Which genocide is more important to you?

[nietzschefan]

I'm admittedly not great at history. But...

Didn't Yosef ben Matityahu (Josephus) devise of a system to do this? Each would pull a straw and kill each other until only one straw was left who would be captured. That person left was Josephus.

There's even a math problem named after it.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/JosephusProblem.html

Yes, that's why he is still a scumbag, because his system was the defacto standard used by all the zealots. Including Masada though he wasn't there.

 

[CheskiChips]

Yes, that's why he is still a scumbag, because his system was the defacto standard used by all the zealots. Including Masada though he wasn't there.

Why does that make him a scum bag?

They used to torture Jewish soldiers (And probably all soldiers in any region) as a deterrent for war. They would rake their skin with iron combs, melt their skin, burn them alive, boil them alive, remove their organs while they were tied down and living...horrible horrible things.

They were going to be inevitably caught, the only one who was of real use to them was Josephus...the rest would have been tortured to death as a display to other dissenters.

 

[nietzschefan]

Because he told everyone to do it and they thought he would do it to and he didn't. Scumbag.

 

[CheskiChips]

You must be a moron. It was known after they drew straws that he wouldn't kill himself. It was also voluntary.

 

[nietzschefan]

You must be a moron. It was known after they drew straws that he wouldn't kill himself. It was also voluntary.

You must be a Jew.

 

[Zap]

Other: The common people's genocide of intelligent culture.

 

[ejderha]

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.

Agreed. But I voted for the obvious one for me. It's different when you feel related.

 

[S.A.M.]

. It's different when you feel related.

Yes. You feel invested in the outcome.

 

[ejderha]

LOL. Not only that. It's wide open for political abuse. From both sides. And that political abuse mostly makes any means of attempted resolution of any kind impossible.

There is a culture of those people who survived a genocide. It's also inherited. Those people can not have any identity. I do understand them perfectly because I didn't have to be the grandchildren of the survivors to lose my identity. And every thing gets out of porportions because of the simple investments issues.

If all those genocides you listed were recognised and some how resolved by any means, there would be an enormous population of people without any sense of identity in the world. They do not want to leave that identity as it's open to every kind of abuse, it's a cause to live. And that's why it turns out into the simple investment. Nobody, but simply nobody cares what happened or still happens to those people during a genocide.

 

[iceaura]

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?

I suppose any method of killing could be used to commit a genocide. I doubt aerial bombing of any non-nuclear kind will ever be a method of genocide, though - unreliable and ineffective for the task, very expensive in the failure.

 

[codanblad]

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

actually i read (wish i remember where) tasmanian aboriginals were different to mainland abos, as in a different race. the article said there's no more pure-blood tasmanian aboriginals today.

edit: just remembered, i was doing an essay on gender roles, part of which i did on gender roles in aboriginal society, and stumbled upon it. so it's from some journal my uni subscribes to.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Picked other and the genocide I feel strongly about is the Genocide committed by the worlds judicial systems against the Mafioso. If you think about it they brought stability and jobs to whatever area they entered into. All they wanted was to be left alone to go about their business. The wholesale cleansing of this group was just down right sinister.

 

[(Q)]

Sam, you forgot the Hindu genocide by the Muslims:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, you forgot the Hindu genocide by the Muslims:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html

You really should stop hanging at these kind of sites, I already covered it here

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2377168&postcount=102

Well lets see. Kuh is Persian for mountain. Hindu Kuh is Persian for Indian mountain, because Hindu is the word used by everyone west of the Indus for Indians, before the British formally partitioned the country into Muslims, Christians and Hindoos [i.e. other unidentifiable stuff that they are not familiar with] around 1829

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hindu

Ibn Batuta's travels is the Moroccan Marco Polo who wrote colourful tales of his travels and decided that the Hindu Kush means Hindu Killer, because Indian slaves died there in the cold during transport. His is the only reference that uses this etymology. Not sure how Kush = killer [edit: acc to wiki, apparently old Persian kush = killer, will need to check that]


There is plenty of disinformation in the rest of the saffronised history.

After the Mongols started their trail of destruction in 1205 in China, they progressively moved all the way from both sides through Siberia, Manchuria, Europe, Persia, Mesopotamia, Japan, Vietnam, Java, finally converging in India and meeting up with the Turkic dynasties ruling India at the time [in the form of four successive Delhi sultanates]. Somewhere along the line, probably in Persia, they adopted Islam [at various other times they were Buddhists, Christians and Tengriks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

The battles were fought between the Mongols and the Mamluks [the Mamluks were descended from Afghan Ghorids "Indian slaves" who became kings], The Mongols and the Khiljis [also an Afghan dynasty], the Mongols and the Tughlaqs [the Tughlaqs were Turkic in origin but allied with the Afghans], which was the war that Timur fought.

Timur weakened the Delhi Sultanate and deputised the Sayyeds in Delhi. The Sayyeds claimed to be descended from the Prophet [they still do, in India]. They hung around for a few decades, then abdicated in favour of the Lodhis the final Delhi Sultanate and a Pashtun dynasty.

The Lodhis were finally defeated by Babur who then established himself in India as the first emperor of the Mongol dynasty that was to rule India for the next 800 years. He was the grandfather of Akbar, the Great. By that time the Mongols had become Persianised and Turkicised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

Thats the Hindu holocaust. Muslims fighting Muslims.

Keep in mind that the greatest casualties of the Mongol wars were on the Muslim world. The worst sufferer was Baghdad where every soldier was told to return with two heads and all of them were laid in the center of the city. 20,000 Baghdadis [from the city alone] were massacred. I guess the Iraqis are just lucky like that.

No idea where the other figures in Ulti's link come from, will have to check.

 

[(Q)]

You really should stop hanging at these kind of sites, I already covered it here

No, you didn't cover it at all, stop lying.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, you didn't cover it at all, stop lying.

Lets hear your version of history? Who was killing which Sindus? Were the Mongols who ruled India for 800 years trying to wipe out Hindus who had not yet been designated as non-Muslims and non-Christians before 1829 but changed their mind after they established the Mughal Empire? Or was it the Delhi Sultanates, all Afghan/Turkic Muslims who had Buddhist statues and later established the Ottoman Empire the ones who wanted to secretly kill their own armies of people they had not separated by religion?

Which one is it?