Wtf has my native tongue to do with this? I'm just saying he didn't killed 20M or 40M on purpose, he had a plan and it failed. Yes, he killed a lot of people because they were opposing him, but the estimate number is 500k, still a genocide.buLLet_t00th wrote:
So you're telling me he never meant to kill the elite.....the educated.....the buddhists.....anyone who opposed him? It might just be because your native tounge is Spanish but I dont think you realise what you write or what I write, hell, sometimes I dont know what I write!sergeriver wrote:
No, Mao never meant to kill 40 million people, he just took the wrong measures.buLLet_t00th wrote:
All of them have been a failed plan!! None of them actually achieved the aims of what they set out to do, so with your thinking nothing should be in the list because they all failed!
The others in the list meant to kill those people.
Genocide, as described by the OP = racial killing.
jews are a religious group
darfur = farmers vs. nomads
stalin, mao, pot - political, class, probably other categories..but not race
armenians vs. turkey may be..i'm not familiar with it..but it sounds like the same thing as kosovo..religious killing
rwanda = clan warfare (actually class warfare)
in short, i'm not trying to disrespect the memory of the dead..i'm just trying to categorize it correctly. Genocide is to kill a race of people. Race is not the same as religious, sexual, political, class, or life style groups of people. Also, take Darfur for example. The UN has not called it genocide, but Colin Powell did. The UN called it something else, though it doesn't discount the severity. Sorry folks...i'm just being a stickler because i don't like when people call things they're not..like when arguing who's country is best and calling it racism.
ok, back on topic. I won't forget the lives lost in all conflicts. I only wish my appreciation were more full by knowing more of their loss. I think understanding what evils have happened is as important as understanding the good. By knowing one or the other, it's easier to appreciate the opposite.
jews are a religious group
darfur = farmers vs. nomads
stalin, mao, pot - political, class, probably other categories..but not race
armenians vs. turkey may be..i'm not familiar with it..but it sounds like the same thing as kosovo..religious killing
rwanda = clan warfare (actually class warfare)
in short, i'm not trying to disrespect the memory of the dead..i'm just trying to categorize it correctly. Genocide is to kill a race of people. Race is not the same as religious, sexual, political, class, or life style groups of people. Also, take Darfur for example. The UN has not called it genocide, but Colin Powell did. The UN called it something else, though it doesn't discount the severity. Sorry folks...i'm just being a stickler because i don't like when people call things they're not..like when arguing who's country is best and calling it racism.
ok, back on topic. I won't forget the lives lost in all conflicts. I only wish my appreciation were more full by knowing more of their loss. I think understanding what evils have happened is as important as understanding the good. By knowing one or the other, it's easier to appreciate the opposite.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-21 11:05:35)
The term 'Genocide' was coined by a jurist named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including:IRONCHEF wrote:
Genocide, as described by the OP = racial killing.
jews are a religious group
darfur = farmers vs. nomads
stalin, mao, pot - political, class, probably other categories..but not race
armenians vs. turkey may be..i'm not familiar with it..but it sounds like the same thing as kosovo..religious killing
in short, i'm not trying to disrespect the memory of the dead..i'm just trying to categorize it correctly. Genocide is to kill a race of people. Race is not the same as religious, sexual, political, class, or life style groups of people. Also, take Darfur for example. The UN has not called it genocide, but Colin Powell did. The UN called it something else, though it doesn't discount the severity. Sorry folks...i'm just being a stickler because i don't like when people call things they're not..like when arguing who's country is best and calling it racism.
ok, back on topic. I won't forget the lives lost in all conflicts. I only wish my appreciation were more full by knowing more of their loss. I think understanding what evils have happened is as important as understanding the good. By knowing one or the other, it's easier to appreciate the opposite.
-killing members of the group
-causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
-deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
-imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Wow, the human race really was a disappointment the last century.... we should all lower our heads in shame. Seriously......
yeah i know, i read it. and I apologize for misreading your OP and saying you were defining it as race only.
I guess i'm just stating that it's a badly formed word that should denote 'racial' motives. i'm aware of the definition which was adopted after the UN body defined it as you stated.
I guess i'm just stating that it's a badly formed word that should denote 'racial' motives. i'm aware of the definition which was adopted after the UN body defined it as you stated.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-21 11:09:14)
Search the internet for genocides and these episodes are there. From the Greek yes it means Killing of a Race.IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah i know, i read it. i'm just stating that it's a badly formed word that should denote 'racial' motives. i'm aware of the definition which was adopted after the UN body defined it as you stated.
i believe you, and you're right. i was just hijacking by trying to purely define genocide. apologies.
You don't need to apologize. You are a respected member of this section.IRONCHEF wrote:
i believe you, and you're right. i was just hijacking by trying to purely define genocide. apologies.
Serge...
I did think before I posted, I took a class on Chinese political history, and most experts agree that lots of people did starve to death in Communist China, but the percentage was way less than before the revolution. The Communists did a better job of feeding the people. The problem was, China had way too many damn people. Hitler/PolPott/Stalin all set up policies with the intent of killing people. Mao really was trying to help China. Now, that's not to say he wasn't a sick fuck that lost his mind later in life, but he wasn't Genocidal. He never said "go out and kill those peasants." He derrived his political power from the peasants. Hitler's goal was to exterminate the jews. There's the difference. Read and assimilitate information before you post, ass.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Who exactly did Hitler kill, who exactly did PolPott kill? Thats the stupidest argument ever. You have to remember that millions died of starvation in the concentration camps and they still count towards the total. Think before you post!kilgoretrout wrote:
Who exactly did Mao kill?buLLet_t00th wrote:
You forgot Mao!
77,000,000 dead people are gonna haunt you!
Edit: its around the 70,000,000 by the way.
And Im pretty sure the killing of Buddhists and the continued threat of Tibetan extermination somehow counts towards genocide!
Edit: noticed your edit, Mao doesn't have anything to do with Tibet.
Last edited by kilgoretrout (2006-11-21 11:15:40)
That's for the gay thread.
Don't discuss with this guy, he just told me I don't understand what he says because my native tongue is Spanish. Are yours too, or Am I right?kilgoretrout wrote:
I did think before I posted, I took a class on Chinese political history, and most experts agree that lots of people did starve to death in Communist China, but the percentage was way less than before the revolution. The Communists did a better job of feeding the people. The problem was, China had way too many damn people. Hitler/PolPott/Stalin all set up policies with the intent of killing people. Mao really was trying to help China. Now, that's not to say he wasn't a sick fuck that lost his mind later in life, but he wasn't Genocidal. He never said "go out and kill those peasants." He derrived his political power from the peasants. Hitler's goal was to exterminate the jews. There's the difference. Read and assimilitate information before you post, ass.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Who exactly did Hitler kill, who exactly did PolPott kill? Thats the stupidest argument ever. You have to remember that millions died of starvation in the concentration camps and they still count towards the total. Think before you post!kilgoretrout wrote:
Who exactly did Mao kill?
Edit: its around the 70,000,000 by the way.
And Im pretty sure the killing of Buddhists and the continued threat of Tibetan extermination somehow counts towards genocide!
Edit: noticed your edit, Mao doesn't have anything to do with Tibet.
Have you ever read anything about Mao? They imprisoned a lot of intellectuals and elitists, but they didn't kill them like the Soviets. Yes, the thousand flowers campaign was bullshit designed to weed out disidents, but they didn't generally kill the people that were "subversive," they jailed them or ridiculed them. Now, that's not a good thing, but it's sure as hell a lot better than murdering in cold blood like the Stalinists did.buLLet_t00th wrote:
So you're telling me he never meant to kill the elite.....the educated.....the buddhists.....anyone who opposed him? It might just be because your native tounge is Spanish but I dont think you realise what you write or what I write, hell, sometimes I dont know what I write!sergeriver wrote:
No, Mao never meant to kill 40 million people, he just took the wrong measures.buLLet_t00th wrote:
All of them have been a failed plan!! None of them actually achieved the aims of what they set out to do, so with your thinking nothing should be in the list because they all failed!
The others in the list meant to kill those people.
And he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Your english seems fine to me, whatever your native tongue is. *shrugs*sergeriver wrote:
Don't discuss with this guy, he just told me I don't understand what he says because my native tongue is Spanish. Are yours too, or Am I right?kilgoretrout wrote:
I did think before I posted, I took a class on Chinese political history, and most experts agree that lots of people did starve to death in Communist China, but the percentage was way less than before the revolution. The Communists did a better job of feeding the people. The problem was, China had way too many damn people. Hitler/PolPott/Stalin all set up policies with the intent of killing people. Mao really was trying to help China. Now, that's not to say he wasn't a sick fuck that lost his mind later in life, but he wasn't Genocidal. He never said "go out and kill those peasants." He derrived his political power from the peasants. Hitler's goal was to exterminate the jews. There's the difference. Read and assimilitate information before you post, ass.buLLet_t00th wrote:
Who exactly did Hitler kill, who exactly did PolPott kill? Thats the stupidest argument ever. You have to remember that millions died of starvation in the concentration camps and they still count towards the total. Think before you post!
Edit: its around the 70,000,000 by the way.
And Im pretty sure the killing of Buddhists and the continued threat of Tibetan extermination somehow counts towards genocide!
Edit: noticed your edit, Mao doesn't have anything to do with Tibet.
Rwanda was sure as hell a genocide the US repededly refused to use the word "genocide" and delayed a UN mission to Rwanda by charging overprice for armoured vehicles and not transporting them,after that a few countrys in africa decided to go in there...and the french oh dont get me startedIRONCHEF wrote:
You know, to be technical, none of the things you listed qualify as "genocide." Ethnic, religious, lifestyle, and political murders are more like it.
Magpie. The genocide defnition varies for me. I was not discounting the killing in Rwanda and by UN definitions it is apparently genocide though it was not racial. Tutsi and Hutu class seperation is why they slaughtered each other. Watch the movie Hotel Rwanda, it will explain the differences. They are both the same race of people, even neighbors among themselves..this is why I got picky with the definition..in MY OWN MIND! lolMagpie wrote:
Rwanda was sure as hell a genocide the US repededly refused to use the word "genocide" and delayed a UN mission to Rwanda by charging overprice for armoured vehicles and not transporting them,after that a few countrys in africa decided to go in there...and the french oh dont get me startedIRONCHEF wrote:
You know, to be technical, none of the things you listed qualify as "genocide." Ethnic, religious, lifestyle, and political murders are more like it.
1. The true total number of dead under Stalin's murderous regime may be more than 20 million - no one knows for sure.
2. The Nazis murdered more than 13 million people in their camps, but 7 million were Slavs, Gypsies, religious dissidents, etc. The Shoah was 6 million Jews, but I try to remember the other 7 million too.
2. The Nazis murdered more than 13 million people in their camps, but 7 million were Slavs, Gypsies, religious dissidents, etc. The Shoah was 6 million Jews, but I try to remember the other 7 million too.
Race can be defined as any large group of people, having relation.IRONCHEF wrote:
Genocide, as described by the OP = racial killing.
jews are a religious group
darfur = farmers vs. nomads
stalin, mao, pot - political, class, probably other categories..but not race
armenians vs. turkey may be..i'm not familiar with it..but it sounds like the same thing as kosovo..religious killing
rwanda = clan warfare (actually class warfare)
in short, i'm not trying to disrespect the memory of the dead..i'm just trying to categorize it correctly. Genocide is to kill a race of people. Race is not the same as religious, sexual, political, class, or life style groups of people. Also, take Darfur for example. The UN has not called it genocide, but Colin Powell did. The UN called it something else, though it doesn't discount the severity. Sorry folks...i'm just being a stickler because i don't like when people call things they're not..like when arguing who's country is best and calling it racism.
ok, back on topic. I won't forget the lives lost in all conflicts. I only wish my appreciation were more full by knowing more of their loss. I think understanding what evils have happened is as important as understanding the good. By knowing one or the other, it's easier to appreciate the opposite.
Darfur is about Arab mixed Africans, killing Africans. It is racial.
Racial because some like to set up farms, and some like to roam and graze? Go read up and get back to me and tell me if it's racial. Also, define "racial" for me. Both sides are sudanese, both are black. Some have arab heritage, all are muslim, all are about the same income level. It's just land rights and class warfare.Dec45 wrote:
Darfur is about Arab mixed Africans, killing Africans. It is racial.
Dude i have read Peace and Conflict Studies at uni and trust me reading about genocide and how horrible people act against each other made me quit in disgust. I do think that you have a few good points but the movie hotel Rwanda dosent explain them all.IRONCHEF wrote:
Magpie. The genocide defnition varies for me. I was not discounting the killing in Rwanda and by UN definitions it is apparently genocide though it was not racial. Tutsi and Hutu class seperation is why they slaughtered each other. Watch the movie Hotel Rwanda, it will explain the differences. They are both the same race of people, even neighbors among themselves..this is why I got picky with the definition..in MY OWN MIND! lolMagpie wrote:
Rwanda was sure as hell a genocide the US repededly refused to use the word "genocide" and delayed a UN mission to Rwanda by charging overprice for armoured vehicles and not transporting them,after that a few countrys in africa decided to go in there...and the french oh dont get me startedIRONCHEF wrote:
You know, to be technical, none of the things you listed qualify as "genocide." Ethnic, religious, lifestyle, and political murders are more like it.
I suggest that you read Philip Gourevich book- "I wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" It is good and explains more than any of the bloody school books about Rwanda...
OK, maybe this is because Im Chinese (not that I speak Chinese or even go there anymore), all I ever get from my Grandparents is 'Mao did this, Mao did that' and most of it contains 'killed.....kilgoretrout wrote:
And he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Your english seems fine to me, whatever your native tongue is. *shrugs*sergeriver wrote:
Don't discuss with this guy, he just told me I don't understand what he says because my native tongue is Spanish. Are yours too, or Am I right?kilgoretrout wrote:
I did think before I posted, I took a class on Chinese political history, and most experts agree that lots of people did starve to death in Communist China, but the percentage was way less than before the revolution. The Communists did a better job of feeding the people. The problem was, China had way too many damn people. Hitler/PolPott/Stalin all set up policies with the intent of killing people. Mao really was trying to help China. Now, that's not to say he wasn't a sick fuck that lost his mind later in life, but he wasn't Genocidal. He never said "go out and kill those peasants." He derrived his political power from the peasants. Hitler's goal was to exterminate the jews. There's the difference. Read and assimilitate information before you post, ass.
Edit: noticed your edit, Mao doesn't have anything to do with Tibet.
blah balh'. Its quite close to my heart because (apparently) my ancestors were part of a movement called 'The Struggle for Beauty' but in Chinese it doesn't sound so gaaay, they were sent to prison AND EXECUTED.
I believe that what he did was pretty close to, if not, genocide because a whole load of people were killed, because of their intelectual ability and because of what they believed before the revolution.
And to Serge, I wasnt having a go at you, it was just that when you put 'failed' I took it as meaning something else to what the person above wrote.
Love you all!!
It's OK m8, but I really think Mao wanted to make a change in China for better and things went wrong. Of course he killed a lot of people because they didn't agree with him. But the 20M or 40M or 77M that died in China, died because of starvation. I don't know if that qualifies as Genocide.buLLet_t00th wrote:
OK, maybe this is because Im Chinese (not that I speak Chinese or even go there anymore), all I ever get from my Grandparents is 'Mao did this, Mao did that' and most of it contains 'killed.....kilgoretrout wrote:
And he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Your english seems fine to me, whatever your native tongue is. *shrugs*sergeriver wrote:
Don't discuss with this guy, he just told me I don't understand what he says because my native tongue is Spanish. Are yours too, or Am I right?
blah balh'. Its quite close to my heart because (apparently) my ancestors were part of a movement called 'The Struggle for Beauty' but in Chinese it doesn't sound so gaaay, they were sent to prison AND EXECUTED.
I believe that what he did was pretty close to, if not, genocide because a whole load of people were killed, because of their intelectual ability and because of what they believed before the revolution.
And to Serge, I wasnt having a go at you, it was just that when you put 'failed' I took it as meaning something else to what the person above wrote.
Love you all!!
Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory. The term entered English and international usage in the early 1990s to describe certain events in the former Yugoslavia, with the induced cleansing of Bosniaks ("Bosnian Muslims"). The term became known to the world as Serbian war overheads most of the time either openly discussed or indicated their plans in cleansing (čišćenje) of territories. Narrower definitions equate ethnic cleansing with forcible population transfer accompanied by gross human-rights violations and other factors. In broader definitions it is effectively a synonym of population transfer.ncc6206 wrote:
Hmmm. I think (opinion only) that ethnic cleansing as the forced relocation of a population more say than genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
So technicaly it CAN be nongenocidal but most likely will result in a genocide
And anyone just joining the "discusion" please for the love of God read the first post. Dont just glimps, read all of it.
Thankyou for saying that in the way I couldn't.zeidmaan wrote:
Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory. The term entered English and international usage in the early 1990s to describe certain events in the former Yugoslavia, with the induced cleansing of Bosniaks ("Bosnian Muslims"). The term became known to the world as Serbian war overheads most of the time either openly discussed or indicated their plans in cleansing (čišćenje) of territories. Narrower definitions equate ethnic cleansing with forcible population transfer accompanied by gross human-rights violations and other factors. In broader definitions it is effectively a synonym of population transfer.ncc6206 wrote:
Hmmm. I think (opinion only) that ethnic cleansing as the forced relocation of a population more say than genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
So technicaly it CAN be nongenocidal but most likely will result in a genocide
And anyone just joining the "discusion" please for the love of God read the first post. Dont just glimps, read all of it.
Um, the Aztecs/Olmans, Australian Aboriginals (esp. TAS), American natives, gotta love humanity, huh?