Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.

For an April 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genocides in history

NPOV

See Israel/Palestine reverts section on this page. It's been a two-person bickerfest for a little while now; my whole point has been that I'd like this page to be useful and not a POV war zone, but I don't think one-on-one revert wars make the page useful, nor would piling on a laundry list of claims made against Israelis for the sake of "balance". I hope others will contribute to a larger consensus, any consensus, on how to handle the Israel/Palestine issue here in a way that is topical to genocide and as close to NPOV as the subject can get, anyway. —Bsktcase 21:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV since a year

I thing good approaches would be those:

of Johan Galtung and the group around him transcend.org, taking distance from any ideology and thus getting the possibility to have a look at a/this conflict and talk about possible solutions
of Geneva Initiative. –wiki-vr 11:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Germany-Namibia

The mentioning of Germany's refusal to apologize for the Herero Holocaust should be removed because it is outdated. An official apology has been issued in 8/2004. (see here), Ar36 23:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added the new link and retained the old link and indicated the dates for both stories. —Bsktcase 17:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Qualifying what goes here

Love the pruned article. Agree with RickK's decisions so far. I do think some of the deletes could merit reinstatement to the list, but rewritten to explain why they belong here.

Personally, I'd like to see the UN Convention definition used to qualify alleged genocides for this list. Yes, it will be disputed whether the alleged events actually occurred, but oftentimes even the things that are claimed wouldn't qualify under the Convention anyway, and I think those should be excluded... or they could be listed on the page for whatever type of thing it was that is actually alleged to have occurred.

There are the overlaps among related concepts. Bosnia is literally the defining case of ethnic cleansing but I think is also generally agreed to be genocide. In any case that distinction and the case for why it might be genocide can be explained. The stories of Native Americans and other indigenous peoples are apparently the precise reason ethnocide was coined, and could very helpfully be listed over there as examples, but I think the case can be argued that many of those are genocide as well. Again, just my personal opinion, I prefer to identify how these episodes are genocide and how they (technically, per Convention, or whatever) aren't, rather than muddy up the historical list with a huge undifferentiated catalog of every time a government has done something bad to a large group of people.

Of course the interpretation of the Convention is disputed, too, and it's narrower than many dictionary definitions. If we were to agree that "Convention plus politically motivated killings like Stalin and the Khmer Rouge" should be our standard, that'd work too. The part of the Convention I think can be helpful is its focus on intent. Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, is useful when there are disputes about "how many" and whether a particular massacre was "enough" to be considered genocide. The discussion of the Irish Potato Famine (now deleted, it's in the history) made this point excellently: if the English did not set out with the specific intent to destroy the Irish people, but instead implemented ill-conceived economic policies which indirectly caused a famine which resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Irish, the (alleged) lack of intent suggests that this would not be genocide under the Convention. (It's probably debatable whether neglect and callous disregard for Irish life would qualify; fine, but explain it.) However, other famines, like Ukraine under Stalin, are alleged to have been deliberately caused, which more clearly supports a charge of genocide.

Sorry to overthink, but genocide has been a contentious mess because of what's on and what's off this list, and it'd be really nice to pre-empt that here by settling on and explaining a really clear guideline we can follow. Anyone else have ideas? Bsktcase 05:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but could the removal of Natives from Canada/US be included? I mean, they were intentionaly kicked off their lands, and were given disease filled blankets and such. I'm not going to add it, but does anyone else have an opinion? I think it's a sad moment in Canadian history that needs to be remembered.--Habsfannova 00:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both RickK (up above) and I have mentioned in our posts that we would support re-adding the U.S. Native American/Canadian First Peoples/etc. stories as genocide. Not that our sanction is needed, I'm just saying we both advocated the "cleaning-up" of this article but neither of us intends for those accounts to be omitted permanently.

My personal opinion, and of course wikipedians' mileage may vary, is that I would prefer to see specific accounts of specific campaigns against specific tribes/regions, well-written to support a charge of genocide. A broad and vague "what happened to indigenous peoples in North America was bad", while true, I don't think would be useful here. It is also my personal opinion that some campaigns against some tribes would meet the legal definition of genocide (the Amherst-smallpox-blankets incident you refer to is one of the best examples) and others would not (falling, instead, under ethnic cleansing or the less-well-defined ethnocide).

So now it's just a matter of whether and when someone will want to actually do the writing. I'm happy to help develop good stubs if they're added, although I would hate to see this article turn into a long list of never-developed stubs (which was one of several problems with the pre-cleaned-up version). —Bsktcase 03:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amherst & Smallpox

The Amherst smallpox blanket incident is actually not a particularly clear-cut case of genocide, despite conventional wisdom. To be sure, the intention of genocide was there, but it is impossible to verify how many, if any, died as a result of the single documented incident of smallpox-infected blankets being handed to Indians. Again, conventional wisdom holds otherwise, due to the proliferation of irresponsible, exaggerated, non-scholarly versions of the story. (See Gregory Dowd's "War Under Heaven" or Fred Anderson's "Crucible of War" for sober accounts of the incident.)

Plus, does genocide apply to combatants in war? The smallpox-infected blankets were given to Indians who were besieging Fort Pitt during Pontiac's Rebellion. It may be a war crime by modern standards, but is it (attempted) genocide?

And this begs another, even murkier issue: one could potentially make the case that the Amherst incident (genocide or not) was a response to Indian-perpetrated genocide. Hundreds of non-combatant Anglo-Americans, including many women and children, were killed by Indians during the uprising. Genocide? --Kevin Myers 13:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you raise several excellent questions which may or may not have answers. :)

Does it count as genocide if the number of victims is very small? Is there a minimum? As far as I know, international law hasn't settled this question at all. Raphael Lemkin wanted to make sure it was understood that genocide didn't have to be as big as the Holocaust (or Rwanda) in order to "qualify"... but there is a lot of room in between. I don't know the answer, but you've already made the important observation that the intent was there in the Amherst case.
Does it count as genocide if it fails? Is there such a thing as "attempted genocide"?
Does genocide apply to combatants in war? I think legally it is generally agreed that it doesn't, but historically war has been used countless times as a "cover" for genocide. Genocide can certainly be carried out against non-combatants using an existing war as a distraction or justification. If war is started or joined with genocidal intent in the first place, then are "combatants" really excluded from claims of genocide? Are such victims "combatants" or are they just trying to defend themselves, and how do we differentiate?
Is there such a thing as mutually assured genocide? Is it genocide when both sides have intent to destroy each other? Genocidal aggressors in history have definitely claimed they were equally threatened or even equally victimized by their victims; often the claims are absurd, but not always. Does genocide mean we always side with the "underdog"?

I don't think we're going to resolve those here, but maybe the questions should guide how we write about what we include? —Bsktcase 21:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq/Israel/Palestine reverts

Evolver of Borg, your addition about the Palestinian "intifada" was not NPOV, and saying so in your comments doesn't make it so. You say Palestinians attack Israelis because they are Jews. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would say Palestinians attack Israelis because they are occupiers of territory the Palestinians believe to be rightfully theirs. Intent is necessary to prove genocide, and you simply asserting that the intent is ethnic/religious because you think it is, isn't an adequate proof of intent. Both sides' arguments are defensible and both should be included if you are truly interested in NPOV.

The other side, which you omitted, is that Palestinians claim ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israelis because Palestinians have been forcibly relocated and allege mistreatment because they are Palestinian, while Israelis would claim they relocate, restrict movement and deny other freedoms because the Palestinians attack them. Then the Palestinians counterclaim collective punishment. I think the full set of claims-counterclaims by both sides should be fully fleshed out in order to have a proper NPOV listing of the entire conflict here. However, if you are willing to include a truly NPOV version of your claims of genocide committed by Palestinians upon Israelis, I'm willing to work on adding what the Palestinians claim the Israelis are committing against them (meaning, I won't object if you only NPOV the one side, as long as you really NPOV it).

On the subject of Iraq, the Anfal campaign was sustained and occurred over a long period of time over a large geographic area. I think it is simply inaccurate to classify it as a genocidal massacre, which is why I took it out. Genocidal massacre doesn't just mean "a genocide with a smaller number of victims", because the definition of genocide does not quantify. There's no agreement internationally about whether something is "too small" to be a "real" genocide. And a "massacre" is a discrete event. I think the definition of genocidal massacre makes more sense if you think about it as a single event (or a very closely grouped series of events over a very short time) (see also pogrom), which may or may not occur in the context of a larger genocidal campaign. I also think the description of Anfal is already adequate and accurate: an ethnic cleansing campaign which bordered on genocide. No modifiers needed. —Bsktcase 18:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your arrogance makes me feel pity for you Bsktcase. While you may be correct in saying I did not include the Palestinian claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing against them, when the leaders of the Palestinian militant groups, such as Sheik Achmed Yassin (not to mention some of the things Yasser Arafat and other PA members say on PA State Television), specifically cite that they want the Jews all killed, that is not POV. This is an official statement, this is the evidence of the intent, this what is being judged under Article II. Include your information on the Palestinian claims, but first show me the evidence and how it breaches the Articles. Evolver of Borg 20: 20 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't genocide; I said you wrote it POV. I also didn't attack you personally, but whatever.

I notice that you deleted everything I added to the article relating to Israel/Palestine, and didn't mention that in your edit summary; I assume this was a careless revert rather than you intentionally removing balanced information and trying to cover up that you did so.

Somehow my additional comment on this page regarding the NPOV section I developed, has gone missing. I had posted here that, in the proper spirit of wikipedia, I would try to write something I think is more NPOV regarding this topic rather than griping at you to write it to my specifications, which wasn't fair of me to do in the first place, and I owe you an apology for it. I believe Israel/Palestine should be in this article, and I'm willing to do my share of the work to make sure both sides are covered fairly, including yours.

In the section I wrote, I tried to be balanced and to include the substance of the information you posted, along with extensive wikilinks to additional information. I have restored my section where it was originally, chronologically from the date 1948, and I added more information from your section as further support of the intifada-as-genocide. In all my ramblings above, I didn't mean you need to quote chapter and verse of the Convention; if PA spokespersons have stated that their actions are targeting Jews as such, that's more than enough as far as I'm concerned. So I'm taking out all the stuff about the Convention, not because I disagree with it, but because I think it's unnecessary and the facts you included speak for themselves.

If you feel a need to develop, modify or add to what I've added, fine. Just remember that the purpose of this article (and of wikipedia) is to inform people of all sides of a debate, not to convince people to agree with you. A wise user on another article reminded me that if there really is one "right" view, then including all the facts will make this view obvious without us having to push it. —Bsktcase 21:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just to make a point I'll be removing the word "allegedly" from the PA spokesman point, as I have heard these in the movie "Relentless" by HonestReporting.com, so its not really alledged. Evolver of Borg 17:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool. No objection from me. I didn't feel like I could personally affirm it because I hadn't seen it myself. Since you have, nothing wrong with you saying so. —Bsktcase 17:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the addition of the "brainwashing" bullet point, and I don't think it's a rewrite candidate because I don't think it should be here at all. I'm not disputing whether or not brainwashing is occurring, but it is not relevant to this article because brainwashing is certainly not genocide; the relationship to genocide is not proven and, even if proven, is going to be several degrees removed from actual acts. Perhaps the issue of brainwashing would be at home in one of the many other articles relating to the history of the region, or an article on anti-Semitism.

Once again I fear you are pushing the limits of POV... the purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince wikipedia that Palestinians are anti-Semitic. The fact that you feel you can substantiate your opinion doesn't mean this is the place to do it. —Bsktcase 16:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The brainwashing part is perfectly fine in this article. As with PA Statements, it incites genocide. Before you reply Bsktcase, know what it feels like to be an Australian Jew and hear young children say they want to kill you when you have nothing to do with them. Evolver of Borg 20:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is not "Events in history that made ethnic groups feel bad". This article is about genocide, and you cheapen the meaning of genocide by loading it up with your lesser partisan causes. I'm not going to bicker with you about this. It's pretty obvious that for each issue we resolve, you'll come up with another one. If the wikipedia community likes your additions and wants this article to become what you are making it ("Genocide in history plus unrelated reasons why EoB thinks Palestinians are bad"), so be it. —Bsktcase 19:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bskcase is right in this...I don't particularily agree with either the Palestinians/Isrealis, but we do need to show what GENOCIDE is. If it doesn't fit the definition, it shouldn't be here. End of story.Habsfannova

Oh, BTW, just an example of the difference. Many in the American South, a long time ago, said they wanted to get rid of blacks, blacks were inferior, etc. Blacks were lynched, acts of what would be called "terrorism" occured. BUT, the governments the American south did not make it their goal to eliminate every black person in the south. THAT is where the difference between genocide and others lie. If we had a page for every "insane people that want all people of a nationality/ethnicity to die" page, your contribution would be a good one(It would, however, be a very long page). But, genocide is not in INTENT, it's in the government/ethinicity trying to kill a population.Habsfannova 23:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the main Genocide page, there is a link to the International Association of Genocide Scholars. These people, including scholars RJ Rummel and my own teacher Paul Bartrop, are the authority on genocide and do most of the modern research into issues such as the failure of Cambodia to meet the definition. Your statement Hab, "But, genocide is not in INTENT", if a contradiction of the convention and of their work and findings. Something can not be considered to be a breach of the convention if their is shown to be no intent. By your logic, an incident where a grenade accidently goes off in an army training area, killing ten men occurs, if considered genocide. The intent of young Palestinians to blow themselves up among Israeli civilians is a show of this intent, which is why it it is genocide. Evolver of Borg 12:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're both right and you're both wrong. Habsfannova, Lemkin's works and subsequent interpretations of the Convention are very explicit that in order to qualify as genocide, there does not need to be intent to kill every single member of a population. One of the U.S. caveats in ratifying the Convention was to specify that genocide must target a "substantial part" of a population, and there's still some disagreement about what this means and whether it was appropriate for the U.S. to add or not, but note that even this very conservative ratification does not require that all members of the group be targeted or even intended to be targeted.

Having said that, Evolver of Borg, it is absurd to suggest that intent alone (e.g., alleged "brainwashing") could possibly be construed as genocide in itself, and it's abusive of the Convention to suggest that its focus on intent means any such thing. Oh, I know, you're going to point out that suicide bombers exist. Suicide bombers and anti-Semitic intent are already listed in the article. Your brainwashing claim is excessive and completely subjective (POV), and your insistence on it strongly suggests a motive to propagandize, not to give objective information.

The problem here is that Lemkin intentionally coined "genocide" with the goal of making it so clear, and so awful, and so universally condemnable, that the word itself would never fail to capture the attention of those who hear or read it. This worked, so now everybody with a dull axe to grind wants to be able to use it any time they want to generate the same level of sympathy. I think anti-Semitism and all forms of racism (such as, I don't know, sweeping generalizations about and universal condemnations of an entire ethnic or religious group) are truly horrible things and are plenty condemnable in their own right. If the words "anti-Semitism" and "racism" don't feel powerful enough to express how awful the situation makes you feel, I'm real sorry about that, but the fact that you feel incredibly strongly about it does not mean you get to use the stronger word "genocide" about every occurrence that makes you feel bad. This article is a summary of facts (on both sides, and your side's claims are already included), not a therapy session or a soapbox or even a place for detailed hashing out of the entire nature of the Israel/Palestine conflict. If you think your claims have such merit that you can hold your own against a whole room full of Israel/Palestine scholars, then go try your luck on those articles. —Bsktcase 16:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noticing I didn't make myself clear enough for Bsktcase to understand, but will have to continue arguing nonetheless, I'll clear up what I said regarding intent. A show of intent is required for something to be classified as genocide. The last paragraph of your note really shows how stubborn and immature you are acting regarding this topic. It shows how you try and have more of an idea of how the Convention can be applied to both POVs than you actually do.

Furthermore, you haven't even read the full article. It escapes me as to why you don't read to paragraph above the points before deleting the brainwashing point, "Other actions by Palestinian organizations and neighboring Arab nations are subject to accusations of anti-Semitism and therefore genocide:". Brainwashing of youths by Hamas, supported by the PA, is a show of intent, therefore genocide. Evolver of Borg 9:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll watch this page for a while too and get familiar with the article. My name is Tom and you can visit my user page if you would like. Tom - Talk 19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The length of the section about Israel/Palestine in the article project, and of this section of the Talk page, is simply gross indecency while the million of Rwandan victims are covered by only one sentence.

The only decent thing to do is to shorten the section to one sentence, strictly shorter than its first paragraph, something like : "Claims and counterclaims of genocide by both sites in the (...find a NPOV formulation...) are common, and by no way universally acknowledged. For detailed information about this region, see Arab-Israeli conflict." --French Tourist 21:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree something like that should suffice and would be an improvement. And I'm sure you meant to say "both sides of the". Tom - Talk 02:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On your Rwanda point Tourist, there is a seperate, detailed article under history of Rwanda for that. Israel-Palestine is ongoing and the information coming out differs, whereas older genocides have a finished history and facts. So until it (Interfada) finishes, no point in shortening. Good to see more users on this article. Evolver of Borg 16:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolver, sorry, but you're just being rediculous here. This is just getting inane...French Tourist has it down 100%: it deserves the same amount of space as the others, if ANY space. The claims are already in the Arab-Isreali conflict page.Habsfannova 18:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Evolver, sorry, but you're just being rediculous here. This is just getting inane". Spelling Hab, spelling. Now onto my point...

From that introduction, it is obvious you have not studied this area in depth. To understand the Rwandan Genocide and its factors takes quite a while, and to do that you need to study its whole history. I can say I have done this in the context of the genocide and my Comparitive Genocide Studies Teacher, who is an IAGS member (see links in Genocide). Genocide is Genocide, there is no difference in brutality between things like being hacked to death with a machette or being blown up as you sit on a bus on your way to work, but you can't just condense the facts, there are too many. Figures only, yes, but facts no. And no, a search for the word genocide in the Arab-Israeli conflict does not yield anything.

Another point, make yourself a profile page and fix up your language useage. The statement "French Tourist has it down 100%" is poorly thought and lowers my opinion of you when I read something like that. Not to be offensive, but please, think of what you want to say and sound mature.

Evolver of Borg 19:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inane is a word....look it up.

But, hey, whatever. You're obviously not going to address the point here. Keep picking at my spelling and usage errors. Have fun. I'm not here for a fight, just to try and extend my knowledge a bit. I'll just stick to trying to improve my little hockey articles, and try not to deal with people like you. See ya. Habsfannova 13:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolver, it isn't cool, and will eventually get you in trouble, to carry on Wikipedia discussions in the manner you did this one. Habs was very reasonable, patient, and accommodating. Remember we are all here to build a great encyclopedia. We need you, and we need Habs. A liberal application of compliments and apologies never hurt anybody. Tom - Talk 20:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inane? Insane? Are they even different words?

Apologies if I come across as aggressive, but when people like Bsktcase get stubborn and insist on their POV being NPOV as opposed to straight facts you put down, you tend to get a bit frustrated. If you are going to stay on this page however, you have to remember the sensitive issues you are dealing with. Evolver of Borg 10:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PA State Television

I just added the link to the film, Relentless, in which I saw the clips. For those interested the shots of PA State-TV are available to watch in the trailers section. Evolver of Borg 18:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've just reinstated previously removed material that needs to be included & expanded. There was no mention of the US (but of course someone didn't mind leaving Australia in there), which is ridiculous - much more on the systematic killing of Native Americans could be included. And there is no mention at all of Spain in Latin America! Also ridiculous. Hopefully we can find something to include on the same soon - beside Japan in China, and so on. I also removed a link to a propaganda site; the article should not promote one POV by offering evidence for it and remaining silent on the other. -- Simonides 15:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then, how is 'Japan in China'. Which should be called genocide, and which should not? -Poo-T 16 Nov 2004

America

While I support the US info being here, the crime doesn't neccasarily come under Genocide because of the holes in the convention. The Indian Removal Act was more of a case of Ethnocide, as Jackson didn't sign in the act with the intent of killing the natives, that would be more of a Indian Genocide Act, rather wanted to move them out of the way, something he knew would cost lives. For the meantime, keep it under Ethnocide with a link in the genocides page. Evolver of Borg 19:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Beothuk of Newfoundland

The notion that the Beothuk were killed outright by European settlers, or the notion that they were consciously destroyed is extraordinarily flawed despite its popularity. For the details of the process please see Ralph Pastore's work on the Beothuk. Mr. Pastore is regarded as an eminent, if not the preeminent scholar on the Beothuk.

The destruction of the Beothuk can only be understood with reference to the relationship between the Beothuk and the Europeans and the ecology of the island of Newfoundland. Four factors must be considered:

1. Unlike the continent proper, there was never a developed fur trade on the island of Newfoundland during the colonial period. Nor was there significant missionary activity.

2. The early population of Newfoundland was migratory. Whole populations of Europeans would leave when the fishing season closed. They would leave their fishing stations and equipment unattended.

3. The population of Beothuk people was also extremely low. Pastore puts the figure in the hundreds at most.

4. Newfoundland is an extremely ecologically tenuous place. Historically, aboriginal inhabitants tended to rely on a combination of fish, seal and caribou supplemented with berries. Seal and caribou were particularly important sources of protein. However, both were prone to be randomly unavailable in a given season. Seals freqeuntly did not arrive on the ice floes in a given year, and the caribou were (and are) prone to rapid population reduction when the grasses they depend on are destroyed or rendered inaccesible by ice storms.

I will now develop these four points:

1. As there was no fur trade or missionary structure to foster a relationship between European settlers and the Beothuk, the only "relationship" that developed was one of mutual mystification and ignorance. The Beothuk and the settlers knew virtually nothing about each other. To this day, little is known about Beothuk culture and language.

2. The migratory population patterns of Newfoundland allowed the Beothuk to acquire European goods with ease. Essentially, they would wait until the Europeans left and then raid their stores and buildings. They were particularly fond of nails and acquired these by burning down European structures and harvesting them from the rubble. Thus, despite an absence of an exchange relationship, the archealogical record indicates that the Beothuk possessed substantial amounts of European nails and cooking supplies. When the Europeans returned to being the fishing season, they would often find their stations plundered. Given the contemporary discourse of "civilized man" versus "savage" it is easy to imagine how the European settlers perceived these actions. This ensured that whenever contact occurred it would usually be hostile. It was frequently at long range.

3. The small population of the Beothuk and their social structure (hunter gatherer in groups of 50 to a hundred, often much less) they were inordinately politically weak. They did not represent a significant physical threat. Contrast this with the position of Aboriginals in the Maritimes and New England area where the aboriginal peoples remained a substantial military threat.

4. The final factor comes into play when the consequenences of the preceding three are considered. The relationship that developed was hostile. The Beothuk naturally preferred to withdraw from the physical presence of the Europeans. Why would one seek contact with a people whom had nothing to offer you that you couldn't steal and who regarded you as a threat? For their part, the Europeans tended to sit in their coastal stations ruminating about "savages" whom they frequently had never actually seen. Gradually, the settlements grew to dominate the majority of the coastline. The Beothuk retreated to the interior where they had only a caribou population that was prone to die offs to rely upon as a major source of protein.

Gradually, they starved to death. This was not discovered until decades had passed. The contemporary settler did not know or understand what had happened to the Beothuk. He did not know or understand how difficult it was to survive "off the land" in Newfoundland. Indeed, in the vast majority of instances, he had never even SEEN a beothuk. They were discussed in the same sentimental vein as creatures of superstition.

Ultimately then, this is not "genocide" in the contemporary sense of the word. There was no conscious policy beyond ill will and distrust engendered by the unique relationship dynamics. There was no serious attempt to go out and kill every last Beothuk. There was instead a process of marginalization generated by mutual ignorance and distrust that was aggravated by the ecological characteristics of the island and the unusual settlement pattern.

It is significant that this story be known as popular wisdom posits the Beothuk as the "people who were killed for fun". This has been taught to generations of Newfoundland and Canadian school children with no evidentiary basis whatsoever. The story is extremely tragic. But it is not a story of a true "genocide" in modern terms. Indeed, it does not even fit the bill for a mass killing and population displacement of even the biblical variety.

Again, please see the work of Ralph Pastore.

Genghis Khan

I do not see why Genghis Khan "and his sons" should be accused of genocide. Certainly many were killed in their wars, including whole towns at the first sign of resistance being wiped out to the last man, but the violence was in no way motivated by ethnic differences. On the contrary, the Mongols had a remarkably culturally tolerant system. However, the Genghis Khan did at one point consider actually wiping out the entire Chinese population and razing all of the towns to turn the whole territory into more economically productive (for nomads and noone else) steppe. Thankfully he was dissuaded by some of his more 'civilized' advisors, and stuck to a more profitable policy of taxation. That said, Genghis Khan early in his career did systematically wipe out the Mongol tribe that had killed his father and exiled his mother, brothers and himself to the wilderness, killing the men and absorbing the women into his tribe. But it would be very wrong to characterize the Mongol expansion as a sweep of genocide.--Pharos 07:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Totally Agree - Especially given the quote used to describe one of his acts.

"Around two-thirds of its 1.5 million inhabitants were slaughtered without regard to religion, ethnicity, gender, or age."

Unless someone gives response against its removal in the commoning days, I'll remove it--Seanh 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Cleanup

I just removed a few things due to NPOV and removed that stupid statement from an anon user on this page. Mao's China isn't genocide because the Soviet Union blocked political killings being in the convention. Iraq paragraph cleaned up and unneccasary lines removed.

On another point it's good to see the India stuff added. However when the verses are as poorly written and POV as they are they can't remain there. If there is no evidence you can't just come making claims on the page. If you have a source of evidence though come and rewrite the paragraph. Evolver of Borg 16:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

West Papua

Where does this genocide belong -- as it is a current genocide and has been for forty years (the combination of high and inaccessable mountains made complete genocide in the 1966 to 1978 aerial bombings ineffective and allowed population re-growth).

But any regional category would be misleading as it is a truly multi-national genocide; Papua is a Australian continental island; it's under Indonesian (Asian) military occupation; the United States has both enabled the occupation & continues to support it; the Red & White Defence Front is an Indonesian terrorist group burning townships & their farms, as is Laskar Jihad but LJ also has Al Qaeda members assisting with the Church burnings & killings.

Also it is one of the very few which has had a proper legal review to certify that it is genocide.

ref: Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua - Application of Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control - Yale University

If you are going to excuse Mao as such, you'd have to remove the Japanese, Boers and Nazi execution of Soviets.

Given that it is located in Asia (more or less), putting it there seems to make more sense than listing it under "United States" (which, in turn, is under "Americas").

Revolutionary France

the revolutionary National Convention ordered a pacification of the province, with specific instructions to kill children and women of reproductive age.

Do we have references for that? Remember that, at the time, there was both pro-revolutionary and counter-revolutionary propaganda, and that counter-revolutionary propaganda permeated the British outlook on the situation.

Women are reproductive furrows who must be ploughed under.

Problem: this quote is found only on a single site apart from Wikipedia mirrors. I'd like to get the original French version. David.Monniaux 18:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Massacre - Turkey

This topic is widely disputed. The way its presented is unacceptable. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Courts have found genocide in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia

Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia

International courts have found that genocide occured in two recent conflicts: In Rwanda (1994) and in Srebrenica (1995) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Judgements by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)and the United Nations International Criminla Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) gives useful definitions of the elements of he crime of genocide under internatioal law. The jurisprudence is available at www.un.org/icty and www.ictr.org. Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina should be added as places where genocide occured. Marcussen, 25 April 2995.

Rwanda

I should certainly hope Rwanda is under no discussion. I think telling people to kill a race to eliminate it because they are evil is close to defining the term.

Deleted

User:JamesBurns deleted the following piece claiming that the below lacks evidence.

Alexander's genocide of Persians

- The Macedonian generalissimo Alexander and his army of sixty thousand ravaged Persia's capital city, Persepolis, around 331 BCE, slaughtering nearly all the inhabitants, burning the great palace of Xerxes, and plundering vast wealth. While the butchery and the destruction of priceless cultural treasures is inexcusable by modern standards of morality, it cannot be rightly termed genocide: after all, the Persian ethnos was not placed in serious danger. There is evidence that the Macedonian conqueror was perfectly willing to coexist with the Persians, both as a culture and as an ethnos, provided they showed him submission. Of course Alexander was responsible for many acts of genocide perpetrated upon smaller groups of people, such as his near-extermination of the Thebans, his extermination of whole tribes in Bactria and Thrace, and his brutal campaigns in India.

The ones who support the above claims, please provide references. Mikkalai 04:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

USSR

Remove these from Pro Russian demagogy

there was never any discrimination against Ukrainians in the USSR

this is complete nonsence - removing

the Soviet government, not Russians, contributed to the famine,
historically Russians have no quarrel with Ukrainians and

well, it can be said about anything, e.g it's not German people but Nazi government who made Holocaust

More changes to follow... Ilya K 18:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-edited

estimates 2,000,000 - 7,000,000 people

numerous articles and books show that estimates would range between 7,000,000 to 15,000,000 people

Certainly not 15,000,000 people killed in something that qualify as genocide.... Ericd 08:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

After some research 7 to 10 according to most sources. Ericd 18:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There was no opression of Ukrainians in USSR ? http://www.angelfire.com/alt/ceri_evans/writings/nationalism_ussr.htm "Since the war the non-Russian nationalities have to varying degrees faced a policy of cultural and linguistic assimilation, along with discrimination in the allocation of jobs, housing and land. Assimilation was openly advocated by Khrushchev and adopted as a goal by the 22nd Party Congress in 1961. The consequences of this policy for the Ukraine were well documented by the communist dissident Ivan Dzuba in his book Internationalism of Russification?, for which he was jailed and later forced to recant. A similar fate faced others who raised their voices against the cult of the 'Soviet nation', a term adopted by the 24th Party Congress. It is significant that the largest single group of political prisoners in the pre-Gorbachev USSR were Ukrainians jailed for the 'crime' of nationalism. " --Molobo 00:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bosnia

Oldadamm, why did you remove this information:

(1992–1995) Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), during the Bosnian War, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims.

Statement by Radovan Karadžić co-founder of Republika Srpska and its first president, alluded to the origins of this ideology on March 4, 1992 to the Bosnian Parliament:

..."the road to which you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same highway of hell which Slovenia and Croatia took. Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation... Muslims can't defend themselves if there is war here"...

It also included organized ethnic cleansing carried out by Republika Srpska against Croats, Roma, and Bosniaks throughout the period displacing nearly a 1 million people. More than 7,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred in Srebrenica in July 1995 alone. Total numbers of killed in Bosnian Genocide are still being determined but they range anywhere between 100,000 and 250,000. See also History of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

--AI 02:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

--Derim Hunt--

The number of "massacred" people in Srebrenica is not true! If there were 7000 murdered, why did they only found about 2100 corpses up to today in the area of Srebrenica and its sorroundings? Additionally I would like to say, that there was no genocide during the 90ies in whole Europe. In Yugoslavia there was a civil war and a lot of people were murdered. But also see the ethnic cleanings in the Kraina... .Please keep neutral!

5-6000 bodies were found. 2100 have been identified. 8102 are listed missing. Now the facts and see Srebrenica massacre for genocide consideration and other information.--Dado 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Genocide of Hindus by Pakistan

I find that genocide of the Hindus in Pakistan particularly in the late 1940s needs to be mentioned and incorporated in the article. This qualifies as genocide as 1) it was particularly aimed at systematically eliminating the Hindus in Pakistan irrespective of their ethnicity. 2) it was practiced throughout Pakistan, West Pakistan as well as East Pakistan( now Bangladesh) 3) the evidence of change in percentages is very clear. The genocide involved murder, permanent displaceent and complete loss of property. 4)The numbers involved run to 7.45 millions, involving 3.06 millions in West Pakistan and 4.39 million. 5) The Hindu % percentages dropped between 1941-1951 from: a) 20.91% to 3.36% in West Pakistan. ( Now stands at 1.5%) b) 29.45% to 23.14 in East Pakistan. c) 26.03% to 15.11 for all of combined Pakistan.

These are official census figures of Pakistan, consider this. 1.Punjab + Bahawalpur : 24.58% to 2.77% 2.Sind+Khairpur+Karachi:28.6% to 8.53% 3.NWFP Provinces : 4.6% to 0.1% 4.Baluchistsan : 8.53% to 1.47%

These sort of figures involving millions and organised decimation cannot be ignored either by Wiki or the world at large.

Now, a drop in numbers isn't necessarily due to genocide. I do not believe that immigration out of a country/region due to even religious discrimination is considered genocide. Pluse, you continue to mention East Pakistan, a non-existent entity! So, I will express doubts about adding such demographic change figures in genocide. However, if you could find explicit evidence of systematic elimination from some source, we should definitely add the topic. -- Urnonav 04:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed two external links which were current news items, and not of lasting interest to the topic.

Yeah,honestly, almost all of the Hindus in Pakistan moved out during the partition. Can't you say the same about Muslims in India?

Japan

As revolting as the Japanese acts at Nanking and with Unit 731 were, they should not be considered genocide. Genocide is aimed at wiping out entire races or ethnicities. As horrible as these killings were, there was no attempt on the Japanese part to wipe out the Chinese race.

TakuyaMurata is the above what you meant by "(→Japan - remove; this is not genocide)" ?
In the article, Genocide the following is written:

Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate action(s)leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories.

According to that definition, what happened in Nanking is genocide.--AI 23:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the basis of my removal. Needless to say, what happened in Nanking is controversial. However, at least, it was not deliberate, and there is no report that Japanese military personnel targeted at Chinese as a race. If we want to include Nanking Massacre, then first Nanking Massacre should be saying it was a genocide. -- Taku 23:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Taku, ok lets wait and see how others respond. I am neutral to this. I imagine others are going to restore the information anyway and you will have a dispute with them.--AI 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, if incidents like Nanking Massacre are genocides or not should be setted in each corresponding article. If someone can provide good references and rewrite those articles, I am willing to reflect changes to this one as well. -- Taku 22:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Turkey

How many countries recognise the assyrian genocide and greek genocides? If we are saying Turkey denies these genocides then should we not say how many countries actually acknowledge it to get an idea of the validity of these claims? --E.A 14:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

India

Neither the massacre by General Dyer nor the one of Sikhs by the Indian Army are genocide. There was no intention to destroy a particular group. I intend to remove unless someone disputes this.

Exile 16:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at this, very few of the incidents described as genocides fit the normal definition of a deliberate attempt to exterminate an ethnic, national or religious group. I'm not sure about Pol Pot for example. Was he trying to exterminate all Cambodians?

Perhaps we need an article on "Democides" - deliberate killing of large numbers of people, for whatever reasons. This would include Pol Pot, and Stalin's persecution of the Kulaks. There is of course a grey area over "unintended consequences" - where people starve as the result of a war, a foolish economic policy, or economic sanctions, sieges or blockades - or die of an disease introduced by invaders or colonisers.

We could also have an article on "Massacres" which would have small scale deliberate killings such as Amritsar, Bloody Sunday, Boston massacre, etc.

But we have some lists on these. Reading in addition to writing often helps (although I agree with your estimate of the subject). Mikkalai 04:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What a cheerful subject this is.

Exile 17:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genocides in history#Islamic Conquest of India

Someone tried to remove this entire section. Why? Also note that the section on Japan regarding the Nanking massacre has also been removed and is awaiting discussion. Are these events genocides or not?--AI 03:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism regarding this section might begin. I have restored the last worthwhile edit to that section.

Al, the material quoted comes straight from hate propaganda sites in India. If you simply google on the text, it would take you to those links. Only the part about the ransacking of the capital of Vijaynagar is confirmed by any major historian in India who is not allied to any extremist group. From what I know, Wikipedia does have a policy not to allow hate groups such as anti-semites in US to take over pages on history.

I also feel that the General Dyer incident in Amritsar does not go down as a genocide - however terrible it may have been. ee

Attribution of Genocide

I think that it would be helpful if the principle were maintained in this article that genocides were not attributed to whole people groups. This would be a perpetuation of the whole objectification that is characteristic of genocide. I think that the section on Germany follows this quite well (as indeed do most of the sections) - identifying the victims of genocide and, where attributing any blame, identifies the Nazi party, whose ideology included genocide.

The sections that currently do not meet this are the "Boer Wars" (for which references for the numbers would be good) and "Rwanda".--sf-andrew 19:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the Croatian entry

I seem to recall having to remove junk from the Croatian part of this page on more than one occasion. This is a can of worms... --Joy [shallot] 1 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

I don't think it's junk. I think it's omitting that they were some ethnic cleansing more recently by Croatians. (BTW : There's no doubt than the Serbians did worse...) Ericd 1 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Well armed

"in aggressive state and well armed with sticks and stones"

Well armed indeed against machine-guns. Ericd 1 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Note: This was a comment about Amritsar. Ericd 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Ustasha massacres are even in the Encylopedia Brittanica - how stupid can you rewally be???

I think this anonymous contribution is related to Croatia (see above). Please read again my comment, I'm not denying the Ustasha massacres. Ericd 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Anything goes

I think I will change my mind toward VfD for this article. Is it possible to agree to report only facts that match a definition of genocide ? Ericd 1 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

1984 Anti-Sikh riots

Hoodlums of the INC? I dont think so. The majority was cammoners getting revenge on Sikhs. It can hardly be described as genocide, since it was not organized. Any proof that Congress had a hand in it? No. YOu dirty forigners and humanitarians, put your snobby noses out of India.

Kashmir

This section seems to be at times incredibly inaccurate and pov. I'd especially like to see sources for the claim that "mostly Muslim and some Hindu civilians" have been killed and for the claim that most of the atrocities are blamed on Indian military (and not terrorists) by Human Rights groups and the UN. --Kefalonia 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The article still states the following: "Most of the atrocities including rape, torture and massacre are attributed to the Indian Army personnel in the region, mostly by human rights groups and the UN [1]." I don't want to judge the objectivity or neutrality of this article, but this particular article focuses heavily on the India military or similar, not on the terrorists or the Pakistani military. The HRW article says that the Indian military also commited atrocities, but not that it commited most of the atrocities, so this should be corrected in the article. --Kefalonia 13:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice how the section is about Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Administered), so it has to focus on the Indian side. Besides there is nothing that commonly classifies as genocide that was conducted on the Pakistani side. Also it is well documented that Indian military did have a greater hand in killings than separatists. The separatists (or "terrorists" in less NPOV version) do kill people but not as much as the army has. And selective killings were done by both the military and separatists. Also there is a Muslim majority in Kashmir and any good source will tell you that more Muslims have died than Hindu. The HRW article has several pages on Indian military actions and there is one page on separatist actions. Look at the linked sources. Not all the groups are Pakistan-based either, that is only allegation. Hope that helps. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)