| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Aboriginal peoples in your country
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Aboriginal peoples in your country

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 00:37
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
It's equally futile[1] to exaggerate them by wildly throwing around terms that may or may not be applicable. 'Genocide' does not just mean killing lots of people. It has for instance to include the intent to eliminate an entire group (of a specified kind) even if the intent is not completely successful. So its use (even retroactively) requires stdy of the circumstances of each case.
 
[1] Actually I wish it were futile. It is sadly often only too effective in inflaming people.


It does not have to include the intent to eliminate an entire group, it is enough with the intent to eliminate a part of group.
Wrong. It is genocide if only a major part of the group is killed, but only if that was part of an attempt to kill off the entire group.
 
I'd look it up for you but we know from other threads that you just use words for their emotional effect, not with any regard to their actual meanings.
Quote
Both the intentional elimination of entire native groups and part of such groups have several times occured in the Americas.

And then there have also occured many other forms of attacks and opressive actions against them. Sometimes the intent is hard to prove but the result is awful anyway, as in the spread of deadly diseases.

That the result if awful doesn't mean you can just go ahead shooting out misused words all over the place. For all I know there may have been examples of genocide in American history, but that's beside the point. If there have been, show some evidence that it was genocide.
 
Rape is bad, but that doesn't mean you can call it murder. Enforced servitude in oppressed conditions is bad but that doesn't mean you can call it 'slavery'. Obtaining goods through fraud is bad, but that doesn't mean you can call it theft.
 
And thousands of people may be murdered but that doesn't mean you can call it genocide.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 01:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Wrong. It is genocide if only a major part of the group is killed, but only if that was part of an attempt to kill off the entire group.


...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...as it is said in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That the result if awful doesn't mean you can just go ahead shooting out misused words all over the place. For all I know there may have been examples of genocide in American history, but that's beside the point. If there have been, show some evidence that it was genocide.


It is actually well known that genocide was frequent in the history of the Americas, one can just take the genocide against the natives of Tierra del Fuego as an example, it was intentional since there was even bounty paid for dead natives.
Many times the natives just stood in the way for exploitation of natural resources, as in many cases in the Amazon region even in modern times, and where genocided so that these resourses were more easily accessible.

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 06 Nov 2009 at 01:53
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 02:09
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Wrong. It is genocide if only a major part of the group is killed, but only if that was part of an attempt to kill off the entire group.


...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...as it is said in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

I know that. It was a silly mistake to word it that way. Now go and read the commentaries and the discussions following the inauguration of the ICJ. Start from wikipedia and note in particular: "The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups."
Quote
 In part

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.[17] The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)[18] that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[19] paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."[20][21]

In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis."[19]

 
Your interpretation would be totally ridiculous because under it any act of killing could be called 'genocide', even of only one person, since every individual is a part of some group or another.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That the result if awful doesn't mean you can just go ahead shooting out misused words all over the place. For all I know there may have been examples of genocide in American history, but that's beside the point. If there have been, show some evidence that it was genocide.


It is actually well known that genocide was frequent in the history of the Americas, one can just take the genocide against the natives of Tierra del Fuego as an example, it was intentional since there was even bounty paid for dead natives.
Many times the natives just stood in the way for exploitation of natural resources, as in many cases in the Amazon region even in modern times, and where genocided so that these resourses were more easily accessible.

Like I said. Show some evidence. That lots of people were killed isn't enough evidence. It isn't even evidence that people were paid bounties for dead natives (bounties are paid for some animals in some countries, even though the intent is only to manage their numbers, not to exterminate the species).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 02:37

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

I know that. It was a silly mistake to word it that way. Now go and read the commentaries and the discussions following the inauguration of the ICJ. Start from wikipedia and note in particular: "The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups."



Now it actually says that and if you think it is a silly mistake then it is up to you. It is actually good that is says so because it is sometimes difficult to separate a part of a group from a larger group. Such can lead to endless discussions about definitions. If you kill a little group of hundred people living on a piece of land you want access to and that group is a part of a larger ethnic group but still show some specific traits, have you committed genocide then? With this definition you have whether you consider the little tribe a part of a larger ethnic group or you consider it a group of their own. That is actually an advantage with this kind of writing.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Your interpretation would be totally ridiculous because under it any act of killing could be called 'genocide', even of only one person, since every individual is a part of some group or another.



Actually there was a case when the killing of four people was labelled as genocide in a court.

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

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Like I said. Show some evidence. That lots of people were killed isn't enough evidence. It isn't even evidence that people were paid bounties for dead natives (bounties are paid for some animals in some countries, even though the intent is only to manage their numbers, not to exterminate the species).


Read up on Tierra del Fuego then, it is easy to find material about these peoples and the genocide on them that was conducted in order to get rid of them since they were in the way and disturbed economic activiteis as sheep farming.



Edited by Carcharodon - 06 Nov 2009 at 02:37
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 06:05
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

I know that. It was a silly mistake to word it that way. Now go and read the commentaries and the discussions following the inauguration of the ICJ. Start from wikipedia and note in particular: "The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups."



Now it actually says that and if you think it is a silly mistake then it is up to you.

Great balls of fire! That's NOT what I said was a silly mistake, that is what the definitions was CHANGED AND CORRECTED TO from the earlier version you quoted, which WAS a silly mistake.
 
Quote  
It is actually good that is says so because it is sometimes difficult to separate a part of a group from a larger group.
You'd better read again what it says. It says the intentional destruction of entire human groups.
 
You may only kill part of the group, but you must intend to destroy the entire group for it to be genocide.
Quote
 
Such can lead to endless discussions about definitions. If you kill a little group of hundred people living on a piece of land you want access to and that group is a part of a larger ethnic group but still show some specific traits, have you committed genocide then?
Don't know. Insufficient data. If you get into someone else's car and drive it away are you guilty of car theft? Don't know. Insufficient data.
Quote
With this definition you have whether you consider the little tribe a part of a larger ethnic group or you consider it a group of their own. That is actually an advantage with this kind of writing.
Sentence doesn't make sense. Did you mean 'you have genocide'? If so then it's not an advantage at all, unless you see the entire process as being to hang the title 'genocide' on anything you disapprove of. It's a disadvantage because it confuses to different situations, but you don't appear to care about casuing confusion as long as you can pin derogatory labels on things according to your whim.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Your interpretation would be totally ridiculous because under it any act of killing could be called 'genocide', even of only one person, since every individual is a part of some group or another.



Actually there was a case when the killing of four people was labelled as genocide in a court.

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

[QUOTE]Insufficient data. Don't know enough about the circumstances. However I note that, contrary to the impression you give, the sentences were later overturned.
 
Sounds like the junior court was like you - just eager to use the label on someone, irrespective of the legal position. If they'd just stuck at murder, maybe the court's verdict would have been upheld. [QUOTE]

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Like I said. Show some evidence. That lots of people were killed isn't enough evidence. It isn't even evidence that people were paid bounties for dead natives (bounties are paid for some animals in some countries, even though the intent is only to manage their numbers, not to exterminate the species).


Read up on Tierra del Fuego then, it is easy to find material about these peoples and the genocide on them that was conducted in order to get rid of them since they were in the way and disturbed economic activiteis as sheep farming.

Give me a source I can access.
 
Like I said, I'm not claiming there were no cases of genocide in the Americas. I'm just pointing out that you're biassing the terminology again.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 07:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Great balls of fire! That's NOT what I said was a silly mistake, that is what the definitions was CHANGED AND CORRECTED TO from the earlier version you quoted, which WAS a silly mistake.



Well, still it actually says what I quoted in the text:

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


www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

And if some courts change the definitions back and forth does not say how to use the term in common language.


Here you can see a list of definitions, and it is actually up to one self which one choose to follow when one talk about the phenomenon. The definition is dependent on the context.

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


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You may only kill part of the group, but you must intend to destroy the entire group for it to be genocide.


Well, many times it cannot immediately be decided which is a an entire group or a part of a group. And an entire group can consist of millions of people or by ten people (the Akuntsu peole of Brazil actually consists of six people).

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Sentence doesn't make sense. Did you mean 'you have genocide'? If so then it's not an advantage at all, unless you see the entire process as being to hang the title 'genocide' on anything you disapprove of. It's a disadvantage because it confuses to different situations, but you don't appear to care about casuing confusion as long as you can pin derogatory labels on things according to your whim.

It is you confusing matters. It seems that you want to narrow down terms like genocide to such a degree that nothing in the end will actually be considered genocide, if one should follow your definition.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

]Insufficient data. Don't know enough about the circumstances. However I note that, contrary to the impression you give, the sentences were later overturned.

 

Sounds like the junior court was like you - just eager to use the label on someone, irrespective of the legal position. If they'd just stuck at murder, maybe the court's verdict would have been upheld.


The sentence were changed but still it was considered genocide.

The massacre of the Tikuna was the second case in connection with which people were convicted of genocide in Brazil.

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/711/41/
 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Give me a source I can access.

About one of them that genocided the fuegians:

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


Litttle about the thoughts about the genocide in chile:

http://intercontinentalcry.org/genocide-in-chile-a-monument-is-not-enough/

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Like I said, I'm not claiming there were no cases of genocide in the Americas. I'm just pointing out that you're biassing the terminology again.


It is you that try to confuse terminology by reducing and narrow it down to meaninglesness. That is biassing.



Edited by Carcharodon - 06 Nov 2009 at 08:21
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 09:30
Gee, Wikipedia as the final source for the definition of juridical terms! Zombies anyone?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 10:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...How individuals might have behaved is one thing but in terms of laws and their history with respect to Spanish America, the use of genocide is idiotic.
 
Hidding the crimes is complicity.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 20:36
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Great balls of fire! That's NOT what I said was a silly mistake, that is what the definitions was CHANGED AND CORRECTED TO from the earlier version you quoted, which WAS a silly mistake.



Well, still it actually says what I quoted in the text:

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

 
 
Which was subsequently corrected because of the glaring hole in it.
Quote www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

And if some courts change the definitions back and forth does not say how to use the term in common language.


Here you can see a list of definitions, and it is actually up to one self which one choose to follow when one talk about the phenomenon. The definition is dependent on the context.

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

 
Which just goes to show the confusion that results when people like you make up definitions willy-nilly for their own purposes. The way it works is that someone (like you) wants to condemn something as vehemently as possible, so you think of a nice nasty-sounding word like 'genocide', and change its definition so that it fits whatever you want to condemn. Which is pure sophistry.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You may only kill part of the group, but you must intend to destroy the entire group for it to be genocide.


Well, many times it cannot immediately be decided which is a an entire group or a part of a group. And an entire group can consist of millions of people or by ten people (the Akuntsu peole of Brazil actually consists of six people).

If it can't be decided, then it can't be called genocide. If you can't decide something is murder or not, you can't condemn it as murder. If you can't decide whether something is blue, you can't call it blue. D'uh!
 
If a eacial or whatever group consists of six people, and you try and kill them all, whether you succeed or not, that's genocide. If a group consists of a million people, and you kill ten thousand of them, that's not genocide unless you were (and can be proved to have been) trying to kill the entire million and any descendants they might have.
 
As an example the massacre of tens of thousands of Poles at Katyn by the Soviet forces was not genocide (even though the Polish Parliament may have tried to get it classified as such.)
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Sentence doesn't make sense. Did you mean 'you have genocide'? If so then it's not an advantage at all, unless you see the entire process as being to hang the title 'genocide' on anything you disapprove of. It's a disadvantage because it confuses to different situations, but you don't appear to care about casuing confusion as long as you can pin derogatory labels on things according to your whim.

It is you confusing matters. It seems that you want to narrow down terms like genocide to such a degree that nothing in the end will actually be considered genocide, if one should follow your definition.

Not in the least. All you have to do is show that there was an attempt, not necessarily successful, to massacre every member of a particular group. This happened for instance with the conquest of Prussia by the Teutonic orders. The Holocaust was genocide, because it was the declared ambîtion of the Nazi leadership to exterminate the Jews. There seems to be a good case that the killing of Tasmanian aborigines was genocide, since the intent seems to have been to eliminate them, even though it was stopped by the exile of the survivors to Flinders Island.
 
On the other hand, your was of proceeding means that anything you like can be called 'genocide' since to you the word only means you disapprove of it.
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Insufficient data. Don't know enough about the circumstances. However I note that, contrary to he impression you give, the sentences were later overturned.

 Sounds like the junior court was like you - just eager to use the label on someone, irrespective of the legal position. If they'd just stuck at murder, maybe the court's verdict would have been upheld.


The sentence were changed but still it was considered genocide.

Oh come on! If someone is charged with murder and then acquitted it means he didn't murder anyone. They were originally convicted of genocide and then the superior court said, no, they weren't guilty of genocide. So it was NOT considered genocide, except by he court that was overruled.
Quote
The massacre of the Tikuna was the second case in connection with which people were convicted of genocide in Brazil.

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/711/41/

Wrongly, as the appeal court pointed out. If someone was wrongly convisted of genocide that shows it was not genocide, not that it was.
Quote
 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Give me a source I can access.

About one of them that genocided the fuegians:

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


Litttle about the thoughts about the genocide in chile:

http://intercontinentalcry.org/genocide-in-chile-a-monument-is-not-enough/

The last one looks like genocide to me. What's your point? The people calling it genocide are using my definition.
 
The Popper case is sketchy ad what you gave certainly doesn't amount to anything other than an allegation of genocide. Hunting people for sport, even if he was guilty of it, isn't genocide. Deer hunters aren't trying to exterminate deer: in fact they put a lot of effort into maintaining the stock.
Quote

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Like I said, I'm not claiming there were no cases of genocide in the Americas. I'm just pointing out that you're biassing the terminology again.


It is you that try to confuse terminology by reducing and narrow it down to meaninglesness. That is biassing.

It becomes meaningless when it can be applied to anything, as you argue (everyone is free to pick his own definition you said - or at least implied.)
 
Looking for precision is not meaningless and it's not me looking for it. Genocide is a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (and the occasional related ad hoc tribunals).  So it's their definition that matters, just as in any particular jurisdiction in any particular case whether something is or is not 'theft' is a matter for the relevant court to decide. And it has to operate within some kind of fixed parameters.
 
Massacre and mass killing in general are not genocide. Genocide is a specific kind of mass killing. Otherwise we wouldn't need the word.
 
Your way of thinking would simply justify a court deciding someone stole something on the grounds they didn't like his face, and that was how they defined 'theft'.


Edited by gcle2003 - 06 Nov 2009 at 20:43
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 21:16
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Which just goes to show the confusion that results when people like you make up definitions willy-nilly for their own purposes. The way it works is that someone (like you) wants to condemn something as vehemently as possible, so you think of a nice nasty-sounding word like 'genocide', and change its definition so that it fits whatever you want to condemn. Which is pure sophistry.


Like me? Wow, then there must be an awful lot of schoolars, writers, lawyers and others working with this issues who  is like me.


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Oh come on! If someone is charged with murder and then acquitted it means he didn't murder anyone. They were originally convicted of genocide and then the superior court said, no, they weren't guilty of genocide. So it was NOT considered genocide, except by he court that was overruled.


Actually the sentence was lowered for some of them, but they still did commit genocide. One person was released but still the other got punished.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It becomes meaningless when it can be applied to anything, as you argue (everyone is free to pick his own definition you said - or at least implied.)
 
Looking for precision is not meaningless and it's not me looking for it. Genocide is a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (and the occasional related ad hoc tribunals).  So it's their definition that matters, just as in any particular jurisdiction in any particular case whether something is or is not 'theft' is a matter for the relevant court to decide. And it has to operate within some kind of fixed parameters.


If one narrow down a definition to much then it for sure become meaningless since it will be nearly impossible to use it, which will mean that a lot of people who is committing genocide will get away. If so, its not much of a law.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Massacre and mass killing in general are not genocide. Genocide is a specific kind of mass killing. Otherwise we wouldn't need the word.


According to many definitions it is.
And to have a certain definition and not be able to use it because you outdefine nearly everyone from it is indeed meaningless.

By the way, this thread is about aboriginal peoples and their situation in the world today. Maybe you have something constructive to say in that subject instead of sabotaging the thread with meaningless wordpicking?

Here is a couple of books dealing with genocide in the context of aboriginal peoples:

Kierman, Ben:  Blood and soil: A world History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur.

Costo, Rupert and Costo, Jeannette Henry (eds): The Missions of California: A Legacy of Genocide.

Churchill, Ward: A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present.
 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 01:32
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Which just goes to show the confusion that results when people like you make up definitions willy-nilly for their own purposes. The way it works is that someone (like you) wants to condemn something as vehemently as possible, so you think of a nice nasty-sounding word like 'genocide', and change its definition so that it fits whatever you want to condemn. Which is pure sophistry.


Like me? Wow, then there must be an awful lot of schoolars, writers, lawyers and others working with this issues who  is like me.
That's why the problem is a serious one. If it was just you it woudn't matter.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

  
Looking for precision is not meaningless and it's not me looking for it. Genocide is a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (and the occasional related ad hoc tribunals).  So it's their definition that matters, just as in any particular jurisdiction in any particular case whether something is or is not 'theft' is a matter for the relevant court to decide. And it has to operate within some kind of fixed parameters.


If one narrow down a definition to much then it for sure become meaningless since it will be nearly impossible to use it, which will mean that a lot of people who is committing genocide will get away. If so, its not much of a law.
That's silly. How is sentencing someone (possibly to death) for mass murder letting him 'get away'?
You might give it a little thought.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Massacre and mass killing in general are not genocide. Genocide is a specific kind of mass killing. Otherwise we wouldn't need the word.


According to many definitions it is.
Is what? I said genocide is a specific kind of mass killing, and as such is well defined in international law. For instance massacre is a different kind of mass killing in that all the killings have to take plac e in a short period of time. Since massacre is defined by numbers in a short time, while genocide is defined by motivation, an event can be both genocide and a massacre, but it doesn't have to be both.
 
If all forms of mass murder were genocide, then there'd be no point in having the word 'genocide'.
Quote
To have a certain definition and not be able to use it because you outdefine nearly everyone from it is indeed meaningless.
You can use the definition. There are examples of genocide. You sholdn't just muddle up the picture by using words in ways peculiar to yourself, or some group you belong too.
Similarly it's a fundamental mistake to call Hitler a fascist, but people do it.
Quote
By the way, this thread is about aboriginal peoples and their situation in the world today. Maybe you have something constructive to say in that subject instead of sabotaging the thread with meaningless wordpicking?
I'm trying to rescue the thread from just being a denunciation of things you think are bad and lumping labels randomly on everything in sight.
Quote
Here is a couple of books dealing with genocide in the context of aboriginal peoples:

Kierman, Ben:  Blood and soil: A world History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur.

Costo, Rupert and Costo, Jeannette Henry (eds): The Missions of California: A Legacy of Genocide.

Churchill, Ward: A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present.
 
Like I said, I don't think you'ere the only one debasing the word, just as you aren't the only one that debases the word 'slavery'.
 
If someone's arguing that Genesis is true it's not much use using the Bible as evidence.


Edited by gcle2003 - 07 Nov 2009 at 01:35
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...How individuals might have behaved is one thing but in terms of laws and their history with respect to Spanish America, the use of genocide is idiotic.
 
Hidding the crimes is complicity.
 
Do you really want to entertain such foolishness, Pinguin? Why not then speak of the genocide conducted by the Jacobins throughout Europe in the 1790s and while we are at it, consider those poor Kulaks at the hands of Stalin? Fashionable verbosity is hardly good historical analysis, and in terms of the Americas actually a travesty when approached in terms of juridical tradition and interpretation.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:52
And here I must note the mention of several names:
 
Ward Churchill: As much a fraud as Carlos Castaneda, with a competence in historical study as tenuous as that of Goebbels!
 
Rupert and Jeanette Costo: Neither of these authors made any pretence at historical objectivity and their objective dealt with contemporary Amerindian political issues. In a way, it is but a chapter in the current "culture" wars. The Costos were "Indian Rights" activists and not historians therefore their work has to be understood within that context.
 
Ben Kiernan: The example sans pareil on how historical terminology can be misapplied and turned into a publishing "industry". From the Cambodian "genocide" experience, to the multiplicity of genocide throughout history one can witness the career of the Academic "Left" in its shifts through the political winds. As with Chomsky, Kiernan is an aficionado of the trend "if I'm an expert here I am also an expert elsewhere", all done to suit his personal political lights.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 11:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...Do you really want to entertain such foolishness, Pinguin? Why not then speak of the genocide conducted by the Jacobins throughout Europe in the 1790s and while we are at it, consider those poor Kulaks at the hands of Stalin? Fashionable verbosity is hardly good historical analysis, and in terms of the Americas actually a travesty when approached in terms of juridical tradition and interpretation.
 
Because Europe is too far away. It really don't move me much at all.
What really shocks me it the level of cruelty Europeans (an allien group) deployed in the Americas... With impunity. And nobody can even criticize that.


Edited by pinguin - 07 Nov 2009 at 11:13
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 19:14

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


I'm trying to rescue the thread from just being a denunciation of things you think are bad and lumping labels randomly on everything in sight.


Since genocide is a term that is frequently used in literature about aboriginal people both in the Americas and other places I feel it is fully acceptable to use it, even if it is against your narrow definitions.
 
So just try to come up with something constructive and useful to say in the subject of aboriginal peoples instead of endless wordpicking.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

If someone's arguing that Genesis is true it's not much use using the Bible as evidence.


Well, I will surely agree with the definitions of  genocide used by known authors and experts in this field than by an unknown person on the net.



Edited by Carcharodon - 07 Nov 2009 at 19:44
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 19:19
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

And here I must note the mention of several names:
 
Ward Churchill: As much a fraud as Carlos Castaneda, with a competence in historical study as tenuous as that of Goebbels!
 
Rupert and Jeanette Costo: Neither of these authors made any pretence at historical objectivity and their objective dealt with contemporary Amerindian political issues. In a way, it is but a chapter in the current "culture" wars. The Costos were "Indian Rights" activists and not historians therefore their work has to be understood within that context.
 
Ben Kiernan: The example sans pareil on how historical terminology can be misapplied and turned into a publishing "industry". From the Cambodian "genocide" experience, to the multiplicity of genocide throughout history one can witness the career of the Academic "Left" in its shifts through the political winds. As with Chomsky, Kiernan is an aficionado of the trend "if I'm an expert here I am also an expert elsewhere", all done to suit his personal political lights.
 


Well, it is always easy to critizise and badmouth authors and schoolars who express opinions that do not correspond with ones own.

As for example the Costos book about California missions is well researched and take into account many different accounts from the time in question, both written but also preserved oral traditions, a source many times neglected by more narrow minded historians.

And the question is if there can be at all some objective history since we all watch history through a lens of preconceived notions. Even in the choice of questions we ask to the historical record we are biassed and not entirely objective.
But I presume you heard about this discussion before.



Edited by Carcharodon - 07 Nov 2009 at 19:53
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 19:32
If some of us consider accepting some sort of "regret", "moral compensation"or whatever on part of "europeans" towards "americans"(all, not only usamericans), then there follows a lot of questions of furhter "details".1:The question of how far back we should go. To the"beginning of times"? Then there inevitably would be a lot of possible ways to accuse practically every part of humanity.2: Who did what? Most "europeans" of all times stayed home.  In "Spanish" Americas of course spaniards and perhaps a few others were most active. 3: Many of the direct descendants of those most "active" (and often cruel) may not at all be living in todays Europe, but - guess - perhaps Americas? (of course that is but part of the case, and then why blame biological descendants in particular?)
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 19:49
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

If some of us consider accepting some sort of "regret", "moral compensation"or whatever on part of "europeans" towards "americans"(all, not only usamericans), then there follows a lot of questions of furhter "details".1:The question of how far back we should go. To the"beginning of times"? Then there inevitably would be a lot of possible ways to accuse practically every part of humanity.2: Who did what? Most "europeans" of all times stayed home.  In "Spanish" Americas of course spaniards and perhaps a few others were most active. 3: Many of the direct descendants of those most "active" (and often cruel) may not at all be living in todays Europe, but - guess - perhaps Americas? (of course that is but part of the case, and then why blame biological descendants in particular?)


Most important is of course that the present discrimination and different kind of opression against aboriginal people will stop and that one at least recognize and respect the land belonging to them today. In many places opression, violence and displacement are still going on.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 20:39
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

If some of us consider accepting some sort of "regret", "moral compensation"or whatever on part of "europeans" towards "americans"(all, not only usamericans), then there follows a lot of questions of furhter "details".1:The question of how far back we should go. To the"beginning of times"? Then there inevitably would be a lot of possible ways to accuse practically every part of humanity.2: Who did what? Most "europeans" of all times stayed home.  In "Spanish" Americas of course spaniards and perhaps a few others were most active. 3: Many of the direct descendants of those most "active" (and often cruel) may not at all be living in todays Europe, but - guess - perhaps Americas? (of course that is but part of the case, and then why blame biological descendants in particular?)
 
Actually, some material compensations should be fine, as well. For instance, Spain should return the silver it robbed from Bolivia. The amount of money is in the range of the hundred of billions of dollars. Confused
 
Spaniards commited a long list of crimes, but they don't deserve to be called the cruelest. It is easier to show the other powers in the Americas behaved a lot worst. Portuguese in Brazil, for instance, captured as much Indian slaves as Blacks brought from Africa. Brits and the Americans that followed them, started the debacle of the American Indians in North America, and wiped out that people from existence.
 
Yes, in Latin America at least, we -the bastard mixed descends of Europeans and Indians- still remember with hate the European invasions. We still think history forget the important things, the biggest crimes, and just focus in showing a nice image to calm conciences.
 
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 21:44
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


I'm trying to rescue the thread from just being a denunciation of things you think are bad and lumping labels randomly on everything in sight.


Since genocide is a term that is frequently used in literature about aboriginal people both in the Americas and other places I feel it is fully acceptable to use it, even if it is against your narrow definitions.

Not MY definitions. I quoted the authorities to you often enough.
Quote
 
So just try to come up with something constructive and useful to say in the subject of aboriginal peoples instead of endless wordpicking.
Stopping endless political propagandising is useful.
 
If you'd only pay attention to the legal situation as accepted by the world community instead of isisting on uying the word as a dimple term of abuse there wouldn't be any need to confront you with reality.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

If someone's arguing that Genesis is true it's not much use using the Bible as evidence.


Well, I will surely agree with the definitions of  genocide used by known authors and experts in this field than by an unknown person on the net.

Carcharodon, what you are doing is opposing the use of the word as defined by the international courts responsible for prosecuting the crime. Just becaiuse you want to feel you're operating in some noble cause.
 
Noble causes don't make for rational arguments.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 21:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Most important is of course that the present discrimination and different kind of opression against aboriginal people will stop and that one at least recognize and respect the land belonging to them today. In many places opression, violence and displacement are still going on.
 
No. The most importat thing is that present negative discrimination and oppression stop. Doesn't make any difference whether the people are 'aboriginal' in whatever sense you are using the word or not.
 
It's kind of sickening that you're prepared to accept that discrimination and opporession don't matter so much as long as the people being oppressed aren't 'aboriginal'
 
We are all aboriginal to this planet.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3603
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 23:31

 

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Most important is of course that the present discrimination and different kind of opression against aboriginal people will stop and that one at least recognize and respect the land belonging to them today. In many places opression, violence and displacement are still going on.

Do you also think Swedes have more right to the land than recent immigrants? Should Allemansrätten only apply to natives?

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 00:10
Pinguino, in re:  "Yes, in Latin America at least, we -the bastard mixed descends of Europeans and Indians- still remember with hate the European invasions. We still think history forget the important things, the biggest crimes, and just focus in showing a nice image to calm conciences."

Oh my God! Pinguino, Give it a rest! Or as 'we' say, Ay, por Dios, dejete las pendejadas! And, by the way, the USA has lots of Indians. But let's not rehash that issue again.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 01:02

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Carcharodon, what you are doing is opposing the use of the word as defined by the international courts responsible for prosecuting the crime. Just becaiuse you want to feel you're operating in some noble cause.

 
Noble causes don't make for rational arguments.


Since not even the courts cannot always agree how to interpret the definition than one can for sure use it in a way that is accepted by many authors and schoolars.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Stopping endless political propagandising is useful.


You just try to obstruct arguments and definitions that you yourself do not like or approve of. That is not useful. It just show YOUR bias.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No. The most importat thing is that present negative discrimination and oppression stop. Doesn't make any difference whether the people are 'aboriginal' in whatever sense you are using the word or not.

It's kind of sickening that you're prepared to accept that discrimination and opporession don't matter so much as long as the people being oppressed aren't 'aboriginal'

We are all aboriginal to this planet.

I do not accept other forms of opression either, but now this thread happens to be about aboriginal peoples.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Do you also think Swedes have more right to the land than recent immigrants? Should Allemansrätten only apply to natives?

Not comparable. What I am talking about is land that been stolen, taken away, from the aboriginals, in many occations even in rather recent times.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 03:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Carcharodon, what you are doing is opposing the use of the word as defined by the international courts responsible for prosecuting the crime. Just becaiuse you want to feel you're operating in some noble cause.

 
Noble causes don't make for rational arguments.


Since not even the courts cannot always agree how to interpret the definition than one can for sure use it in a way that is accepted by many authors and schoolars.

And political campaigners and do-gooders looking for somewhere to pin some blame and make it sound as lurid as possible.
 
The courts are in agreement about the definition. The original UN definition has been abandoned because it could be used to classify any murder - or at least any mass murder - as genocide.
Not that you and the people you follow care about that, since it's what you want to do anyway.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Stopping endless political propagandising is useful.


You just try to obstruct arguments and definitions that you yourself do not like or approve of. That is not useful. It just show YOUR bias.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No. The most importat thing is that present negative discrimination and oppression stop. Doesn't make any difference whether the people are 'aboriginal' in whatever sense you are using the word or not.

It's kind of sickening that you're prepared to accept that discrimination and opporession don't matter so much as long as the people being oppressed aren't 'aboriginal'

We are all aboriginal to this planet.

I do not accept other forms of opression either, but now this thread happens to be about aboriginal peoples.

I deliberately sis not say you didn't care at all, but that you obviously don't think discriminating against or oppressing other groups is as important or serious as oppressing 'aboritginal' gtoups (i.e. groups you happen to favour). If you did think the rights of other peoples were as important as those of aborigines, why start the thread in the first place?
Quote

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Do you also think Swedes have more right to the land than recent immigrants? Should Allemansrätten only apply to natives?

Not comparable. What I am talking about is land that been stolen, taken away, from the aboriginals, in many occations even in rather recent times.

Define 'rather recent'. And why would it make any difference when the land was taken? 1,000 years OK is OK? 2,000 years? 500 years? 100 years? Pick a date and explain what's so important about it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 05:00

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

The courts are in agreement about the definition. The original UN definition has been abandoned because it could be used to classify any murder - or at least any mass murder - as genocide.


Jurists and other experts all over the worlda are still duscussing the definitons of genocide and how to handle these kind of questions. And many intellectuals and schoolars are also discussing and redefining the definition. Its an ongoing debate.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I deliberately sis not say you didn't care at all, but that you obviously don't think discriminating against or oppressing other groups is as important or serious as oppressing 'aboritginal' gtoups (i.e. groups you happen to favour). If you did think the rights of other peoples were as important as those of aborigines, why start the thread in the first place?


Well, its not because I do not think other forms of opression is not important, but just because I happen to be interested in these matters. We all have our interests.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Define 'rather recent'. And why would it make any difference when the land was taken? 1,000 years OK is OK? 2,000 years? 500 years? 100 years? Pick a date and explain what's so important about it.

Especially I think it is important where their land still today is invaded, as in several places in the Amazon, and the indigenous peoples still are being displaced, or killed. Look earlier in this thread, there I have some links to reportings of such cases.

Many aboriginal peoples has also been promised land or other compensations earlier but as soon as the takers of their land find something valuable on that land the promises are broken. Not very unusual unfortunately.

And in the case of Sweden, as Styrbiorn mentioned, there are no invasion today of peoples from other places coming here and taking Swedish land by force and displacing the Swedes.



Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 07:22
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

The courts are in agreement about the definition. The original UN definition has been abandoned because it could be used to classify any murder - or at least any mass murder - as genocide.


Jurists and other experts all over the worlda are still duscussing the definitons of genocide and how to handle these kind of questions. And many intellectuals and schoolars are also discussing and redefining the definition. Its an ongoing debate.

What's beyond serious debate is that a crime must be specifically and narrowly defined to be the subjet of legislation. You can't, for instance, have everyone going around with their own definition of theft. (Why incidentally do you never answer any of these points?) In this case the approriate body is the ICJ and there is utterly no doubt that as far as the court is concerned the intent mustbe an attempt to destroy an entire racial, religious, ethnic group.
 
The wish to have your own definition just so you can stigmatise actions you disapprove of is at base childish. 'Genocide' becomes a totally useless term if all it means is mass murder or 'hate crime'. (Again, why do you never answer any of these points? All you do is quote other people making the same mistake, usually it would appear for the same reason.)
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I deliberately sis not say you didn't care at all, but that you obviously don't think discriminating against or oppressing other groups is as important or serious as oppressing 'aboritginal' gtoups (i.e. groups you happen to favour). If you did think the rights of other peoples were as important as those of aborigines, why start the thread in the first place?


Well, its not because I do not think other forms of opression is not important, but just because I happen to be interested in these matters. We all have our interests.

And yours is that 'aboriginal' peoples are more deserving than other groups? Why? Why is it wrse to discriminate against people whove been somewhere a long time than to discriminat against recent immigrans?
 
Like I said, we are all aboriginal on planet earth. In fact we are all African aborigines. That'0s what is important to remember.
 
The more enlightened of us believe in equality of rights before the law.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Define 'rather recent'. And why would it make any difference when the land was taken? 1,000 years OK is OK? 2,000 years? 500 years? 100 years? Pick a date and explain what's so important about it.

Especially I think it is important where their land still today is invaded, as in several places in the Amazon, and the indigenous peoples still are being displaced, or killed. Look earlier in this thread, there I have some links to reportings of such cases.

That simply dodges the question. I'll repeat it, though not in much hope of getting an answer.
Quote

Many aboriginal peoples has also been promised land or other compensations earlier but as soon as the takers of their land find something valuable on that land the promises are broken. Not very unusual unfortunately.

You continually dodge the issue. Why is it worse when that happens to 'aborigines' than when it happens to other people?
Quote
And in the case of Sweden, as Styrbiorn mentioned, there are no invasion today of peoples from other places coming here and taking Swedish land by force and displacing the Swedes.

I don't know enough about Swedish history to comment. But certainly the Anglo-Saxons took England at least by force from the British, breaking promises when they did so. And the norkans took it from the Anglo-Saxons, though not so far as I know breaking promises in doing so.
 
Does that mean people of pure Welsh descent should now get preferential treatment over those of pure Anglo-Saxon or Norman descent? What about mixed races?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 07:30
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

...Oh my God! Pinguino, Give it a rest! Or as 'we' say, Ay, por Dios, dejete las pendejadas! And, by the way, the USA has lots of Indians. But let's not rehash that issue again.
 
Why so sensitive? I am just telling what many Latin American people feel about the topic.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 12:03
To grab a line from Edward Kleban's lyrics in A Chorus Line, most Latin Americans "feel nothing" about this topic as parroted by the usual agiprop contenders. In fact, except for the small circle of smarmy intellectuals who feed on the topic like vampires, I would venture popular sentiment is against the granting of "special privilege" (specially on questions of land) solely on the basis of declaring one's self an "aborigene". However, Pinguin, when Carch goes on about Amazonians you shimmy like my sister Kate, but when it comes to the genocide mash, you skate even weirder than Hans Brinker!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 12:11
Of course. These damn Spaniards ancestors of ours, that mixed with local Indigenous women, make us always be in the middle of a Hamletianian dilema. They should had stayed at Europe instead, and never ventured to the Paradyse... I mean, the New World.
 
Today is too late, though.
 
With respect to Indians claiming they are Indians, we can tell them we, mixed, are Indians too, so we don't find natives have any special priviledge to the land that we lack.
 
Anyways, the image we preffer is this. We criollos giving the big kick at the back to Spaniards and spelling them back to Europe.
 
 
Spaniards! GO!
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.