I'll try not to fault David Model too much. Given the brevity of that article, it's difficult to imagine a proof of genocide emerging from it. Still, the article does not actually prove genocide. He then goes on to state that "intent" is enough to justify a verdict of genocide (which I agree with to some extent). Yet he does not show that any religious, ethnic or national group has suffered destruction sufficiently substantial to imperil the existence of the group. If you would like to show now that the existence of Iraqis, Moslems or some smaller ethnic group is currently facing the very real possibility of extermination at the hands of Americans, I will concede. But you - and David Model - have not shown that. Destroying a city is not genocide. The American bombing of Hiroshima - as horrible as it was - was not genocide. It was not the concentrated effort of attempting to eliminate a religious, ethnic or national group. The German destruction of Russian towns was not a genocide. These are different things; they have different causes, intended effects, unintended effects and solutions. It is important to separate the two in order to understand them properly.
To tell you that would be a lie. I'm firmly against this war, believe it was a horrendous mistake and a terrible human rights violation. I am disgusted by nearly every facet. This is not the definition of genocide. Go check your fact book again. No there is not. There is much disagreement over how to specifically define it. Yet the paradigm Sam and I have been discussing is the most common and usually acceptable. Even then, there is intense debate over what amounts to a genocide in some cases (see Sudan for current examples of debate back and forth). If what we are using - your "one true definition" - is the UN charter, then what is occurring in Iraq is not a genocide. I have yet to see anyone post proof that American involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan meets these charges. Sam has linked one attempt at a proof, and I have shown a reason why it is not correct. If you would like to contribute more attempts at proof, I'm happy to discuss them.
I think the general problem with this discussion is simply emotions and beliefs of what will be effective in effectuating change. People - understandably so - grant 'genocide' just about the worst connotation a word could possibly have. As such, when they feel an atrocity is being perpetrated that amounts to - in their mind - the worst possible situation, they would like to be able to name it using a word with the worst possible connotation. If we're doing good political science, though, connotation should be left by the roadside. All that matters is the proper evaluation of the situation to better understand cause, effect and solution.
Ok, Mr brilliant political something-or-other. When DOES "the deliberate, wanton targeting of a civilian population", become genocide then? After 100 deaths? 1000? Or is it a certain percentage of civilians, like 50% casualties from "friendly fire" or whatever? Keep skipping around it, by all means. These days, despite the justification, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although officially acts of war, were actual and effective genocidal tactics. Like the fire-bombing of Dresden was, or the mass defoliations of land in Vietnam and the carpet-bombing of Cambodia were. The Khmer-Rouge and Pol Pot's regime sprang up thanks to all those B52s that destroyed all that farmland, and sent Cambodia into a major economic recession - starving Cambodians and Vietnamese who were the collateral damage in the US "War on Commies". Why does the biggest, richest nation need to make such a genocidal fool of itself? Why are so many Americans convinced, as so many were during the Vietnam era, of the US right to prevail? By fighting wars against American interests overseas, Americans can ignore all the nasty stuff. And they do, mostly. If the war was at home, they might not be so keen about the prospect. At some point in history, America will reap the rewards, from somewhere or other, of its utterly selfish outlook. Not sure when, maybe not for a fair while, but the US won't be up there on top of that hill forever. Americans in the future will no doubt learn the same kinds of lessons as Iraqis and Vietnamese and Cambodians did. Laugh, by all means - it will never happen, right? Go ahead and be sure.
As for the original question of this thread: (i) I don't think many people have admiration for genocide-committing leaders. (ii) Bush did not commit genocide. (iii) I'm not so sure Alexander did in the modern sense. Regardless of whether or not what he did can be called "genocide", Alexander committed countless acts that today would be considered pure evil. So, then, comes the interesting question of why people revere old-world evil. I think the answer to that is simply that we (collectively; not everyone; and not only in the west) consider these "ancient" times to be free of certain moral concepts, values and therefore judgments. Western writers often applaud Alexander's allowing many captured cities to continue their cultural norms (while neglecting to express disgust at the other cities he executed). Chinese writers often express admiration for Genghis Khan's uniting force in China while overlooking the sheer number of people he slaughtered. We distance ourselves from these people; not hard to do given how long ago they lived. We accentuate their good points and ignore just how bad the bad points were. In short, we don't expect them to live up to our lofty morals. (iv) Some people truly do admire genocide and other atrocities. Some people still think Hitler was right. Some people adore Mao. Some people still feel Bush made the right decision in Iraq and have no problem with torture in any circumstance. These people can - in general - be lumped into three categories: (a) those who are unaware of the leader's actions (many Chinese are unaware of many of Mao's decisions) and so cannot give fair judgment (b) those who believe in the cause of the genocide (those who still support Hitler and wish to exterminate all Jews; those who wish to exterminate all Moslems; those Sudanese who support the government's atrocities) (c) those who are aware of the actions yet let emotions override opinion. In short, those people who are unwilling to admit wrong despite being faced with the evidence (some of the continued supporters of Bush fall into this category) Frankly, I find this a boring question, though. Two other questions are much more interesting. (1) Why are we so quick to forget atrocities when the victim population do not live among us? (In short: how have we already stopped talking about Rwanda? I understand level of interest and discussion will remain higher when the victim group lives among us - Jews/nazi holocaust - but I'm still amazed that it really takes us less than a decade to forget about other groups and their atrocities.) (2) Why do certain groups focus so intently on the actions of one attacker with a complete lack of interest in what their own people are doing? (Why did it take so long for Americans to be outraged at the torture? Why is a sizable population of Jews in North America who refuse under any circumstances to acknowledge the atrocities committed by Israel? Why do Moslem nations remain entirely silent on the actions of the Sudanese government?)
Well, if genocide is such a hoot, why go to the expense and trouble of even torturing anyone? Why not just shoot all the natives - anyone not wearing a US uniform? That should work, it wouldn't take so long, it's a bit more humane than inflicting pain for the sole reason of getting a head-swell about exacting revenge. The sad part is, humans can become vengeful, bloodthirsty animals without much prompting. People who torture others become unfeeling, psychotic assholes - to a man (and woman). This is unavoidable. So if that's your goal in life, I guess. Why do we have this capacity, though. Why or how do you justify inflicting pain for no reason? (The military or political or any other reasons for justifying, as the Bush administration does, the use of torture are complete hokum - there is no scientific or any other kind of evidence to support any notion whatever of effective interrogation. Anyone who claims that it is effective should be tortured for a while, then asked something, anything at all, to see what they think now).
Never. It is not the definition of a genocide. It is tragic, horrible and immoral in it's own right. But it is not a genocide. A genocide is a deliberate attempt to eliminate a specific religious, ethnic or national group. Going into a shopping mall and wantonly shooting up civilians until the whole town is killed is not a genocide. It is horrible, but it is not a genocide. Because it is not the attempt to eliminate a specific religious, ethnic or national group. If a town were small - say 10,000 people - and comprised the only remaining members of a religious, ethnic or national group, and an army or group attempted to slaughter that town because of it's religious, ethnic or national group, then that would be genocide. It would be significantly smaller than the atrocities committed in Iraq, and yet it would be a genocide and Iraq is not. Again, I believe your attempt at giving Iraq this label stems from your (and the rather common) granting 'genocide' the worst connotation possible and your desire to give this war the worst connotation possible. But connotation and proper science don't go together like this. One must treat each case in the proper way.
No, genocidal is just the adjective form. No difference. If you said it has features in common with previous genocides; I would agree with you. But this does not make it a genocide. And it should not be studied or approached in the same manner as a genocide. It is an atrocity. It is not a genocide.
Very well articulated Tyler. Well done. I was just going to type in caps about how stupid sam was being. Oh well. I'd like to point out that to win a war, you must remove your opponent's ability to wage it. You do this by either destroying all his stuff so he effectively cannot (eg, Sherman's march to the Sea), or you break their will, like Alexander or the Ghengis Khan.
One way to neutralise an opponent, would be to remove any possibility of recruitment to their cause, by killing all potential soldiers (that would be all civilian men of fighting age, and all boys within a certain age range)?
I think that part of that admiration is, for some people, whether they are aware of it or not and whether they would phrase it this way or not, a certain gladness based on the notion that people are not as powerful, not as intelligent, not as self-sufficient as they often like to proclaim they are. Who doesn't feel a certain gladness when a proud person is brought to their knees? "There you have it! You claimed you were better than me, you had me for stupid, you thought you could master nature! And yet here you are, lamenting how you have been wronged! Suits you right!" It's not simple schadenfreude, it's more than that. It's an indication that man does not rule the Universe, nor himself, nor his fellow men - for if he truly would be the ruler, then there would be no lamenting over genocides, natural catastrophes and so on. And I think there is also a socio-economical consideration - but as it seems rather bizzare, probably many don't engage in it enough to phrase it clearly, although it is socio-economically relevant. Situations where (a large) number of people are killed (either by a human act or natural catastrophe) are perfect opportunities to reestablish the economy of an area on a basis more proportional to natural resources. So and so many people killed basically means so and so many less unemployed. When I hear the news of so and so many people dying in a train or airplane crash, I think to myself: At least a part of the passengers were unemployed and struggled. Now they are gone, thus less unemployed people. Another part of the passengers were employed, so now there are in roundabout as many job vacancies for other unemployed to take. And since this economical change was brought on by a tragedy, this is the perfect opportunity to reconsider whether we need to procreate so much, spend so much etc. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to reflect this way, and instead only think "Aha, one million deaths, so we can hastily procreate to make up for that one million of deaths". They don't seem to look at the quality of life those people have lead or what society was like when so populated, the numbers of those living in poverty, crime rates, pollution, and so on. As cruel as this might sound, but situations where large numbers of people are killed are opportunities to change the way we live - and to find a way of life where such killings -whether by man or natrual catastrophe- will become merely a historical rarity.
That theme is one I've thought about too. Possibly wars, genocidal strategies, actual genocide (Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur), are part of our awareness that there isn't really all that much room any more. We're in more conflict because there are more groups of us, all competing, all seeing that there are lots and lots of us. Possibly because in an evolutionary sense, we're still hunter-gatherers - something we were for tens of thousands of years; we've been farming for only 8000, and living in cities for about 4000. Big cities for only centuries. We still have an instinctive reaction to strangers - an instinct to kill them or drive them away. Thanks to our unevolved brains.
Perhaps genocide isn't so much about one group justifying the killing of another by listing differences and presenting those differences as justifying killing (even though genoiced is presented as just that), but instead is more a practical way to decide which part of the population to eliminate. Ie., suppose there emerges an understanding in the society that it is overpopulated and that it needs to be lessened. Whom to eliminate? How to pick those that should be eliminated? Socio-economically, it would seem best to eliminate the poor, the disabled, those with poor skills, the ill, the old. But these things can either befall everyone anyway and cannot be prevented (old age, illness) so it would not be fair to eliminate people based on such criteria; or they are difficult to determine with finality ("people with poor skills" contains children and unskilled adults; at what age is one old enough to be eliminated? and so on). Race, however, is a simple and convenient concept - or at least is where races don't mix to produce mixed offspring.
Its Americans killing Iraqis. Thats a national group. They are being killed ONLY because they are Iraqis. And for no other reason. Even Hitler used Jews to kill Jews [<- for Syzygys] . You don't have to kill all Iraqis or all Muslims for it to be genocide. But the intent should be there. Qaim shows what the US policy in Iraq is. Read about Matador anywhere else and you won't even recognise it as the same description that the locals gave. Of families under rubble, dying while Americans blocked food, water and medical aid. Tell me how US snipers sitting in a room picking out Iraqis to shoot, women and children, is winning the war.
You're either kidding yourself or obviously not at an appropriate level for this debate. Russians killed Germans in WWII. Germans are a national group. Therefore the Russian attack on Germany was genocide. Is that your rational? Is that really the level of your logical thinking?
Were they sitting in German homes with snipers who were picking out their women and children? Were they killing only Germans? Did they impose sanctions that resulted in the deaths [by malnutrition] of the German children? Did they refuse to do body counts? Did they publish fake news to conceal the fact that they were killing mostly civilians?
