippi river valley the vast majority of the indigenous population had already died, and the associated civilization collapsed. So in that sense the author of the genocide is some combination of biology, history, geography and climate. Having lived in close quarters with diverse livestock for thousands of years, Eurasians could not help but annihilate Americans. Their very genes and foodstocks - when brought into contact with long-separated populations - were the most potent, uncontrollable means of human destruction in history. The results would have been largely the same if, say, Chinese explorers had "discovered" America from the west.

Or so Jared Diamond would have us believe.

Anyway, my vote for most important genocide is early man against the other hominids. It could have been them that populated the Eurasian land mass and so dominated this planet, but instead here we are. Of course, evidence for that one is thin, and it's really mere speculation, but there you go...

 

[James R]

I voted "other". I think that ranking genocides as more or less "important" is a misguided concept.

 

[Enmos]

This is in an attempt to understand what makes some genocides "better" than others, I've omitted the holocaust since there is already a thread on it and I'd like to see the relative importance accorded the "other" genocides, the ones which don't merit recognition.

Pick one genocide of choice and if possible give a few words why it is more important.

Wait for the anonymous poll.

I cannot pick one. I have no criteria to hold one more important than the others.
Holding one genocide more important than the others would almost be as bad as supporting a genocide.

 

[leopold]

since all life has a "right" to exist i voted other.
nobody seems interested in the "genocide" of the polio virus.

 

[Enmos]

nobody seems interested in the "genocide" of the polio virus.

If all life has a right to exist, all life also has a right to defend itself.
On a side note, it is debatable whether or not viruses are to be considered alive.

 

[draqon]

weird how SAM did not include any Indian caused genocides...it couldnt be because she is Indian, could it? no way...right...?

cause this sort of stuff happens quite often there: http://www.boloji.com/wfs/wfs009.htm

And if SAM sees that as not genocide but acts of terrorism than I ask that she retract the choice of "Russian genocide of Chechnes" as well, because we classify it as terrorism too.

 

[Enmos]

weird how SAM did not include any Indian caused genocides...it couldnt be because she is Indian, could it? no way...right...?

cause this sort of stuff happens quite often there: http://www.boloji.com/wfs/wfs009.htm

And if SAM sees that as not genocide but acts of terrorism than I ask that she retract the choice of "Russian genocide of Chechnes" as well, because we classify it as terrorism too.

Oooh a hypocrite :spank:

 

[(Q)]

This is in an attempt to understand what makes some genocides "better" than others, I've omitted the holocaust since there is already a thread on it and I'd like to see the relative importance accorded the "other" genocides, the ones which don't merit recognition.

Pick one genocide of choice and if possible give a few words why it is more important.

Wait for the anonymous poll.

Are you serious? Genocides that don't merit recognition, relative importance, "better" than others? :bugeye:

One of the worst atrocities continuing today is in your own backyard, Sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Most of those are not genocides.

There has been no American genocide of the Vietnamese, for example. Neither was there a British genocide of the Scots.

The European genocides north of the Rio Grande were multiple and specific by tribe or even subtribe, not universal, and most of the general loss of population was from diseases killing far away from even the sight of a European. There were few massacres of any size, and they are mostly well known individually. Of the many dozens of tribes that vanished, very few were slaughtered into extinction by European violence. Cholera, smallpox, the flu, killed far more. Other tribes killed many.

Are we making a distinction between genocide by disease and genocide by any other means? What about starvation? Precision bombing? cluster bombs?

Which method of killing qualifies as genocide?

weird how SAM did not include any Indian caused genocides...it couldnt be because she is Indian, could it? no way...right...?

cause this sort of stuff happens quite often there: http://www.boloji.com/wfs/wfs009.htm

And if SAM sees that as not genocide but acts of terrorism than I ask that she retract the choice of "Russian genocide of Chechnes" as well, because we classify it as terrorism too.

Oh please.