Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yanlin]

Yay. I befriended a tank.

[chaoticag]

Here is to your safety Yanlin. The entire situation is one big mess when you look at it.

[Yanlin]

Let's rename this the "We care about Yanlin thread."

[JoshuaFH]

Let's rename this the "We care about Yanlin thread."

You make it sound like not a big deal Yanlin, where I live, I don't even have fire hydrants in my neighborhood, let alone bomb-proof rooms in every house.

[Yanlin]

It's not a big deal. Have you seen the rockets they fire? They barely do any damage. Even if one hits my house directly there will be barely any damage.

[JoshuaFH]

I don't know Yanlin, I guess I'm just the type of person that worries about rockets.

[inaluct]

Let's rename this the "We care about Yanlin thread."

You make it sound like not a big deal Yanlin, where I live, I don't even have fire hydrants in my neighborhood, let alone bomb-proof rooms in every house.

You should move to Watts. You'll need those bomb-proof rooms.

[Frelock]

Wiping out people is never an answer, name me one genocide that has done the human race good.

Though this may be an off-topic now, since we all (myself included) care about our fellow Bay12er's in more dire circumstances than our own, I would like to answer this supposedly hypothetical question.  Before I start, however, I'd like to add the disclaimer that I'm not advocating Genocide here.  Genocide is inherently destructive, and does not begin to respect the worth of every human life.  It is not, and I will repeat, not something that should even be considered, much less put into practice.  However, just because the means are inherently evil, does not mean that "good" ends cannot be achieved.  I believe that the ends do not justify the means, but there are people who think otherwise...

I present to you two cases.  The first involves the destruction of Troy by the Greeks.  This genocide of the Trojans  (if accounts are to be believed) directly led to the establishment of the Greek colonies in Asia Minor, which itself spread Hellenism and Greek culture, including mathematics, philosophy,  and the arts.  In addition, though the point could be argued, I feel that the Greek colonies effectively divided the Greeks, enough for Alexander and his father, Phillip, to conquer the Greek homeland without severe losses.  This in turn led to the further spread of Hellenism throughout all of west Asia, as well as Egypt.  If we consider the spread of Hellanism to be a good thing (which I do, considering the Greeks were among the most advanced civilization of their time) then the Trojan genocide was most certainly a good thing.

The second case, which is a little less ambiguous and less open to argument, would be the oft-mentioned destruction of Carthage at the hand of the Romans.  Though again, you might see the spread of Roman influence as a bad thing, it is very clear that the spread of the Roman Empire enhanced the culture and scientific understanding throughout the Mediterranean, and led to an era of peace (Pax Romana) that has never been rivaled since.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Rome could not have made its great achievements without the complete and utter destruction of Carthage.  If nothing else, the Carthaginians had proved to be immensely capable of coming back from defeat and continuing to prosper (after all, they were defeated twice before and still put up a good fight).

Given, both of these examples are ancient, mainly because since ancient times, no-one has had the guts to completely and totally annihilate an enemy (except Hitler, but the Jews weren't really an enemy nation, per se; it would have been more interesting to see how Poland would have turned out).  That's why genocide doesn't work, because you have to be thorough.  You have to completely grind your enemy into the dust.  There will be peace on earth when thermonuclear war wipes us all out.

Again, the disclaimer that I DO NOT support genocide in any form.  I support historical awareness.

[Strife26]

I'd argue that both the trojans and the carthagians could have made those same advances by themselves, and the advances made by the greek city-states could have been better made through peaceful means.

Devil's advocate to a Devil's adovcate.

[inaluct]

If the Carthaginians hadn't been wiped out, they never would have stopped fighting with Rome. Ever. Same with the Greeks and Trojans. And do you really think that the Greeks, who were basically a group of angry city states that liked fighting each other, could have made a lasting peace with Troy?

And Carthage had it coming.

[E. Albright]

Given, both of these examples are ancient, mainly because since ancient times, no-one has had the guts to completely and totally annihilate an enemy (except Hitler, but the Jews weren't really an enemy nation, per se; it would have been more interesting to see how Poland would have turned out).  That's why genocide doesn't work, because you have to be thorough.  You have to completely grind your enemy into the dust.

I suggest you look long and hard at the European conquest of the Americas, either in whole or part (e.g., the "cleansing" of California in the mid-1800s), before making either the claim that successful genocide wasn't recent or must be absolute in order to "work".

[JoshuaFH]

If the Carthaginians hadn't been wiped out, they never would have stopped fighting with Rome. Ever. Same with the Greeks and Trojans. And do you really think that the Greeks, who were basically a group of angry city states that liked fighting each other, could have made a lasting peace with Troy?

And Carthage had it coming.

Ha, I remember reading all about Hannibal and his quest through Spain, the Alps, and all around Italy, thoroughly raping the MASSIVE Roman Legions with his practical strategies that the Romans never bothered with. I think the Romans just genocided the Carthage peoples in order to stop people like Hannibal from popping up again.

And to Frelock, I don't think the line of logic  "Genocide -> unexpected shit happens -> goodness" makes any sense.

[E. Albright]

If the Carthaginians hadn't been wiped out, they never would have stopped fighting with Rome. Ever. Same with the Greeks and Trojans. And do you really think that the Greeks, who were basically a group of angry city states that liked fighting each other, could have made a lasting peace with Troy?

And Carthage had it coming.

The history of what didn't happen has never been written. We are left with the victor's accounts of the righteousness of their genocides, as well as vague assumptions that nothing as simply wonderful as what they later did could have arisen from either them or their victims had they restrained themselves. It's one thing to observe they achieved certain things after having committed genocide; it's quite another to blithely assert post hoc ergo propter hoc justifications of their genocides as plainly having been necessary for such things to arise from them or anyone else.

[chaoticag]

Greece and Rome are not the human race. Their advances were even replicated in the Far East, and most people didn't even bother translating their works until the Muslim Empires decided to. Considering that they traded with China and India, not a lot of information would have been lost if they spontaniously ceased to exist.

Besides that, how do we know that greater good would have come from the genocide of people versus a colaboration with them? In that light, can we truly say that it did the world good?

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Ah, yes. 'Cause all people are kind at heart and wouldn't do bad things.
Hitler's party actively blamed minorities(incl. Jews) for their tough situation, and their electorate obviously didn't mind.
Which is so typical of nationalist countries. Look  ar the birth of modern Turkey, on the remains on Ottoman Empire, and how happily they indulged in genocides(of Greeks, of Armenians).

Most people would buy something like that if they thought it would stop them starving.
Germany at the time Hitler was elected (and then proceeded to do away with elections blah blah blah.) was mostly a hell-hole.
The country was pretty much worse than bankrupt and the government preceding the Nazi party seemed, to the people of Germany at least, to be having little effect.
Then this crazy Austrian guy who got arrested 10 years ago for attempting a coup makes a load of speeches that A: promise to make Germany great again and B: blames everything that's wrong in the country on a fairly small group of distinctly different people who a lot of people distrust a bit anyway.
Under normal circumstances, the people would have just ignored Hitler as a nutter.