It would certainly be an atrocity, if that’s what you’re getting at. There is no less value to Palestinian or Native American lives than to European ones. Genocide, however, is the systematic persecution with the intent to eliminate a certain ethnic group.
The difficulty in your example arises with defining that “genus” in the modern sense of genocide, since “Parisian” is a very diverse mix of people. What makes them “Parisian”?
If their common association is, say, having their primary residence in Paris, or having been in Paris during a certain point or stretch in time, I suppose we could coin the term “urbicide”, but I don’t know if there’s a historical precedent for the systematic persecution of a specific city by whatever definition.
There is the historic phenomenon of soldiers wantonly slaughtering a chunk of the populace of a captured city, but if you wanted to actually use the administrative and productive value of that city you’d want to keep the killing in check. On the other hand, raiding other tribes or villages and killing inhabitants with the purpose of driving them away from your lands also involved the murder of civilians, but the intent was foremost to secure resources and prosperous land for your own people.
Failing any other classification, it would still be a massacre. We don’t need to slap particularly loaded labels onto everything bad to make it bad. Doing so dilutes the meaning of those terms, watering down both their political weight and their usefulness in classifying events.
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Cultural group means killing any village unless it has an identical twin with the same language, history, principles, beliefs, music, etc, means it will be genocide.
I don’t recall ani going there to wipe them out, only to get his mother. then the killings happened when she died in his arms. so how is this “… systemically…”
The system was a mix of his lightsaber and the force, moving 1 to the next…? Whether it was passion, right or wrong it doesn’t matter to the definition of the term.
A riot is a riot whether or not the riot was for a good reason. Terms be like that usually.
Given how thoroughly the Tusken Raiders are narratively linked to American Indians it’s also pretty fucking weird that you’d insist on this point. How many tribes do you get to wipe out before it’s a genocide iyo?
I’d assume intention makes the difference here: Anakin was lashing out in anger at the ones immediately within reach, like a one-man pogrom, but I don’t know that he commanded an attempt to exterminate their entire kind.
Given how thoroughly the Tusken Raiders are narratively linked to American Indians it’s also pretty fucking weird that you’d insist on this point. How many tribes do you get to wipe out before it’s a genocide iyo?
I honestly wasn’t aware of that narrative link, which may be an artifact of my European cultural perception.
In any case, it wouldn’t change my stance: Massacring one tribe would be a massacre. Done out of racial hatred, it would be a hate crime. The criterion for genocide would be the scale and scope: Is your violence aimed only at a specific tribe?
Attempting to push a particular group from prosperous land has been a motivator for warfare since forever. That’s not what makes a Genocide in my opinion. A genocide is a systematic attempt to eradicate an entire people, not just displace them.
That doesn’t mean massacres or wars of displacement aren’t atrocities either, just that we don’t need to slap the label “genocide” on everything, thereby devaluing its gravity when applied to things where it actually fits (like the war of extermination on the Palestinian people).
Now, if I missed something and Anakin went on to chase down the rest of the Tusken people, that would be genocide too.
I’ve said it a couple times in Lemmy already but the thing I absolutely hate about Star Wars is that the fans don’t know shit about Star Wars
“They’re like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals.”
Bro’s straight up dropping literal dehumanization while screaming about how he killed kids for their race and he “hates them all” within a dozen very memorable lines and you quibbling simpletons can’t figure it out.
I’m not denying his hatred or crime. A massacre born from racist hatred is a pogrom, a hate crime, an atrocity. Anakin isn’t a good guy just because he only butchered one group, and I don’t think anyone is claiming otherwise.
I’m arguing whether the massacre of one group of their race constitutes genocide in terms of scale (local outburst of violence as opposed to a planet-wide persecution) and intent (revenge out of rage and hate born from topical pain as opposed to a persistent effort to eliminate an entire race).
Not every pogrom is genocide. We don’t need to reach for the most extreme terms to describe violence born from racism. In case it needs to be emphasised, Anakin committed a hate crime, incited by grief and rage, but likely fueled by preexisting prejudice.
There really is no need to stoop to insults and condescension about it either. If you have a contribution to make about the subject matter - perhaps because you think I’ve forgotten something - just contribute instead of prefacing and closing it with vitriol.
The thing I hate about Star Wars is how stuck-up and elitist some fans get. God forbid you get something wrong - if you haven’t consumed and intricately memorised every piece of canon (and “Legends”) lore, you’re trash. And because everyone gets something wrong at some point, they all suck and everyone that likes it is an idiot (except me of course, I know everything). Damn Star Wars Fans, they ruined Star Wars!
That isn’t the environment any fandom should foster. If you love something, help others love it too! If someone gets something wrong or doesn’t know something, share what you know. If someone holds a position you disagree with, talk to them and figure out where you disagree. Be part of the reason someone says “I fucking love Star Wars”. Let’s love it together.
I feel we’re arguing about definitions here, except that you’re just asserting the equivalence instead of proposing a definition that would lead to that conclusion.
I offered my distinction. What part do you disagree with?
he didn’t plan to kill them just to get his mother then flipped his shit. so how is this genocide?
genocide would be like how the US food supply is tainted with GMO horsehit and fake lab chemical ingredients that causes all kinds of slow killing ailments to the American people.
Bibi moment
Anakin murdered one village, he didn’t prosecute a war of extinction against an entire people.
So if someone goes and murders ever Parisian it is not a genocide of Parisians? Or are some people lesser and their cultures dont matter as much?
It would certainly be an atrocity, if that’s what you’re getting at. There is no less value to Palestinian or Native American lives than to European ones. Genocide, however, is the systematic persecution with the intent to eliminate a certain ethnic group.
The difficulty in your example arises with defining that “genus” in the modern sense of genocide, since “Parisian” is a very diverse mix of people. What makes them “Parisian”?
If their common association is, say, having their primary residence in Paris, or having been in Paris during a certain point or stretch in time, I suppose we could coin the term “urbicide”, but I don’t know if there’s a historical precedent for the systematic persecution of a specific city by whatever definition.
There is the historic phenomenon of soldiers wantonly slaughtering a chunk of the populace of a captured city, but if you wanted to actually use the administrative and productive value of that city you’d want to keep the killing in check. On the other hand, raiding other tribes or villages and killing inhabitants with the purpose of driving them away from your lands also involved the murder of civilians, but the intent was foremost to secure resources and prosperous land for your own people.
Failing any other classification, it would still be a massacre. We don’t need to slap particularly loaded labels onto everything bad to make it bad. Doing so dilutes the meaning of those terms, watering down both their political weight and their usefulness in classifying events.
Genocide:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Cultural group means killing any village unless it has an identical twin with the same language, history, principles, beliefs, music, etc, means it will be genocide.
I don’t recall ani going there to wipe them out, only to get his mother. then the killings happened when she died in his arms. so how is this “… systemically…”
The system was a mix of his lightsaber and the force, moving 1 to the next…? Whether it was passion, right or wrong it doesn’t matter to the definition of the term.
A riot is a riot whether or not the riot was for a good reason. Terms be like that usually.
LOL the system?
yes it does matter maybe read the definition of genocide again
deleted by creator
Partial genocides are still genocides.
Given how thoroughly the Tusken Raiders are narratively linked to American Indians it’s also pretty fucking weird that you’d insist on this point. How many tribes do you get to wipe out before it’s a genocide iyo?
Completely depends on how big the parts are, otherwise it’s just mass murder. Well I guess intent also plays a role.
I’d assume intention makes the difference here: Anakin was lashing out in anger at the ones immediately within reach, like a one-man pogrom, but I don’t know that he commanded an attempt to exterminate their entire kind.
I honestly wasn’t aware of that narrative link, which may be an artifact of my European cultural perception.
In any case, it wouldn’t change my stance: Massacring one tribe would be a massacre. Done out of racial hatred, it would be a hate crime. The criterion for genocide would be the scale and scope: Is your violence aimed only at a specific tribe?
Attempting to push a particular group from prosperous land has been a motivator for warfare since forever. That’s not what makes a Genocide in my opinion. A genocide is a systematic attempt to eradicate an entire people, not just displace them.
That doesn’t mean massacres or wars of displacement aren’t atrocities either, just that we don’t need to slap the label “genocide” on everything, thereby devaluing its gravity when applied to things where it actually fits (like the war of extermination on the Palestinian people).
Now, if I missed something and Anakin went on to chase down the rest of the Tusken people, that would be genocide too.
I’ve said it a couple times in Lemmy already but the thing I absolutely hate about Star Wars is that the fans don’t know shit about Star Wars
“They’re like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals.”
Bro’s straight up dropping literal dehumanization while screaming about how he killed kids for their race and he “hates them all” within a dozen very memorable lines and you quibbling simpletons can’t figure it out.
I’m not denying his hatred or crime. A massacre born from racist hatred is a pogrom, a hate crime, an atrocity. Anakin isn’t a good guy just because he only butchered one group, and I don’t think anyone is claiming otherwise.
I’m arguing whether the massacre of one group of their race constitutes genocide in terms of scale (local outburst of violence as opposed to a planet-wide persecution) and intent (revenge out of rage and hate born from topical pain as opposed to a persistent effort to eliminate an entire race).
Not every pogrom is genocide. We don’t need to reach for the most extreme terms to describe violence born from racism. In case it needs to be emphasised, Anakin committed a hate crime, incited by grief and rage, but likely fueled by preexisting prejudice.
There really is no need to stoop to insults and condescension about it either. If you have a contribution to make about the subject matter - perhaps because you think I’ve forgotten something - just contribute instead of prefacing and closing it with vitriol.
The thing I hate about Star Wars is how stuck-up and elitist some fans get. God forbid you get something wrong - if you haven’t consumed and intricately memorised every piece of canon (and “Legends”) lore, you’re trash. And because everyone gets something wrong at some point, they all suck and everyone that likes it is an idiot (except me of course, I know everything). Damn Star Wars Fans, they ruined Star Wars!
That isn’t the environment any fandom should foster. If you love something, help others love it too! If someone gets something wrong or doesn’t know something, share what you know. If someone holds a position you disagree with, talk to them and figure out where you disagree. Be part of the reason someone says “I fucking love Star Wars”. Let’s love it together.
🤡
Among so many other things, pogroms are genocides, great mind.
I feel we’re arguing about definitions here, except that you’re just asserting the equivalence instead of proposing a definition that would lead to that conclusion.
I offered my distinction. What part do you disagree with?
he didn’t plan to kill them just to get his mother then flipped his shit. so how is this genocide?
genocide would be like how the US food supply is tainted with GMO horsehit and fake lab chemical ingredients that causes all kinds of slow killing ailments to the American people.