Biggest causes of genocide?

[Votto]

In some ways, it's different. In the ways that matter, it's exactly the same.

We could spend weeks arguing what the definition of "nationalism" is, but in the context that I'm using the term, the wikipedia definition works decently well.

In very simple terms, nationalism is a facet of ideology defined by framing everything in terms of conflict, with the "nation" on one side, and the "enemy" on the other.

So basically ever group of people in history? lol

But that's not the dominant ideology in the US - no matter how much the Trumpists work towards that goal - or in many other western cultures.

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Violence and genocide are not synonyms.

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be equally impossible.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So basically ever group of people in history? lol

But that's not the dominant ideology in the US - no matter how much the Trumpists work towards that goal - or in many other western cultures.

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Violence and genocide are not synonyms.

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

 

[evenflow1969]

In some ways, it's different. In the ways that matter, it's exactly the same.

We could spend weeks arguing what the definition of "nationalism" is, but in the context that I'm using the term, the wikipedia definition works decently well.

In very simple terms, nationalism is a facet of ideology defined by framing everything in terms of conflict, with the "nation" on one side, and the "enemy" on the other.

So basically ever group of people in history? lol

But that's not the dominant ideology in the US - no matter how much the Trumpists work towards that goal - or in many other western cultures.

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Well I do not know when we have commited gencide other than the american indian. We kept a few around and we also had some help from other nations that were vying for the land that we in the end ended up with. Most of the killing was realy done before we were a nation by spanish explorers. Not that we and the mexicans did not finnish the job out west. I do not think there is a nation in the world that some one did not get pushed out to form the nation. We are a very young nation so our violent past is much more recent. We have not made entire races disappear recently. We do how ever commit violence across the globe due in part to our military strength. We could decide an isolationist policy and not use that strength.I am sure having it there is a big temptation!

United States war crimes - Wikipedia

US war-murdered 20-30 million since WW2: arrest today’s War Criminals | Washington's Blog

Lots of masecres no genocides. I did not see the word genocide on that page. I am not saying we are saints just not genocidal yet! Hope we never become that way.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So basically ever group of people in history? lol

But that's not the dominant ideology in the US - no matter how much the Trumpists work towards that goal - or in many other western cultures.

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Well I do not know when we have commited gencide other than the american indian. We kept a few around and we also had some help from other nations that were vying for the land that we in the end ended up with. Most of the killing was realy done before we were a nation by spanish explorers. Not that we and the mexicans did not finnish the job out west. I do not think there is a nation in the world that some one did not get pushed out to form the nation. We are a very young nation so our violent past is much more recent. We have not made entire races disappear recently. We do how ever commit violence across the globe due in part to our military strength. We could decide an isolationist policy and not use that strength.I am sure having it there is a big temptation!

United States war crimes - Wikipedia

US war-murdered 20-30 million since WW2: arrest today’s War Criminals | Washington's Blog

Lots of masecres no genocides. I did not see the word genocide on that page. I am not saying we are saints just not genocidal yet! Hope we never become that way.

Up to 1/3rd of Vietnam was killed, or maimed due to the actions of Lyndon B. Johnson the Civil Rights fore-bearer.

Explain how this isn't a genocide, exactly?

 

[Votto]

But that's not the dominant ideology in the US - no matter how much the Trumpists work towards that goal - or in many other western cultures.

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Violence and genocide are not synonyms.

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

 

[evenflow1969]

But that's not the dominant ideology in the US - no matter how much the Trumpists work towards that goal - or in many other western cultures.

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Well I do not know when we have commited gencide other than the american indian. We kept a few around and we also had some help from other nations that were vying for the land that we in the end ended up with. Most of the killing was realy done before we were a nation by spanish explorers. Not that we and the mexicans did not finnish the job out west. I do not think there is a nation in the world that some one did not get pushed out to form the nation. We are a very young nation so our violent past is much more recent. We have not made entire races disappear recently. We do how ever commit violence across the globe due in part to our military strength. We could decide an isolationist policy and not use that strength.I am sure having it there is a big temptation!

United States war crimes - Wikipedia

US war-murdered 20-30 million since WW2: arrest today’s War Criminals | Washington's Blog

Lots of masecres no genocides. I did not see the word genocide on that page. I am not saying we are saints just not genocidal yet! Hope we never become that way.

Up to 1/3rd of Vietnam was killed, or maimed due to the actions of Lyndon B. Johnson the Civil Rights fore-bearer.

Explain how this isn't a genocide, exactly?

Genocide is killing them all. DO not forget they were killing each other and china and russia were killin gthier fair share too. Civil wars are the worst on countries look at our own past more americans died in the civil war than any other!

 

[TNHarley]

The very definition of genocide is the killing of a large group of people. A fetus is not a people. Or a person. It doesnt even technically meet the requirements for life.

Really.

So what are the requirements for life?

Let me guess, being out of the womb.

Do i really need to post the definition of "life?"

YOU are the one making the accusation that the unborn child is not living, not me.

So if you are so all knowing, define it.

the existence of an individual human being or animal.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Good luck explaining that one lol

Looking in Webster's Dictionary, eh?

Well that is a scientific definition of life.

So tell me, is there a difference between human and animal life, scientifically speaking since that seems to be all you care about?\

I'll give you a hint, humans are different from animals BECAUSE humans were made in the image of God. That is why humans should not be treated as animals are, which is locked up in zoos, held as pets, used as beasts of burden, or killed and eaten.

That is why secular humanists scare the hell out of me.

Is that why there is so much slavery in your bible? lol
They scare the hell out of you because they dont believe in your man made god? Why is that scary?
And science isnt all i care about, but i damn sure dont want to use big brother to force gestation on people because of subjective opinions.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Nationalism has been a dominant ideal in Hungary, in Poland, in Slovakia, why are these countries in the past, and present far less genocidal / violent than the U.S.A, if you claim Nationalism hasn't been dominant in the U.S.A?

Violence and genocide are not synonyms.

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

Anglo's from Britain, or USA, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada killed / exterminated the Welsh, French, the Irish, the Scots, Native Americans, Asian Indian's, Australoid's, Maori, Chinese, Boers, Germans,Japanese, Mau-Mau, etc. etc.

As for Individualism, there's maps that prove it.

 

[Votto]

Really.

So what are the requirements for life?

Let me guess, being out of the womb.

Do i really need to post the definition of "life?"

YOU are the one making the accusation that the unborn child is not living, not me.

So if you are so all knowing, define it.

the existence of an individual human being or animal.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Good luck explaining that one lol

Looking in Webster's Dictionary, eh?

Well that is a scientific definition of life.

So tell me, is there a difference between human and animal life, scientifically speaking since that seems to be all you care about?\

I'll give you a hint, humans are different from animals BECAUSE humans were made in the image of God. That is why humans should not be treated as animals are, which is locked up in zoos, held as pets, used as beasts of burden, or killed and eaten.

That is why secular humanists scare the hell out of me.

Is that why there is so much slavery in your bible? lol
They scare the hell out of you because they dont believe in your man made god? Why is that scary?
And science isnt all i care about, but i damn sure dont want to use big brother to force gestation on people because of subjective opinions.

Who exactly had a problem with slavery? Was it not God releasing the Hebrew people from slavery? Does that ring a bell?

In fact, slaves in the Bible were not like the slaves in the South. Slavery in the Bible was a means of survival. In fact, they were released after 7 years, and were allowed to rest on the Sabbath.

Until that point slavery was the way of the world. The vast majority of people in the world were slaves, a world in which this act of Moses began to change.

Until that time, slavery was considered normal.

It was the God of the Bible who clued us otherwise.

 

[Votto]

Violence and genocide are not synonyms.

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

Anglo's from Britain, or USA, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada killed / exterminated the Welsh, French, the Irish, the Scots, Native Americans, Asian Indian's, Australoid's, Maori, Chinese, Boers, Germans,Japanese, Mau-Mau, etc. etc.

As for Individualism, there's maps that prove it.

Ok, what does individualism have to do with genocide?

Are you suggesting that individualism is necessary for mass genocide?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

Anglo's from Britain, or USA, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada killed / exterminated the Welsh, French, the Irish, the Scots, Native Americans, Asian Indian's, Australoid's, Maori, Chinese, Boers, Germans,Japanese, Mau-Mau, etc. etc.

As for Individualism, there's maps that prove it.

Ok, what does individualism have to do with genocide?

Are you suggesting that individualism is necessary for mass genocide?

There's not much of a correlation.

The most genocidal countries in Europe are like in this order Britain, Germany, Russia, France, and Belgium.

Out of the 5, only 1 is very Collectivist leaning.

However, out of the most genocidal regimes, that's a different story.

That yes, the Nazis, and Soviets were Collectivists.

IMO, Individualists are more violent, and Collectivism and can lead to genocide.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Ethnic population used to being rebellious, or anti-authority seem to have committed far less genocide, the inverse is true for populations which take faith, and obedience in authority.

This is true regardless of government type, government size, nor government control etc etc.

It explains why European countries rebellious like Poland, or Hungary didn't commit genocide like countries that are obedient like Germany, or Russia.

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

Anglo's from Britain, or USA, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada killed / exterminated the Welsh, French, the Irish, the Scots, Native Americans, Asian Indian's, Australoid's, Maori, Chinese, Boers, Germans,Japanese, Mau-Mau, etc. etc.

As for Individualism, there's maps that prove it.

Ok, what does individualism have to do with genocide?

Are you suggesting that individualism is necessary for mass genocide?

Does Individualism propel greed, does greed propel genocide?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

According to Hofstede, the most Individualist country in Europe is the UK, and the most collectivist country in Europe is Greece.

Also according to Hofstede the most Individualist country in both the World, and the America's is the U.S.A, while the most collectivist country in both the World, and the America's is Guatemala.

Individualism | Clearly Cultural

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The answer is populism and nationalism.

Putting your country as a high priority leads to genocide of your country? LMFAO

No, it usually results in genocides against those labelled as "enemies".

Opps, looks like overall, the opposite is true.

This map would appear to show that those with more traditional values (Akin to Nationalism) overall have less of a history of genocide.

Not a perfect pattern, but enough to prove you wrong overall.

 

[Votto]

Genocide on a large scale would be impossible without the power of a large collectivist state.

Also, war on a large scale would be impossible.

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

Anglo's from Britain, or USA, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada killed / exterminated the Welsh, French, the Irish, the Scots, Native Americans, Asian Indian's, Australoid's, Maori, Chinese, Boers, Germans,Japanese, Mau-Mau, etc. etc.

As for Individualism, there's maps that prove it.

Ok, what does individualism have to do with genocide?

Are you suggesting that individualism is necessary for mass genocide?

Does Individualism propel greed, does greed propel genocide?

From my vantage point most, if not all, genocide is based upon greed.

The slaves in the South were used as free labor, the Indians in America were driven off so that their land could be taken from them, the Jews were gathered up as their gold was taken from them and sent off to die, and the unborn is a multi million dollar industry where people go so they won't have to pay money to raise children.

Perhaps jihad could be said not to be based on greed, but then, jihad is all about overthrowing governments and playing king of the hill, so they are as well, I guess.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The answer is populism and nationalism.

Putting your country as a high priority leads to genocide of your country? LMFAO

No, it usually results in genocides against those labelled as "enemies".

Tell that to socialist dictators mao and stalin who killed over 100M people.
Lets compare all socialist dictators to fascists, shall we?
Maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

You don't think that Mao and Stalin were nationalists?

Populists, too.

Populist Authoritarian voters.

Most in Europe.
1.) Hungary.
2.) Norway.
3.) Poland.
4.) Denmark.
5.) Romania.

Least in Europe.
1.) Germany.
2.) Britain.
3.) France.
4.) Sweden.
5.) Latvia.

Explain how there's a correlation here?

If anything the correlation is quite the opposite here.

Source.
Cultural Backlash

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

If so true, why are Anglos the most Individualist ethnicity in the World, and also one of the most genocidal?

Do you have data to back that up?

Anglo's from Britain, or USA, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada killed / exterminated the Welsh, French, the Irish, the Scots, Native Americans, Asian Indian's, Australoid's, Maori, Chinese, Boers, Germans,Japanese, Mau-Mau, etc. etc.

As for Individualism, there's maps that prove it.

Ok, what does individualism have to do with genocide?

Are you suggesting that individualism is necessary for mass genocide?

Does Individualism propel greed, does greed propel genocide?

From my vantage point most, if not all, genocide is based upon greed.

The slaves in the South were used as free labor, the Indians in America were driven off so that their land could be taken from them, the Jews were gathered up as their gold was taken from them and sent off to die, and the unborn is a multi million dollar industry where people go so they won't have to pay money to raise children.

Perhaps jihad could be said not to be based on greed, but then, jihad is all about overthrowing governments and playing king of the hill, so they are as well, I guess.

Genocide perpetrators are made up of many individuals, so there's many reasons, but indeed I'd agree that greed is a big element.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'd argue that the biggest causes of genocide, are these in this order.

1.) Love, and tolerance.

Well, love, and tolerance of authority figures.

2.) Apathy, and submission.

Well, apathy, and submission to authority figures.

3.) Trust, and Faith.

Well, trust, and faith in authority figures.

4.) Big government, and big military.

Well, you already kind of figured that, right?

5.) Balkanization, and Diversity.

Well, how do you solve such conflicts that blow up when caused by Balkanization, and Diversity, a lot of times genocide erupts.

6.) The Psycho-path leader himself.

Well, you probably figured he was #1, right?

Well, I disagree, I happen to see that all of the above enable him, and the masses are a bigger cause.

The Psychopath simply can't get away with very, very much in society like genocide, without his enablers.

Thus the enablers are more of an issue, in at least total numbers.

The answer would appear to be POWER.

One group wants power over another, or one leader wants power and vilifies another group to make people like him and vote for him.

Sure, but that seems to also be prevalent in many societies without genocide, as well.

Well of course it does. Power is everywhere. It impacts everything.

Sometimes people need something to gain the power they want, and they turn towards genocide as a way to get it.

Milosevic used nationalism as his tool to get into power in Serbia, then he wanted to take over the whole of Yugoslavia but it disintegrated around him. Then he wanted to keep a grip on his power by using age old tactics of make people hate the enemy, and go after the enemy with genocide.

Hitler did too. It was a way of consolidating his power, getting rid of Jews, it showed people he was doing the right thing, if they were into that sort of thing, and he made them think he was right.

On an individual level you have enemies, and while they need these enemies to give them power, at some point maybe they think they need to go a little further in order to keep power.

Milosevic is over-stated by many Americans hypocritically, particularly those of Liberal view-points.

1.) Bosniak Muslims started the massacre events officially in the war, in the Sijekovac Killings.

2.) The massacre events from both sides are classic Balkanized conflicts. (Multi-ethnic,or Multi-religious)

3.) It was a Civil War, not unlike the American Civil War, Milosevic is akin to the beloved Abraham Lincoln, in that both didn't want countries to break-away.

4.) The American Civil War under Lincoln actually killed more than were killed under Milosevic.

5.) Prior to Islamic Turkic invasions, Serbia held these overall territories of Kosovo, and Bosnia.

6.) America under Clinton invading Milosevic would be like Britain invading Abraham Lincoln.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic we're talking about.

Milosevic wanted Serbia to be the superior part of Yugoslavia. "Greater Serbia".

The main area of genocide was against the Kosovan Albanians. People also say he was trying to wipe out the Muslim populations elsewhere.

You have Srebrenica before he went into Kosovo in 1999.

Some of the things that Milosevic did in Kosovo was to move out important infrastructure like power plants from Kosovo back into Serbian majority areas. Also forced everyone to be educated in Serbia. Also forced a 50/50 Serb/Kosovan Albanian quota on employees at any company in Kosovo, even when 90% of the people were Kosovan Albanians.

By the time the actual physical component of genocide/ethnic cleansing was taking place, the policy had been going for more than a decade.

Also perhaps you need to understand what genocide is. Genocide is not the physical killing of people en masse. It could include this, and certainly this is the most obvious part of genocide.

However genocide is the attempt, or success, of killing a culture.
Hitler tried to wipe out Jewish culture by killing the people.

The US tried to wipe out Native American cultures, often by removing children from their parents, giving cheap alcohol, few jobs, etc to people on poor land in reservations.

They're both genocide, even though they look rather different.

 

[2aguy]

I'd argue that the biggest causes of genocide, are these in this order.

1.) Love, and tolerance.

Well, love, and tolerance of authority figures.

2.) Apathy, and submission.

Well, apathy, and submission to authority figures.

3.) Trust, and Faith.

Well, trust, and faith in authority figures.

4.) Big government, and big military.

Well, you already kind of figured that, right?

5.) Balkanization, and Diversity.

Well, how do you solve such conflicts that blow up when caused by Balkanization, and Diversity, a lot of times genocide erupts.

6.) The Psycho-path leader himself.

Well, you probably figured he was #1, right?

Well, I disagree, I happen to see that all of the above enable him, and the masses are a bigger cause.

The Psychopath simply can't get away with very, very much in society like genocide, without his enablers.

Thus the enablers are more of an issue, in at least total numbers.

People who are not allowed to have guns.....

 

[2aguy]

The answer is populism and nationalism.

No.....socialism.....

WILLIAMS: Fascism And Communism

The People's Republic of China tops the list, with 76 million lives lost at the hands of the government from 1949 to 1987.
The Soviet Union follows, with 62 million lives lost from 1917 to 1987.
Adolf Hitler's Nazi German government killed 21 million people between 1933 and 1945.
Then there are lesser murdering regimes, such as Nationalist China, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam and Mexico.
According to Rummel's research, the 20th century saw 262 millionpeople's lives lost at the hands of their own governments.