There have been well over 300 major films and documentaries depicting and/or exploring the tragic events that took place, in an event that has become known as the Holocaust, where between a quarter million to as many as 6 million people, mostly religious and ethnic minorities, were killed at the end of World War II by German forces.
Another genocide targeting civilians, with at least as many casualties, was the man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933, which has become known as Holodomor.
Even Germany, a country that would be particularly well-positioned to comment on Holodomor, does not even recognize the event as genocidal in nature.
How could this event, which made Ukraine's population drop by 10% between 1926 and 1939, have gone unnoticed in Hollywood, where it seems that another blockbuster movie about the Holocaust is released every year?
I'm not sure what the argument here is. Again, there's no real moral math to add up. The Soviet influence famine in Ukraine absolutely deserves to be broadcasted freely/clearly. - I believe it has, although not as much as the Holocaust. The same can be said for the Armenian Genocide (A genocide that even Israel doesnt recognize, by the way), or the genocide by Belgium in the Congo in the 19th century (Which was largely driven by capitalism, mind you).
As for numbers: Almost all reputable historians put the cost of human lives in the holocaust above 6 million. In fact, when 6 million is referenced, it's *usually* a reference to just Jewish people who died. Another 5 to 6 million Slavs, "disabled", Romani and other undesirables were murdered.
It's worth pointing out that the holocaust wasnt even necessarily the most costly event in human lives during WWII. The second Sino-Japanese war (When Japan invaded China) is still perhaps the single most deadly ever in human history. (By the way - Japan was 100% a right wing military dictatorship during WWII).
But how on earth do we compare the holocaust to that? Both were awful. I dont think we would say one was "more awful" than the other. It's not a simple question of math.
Lastly - Genocide as a concept is not necessarily simply the act of murdering everyone. It can be the intentional destruction of one's culture and identity. The USA engaged in this practice with great effort during manifest destiny ("Kill the Indian, Save the man").
So when a white nationalist wants to kill African Americanism as a cultural concept by kicking them all out of the country... that's genocide.
Genocide means killing by the very definition. Anything ending in 'cide' means killing (herbicide, insecticide, rodenticide, suicide, fratricide, infanticide, etc...). Period...
As an aside, I've heard 11 million as the number killed in the Holocaust. I'm not sure if that only includes those killed in concentration camps though. Many people were slaughtered without ever seeing a camp.
An maelstrom who kills 20 people is less deadly than an maelstrom that kills millions. Talking about genocides, no genocide killed more people than Holodomor.
This isn't remotely true. The Nazi Holocaust is estimated at 11 million, the Holodomor at most is estimated at 7.5 million. Widely available numbers. Again, double check things before presenting them as facts, it will improve the quality of discussion on here.
And even so, the Native American genocide at the hands of the various European empires outpaces all of that.
I believe that was 6 mi. But not sure, anyway
6 million refers to the number of Jews killed and that number is now accepted by all serious scholars.
Beyond that there is not a similar level of agreement, because there is not a single definition of the Holocaust. Some people define that as only relating to the Jews. Others use a wider definition including other groups that the Nazis systematically tried to exterminate (such as the Roma and certain categories of handicapped). Others refer to the total number of people killed in the death camps (which is where the 11m figure quoted above comes from).
There were also millions of civilians (mainly Soviet) killed during the war, but very few people count those as part of the Holocaust because the killings were not systematic.
The Holodomor did not involve any systematic killing, although there were considerable numbers of deaths from starvation and disease. The reason that Ukraine (and a few other countries) refer to that as genocide is that the famine largely resulted from the forced collectivisation of farms in the Ukraine (there was also famine in other parts of the USSR in 1932-33 though, so that's not the total answer) and there was persecution of Ukrainian nationalism at the same time. If you look at excess mortality statistics - to assess the additional deaths in Ukraine beyond the numbers you would have expected anyway - you get figures of 2-3 million.
I don't really think that the Ukrainian famine is a good equivalent to the Holocaust. A better comparison would be with the Chinese famine in 1959-61 as a result of the imposition of Mao's agricultural policies - that killed considerably more people.
"s that the famine largely resulted from the forced collectivisation of farms in the Ukraine"
And that makes perfectly sense. You can't just take their proprieties and expect no reaction. This land collectivization made by an centralized power always resulted in mass starvation and the honestly, i see no difference between killing millions by taking their foods or trowing then into gas chambers.
If i was an farmer, i would rather burn my farm and poison the ground than see my farm being used for the benefit of communists. I wish that the white farmers in south africa do it with this confiscation without compensation bill
I think the bulk of the Native American population that vanished did so because of disease rather than violence. The settlers didn't have the numbers to wipe out the native population, on its home territory, simply because they had better weapons.
There was a period of time in South America, granted, where the bulk of the death would have been due to violence rather than disease. The conquistadors were there specifically for military conquest and came prepared for it: they came with breastplates and horses and guns, and their goal was to find gold. The natives didn't have the weapons to pierce breastplates, nor the animals to outpace horses, which enabled the kind of bizarre atrocities the conquistadors committed in South America. The conquistadors did have the kind of military superiority that gave them near-absolute power when they first arrived.
Further north, though, the early settlers didn't have those kinds of advantages over the natives. The English settlers were there to start a new life rather than bring back gold and treasure, but their attempts at agriculture failed miserably because they didn't know how to grow corn. They did bring along guns, but they were not trained soldiers like the conquistadors, and their encroachment on native land was more gradual.
It was only later on, when the native population started dying off from the diseases introduced by European livestock, that the settlers were able to take over. By that point, the natives were able to push back to some extent by getting firearms through trade--they could use the same weapons against the settlers--but that was not enough. The settlers in North America were actually considerably weaker than the natives at first. The natives could have easily wiped out the settlers in the early days, if they decided to.
They didn't, and 500 years after the first groups of natives decided to take pity on the starving white folks, the natives are nearly extinct except for those that ended up interbreeding with the settlers.
Anyway, given the sheer scale of the death toll, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of violent deaths, even excluding those due to disease, still far outstripped any other given genocide. We're talking about a war (or wars) that went on for hundreds of years, and while we don't know precisely how many people lived in the Americas before the settlers arrived, the natives were nearly wiped out entirely.
I don't know of any estimates, but for the sake of argument, even if you said 90% of the deaths were due to disease and only 10% were due to violence, killing 10% of two entire continents is still a massive genocide.
American history is very dark and very strange. Nothing else in history has been quite like the American genocide.
I agree with most of the above, but don't think Cortes had the sort of military supremacy you suggest when he first arrived. He was lucky in a number of ways in taking over the Aztec empire, e.g.
- he landed among enemies of the Aztecs and was able to recruit many thousands of those to his cause.
- the Aztecs did not initially fight him, but welcomed him into their cities. By then taking prisoner the Aztec leader, Cortes successfully divided opposition to him.
- despite the disputed leadership the Aztecs were able to defeat the Spanish initially after fighting did break out, but failed to follow up that victory. The smallpox epidemic that had broken out by then was a major factor in this. That gave Cortes the chance to gather a new army (mainly natives) and return.
This article provides a good summary not only of the final siege of Tenochtitlan, but the campaigns leading up to that from Cortes' initial landing.
Important to note that this conversation about gerrymandering is about the House of Representatives and state-level legislatures. And gerrymandering can thwart voting majorities from winning legislative majorities. As it did federally in 2012, and as has happened in a number of purple state legislatures. The story jjstraka linked that you initially replied to was about gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is not illegal yet unless it's found to be strictly a racial issue. That's hard to prove since minorities overwhelmingly support one of the two parties.
I'm not sure that's quite right. The Supreme Court didn't agree in June (in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek) that extreme gerrymandering was constitutional, but rather said that there were no existing federal standards against which to measure whether a particular redistricting plan was 'fair' - and hence the question was not justiciable at a federal level (some States have introduced such standards in legislation and SCOTUS agrees in those circumstances the courts have a legitimate role in considering whether the standards have been breached).
Reading through the decision I can see why they came to that conclusion, but it's a pretty uncomfortable one. Abdicating any role by the court in determining what is fair is not an approach applied in other constitutional areas ...
SCOTUS noted that the legislative remedy for this issue remains open (not just for individual States, but with Congress). That remedy has been used regularly in the past. For instance the constitution does not require any form of proportionality and many States originally used the same sort of system as in electing the President, i.e. all House seats went to whoever got a bare majority of votes. Legislation ended that possibility by requiring single member districts of approximately the same population. There were other criteria also applied to districts in the past, e.g. that they must be contiguous and compact. Funnily enough those other criteria were effectively removed by SCOTUS . That's because the Reapportionment Act of 1929 did not refer to the criteria used in previous Acts. SCOTUS decided that each Act was totally independent, i.e. that the criteria established in previous Acts should not continue, even though they were not specifically abolished.
Speaking of other issues the Supreme Court was wrong about the court’s five activist conservative justices gave the administration the green light to begin work the wall using Defense Department money. Funding for the wall had been frozen by lower courts while a lawsuit over the money proceeded. 5-4 activist conservative judges strike again.
On Tuesday, in a move described as "theft from the Military" acting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper notified members of Congress that he would take ANOTHER $3.6 billion from the military. The new redistribution of funds brings to $6.1 billion the total amount of Defense Department spending repurposed for the wall. This is "legal" because in February President Trump declared a fake emergency along the border — which he said he did to circumvent Congress (and the Constitutional separation of powers).
Republicans allowed him to do this.
Among other things impacted, an Army base on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee is cancelling plans to build a new middle school. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) had "championed" the school project, writing a January op-ed for the Louisville Courier-Journal that he was "proud" of working to ensure that funding for Fort Campbell as well as two other bases was included in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Whoopsie.
Moscow Mitch should not have allowed Trump's fake national emergency to steal the funds lol. He didn't vote to stop the fake national emergency and his state is being hurt. And of course totally dishonest too - he's blaming Democrats - for the money being stolen by Trump to build the stupid wall. This POS needs to go.
Acting Defense Secretary Esper and other Pentagon officials are now urging Congress to “backfill” — or replenish — the funds being taken out of other military construction projects. Get lost loser, you want us to give you money you don't apparently don't need? Why so that you can give it to Trump's stupid wall again, get the hell out of here. You already had the money.
"Fiscal conservatives" my left buttcheck.
Hundreds of military construction and quality of life projects were scraped to divert money to a political cause - the President's re-election. That reason he wants the dumb wall is only to say "see I made the wall". It's not useful otherwise or effective and it's a huge waste of money.
Now McConnell and Republicans, who have as per usual of Republicans exploded the debt when they are in charge, will be begging to spend billions more on things that just had billions stolen to fund the vanity project on the border. Why is a border wall is more important to the well-being of our service members and their families than the projects that were cancelled when Republicans allowed Trump to steal their money?
649.0 billion. That is the US military budget. Less than 1% is being taken "for the wall." The military can afford it.
If Democratic representatives really have a problem with this, then they should listen to SCOTUS and budget properly. Next budget, whatever was taken from the DD for these little pet projects should be cut and when the right starts screaming about the military, remind them that they got by just fine without that extra $10B when the wall was being attempted to be built.
Genocide means killing by the very definition. Anything ending in 'cide' means killing (herbicide, insecticide, rodenticide, suicide, fratricide, infanticide, etc...). Period...
As an aside, I've heard 11 million as the number killed in the Holocaust. I'm not sure if that only includes those killed in concentration camps though. Many people were slaughtered without ever seeing a camp.
Please consult the above source. Note that the final bullet point in the list:
"(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
This is according to international law.
A further explanation is provided as well:
"Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group's existence:"
So in sum: No. There is not a requirement for death in genocide.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
In fact, the Australian genocide I referenced was stealing children from aboriginal people and raising them in white families. These children are referred to as the "stolen generation" and this sort of thing happened in living memory.
Similarly, in the United States, a particular kind of genocide (d on BallpointMan's list) was inflicted on women of color and disabled people. For the former, google "Mississippi appendectomy." A lot of these sterilizations were also done within living memory.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
649.0 billion. That is the US military budget. Less than 1% is being taken "for the wall." The military can afford it.
If Democratic representatives really have a problem with this, then they should listen to SCOTUS and budget properly. Next budget, whatever was taken from the DD for these little pet projects should be cut and when the right starts screaming about the military, remind them that they got by just fine without that extra $10B when the wall was being attempted to be built.
The military budget is totally ridiculous but most of that money is already allocated for other things.
'Democratic representatives' are not the problem with irresponsible military budgets. At best it's both parties but in reality the party that loves the military industrial complex these days is the Republican party.
And every Republican President since forever has exploded the debt and deficit while the Democrats have been responsible adults and cleaned it up somewhat.
And all that being said if these billions don't matter why are schools and other projects being cancelled?
649.0 billion. That is the US military budget. Less than 1% is being taken "for the wall." The military can afford it.
If Democratic representatives really have a problem with this, then they should listen to SCOTUS and budget properly. Next budget, whatever was taken from the DD for these little pet projects should be cut and when the right starts screaming about the military, remind them that they got by just fine without that extra $10B when the wall was being attempted to be built.
And all that being said if these billions don't matter why are schools and other projects being cancelled?
Because that's how the Republican Party pretends that they're fiscally responsible. Fiscal conservatives have nothing remotely representing their views these days...
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
Afraid I've never studied politics, or even been particularly interested in it . I do have a bit of background in some related subjects though, like economics, law and social sciences - and I work in local government so am a bit more directly affected by politics than some. I suppose I've also started paying more attention to the news as I've got older, which may be why this thread caught my eye some time ago when I was only intending to read about Baldur's Gate ...
649.0 billion. That is the US military budget. Less than 1% is being taken "for the wall." The military can afford it.
If Democratic representatives really have a problem with this, then they should listen to SCOTUS and budget properly. Next budget, whatever was taken from the DD for these little pet projects should be cut and when the right starts screaming about the military, remind them that they got by just fine without that extra $10B when the wall was being attempted to be built.
And all that being said if these billions don't matter why are schools and other projects being cancelled?
Because that's how the Republican Party pretends that they're fiscally responsible. Fiscal conservatives have nothing remotely representing their views these days...
That is not why the projects are being cancelled, Mitch McConnell, a noted republican, wrote an article in January saying "thank me voters for I have made it a priority to get this military school built in Kentucky included in the defense budget because the other schools are way overcrowded" and then the acting defense secretary stole those funds and diverted them to the wall. Project cancelled - except now McConnell and the guy who stole the money are claiming that Dems should "backfill" the stolen funds. Fiscal responsible? Not even pretending.
Here's a prime example of my viewpoint. Why are we still using plastic grocery bags? They're ugly, disgusting blights on the landscape that don't deteriorate for hundreds of years and pollute our oceans. Meanwhile, we could be using paper bags like we did for decades but somehow they became 'environmentally unfriendly'. They're renewable and readily bio-degradable but somehow they became relegated to the back-burner. Why? Do people really think virgin forest is being turned into paper bags? The wood used for paper is mostly fast-growing shit-wood now. Nobody would use hardwood or white pine for making grocery bags anymore!
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
I've also started paying more attention to the news as I've got older, which may be why this thread caught my eye some time ago when I was only intending to read about Baldur's Gate ...
It's rather addictive being able to debate these issues without the usual face-to-face temper tantrums you can get involved in when discussing these things with people you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Emotions get involved far too often when discussing politics or religion in my experience...
Here's a prime example of my viewpoint. Why are we still using plastic grocery bags? They're ugly, disgusting blights on the landscape that don't deteriorate for hundreds of years and pollute our oceans. Meanwhile, we could be using paper bags like we did for decades but somehow they became 'environmentally unfriendly'. They're renewable and readily bio-degradable but somehow they became relegated to the back-burner. Why? Do people really think virgin forest is being turned into paper bags? The wood used for paper is mostly fast-growing shit-wood now. Nobody would use hardwood or white pine for making grocery bags anymore!
That's not how I remember it. Back when stores offered both, environmentalists were always telling people that correct answer to "paper or plastic?" was "paper". Plastic bags are just cheaper for the stores, and now that most stores offer cheap reusable bags, they can get away with not offering paper.
Here's a prime example of my viewpoint. Why are we still using plastic grocery bags? They're ugly, disgusting blights on the landscape that don't deteriorate for hundreds of years and pollute our oceans. Meanwhile, we could be using paper bags like we did for decades but somehow they became 'environmentally unfriendly'. They're renewable and readily bio-degradable but somehow they became relegated to the back-burner. Why? Do people really think virgin forest is being turned into paper bags? The wood used for paper is mostly fast-growing shit-wood now. Nobody would use hardwood or white pine for making grocery bags anymore!
That's not how I remember it. Back when stores offered both, environmentalists were always telling people that correct answer to "paper or plastic?" was "paper". Plastic bags are just cheaper for the stores, and now that most stores offer cheap reusable bags, they can get away with not offering paper.
Interesting, I clearly remember a 'paper is evil' period but perhaps I'm remembering some propaganda from back in the day...
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
I've also started paying more attention to the news as I've got older, which may be why this thread caught my eye some time ago when I was only intending to read about Baldur's Gate ...
It's rather addictive being able to debate these issues without the usual face-to-face temper tantrums you can get involved in when discussing these things with people you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Emotions get involved far too often when discussing politics or religion in my experience...
I was playing Classic WoW this morning and there was the usual toxic nonsense in trade chat. People were ragging on California non-stop, so I simply mentioned the factoid of it being the 6th largest economy in the world. I then received an unsolicited whisper from someone about how it was a hell-hole. When I didn't respond within FIFTEEN SECONDS I got another whisper saying "sure are taking your time to answer aren't you??" at which point he then sent me a link to some story about the budget crisis from 2009 (incidentally, when Arnold was Governor) and was told to "suck it and swallow" (it's always some reference to forced oral sex with these types). I told him to go see a psychiatrist. This is why I should stick to single-player games.
What I have found most disturbing about this re-release of the original World of Warcraft is that the main demographic it's focused on is people like me in their mid-30s. And the chat channels indicate that many of these people have exhibited exactly ZERO emotional growth in 15 years.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
I've also started paying more attention to the news as I've got older, which may be why this thread caught my eye some time ago when I was only intending to read about Baldur's Gate ...
It's rather addictive being able to debate these issues without the usual face-to-face temper tantrums you can get involved in when discussing these things with people you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Emotions get involved far too often when discussing politics or religion in my experience...
I was playing Classic WoW this morning and there was the usual toxic nonsense in trade chat. People were ragging on California non-stop, so I simply mentioned the factoid of it being the 6th largest economy in the world. I then received an unsolicited whisper from someone about how it was a hell-hole. When I didn't respond within FIFTEEN SECONDS I got another whisper saying "sure are taking your time to answer aren't you??" at which point he then sent me a link to some story about the budget crisis from 2009 (incidentally, when Arnold was Governor) and was told to "suck it and swallow" (it's always some reference to forced oral sex with these types). I told him to go see a psychiatrist. This is why I should stick to single-player games.
I gave up on internet games back in 2000 with Diablo 2. Male video gamers are complete pricks...
Edit: They're probably still living in the basements of people my age.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
I've also started paying more attention to the news as I've got older, which may be why this thread caught my eye some time ago when I was only intending to read about Baldur's Gate ...
It's rather addictive being able to debate these issues without the usual face-to-face temper tantrums you can get involved in when discussing these things with people you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Emotions get involved far too often when discussing politics or religion in my experience...
I was playing Classic WoW this morning and there was the usual toxic nonsense in trade chat. People were ragging on California non-stop, so I simply mentioned the factoid of it being the 6th largest economy in the world. I then received an unsolicited whisper from someone about how it was a hell-hole. When I didn't respond within FIFTEEN SECONDS I got another whisper saying "sure are taking your time to answer aren't you??" at which point he then sent me a link to some story about the budget crisis from 2009 (incidentally, when Arnold was Governor) and was told to "suck it and swallow" (it's always some reference to forced oral sex with these types). I told him to go see a psychiatrist. This is why I should stick to single-player games.
I gave up on internet games back in 2000 with Diablo 2. Male video gamers are complete pricks...
What was most striking is the aggressiveness and the DEMAND that I not only engage with him, but concede his point, when he doesn't know me from Adam.
It should also be clear that Genocide Watch's definition is not simply something someone with a website came up with. It's broadly considered to be the actual definition.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you . I'm not of course arguing that no one uses the word in the way you say and I agree that some actions may be described as genocide that are not covered by the original meaning - and that may cheapen the word. However, you are wrong about the way the meaning of the word has shifted - from its origin it referred to more than just killing.
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows: "By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing: "The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
I've also started paying more attention to the news as I've got older, which may be why this thread caught my eye some time ago when I was only intending to read about Baldur's Gate ...
It's rather addictive being able to debate these issues without the usual face-to-face temper tantrums you can get involved in when discussing these things with people you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Emotions get involved far too often when discussing politics or religion in my experience...
I was playing Classic WoW this morning and there was the usual toxic nonsense in trade chat. People were ragging on California non-stop, so I simply mentioned the factoid of it being the 6th largest economy in the world. I then received an unsolicited whisper from someone about how it was a hell-hole. When I didn't respond within FIFTEEN SECONDS I got another whisper saying "sure are taking your time to answer aren't you??" at which point he then sent me a link to some story about the budget crisis from 2009 (incidentally, when Arnold was Governor) and was told to "suck it and swallow" (it's always some reference to forced oral sex with these types). I told him to go see a psychiatrist. This is why I should stick to single-player games.
I gave up on internet games back in 2000 with Diablo 2. Male video gamers are complete pricks...
What was most striking is the aggressiveness and the DEMAND that I not only engage with him, but concede his point, when he doesn't know me from Adam.
It was probably a 12 yr old kid who knows he's better than everyone so you'd better answer him straight away mister. You know how kids can be. Some do though never grow out of it.
Comments
Genocide means killing by the very definition. Anything ending in 'cide' means killing (herbicide, insecticide, rodenticide, suicide, fratricide, infanticide, etc...). Period...
As an aside, I've heard 11 million as the number killed in the Holocaust. I'm not sure if that only includes those killed in concentration camps though. Many people were slaughtered without ever seeing a camp.
6 million refers to the number of Jews killed and that number is now accepted by all serious scholars.
Beyond that there is not a similar level of agreement, because there is not a single definition of the Holocaust. Some people define that as only relating to the Jews. Others use a wider definition including other groups that the Nazis systematically tried to exterminate (such as the Roma and certain categories of handicapped). Others refer to the total number of people killed in the death camps (which is where the 11m figure quoted above comes from).
There were also millions of civilians (mainly Soviet) killed during the war, but very few people count those as part of the Holocaust because the killings were not systematic.
The Holodomor did not involve any systematic killing, although there were considerable numbers of deaths from starvation and disease. The reason that Ukraine (and a few other countries) refer to that as genocide is that the famine largely resulted from the forced collectivisation of farms in the Ukraine (there was also famine in other parts of the USSR in 1932-33 though, so that's not the total answer) and there was persecution of Ukrainian nationalism at the same time. If you look at excess mortality statistics - to assess the additional deaths in Ukraine beyond the numbers you would have expected anyway - you get figures of 2-3 million.
I don't really think that the Ukrainian famine is a good equivalent to the Holocaust. A better comparison would be with the Chinese famine in 1959-61 as a result of the imposition of Mao's agricultural policies - that killed considerably more people.
And that makes perfectly sense. You can't just take their proprieties and expect no reaction. This land collectivization made by an centralized power always resulted in mass starvation and the honestly, i see no difference between killing millions by taking their foods or trowing then into gas chambers.
If i was an farmer, i would rather burn my farm and poison the ground than see my farm being used for the benefit of communists. I wish that the white farmers in south africa do it with this confiscation without compensation bill
I agree with most of the above, but don't think Cortes had the sort of military supremacy you suggest when he first arrived. He was lucky in a number of ways in taking over the Aztec empire, e.g.
- he landed among enemies of the Aztecs and was able to recruit many thousands of those to his cause.
- the Aztecs did not initially fight him, but welcomed him into their cities. By then taking prisoner the Aztec leader, Cortes successfully divided opposition to him.
- despite the disputed leadership the Aztecs were able to defeat the Spanish initially after fighting did break out, but failed to follow up that victory. The smallpox epidemic that had broken out by then was a major factor in this. That gave Cortes the chance to gather a new army (mainly natives) and return.
This article provides a good summary not only of the final siege of Tenochtitlan, but the campaigns leading up to that from Cortes' initial landing.
I'm not sure that's quite right. The Supreme Court didn't agree in June (in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek) that extreme gerrymandering was constitutional, but rather said that there were no existing federal standards against which to measure whether a particular redistricting plan was 'fair' - and hence the question was not justiciable at a federal level (some States have introduced such standards in legislation and SCOTUS agrees in those circumstances the courts have a legitimate role in considering whether the standards have been breached).
Reading through the decision I can see why they came to that conclusion, but it's a pretty uncomfortable one. Abdicating any role by the court in determining what is fair is not an approach applied in other constitutional areas ...
SCOTUS noted that the legislative remedy for this issue remains open (not just for individual States, but with Congress). That remedy has been used regularly in the past. For instance the constitution does not require any form of proportionality and many States originally used the same sort of system as in electing the President, i.e. all House seats went to whoever got a bare majority of votes. Legislation ended that possibility by requiring single member districts of approximately the same population. There were other criteria also applied to districts in the past, e.g. that they must be contiguous and compact. Funnily enough those other criteria were effectively removed by SCOTUS
On Tuesday, in a move described as "theft from the Military" acting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper notified members of Congress that he would take ANOTHER $3.6 billion from the military. The new redistribution of funds brings to $6.1 billion the total amount of Defense Department spending repurposed for the wall. This is "legal" because in February President Trump declared a fake emergency along the border — which he said he did to circumvent Congress (and the Constitutional separation of powers).
Republicans allowed him to do this.
Among other things impacted, an Army base on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee is cancelling plans to build a new middle school. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) had "championed" the school project, writing a January op-ed for the Louisville Courier-Journal that he was "proud" of working to ensure that funding for Fort Campbell as well as two other bases was included in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Whoopsie.
Moscow Mitch should not have allowed Trump's fake national emergency to steal the funds lol. He didn't vote to stop the fake national emergency and his state is being hurt. And of course totally dishonest too - he's blaming Democrats - for the money being stolen by Trump to build the stupid wall. This POS needs to go.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/460221-military-school-aided-by-mcconnell-among-those-losing-funds-to-trump-wall
Acting Defense Secretary Esper and other Pentagon officials are now urging Congress to “backfill” — or replenish — the funds being taken out of other military construction projects. Get lost loser, you want us to give you money you don't apparently don't need? Why so that you can give it to Trump's stupid wall again, get the hell out of here. You already had the money.
"Fiscal conservatives" my left buttcheck.
Hundreds of military construction and quality of life projects were scraped to divert money to a political cause - the President's re-election. That reason he wants the dumb wall is only to say "see I made the wall". It's not useful otherwise or effective and it's a huge waste of money.
Now McConnell and Republicans, who have as per usual of Republicans exploded the debt when they are in charge, will be begging to spend billions more on things that just had billions stolen to fund the vanity project on the border. Why is a border wall is more important to the well-being of our service members and their families than the projects that were cancelled when Republicans allowed Trump to steal their money?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/06/pentagon-is-moving-money-pay-trumps-border-wall-here-are-consequences/
If Democratic representatives really have a problem with this, then they should listen to SCOTUS and budget properly. Next budget, whatever was taken from the DD for these little pet projects should be cut and when the right starts screaming about the military, remind them that they got by just fine without that extra $10B when the wall was being attempted to be built.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html
Please consult the above source. Note that the final bullet point in the list:
"(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
This is according to international law.
A further explanation is provided as well:
"Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group's existence:"
So in sum: No. There is not a requirement for death in genocide.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
There's a whole convention that was ratified by a few nations one might recognize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Genocide_Convention
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf
In fact, the Australian genocide I referenced was stealing children from aboriginal people and raising them in white families. These children are referred to as the "stolen generation" and this sort of thing happened in living memory.
Similarly, in the United States, a particular kind of genocide (d on BallpointMan's list) was inflicted on women of color and disabled people. For the former, google "Mississippi appendectomy." A lot of these sterilizations were also done within living memory.
Agreed. The link to killing in the root of the word is a reference to the intention to destroy a particular group of people, rather than necessarily killing any individuals.
No, it's because it's a word that used to describe wanton extermination. The word has now been hijacked and modified for effect. It's yet another way that the left subtly attempts to move the bar. If you don't agree with them you're not a conservative, you're a 'Nazi'. If people are forced to move or are persecuted it's not a crime against humanity anymore, it's 'genocide'. The trouble with using these power words all the time is they start losing their power eventually and worse, it cheapens the original meanings.
No right back at you
The word was coined by Raphael Lemkin, who first described the meaning of it in 1944 as follows:
"By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…."
In 1946 he clarified further that genocide refers to more than just killing:
"The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."
Lemkin campaigned for genocide to be recognized in international law and this was done in The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. That defined it as follows:
"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As was said before this definition is essentially the same as that currently being used by Genocide Watch, so I don't think this group can be characterized as attempting to 'move the bar'.
More recent writers have proposed changes to the definition. Some of those do indeed concentrate on killing, but others suggest a broadening of the existing definition - in particular so that it can include different types of groups (such as political or social ones).
Wow, a rebuttal that not only disarms my argument but also leaves me feeling that I'm at least somewhat right. Well played!
You seem to be very knowledgable about this subject. Do you work in the political science field by chance?
P.S. I'll bet you got an A+ in Argumentation...
The military budget is totally ridiculous but most of that money is already allocated for other things.
'Democratic representatives' are not the problem with irresponsible military budgets. At best it's both parties but in reality the party that loves the military industrial complex these days is the Republican party.
And every Republican President since forever has exploded the debt and deficit while the Democrats have been responsible adults and cleaned it up somewhat.
And all that being said if these billions don't matter why are schools and other projects being cancelled?
Because that's how the Republican Party pretends that they're fiscally responsible. Fiscal conservatives have nothing remotely representing their views these days...
Afraid I've never studied politics, or even been particularly interested in it
That is not why the projects are being cancelled, Mitch McConnell, a noted republican, wrote an article in January saying "thank me voters for I have made it a priority to get this military school built in Kentucky included in the defense budget because the other schools are way overcrowded" and then the acting defense secretary stole those funds and diverted them to the wall. Project cancelled - except now McConnell and the guy who stole the money are claiming that Dems should "backfill" the stolen funds. Fiscal responsible? Not even pretending.
It's rather addictive being able to debate these issues without the usual face-to-face temper tantrums you can get involved in when discussing these things with people you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Emotions get involved far too often when discussing politics or religion in my experience...
That's not how I remember it. Back when stores offered both, environmentalists were always telling people that correct answer to "paper or plastic?" was "paper". Plastic bags are just cheaper for the stores, and now that most stores offer cheap reusable bags, they can get away with not offering paper.
Interesting, I clearly remember a 'paper is evil' period but perhaps I'm remembering some propaganda from back in the day...
I was playing Classic WoW this morning and there was the usual toxic nonsense in trade chat. People were ragging on California non-stop, so I simply mentioned the factoid of it being the 6th largest economy in the world. I then received an unsolicited whisper from someone about how it was a hell-hole. When I didn't respond within FIFTEEN SECONDS I got another whisper saying "sure are taking your time to answer aren't you??" at which point he then sent me a link to some story about the budget crisis from 2009 (incidentally, when Arnold was Governor) and was told to "suck it and swallow" (it's always some reference to forced oral sex with these types). I told him to go see a psychiatrist. This is why I should stick to single-player games.
What I have found most disturbing about this re-release of the original World of Warcraft is that the main demographic it's focused on is people like me in their mid-30s. And the chat channels indicate that many of these people have exhibited exactly ZERO emotional growth in 15 years.
I gave up on internet games back in 2000 with Diablo 2. Male video gamers are complete pricks...
Edit: They're probably still living in the basements of people my age.
What was most striking is the aggressiveness and the DEMAND that I not only engage with him, but concede his point, when he doesn't know me from Adam.
The frustration and aggression comes from being 35 and never having a date...
Try this '
It was probably a 12 yr old kid who knows he's better than everyone so you'd better answer him straight away mister. You know how kids can be. Some do though never grow out of it.