|
Jel Shaker posted:guess who invented them That’s right. The Spanish https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/concentration-camps-existed-long-before-Auschwitz-180967049/ Guavanaut posted:It's definitely something that has gotten worse in the past few decades. Earlier ITT I mentioned this article on the very modern moralism of the American Christian right. That’s really interesting, thanks. The whole prisons for profits thing is so obscene I cannot imagine how anyone squares that with any kind of real. Christian belief.
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think the Black camps in South Africa meet the Nuremberg definition of 'extermination by labour'. There's not the premeditation nor industrial scale of the Nazi death camps, but extermination by indifference is still atrocity. I feel like we need to update our language on this kind of thing because obviously the holocaust is a very different thing to a lot of other events we describe as genocidal, but these are very emotive subjects so any attempt to bring nuance to them is often met with accusations of denialism. Like, you can argue that British policy towards the Highlands following the jacobite rebellions was technically genocidal in that it sought to stamp out a particular culture that threatened the established power structures, but I don't think the way that implicitly creates an equivalence with Nazi Germany is helpful for understanding either because clearly there's a big difference between literally being marched to an industrial death camp and not being allowed to wear a kilt/speak gaelic. British concentration camps in South Africa were again loving awful, but more tools of colonial power than anything else. That's not at all to say they weren't atrocities. I would suggest a distinction between active and passive genocide might be useful, with UK concentration camps being part of the latter while Auschwitz and maybe something like Rwanda being the former. It gets a little muddier with settler colonial states that used both strategies at different times though. But we do need to be able to soberly talk about these things without feeling like making those distinctions somehow rehabilitates any of them. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
That relies on everyone involved doing so in good faith, which you certainly cannot assume.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Oh you're excommunicated. Pope here, Miftan is de-excommunicated
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
oi pope ur poo poo m8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
crispix posted:oi pope ur poo poo m8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now THAT is worth excommunication.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
 CALL ME poo poo CRISPPPPPPPPPIXXXXXXX!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I feel like we need to update our language on this kind of thing because obviously the holocaust is a very different thing to a lot of other events we describe as genocidal, but these are very emotive subjects so any attempt to bring nuance to them is often met with accusations of denialism. Like, you can argue that British policy towards the Highlands following the jacobite rebellions was technically genocidal in that it sought to stamp out a particular culture that threatened the established power structures, but I don't think the way that implicitly creates an equivalence with Nazi Germany is helpful for understanding either because clearly there's a big difference between literally being marched to an industrial death camp and not being allowed to wear a kilt/speak gaelic. I've heard someone split them into "negligent genocide" for things like the Irish and Bengal famines, or starvation and epidemics in the concentration camps, where the deaths were technically accidental even if anyone with half a brain could see them coming, "indifferent genocide" for things like the clearances or enclosures where the intention isn't to kill the victims but just to stop them being inconvenient to the rulers and if they die, they die, and "active genocide" for actual attempts like the Holocaust or Rwanda to actively eliminate a people. However this was a tanky attempting to explain how Serbians were really cool dudes and it wasn't there fault dumb Albanians and Bosnians kept getting in their way, so I'd use it with caution.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Pope here, Miftan is de-excommunicated Re-communicated. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
therattle posted:https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/concentration-camps-existed-long-before-Auschwitz-180967049/ What originally struck me about Geisler's statement is how nonsensical it sounded at first reading. "If you're an absolutist on fetal personhood then eventually you'll end up supporting police brutality and mass inhumanity to 'lesser elements' of society" doesn't follow logically in a direct A, therefore B sense. But it's exactly what happened in the American religious right at some point in the 80s. I think it's at least in part because once you're fully down that rabbit hole you can caricature your opponents as being involved in mass child sacrifice, and there's pretty much nothing that's as terrible as that, so you end up with "yes, our candidate is child sex predator Roy Moore, but at least he's pro life" or "Donald Trump". But I'm also sure that it ties in part to the neoliberal era. As you say, mass incarceration for profit is terrible, and comes with perverse incentives to 'maximize enrollment', but it's also what you get with market 'solutions' to social problems. Exploiting loopholes in human morality to get away with that is to them what marketing would be to any other company, so it would not surprise me in the least if they are promoting figures that divert outrage elsewhere, in the same way that they fund 'tough on crime' state governor campaigns. ThomasPaine posted:I feel like we need to update our language on this kind of thing because obviously the holocaust is a very different thing to a lot of other events we describe as genocidal, but these are very emotive subjects so any attempt to bring nuance to them is often met with accusations of denialism. Germany finally agreed on a program of payment (and even then with guarded terms) for the Herero and Namaqua genocide, and admitted that's what it was. Last Friday. That would never have happened without a framework for investigating what a genocide or an extermination is.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
I think there is a difference between believing in something and believing in the p-zombie-esque set of thought terminating cliches that can be derived from and superficially approximate the ideas of people who actually believe things. You can take the superficial shell of a thing and it turns out a great many people can build their entire personality around that empty structure without at any point engaging in the meat that it would once have enclosed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
I agree, but what parts those cliches or shells are made up of is a direct result of material and social conditions. Like "Johnny Cash, conservative Christian who plays in front of a big American flag and cares deeply about poor farmers and prisoners' rights" is not a person that could exist today, it would be more like "Johnny Cash, conservative Christian who plays in front of a big American flag and cares deeply about the new Ford F-150 5.0 V8 and the babies that Hillary Clinton eats". And you can find sources showing this in motion, and what's changed and what hasn't is what I find interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
I would probably suggest that the thing that changed is not that the same conditions produced both Cash and Steptoe and Sons, but that the latter is the product of people who liked the superficial appearances of the former but wore it like a denim jacket, rather than out of actual conviction. Whole sections of society apparently entirely unaware and incurious about what machine the band they like are raging against, because they don't really care, it's just the aesthetics they want. I think it is a similar progression to the modern poppy nutter, in that they fetishise the trappings of it but entirely change the message, with the latter happening in response to the existence of the former. They want the prestige of the clothing but none of the actual difficulty. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:52 on May 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think the Black camps in South Africa meet the Nuremberg definition of 'extermination by labour'. There's not the premeditation nor industrial scale of the Nazi death camps, but extermination by indifference is still atrocity.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
I came in here to ask if people watched Milo's standup because it was great. Instead, goddamnedtwisto posted:I've heard someone split them into "negligent genocide" The UN defines genocide in 5 different factors: quote:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
I picked gdt's post because it was the latest not specifically calling him out b/c I wouldn't knife a mate like that
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I came in here to ask if people watched Milo's standup because it was great. Right, but the discussion was about the fact that there *are* differences between forced adoptions and boarding schools for native people in Canada and Australia, "leave or die" cleansings from the Trail of Tears to the Highland Clearances, and industrial slaughter like the Holocaust. Personally I think it's useful to have language beyond just calling them all genocide - which they undoubtedly were - for both the same reason we differentiate between manslaughter and murder at the individual level, and also when you're trying to get across to people that you don't need trains and gas chambers for something to be a genocide. Also the UN definition seems to deliberately skirt around things like the Irish and Bengal famines where millions were allowed to die because it was economically and ideologically inconvenient to not let them die. This to me is every bit as much of a genocide as Rwanda (hell, per-capita, the Hunger killed way, way more than Rwanda *and* caused more displacement than the Balkan wars), because there's no way it would have happened in Surrey - those people died because they were considered less than human. Of course if we start running around acknowledging that maybe people's lives are more important than private property or profit then this leaves an awful lot of questions about... well just about everything that's happened in the world since about 3,000 BCE.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I came in here to ask if people watched Milo's standup because it was great. I was there and yes it was.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
@gdt Fair point, I suppose my siding with the UN definition is because they all aim for a certain outcome regardless of how effective they are.BizarroAzrael posted:I was there and yes it was. In the crowd?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:@gdt Fair point, I suppose my siding with the UN definition is because they all aim for a certain outcome regardless of how effective they are. Wouldn't say "crowd" given the restrictions but yes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
No countries wanted any kind of international legislation banning genocide until the Holocaust, because they didn't want any interference in their domestic or colonial atrocities. Russia had pogroms against Jews, Turkey was killing the Armenians (and Greeks), and of course the UK and Belgium were doing truly appalling things in their overseas colonies. There was a fear that if you got on the wrong side of League of Nations/UN, the member countries would suddenly decide you were in the wrong, invade, and take your stuff. The current genocide law, as Tesseraction quoted, is also a convenient summary of European history up until the 1940s. 'Passive' genocide is absolutely still genocide, and I don't think there's much of a moral distinction. Churchill knew what the consequences would be for refusing to send aid to India during the famine, because it was his own government in India was asking for help. The authorities knew what the conditions in their South African concentration camps were like and they knew that this would increase the mortality rate. I don't think you can argue that they didn't intend for people to die just because they didn't shoot them or something.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
I don't think it matters whether people intend to or not, if you kill shitloads of people you should be in mega jail or shot.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Also the UN definition seems to deliberately skirt around things like the Irish and Bengal famines where millions were allowed to die because it was economically and ideologically inconvenient to not let them die. This to me is every bit as much of a genocide as Rwanda (hell, per-capita, the Hunger killed way, way more than Rwanda *and* caused more displacement than the Balkan wars), because there's no way it would have happened in Surrey - those people died because they were considered less than human. The most significant thing I was never told about the Famine is that it should more properly be called the North European Potato Blight, it swept across everywhere from Ireland to Sweden, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, none in England Wales and lowland Scotland, and over a million in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. So that means either the blight had made the decision to hop over a huge tract of land or England Wales and lowland Scotland rearranged supplies so that those deaths occurred elsewhere and you know which one it was. (Also was a large factor in the revolutions of 1848, so that's probably another reason why that didn't happen in England.)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
The really depressing thing is it's not even a new reveal - I have a copy of Solomon Steckoll's The Alderney Death Camp right here, published 1982. Not that I'm sorry it's getting noticed and re-revealed, but there's a certain feeling of gently caress, it'll just be another 9-day horror and then whoops down the memory hole again.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:And also to make sure it didn't happen in Surrey. More prosaically, we just didn't eat that much potato at the time. You grow potato when you have marginal soil and desperately need a staple crop that gives the absolute maximum calories-per-acre without having to leave the land fallow. Most of the potato grown in Great Britain was winter feed for cattle, because the places where it was economically sensible to grow it were more profitably used to graze cattle - you then sold the cattle and the dairy products, and bought cereals from the places with good enough soil to produce them (this has been the basic bargain of northern European agriculture pretty much for as long as it's existed). The Irish were so completely dependent on the potato because the landlords used the vast majority of the land for grazing, leaving the tenants only tiny plots with which to sustain themselves. A significant proportion of the food imports into Ireland during the blight was feed for the cattle, because they were *expensive* to replace compared to peasants. You had similar problems in Germany except this time the land in the areas most affected was actually the really good farmland of Prussia but the nobility used it for growing rye, a big cash crop across the central and eastern Europe, but again forced their tenants to sustain themselves from tiny plots where they could really only grow potato. Of course their version of outdoor relief was impressment into the army, and the sudden massive expansion of the Prussian military had all sorts of fun effects for the next century. e: Obviously these are all massive oversimplifications
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
the famine-as-genocide is the part where england enclosed so much land that only perfect harvests of the best crop would keep a peasant alive (the standard European practice of the day), and then got into diplomatic slapfights with everyone that said "its bad to let people die on purpose" before eventually sending some mouldy corn over to poison the remaining survivors. It didn't hit britain because britain wasn't entirely composed of already malnourished subsistence farmers whose pastoral lands had been stolen to be sold as entitlements within living memory. Ober posted some toff correspondences years ago that demonstrated that the response was disbelief and resentment, leading to the mouldy corn. It was a UN-compliant genocide on the second and third definitions above, and the only real doubt is whether the absentee landlord class understood enough to know it would lead to millions of deaths before they'd resolved not to back down. It should probably also be clear that if the English had understood this, they would have done it much more efficiently to minimise potential for political repurcussions - which is what happened in Bengal, this time using an internal market to cause subsistence crop shortages, with full knowledge and intent of the consequences. e; damnit twisto Spangly A fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
That's true, but treating it as an epidemiological matter, as a blight, it must have passed through and massively lowered yields within England, especially around traditional potato farming (whether for food or feed) areas in East Anglia and Shropshire, before it hit the Highlands and Ireland. That itself says a lot about material conditions in the "already malnourished subsistence farmers" way as to how excess deaths ended up distributed the way that they did.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Hundreds of thousands of people died in the US and UK this year, and it's probably at least in the tens of thousands for the marginal amount over whatever a base rate number might have been (with best policy). I'm not suggesting that should be considered genocide, but mass death due to policy negligence isn't just early twentieth century stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Now THAT is worth excommunication. I'm excommunicating you for even talking about crispix after the horrible things he said.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Yesterday, I was clearing out bookmarks as I was duplicating the entirety of the google in my bookmark folders (again, for the nth time). Today I noticed a new thing in my google chrome bookmarks bar called "Reading List". I think it will make adding all those interesting links people share on here much simpler than bookmarks in the bookmark manager, and easier than finding out I have 3 subfolders with the same name in different bookmark folders. Much as I use the 'watch later' on youtube to save links and now and then just put them on 'autoplay' to get through a few.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That's true, but treating it as an epidemiological matter, as a blight, it must have passed through and massively lowered yields within England, especially around traditional potato farming (whether for food or feed) areas in East Anglia and Shropshire, before it hit the Highlands and Ireland. Remember the blight came back twenty five years later and the land league organised rent strikes, food shipments from American-based refugees, and direct action against the work and existence of the bastard middlemen. It went so smoothly that people actually moved back home afterwards, and then blight-stricken Connacht became the epicenter of the ghost mary maoist insurrection. It was very much about distribution, and about the closest thing Britain ever get to a truly testable hypothesis on landlordism.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:ghost mary maoist insurrection.. I've heard the apparition at knock called many a thing, but this is a new one to me.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
It's reminded me to ask if anyone has any good public links to the works of Lola Ridge to add to the reading list if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
What’s this about Milo’s standup?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Politoons cross post South Park sucks poo poo now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Re-communicated. I meant what I said. You are excommunicated for not knowing your Discordian theology. endlessmonotony posted:I'm excommunicating you for even talking about crispix after the horrible things he said. Fair tbh. You are excommunicated, as we Discordians must all stick apart.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I feel like we need to update our language on this kind of thing because obviously the holocaust is a very different thing to a lot of other events we describe as genocidal, but these are very emotive subjects so any attempt to bring nuance to them is often met with accusations of denialism. Like, you can argue that British policy towards the Highlands following the jacobite rebellions was technically genocidal in that it sought to stamp out a particular culture that threatened the established power structures, but I don't think the way that implicitly creates an equivalence with Nazi Germany is helpful for understanding either because clearly there's a big difference between literally being marched to an industrial death camp and not being allowed to wear a kilt/speak gaelic. This is exactly the difference i would draw between extermination camps and say the Irish famine. There is something morally different about an intentional desire to exterminate an entire group. Thats central to the whole thing, not something to be handwaved away.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
indeed the challenge seems to be proving the institutional "intent to destroy" in the Genocide Convention; paying attention to (a)-(e) in Article 2 misses the difficult part. Here, have a regrettably real example:quote:101. The Trial Chamber observes, however, that it will be very difficult in practice to provide proof of the genocidal intent of an individual if the crimes committed are not widespread and if the crime charged is not backed by an organisation or a system150.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 09:30
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Yesterday, I was clearing out bookmarks as I was duplicating the entirety of the google in my bookmark folders (again, for the nth time). That's basically what is for, yeah, I managed to trim my actual bookmark list to around a hundred a couple of years back. Edge goes one better and has Collections, which is mostly the same but you can further split links into topics, so you don't have to have political articles dumped in the same place as recipes or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
A more direct example, from the 2005 UN International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur:quote:513. Was there a genocidal intent? Some elements emerging from the facts including the scale of atrocities and the systematic nature of the attacks, killing, displacement and rape, as well as racially motivated statements by perpetrators that have targeted members of the African tribes only, could be indicative of the genocidal intent. However, there are other more indicative elements that show the lack of genocidal intent. The fact that in a number of villages attacked and burned by both militias and Government forces the attackers refrained from exterminating the whole population that had not fled, but instead selectively killed groups of young men, is an important element. A telling example is the attack of 22 January 2004 on Wadi Saleh, a group of 25 villages inhabited by about 11 000 Fur. According to credible accounts of eye witnesses questioned by the Commission, after occupying the villages the Government Commissioner and the leader of the Arab militias that had participated in the attack and burning, gathered all those who had survived or had not managed to escape into a large area. Using a microphone they selected 15 persons (whose name they read from a written list), as well as 7 omdas, and executed them on the spot. They then sent all elderly men, all boys, many men and all women to a nearby village, where they held them for some time, whereas they executed 205 young villagers, who they asserted were rebels (Torabora). According to male witnesses interviewed by the Commission and who were among the survivors, about 800 persons were not killed (most young men of those spared by the attackers were detained for some time in the Mukjar prison). Genocidal intent rests heavily on how rationally thorough its execution is. Unsystematic or unintentional mass killing or ethnic cleansing may not be genocide, whereas an organized campaign of sterilization or forcible transfer of children would be. This makes sense given the historical context of a special horror attached to industrial annihilation (as opposed to, e.g., mere pogroms).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 10:18
|
|