Genocide: historical developement and necessity

Just an observation:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Just an observation:   The blacklisted topic of "Armenian Genocide" is already creeping into this thread.   As the original post was to be a discussion of this subject in light of historical factors, let's continue.  But, let's not start slinging accusations and insults.

He is lier like some  armenians historian too.  Both  side lies, and both side show his own people, lies said  by other side.

Prejudices reach a peak in terms of war..So a genocide is predicted to take place  after a war broke out.....But a war alone  is not enough to trigger a genocide...As I satetd in my previous posts, there must be a very long cultural background,and social exclusion of that spesific group...

Edited by TheDiplomat - 18-May-2006 at 09:45

I think Genocide comes from the top. It is prone to occur when a single person or a group of men have supreme power. The victims are often of different race, religion, culture and a combination of those. Prior to genocide the majority of the victim population is treated as a second class citizen. Small scale massacres, further rights cuts usually precede genocides. The problems of the nation are always blamed on the victims, this is channeled to the populace via popular rhetoric and through religion to name a few. It is based on supremacy, racism and hatred of one's culture.

The victims of genocide are almost always those who cant defend themsleves, mostly women, children and the elderly; even though those groups do not threaten the state. It is always illogical and baseless

"Not going deep into the topic, I could assure you that the Ottomans did NOT develop a hatred towards the Ottoman Armenians.Just before WWI broke out, even the ottoman foreign minister(Gabriel Noradukian) was an Armenian nationalist.

not going too deep either, but why were the Armenians called "kavurs" or "dogs", why did they not have the rights that Turks had, why couldnt they join the army, why did they have to pay unfair taxes, why were 200,000 of them massacred in 1894, and 30,000 in 1909 and why does "Noradukian" bring 0 hits on google? why?...feel free to get back to the topic

btw, here is a list of famous Jews in Germany just before the holocaust

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

Edited by mamikon - 18-May-2006 at 18:11

Originally posted by bg_turk On the contrary. In my opinion Genocide is all about resources, land and power. It occurs when two rival groups compete for resources, land and power, and thus each group tries to destroy the other.

     Land and power are just convenient side effects (and it certainly adds incentive to those unstable members of society who wouldn't mind killing their neighbor in order to take their possessions). I believe that genocide is based and manifested through idealism, not practicality. Most genocidal regimes are out to create "greater" or "pan" empires, which is very impractical, because the damage done to the economic, intellectual and cultural spheres of the nation outweigh any good that comes from a homogenous state or a racially unified empire. Killing those who were born into a group regardless of whether or not they committed a crime is not practical especially when many of them can be intelligent and useful to the state. If they killed only those who were rebellious and potentially dangerous to the state, then that would be practical. As you know, thats not what happens during genocide, therefore its not practical, but rather it is idealistic.

     If the aim of the regime was just for resources, land and power, then using up state resources to kill defenseless, powerless people who belong to an "enemy group" is complete incompetance and out of touch with reality. If certain individuals are rebellious, thats already enough justification to put them in jail. If they aren't rebellious, then leaving that person in his/her economic/intellectual/political position would do nothing except benefit the state. Getting rid of competant members of society for no reason and replacing them with less competant people who fit into your imaginary group is blind idealism.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 18-May-2006 at 19:26

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival      If the aim of the regime was just for resources, land and power, then using up state resources to kill defenseless, powerless people who belong to an "enemy group" is complete incompetance and out of touch with reality. If certain individuals are rebellious, thats already enough justification to put them in jail. If they aren't rebellious, then leaving that person in his/her economic/intellectual/political position would do nothing except benefit the state. Getting rid of competant members of society for no reason and replacing them with less competant people who fit into your imaginary group is blind idealism.

Originally posted by bg Turk This doesn't make sense. If the aim of the regime is materialistic and human life is meaningless, it would commit genocide precisely in order to save resources in order to deal with rebellious individuals cheaply. Administering justice properly and seeking out the roque individuals from the victim group is certainly much more expensive and demands much more resources than simply applying collective punishment on the whole group.

the rebellious few are few, while if one is administering Genocide it kills all of the members, this would be much more expensive. I think what ArmenianSurvival meant was that when a whole group of people is eradicated, a gap is created in an economy, that gap is filled with new, and incompetent people, which brings disaster for the economy.


Edited by mamikon - 18-May-2006 at 22:38

Originally posted by bg_turk This doesn't make sense. If the aim of the regime is materialistic and human life is meaningless, it would commit genocide precisely in order to save resources in order to deal with rebellious individuals cheaply. Administering justice properly and seeking out the roque individuals from the victim group is certainly much more expensive and demands much more resources than simply applying collective punishment on the whole group.

Originally posted by Genghis If resisters to the rule of the mass murders are the "fish" and their peoples are the "water", genocide can be a means of killing the fish by eliminating the water.  Without water a fish cannot survive, just as resistance cannot exist without the active and passive support of their people.

     If you get rid of the fish and water, then the pond no longer exists and the environment is harder to sustain as a result.

     One would ask why the state would provoke people to revolt against them in the first place by making mass murder and oppression a new rule. Also, rebels never have popular support from their people unless the people are oppressed on a massive scale. If the government oppresses a group based on such things as ethnicity or religion and forces them to rebel, then that in itself shows incompetance on the part of the state (by keeping down those individuals who can potentially benefit the state just because they are not of the right ethnic or religious background). And if the state doesn't oppress them and theres no popular support for the rebels, then there would be no need to destroy such a large group of citizens only to eliminate such small pockets of resistance. The average citizen has no incentive to rebel against their state if they are treated as equal citizens. Sadly in genocides, small pockets of resistence (self-defenses) are made out to look like massive uprisings with the whole group to blame when in fact it is all government propaganda...also, the fighting and instability will only increase if you target a group based on such loose affiliations as religion or ethnicity, as opposed to targeting them based on guilt of a crime or something that actually harms the state. It now gives these people who were once loyal all the incentive in the world to take up arms with anyone who wants to pick a fight with you.

     Plus, if the state has already cut off the intellectual and political leaders of the group and disarmed its citizens (which is the beginning stage in virtually all genocides), then that population will be too weak and disorganized to do anything, so whats the point of throwing them all away? You're throwing away people who make money for your economy, are trying to make scientific breakthroughs, etc. Total waste of human resources. It just creates a brain-drain and a vacuum is created in the economic and cultural spheres, as well as other areas.

Originally posted by Genghis Look at what Genghis Khan did, he killed droves of people so that they could not revolt against him later.  Other examples abound like what the Turks did to Anatolian Greeks after the Fall of Byzantium.

     In both examples they either massacred the people who were rebelling, or they killed everyone within a certain hot-zone or city. For example, the Turks of the middle ages didn't kill every Greek within their borders, but only Greeks in certain areas and just enough to quell any potential uprisings. They still got the benefits from the remaining loyal Greek citizens without the risk of rebellion. Genghis Khan would also only eliminate populations who were in a zone of rebellion...he didn't target everyone within his empire who were of the same ethnic or religious background as the rebel group. The only people Genghis Khan nitpicked and searched his empire for was disloyal citizens/government officials. A genocide would be if the Turks of the Middle Ages went after every single Greek within their borders on the pretext of rebellion, or if Genghis Khan decided that all Chinese were to blame regardless of whether or not they were even close to the rebellion. It would be a complete waste, and they would be alienating huge parts of their populations and throwing otherwise loyal areas into complete rebellion.

Originally posted by Maharbbal This point is important: the French army killed civilians and peacefull demonstrators with tanks, artillery and machineguns. No doubt this is an act of genocide and it is a shame nobody has be sentence for that. But after the war was declared, well it is sad to say but anti-guerilla and anti-'terrorists' wars are not famous to be pretty things. M.

Edited by TheDiplomat - 19-May-2006 at 12:59