Subscribe to Listverse
[WARNING: This list contains images that may disturb some readers.] All too often the evil of man has shown its face to the world in the form of mass murders and slaughter. This list contains ten of the lesser known massacres. The fact that 10 lesser known massacres can be found is a sad indictment of what our powerful leaders can do when left unchecked.
The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre (Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy in French) was a wave of Catholic mob violence against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), during the French Wars of Religion. Traditionally believed to have been instigated by Catherine de’ Medici, the mother of King Charles IX, the massacre took place six days after the wedding of the king’s sister to the Protestant Henry of Navarre. This was an occasion for which many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots had gathered in largely Catholic Paris. Events began two days after the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a Huguenot military leader. Starting on 24 August 1572 (the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle) with the murder of Coligny, the massacres spread throughout Paris, and later to other cities and the countryside, lasting for several months. The exact number of fatalities is not known, but it has been estimated that over 2000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and over 3000 in the French provinces.
This poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Al-Andalus, Granada in 1066, was considered to be largely instrumental in sparking this massacre. It contains the following lines:
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.
They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?
How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent?
Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right!
On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in al-Andalus, assassinated Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day. The image above shows a Jew reading the torah in Al-Andalus.
Batak massacre refers to the massacre of Bulgarians in Batak by Ottoman troops in 1876, at the beginning of the April Uprising. The number of victims varies from 3,000 to 5,000 according to different sources. On 30 April 1876, 8,000 Turkish soldiers, mainly Bashi-bazouk, led by Ahmet Aga Barun surrounded the city. After a first battle, the men from Batak decided to negotiate with Ahmet Aga. He promised them the withdrawal of his troops, under the condition of their disarmament. After the rebels had laid down their weapons, the Bashi-bazouk attacked the defenseless population. The majority of the victims were beheaded.
The Massacre of Thessaloniki was a retaliatory action by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I in 390 against the inhabitants of the Greek city of Thessaloniki, who had risen in revolt. The cause of the uprising was the order to arrest a popular wagon driver for trying to seduce and have sex with a servant of the emperor (Butherich).
The wagon driver was locked up in prison, but the citizens of Thessaloniki demanded his release. Butherich was murdered in the following turmoil, and so the Emperor intervened and ordered executions. However, the command was too little too late, and in the hippodrome in Thessaloniki angry Gothic troops massacred 7,000 people – the number is probably exaggerated, but gives a sense of the scale of the massacre. This incident aroused the wrath of the Bishop of Milan, Ambrose, and the church urged the emperor to repentance.
The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men, including at least 500 children in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladic during the Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions participated in the massacre.
So far, more than 5,600 victims of genocide have been identified through DNA analysis. Prior to the genocide, the United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN protected “safe area”, but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time. After reviewing a comprehensive report, the Dutch government resigned over this matter in 2002.
The Massacre of Elphinstone’s Army was a victory of Afghan forces led by Akbar Khan, the son of Dost Mohammad Khan, over a combined British and Indian force led by William Elphinstone in January 1842. After the British and Indian troops captured Kabul in 1839, an Afghan uprising forced the occupying garrison out of the city. The British army, consisting of 4,500 troops and 12,000 working personnel or camp-followers, left Kabul on January 6, 1842.
They attempted to reach the British garrison at Jalalabad, 90 miles away, but were immediately harassed by Afghan forces. The last remnants were eventually annihilated near Gandamak on January 13. Only one man, the assistant surgeon William Brydon, survived and managed to reach Jalalabad.
The Katyn massacre, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre, was a mass execution of Polish military officers, policemen and civilian prisoners of war ordered by Soviet authorities on March 5, 1940. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, with the most commonly cited number of 21,768. The victims were murdered in the Katyn forest in Russia, the Kalinin (Tver) and Kharkiv prisons and elsewhere. About 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, the rest being Poles arrested for allegedly being “intelligence agents, gendarmes, spies, saboteurs, landowners, factory owners, lawyers, priests, and officials.”
Since Poland’s conscription system required every non-exempted university graduate to become a reserve officer,the Soviets were able to round up much of the Polish intelligentsia, and the Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship.
Babi Yar is a ravine in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. In the course of two days, September 29 and 30, 1941, a special team of German Nazi SS supported by other German units, local collaborators and Ukrainian police murdered 33,771 Jewish civilians. The Babi Yar massacre is considered to be the largest single massacre in the history of the Holocaust.
The massacre of prisoners refers to a series of mass executions committed by the Soviet NKVD against prisoners in Poland, the Baltic states, and parts of the Soviet Union from which the Red Army was withdrawing after the German invasion in 1941. The overall death toll is estimated at around 100,000, including more than 10,000 in Western Ukraine.
The Nanking Massacre, commonly known as the Rape of Nanking, was an infamous war crime committed by the Japanese military in Nanjing (Nanking), then the capital of the Republic of China, after it fell to the Imperial Japanese Army on December 13, 1937. The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although the violence lasted well into the next six weeks, until early February 1938.
During the occupation of Nanking, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, it is claimed that a large number of innocent men were intentionally misidentified as enemy combatants and executed as the massacre gathered momentum. A large number of women and children were also killed, as rape and murder became more widespread.
According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. That these estimates are not exaggerated is borne out by the fact that burial societies and other organizations have counted more than 155,000 buried bodies.
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.
Contributor: abhishek
not cool man… not cool at all… Where am I...
August 21st, 2008 at 3:03 am
Christ, it scares me that I didnt know any of these.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:16 am
Very appropriate introduction.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:17 am
I’m surprised how many of these atrocities were committed in the last 150 years. Humans are a screwed up species. May General Ratko Mladic burn in hell!
August 21st, 2008 at 3:17 am
Hope everyone involved in commiting these atrocious crimes against humanity are languishing in the depths of hell.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:26 am
I’m kinda glad I’d already heard about most of these – otherwise there would be another 10 massacres throughout the world’s history
August 21st, 2008 at 3:28 am
Good work on this list abhishek!
August 21st, 2008 at 3:35 am
yikes . . makes me sad to think they were all done by fellow humans
August 21st, 2008 at 3:58 am
terrible stuff
August 21st, 2008 at 4:18 am
Humans are a horrible species, makes me ashamed. Enough said.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:21 am
Absolutely no problems with the list – just the title is misleading. These are actually some of the better known massacres in history. The fact that most people are not aware of them is perhaps where it gets scary.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:23 am
Why’s the Nanking massacre on the list? :/
August 21st, 2008 at 4:41 am
The Rape of Nanking and Srebrenica are two very well known massacres. Maybe you could have found a couple other lesser-known ones to take their place?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:01 am
Having seen several of the mass graves throughout Bosnia including Srebrenica, I have a unique view of what man kind really is. No one is truly safe anywhere. May god have mercy on our souls.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:21 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp
I’m a Croat but i don’t know why people usually forget war crimes Ustashe commited.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:26 am
The Rape of Nanking is only recently being thought of as a “lesser known” massacre because the Japanese are doing everything in their power to deny it and rewrite the history books.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:31 am
ohrmets:
For that matter, the St. Bartholomew Massacre is very well known as well. I’d think Katyn would be considered well-known too, really.
But this is a good list–well done… it’d be nice if we could say we’ve simply run out of massacres to list… wouldn’t it?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:33 am
This makes my soul drop. I wanna throw up. Great list though, off to read Dr. Suess or something after this.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:35 am
It is so sad to see that the people who walk alongside you could carry out such acts. Normal people must have participated in these horrors, how on Earth did they justify it to themselves?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:35 am
Had heard of ‘Nanking Massacre’ only. How can people be so cruel! Killing felow humans in the name of country/religion. Shame on mankind. May all these tormentors burn in hell!
August 21st, 2008 at 5:36 am
warrrreagl:
Good point. Very good point.
I’m sorry to say this is the problem I still have with the Japanese, polite and very nice people though they seem to be today… whereas the Germans, for the most part, have confessed their actions during the Nazi era, and show genuine shame for it (one would think), the Japanese have not been so ready to accept guilt for the things they did during the period of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. There has continued to be, in Japan, a strong tug of war between traditional nationalists who deny and rewrite history, and those who accept the truth and want to confront it. Unfortunately for a long time now it’s looked like the nationalists have been winning.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:36 am
Great list. I too had heard of most of these, but I think it’s always good to honor the dead by discussing these horrific events. Former US Ambasador to the UN Richard Holbrook was just on NPR discussing Srebrenica the other morning. These are all great tragedies.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:36 am
Abhishek: Good work
August 21st, 2008 at 5:48 am
I keep thinking most of the numbers have to be exaggerated. It would be like walking downtown Toronto on a Saturday and then having everyone walking around drop dead; that would be less than the body count for most of these. It blows my mind that things like that could be taken so far. It doesn’t make me ashamed to be human though, we all have cabin fever and it takes just a bit for us to really snap.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:51 am
The picture for no.1 is sad
August 21st, 2008 at 6:05 am
no israel???
August 21st, 2008 at 6:29 am
I don’t know about *you,* Egg, but when *I* snap, I clench my fists and slam doors. I don’t take a scimitar or a Mauser and butcher the neighbors.
Of course, there *is* something to this business of people losing it and going out of control–but that’s bloodlust, so called. What spurs people to kill in the first place–or rather, what makes killing on this scale possible, is de-humanization. When we dehumanize and devalue fellow human beings, we can reach a stage in our minds when a switch clicks, and they no longer *are* human to us, but instead are mere things, or animals.
This happens more often than we think. We’re used to reading these stories of massacres and atrocities and thinking to ourselves, “oh good lord… HOW?” But we shouldn’t fail to remember that this very same thing happens in wartime. And psychologically we aren’t even aware of it, sometimes. We view the opposition as “the enemy” and gradually they cease to be human beings–they’re demonized and dehumanized until they are just… things. To quote Herman Wouk in “The Caine Mutiny,” (if I can recall this quote correctly) when Wouk is describing the thought processes of the young Ensign on board the Caine, he says that “he had come to view the Japanese as an invasion of some kind of army of ants.”
This is a common refrain in wartime (take a look at the essays and histories of Paul Fussell for more lumination on this subject). There is another WWII memoirist who describes the feelings of his comrades fighting in the horrific island warfare in the Pacific, and how they viewed the Japanese as a species of “pest,” that needed to be exterminated. And make no mistake that the Japanese viewed Americans, British, Australians, Dutch, Chinese, and Filipinos the same way. This explains, in part, the atrocities committed against Allied prisoners by the Japanese, of course, and explains how American soldiers, in turn, viewed slaughtering Japanese soldiers without a second thought as no more an issue than we would think when we step on an anthill. Naturally, this same mode of thought occurred in the European war as well, though of course racial differences can help cement dehumanizing attitudes more quickly and deeply. In fact “differences” of any kind can help in this–language, religion, etc. Race, being a quick visual cue, of course, is quickest of all.
We see this today, with how we, in the West, are now viewing Arabs, for instance…
Anyway, seeing this, recognizing it, helps one understand how war itself is an atrocity–that it isn’t the atrocities that occur IN war that make it bad–but rather it is WAR that causes the atrocities.
Same goes for massacres like this. The only difference is that it isn’t nations (in most of these cases) attacking nations, but simply groups of people attacking other groups of people. But the causes and mechanisms are exactly the same.
If we want to stop this kind of thing, we need to fight the human impulse to dehumanize and devalue our fellow men and women, no matter who they are.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:39 am
Armenian genocide by the Turkish?
August 21st, 2008 at 6:46 am
Wow.. I consider myself pretty massacre-savvy, but I only knew like 4 of these…
Great list! I learned something today.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:53 am
jack deth: #16 the attitude we need to take is not that other people could carry such acts, but that you and i could carry out such acts.
“there, but for the grace of God, go i” – john bradford
August 21st, 2008 at 6:53 am
How about this jewel?
http://www.answers.com/topic/war-of-the-triple-alliance
90% of the male population!!!
Shame on us.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:05 am
Well spoken Randall I don’t agree with all of your post “war itself is an atrocity”, 9 & 10 were not wars. That said the end is a gem.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:13 am
ylekiot:
Thank you. But what I meant was that the *mindset* that makes war the atrocity it is is the same mindset that makes massacres possible. I pointed out that not all of these massacres didn’t occur in wartime, but that doesn’t matter. The point is that war or no, these issue from the same frame of mind that make war the brutal and horrific thing it is.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:22 am
“Armenian genocide by the Turkish?”
How can I explain this situation ? I’m living in İstanbul / Turkiye… I have a lot of Armenian friends and I love them very very much. You know what ? Even they accept that there is no genocide ! But all of us accept that, “yeah, very very bad things happened, like busting villages, carnages and horrible conflicts.. Russians provaketed Armenians, Turks protected their homeland hard ”
How many Armenians died ?
A lot of…
Maybe thousands….
But not 1.5 million ! In 1915 the population of Armenians were not 1 million…
There are a lot things to say… But please not take sides… Please do not look from one side…
If you want to learn something…
http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com
August 21st, 2008 at 7:22 am
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BY THE TURKS! SHOULD DEFINITLY BE ON THIS!!
August 21st, 2008 at 7:25 am
A massacre is not the same as a genocide, people.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:29 am
Well, I guess they’re pretty much the same, but generally genocide is on a much larger scale.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:29 am
After rereading you post I must apologise.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:34 am
I think the “mindset” we see in cases like this is simply massive scale insanity. Fear and Paranoia are diseases and they are unfortunately highly contagious.
I do think that taking ownership of atrocities, such as this is a large part of changing those “mindsets”. Once that has been done, however, forgiveness rests on the shoulders of the victims and thier families. Forgiveness is just as important as the sincerest apology.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:37 am
@ kadirhan
I’m not trying to say that it absolutely happened. I have no way of proving anything, but the debate is out there as your link shows.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:40 am
kadirhan:
Ohhhhh, kadirhan… if my ex-girlfriend, who was half-Armenian, (and of an intelligence that makes *me* look like Baby Huey) were here now… you wouldn’t get out of this web site without being battered to pieces.
And I myself am part Greek, kadirhan, so I wouldn’t feel at all bad to have her go at you.
From the great sage, Cecil Adams:
“The story of the Armenian extermination has filled books and resists easy summary. Suffice it to say that successive Ottoman and Turkish governments using the machinery of state organized a campaign of ethnic cleansing in which hundreds of thousands of Armenian men, women, and children were shot, beheaded, burned alive, or otherwise done away with. Thousands more succumbed to starvation or disease, and still more were driven into exile.
What had the Armenians done to deserve all this? Not much–their main offense was to be a Christian minority in a crumbling Islamic empire. Like another much-persecuted Middle Eastern ethnic group whose sufferings are better known, the Armenians had an ancient language and culture plus a reputation for clannishness and a knack for finance, and they became the target of a similar type of unreasoning bigotry.
A massacre of 15,000 to 25,000 Armenians in 1909 set the table for the main event during World War I. Blaming the supposedly disloyal Christian minority for an early defeat by the Russians, the Turkish government starting in 1915 rounded up Armenians throughout the country, murdered vast numbers outright and deported the rest, with many dying on forced marches or in refugee camps. The brutal work was carried out by an elaborate bureaucracy that some historians consider a model for the extermination program of the Nazis. Add in a couple of additional massacres in the early 1920s and the Armenian death toll for 1915-1922 totals a million to a million and a half.”
So don’t give me your Turkish revisionism and history re-writing, kadirhan. Sorry, but it won’t wash, not by a damn site.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:51 am
It’s so mind-numbingly sad to see these, especially, as pointed out, that many on this list occurred recently in history. You’d think by now we’d become civilized enough to forgo the senseless slaughter of thousands of people in one fell swoop.
Did I read #2 correctly? They killed prisoners? Like, Holocaust survivors? People who had been beaten and starved literally almost to death, they killed those people? Sick- sick, sick sick.
Randall- I suspect much of that sentiment has to do with the Japanese tenant of “united we stand, divided we fall”- that strong sense of teamwork over individuality.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:02 am
Cedestra:
“Did I read #2 correctly? They killed prisoners? Like, Holocaust survivors?”
Not quite. These were the prisoners of the Soviet forces and the NKVD (the predecessor of the KGB) who had been rounded up by the Russians when they’d invaded Poland in concert with Nazi Germany in 1939. We must remember that at that time, Hitler and Stalin were allies, and the two countries had partitioned Poland between them. That poor nation, therefore, had to suffer the horrors of being hacked apart by TWO totalitarian monsters.
As the Nazis were rounding up Polish prisoners from not only the military but the intelligentsia, so were the Russians doing the same in Eastern Poland. As part of this campaign, the Russians had simultaneously invaded the Baltic states as part of their own expansionism program. Thus the Russians had their own concentration camps (though not as methodical as those of the Nazis) in Eastern Poland and elsewhere… and when Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded eastern Poland and Russia, in 1940, the Russians pulled back, slaughtering their own prisoners as they left. This is the massacre referred to here.
“I suspect much of that sentiment has to do with the Japanese tenant of “united we stand, divided we fall”- that strong sense of teamwork over individuality.”
Some, but we must never discount ourselves from that same kind of mindset simply because we’re more individualistic. Their were atrocities going on on *both* sides during WWII, as there are in ALL wars. It is the dehumanization and demonization of the enemy that makes this possible.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:07 am
Oh man, you should have seen the bass massacre of 1989! We landed 137 bass in less than 4 hours – oh boy, what a fish fry we had!!
August 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
On the serious note, numbers 10, 6, 3 and 2 are well-known to me. Enough on this depressing topic…
August 21st, 2008 at 8:33 am
Randall,
thank you for your excellent reply to kadirhan.
just the thought of there being a ‘debate’ on the question of what to call the Turks killing untold Armenians (‘masacre vs genocide’) is sickening.
abhishek:
good list. not sure about the ‘lesser known’ part, but is guess thats a relative term.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am
Fantastic work on the list, abhishek.
Probably because I’ve been a history buff since grammar school, I was aware of all of these massacres, but being aware does not take away one iota of shock and sadness.
One important thing to keep in mind is that all of these atrocities were carried out in a crowd. That crowd was, for whichever reason, was in a state of frenzy.
**This in no way excuses the behavior, it only set’s a stage.**
No normal human being, on his own, can act in this fashion. Put him in a group, give that group a “cause”, fire them up with crazed rhetoric, and you have created a killing machine.
In war, a similar, but slightly different mechanism is at work, because the danger to life, family and property is real. That explains the defensive actions, including killing of invaders. What it doesn’t explain is taking that defense far beyond winning ones safety to decimating ones fallen enemy.
Humans are an odd bunch.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:38 am
Randall: Ah, thanks for the clarification. Doesn’t make it any better, but I would have felt more sickened had my original presumption been true.
In the second part, I was referring to the fact that the Germans have owned up to their share of the war, but the Japanese refuse to (or most refuse to). I meant that they don’t want to because they want to show a solidarity and admitting fault would be weakening that.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:52 am
ah a nice jolly list to cheer me up
August 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Cedestra:
re: your take on the Japanese:
Maybe, yes… at any rate, the Japanese seem unwilling to come to terms with themselves, as a people.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:00 am
i got a 10″ cheesesteak for lunch yesterday. I massacred that thing. i think guns ‘n roses cover of knockin’ on heavens door was a real massacre.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:01 am
When I saw the title of this list my first impulse was to delete. And fast. But reason prevailed and I read it. Most of these I was aware of, some are new to me. It’s probably wrong to say that this is a great list – the subject precludes its greatness – but it is a necessary one. Well done. Thank you.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:17 am
What about the Argentinian self war? The estimate of those killed (most after being horribly tortured) were about 30,000.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Although the events of this list are beyond horrific,they are only an infinitesimal fraction of the suffering of humans that the Earth has born witness to. Warfare, tyranny, natural disaster, pandemic and epidemic illness, starvation, and all of the secondary death from these calamities. And then, the despair of the survivors…
This list has brought a wave of echoes ringing in my ears and mind. I can only resolve myself to hope for the future.
Thank-you??
August 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am
I find the silence deafening on the genocides committed on
the Ukrainian people by the regime of the Russian/Soviet
empire. Just in the 20th century alone tens of millions of
innocent Ukrainian souls were savagely murdered, tortured, and sent to gulags to die horribly. The Holodomor(genocide by
hunger) in 1932-1933 eliminated 7-10 millions Ukrainians. During World War II, at least six(6) million Ukrainians lost their lives. Also millions of Ukrainians died during the soviet pruges during the 1920’s and 1930’s. To ignore and even dismiss these genocides is truly a crime against humanity!
August 21st, 2008 at 10:18 am
Segue #46, good point about mob mentality. I’ve never felt comfortable in a crowd, even amongst people who are on my side. For example, I love sports, but don’t understand the irrational passion that fans(short for fanatics) feel for a particular outcome. I’m a lone wolf, or more accurately, a bonobo living in a chimpanzee world. BTW humans are an odd bunch all right, but did you know that chimps kill each other at a much higher rate? About 10% I believe, die from unnatural causes. Cain is a direct descendant from killer chimps, LONG LIVE THE BONOBOS!
August 21st, 2008 at 10:23 am
This is a sobering list and makes me count my blessings.
The words “lesser known” is of course subjective according to where you live, what your ancestry is and how mush you know about history. One person’s lesser known massacre is another person’s greatest known massacre. I think abhishek was going for “lesser known” for the majority of people around the world and did a good job with it.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am
i think there needs to be another one of these lists. Even I know a few others.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
interesting list. kinda sad though
August 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Sadly, i knew of all these massacres
sad stuff.
I think the massacre of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks shoulid have an honorable mention. Some say a million armenians were slaughtered and yet the turks deny it, even with shitlods of evidence under their noses.
If you live down in the Los Angeles area thousands of Armenians stage a protest at the Turkish embassy every year, I went there one year with an armenian friend.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I might have included the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It certainly qualifies as ‘lesser known’. And it’s an interesting and shocking bit of history as well.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
So kadirhan, your defense of the Armenian genocide is that it was “OK” because only thousands died, and not millions. You are a sick, sick pig.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I am so interested in things like this (not the actual deaths but more the human psyche). Thank you for this list.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yogibarrister, (55),
“Segue #46, good point about mob mentality. I’ve never felt comfortable in a crowd, even amongst people who are on my side. For example, I love sports, but don’t understand the irrational passion that fans(short for fanatics) feel for a particular outcome. I’m a lone wolf, or more accurately, a bonobo living in a chimpanzee world. BTW humans are an odd bunch all right, but did you know that chimps kill each other at a much higher rate? About 10% I believe, die from unnatural causes. Cain is a direct descendant from killer chimps, LONG LIVE THE BONOBOS!”
We seem to be two eggs out of the same nest (or basket). If it weren’t for the fact that two’s a crowd, we might even get together! I nearly always feel an internal barrier going up when I’m in the presence of surrendering individual rational self-control to the mindless collective mentality. There have been some extremely rare times of provocation, such as at soccer matches after an absolutely atrocious referee decision, that I’ve caved in and added my voice to the eldritch blood-howls. Then, just for a moment, I too have experienced that terrifying mob elation and sense of invincibility; and it has scared the living shit out of me.
The great naturalist Ed (E. O.) Wilson has pointed out that compared with the rest of nature which is organised into societies, humans are amazingly *tame*. As ants (his field) we would be at constant non-stop global warfare, nation-to-nation. Without doubt, given our current technology, we would recently have gone extinct to nuclear MAD. He asks us to try to imagine ourselves as millions of chimps setting up, maintaining and running a vast and overall day-by-day peaceable and co-operative metropolis such as NY.
Violence can only possibly be justified as our very, very last-ditch self-defence. I feel we need to get to the evolutionary root and inherited psychology of what it is that drives us to turn it into needless up-front outbreaks of extermination of our own kind. Chimps do indeed do the same: they may hold the key. Until we understand the cause, I fear there may be little chance of tackling the effect.
I find Africa strangely unrepresented. I don’t doubt we’re aware mindblowing massacres have happened there. But do we know on whom by who, where and when?
I know Turkey very well. I’ve had lovely Turkish friends in the past and would still now if I hadn’t stopped working there many moons ago. I also had Turkish-Cypriot friends and understand their anger at the way the world tossed them to another culture that despised them and wanted to displace them, by force if necessary. But I find the Turkish nation as a whole has a similarly aggressive-defensive mindset to that of the Japanese as described above. It took one of their German allies in WW1 to respond and recoil with horror at what was happening to the Armenians. In a crude nutshell, the Turks believed that all Armenians were Russian *fifth columnists*, which *justified removing them from the scene*. Have you seen those historic photos of rows of Armenians being mass-hanged? I have had, and still have, even more friends in many places resulting from the Armenian diaspora.
I hope and want to believe that at least the majority of my fellow Englishmen wouldn’t deny or excuse any blatant killing my nation has committed in the past in such places as Ireland, Scotland, India, Southern Africa and the Sudan. I would, though, press in ALL casesfor proper historical and a certain geographical perspective rather than cozy, self-riteous hindsight. After all, we don’t expect two sets of New Guinea head-hunters scrapping in the past to have been guided by the Geneva Convention.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Sorry about the chaotic syntax in the last paragraph
August 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
That last one shocked me. How horrible–they’re all children in that picture.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
THEKID:
You don’t know the half of it.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Peter Gerbolka: I have certainly not ignored the genocide against the Ukranians by the Communist Russians – in fact, I ranked Stalin as the number 1 most evil man in the world (more so than Hitler) largely because of that. It surprises me that so many people think Hitler’s death toll is the largest in history – Stalin nearly doubled it!
August 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Blacknimbus (60): I thought of that when I first read the list. The Mountain Meadows Massacre has been included on another list – I think it was one of the Mormon lists.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I have a terrible, terrifying rider to add. A Horseman of the Apocalypse rider.
Limited massacres repel us and fill us with speechless horror, but achieve little else in the long run. Genocide, a form of extinction, actually works.
Turkey has a Kurdish problem, but not an Armenian problem, note. (Although in fact Turkey does not recognise the existence of the words ‘Kurd’ and ‘Kurdish’. The ethnic entity concerned is officially known as ‘Turkish mountain people’.)
General Rosas virtually rid Argentina of Indians (well, the *troublesome* ones, at least) by a ruthless military campaign. Those who have read ‘The Voyage of the Beagle’ will have noted Darwin’s encounter with this event. So while we in Chile have a forceful and *inconvenient* movement by our Mapuches (still counted by the million) in pursuit of what they consider to be their traditional rights, including reclaiming ancestral lands, Argentina has no more than the minutest pinprick of the same. Chile did not wipe out her native populations, they were more or less integrated, or incorporated by interbreeding into the national bloodstock.
Those are just two examples I happen to know a wee bit about.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Anon: Although I agree with the sentiment, I do believe a better analogy could have been used in your plea for historical and geographical perspective. New Guinea headhunters never perpetrated the type of atrocities on this list. Headhunters get a bad rap; they never objectified their enemies, nor engaged in a mob mentality.
To quote the mighty wiki -
“Anthropological writings exist on the Ilongot, Iban, Dayak, Berawan, Wana, and Mappurondo tribes. Among these groups, headhunting was usually a ritual activity rather than an act of war or feuding and involved the taking of a single head. Headhunting acted as a catalyst for the cessation of personal and collective mourning for the community’s dead. Ideas of manhood were encompassed in the practice, and the taken heads were prized.”
On second thought, maybe not such a bad analogy – it illustrates your point perfectly. Intentionally or not.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
jfrater, (67),
With you all the way on Stalin. What also makes him far more chilling for me is that it was all done *for the good of mankind* (well, the downtrodden worker section of mankind). Hitler couldn’t be bothered to cover up his evil intentions. Rather he publicised them.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Abhishek; Thank you for the well written and informative list.
Horrifying what can happen when a group of people fail to recognize the humanity in those of differing race, religion, or culture. It saddens me that in the 21st century we have made so little progress. Darfur, Bosnia, Somalia, The Middle East. There are far too many current examples that would fit quite comfortably into this list.
And the attitude behind these types of atrocities? Far too common as well. Even in supposed free, fair, and democratic countries. When will we learn to treat people as individuals? All people, not just the ones that look and act the same as us. I fear never.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Mom424: sadly you are probably right – I certainly don’t see any evidence in society today that would suggest we are getting better.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Very interesting, very sad list. I like the fact that you included atrocities from several different time periods. Reminds us that this is not a purely modern, or purely historical problem.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I read this list hours and hours ago. Just now able to come here and read everyone’s comments again.
This saddens me to my bones. I knew of some of these, but not 5,7,9 and I know many, many people who have been affected, devestated, and incapacitated.
I knew one boy who had seen his father beheaded in Bosnia. He did nothing but shake. Literally.
I have hundreds of stories. I could go on and on. But Im not that strong to go there. I almost feel like I should. That their stories deserve to be told. Their voices heard.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I learned about number one in school,
and our teacher was really.. interested in it.
He put together this huge slideshow of pictures on the projector.
It was horrible what they did to the people, especially the children and women.
I’ve only heard of a few of the others,
but it’s still sad that there’s SO many massacres and genocides.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You call the Rape of Nanking a “lesser known” massacre?! Egad, what has happened to the history instruction in schools today?!?!
It was one of the most horrific incidents of the 20th Century, made all the worse by the fact that it was commited by a civilization that prides itself (justifiably) on it’s elegance and decorum. Isn’t this taught in school any more?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
What I think would be interesting is to associate each of these, and the more well known massacres, with their root ideologies, and see which have killed the most. Up top there seem to be atheistic communism, darwinist eugenics (Hitler), Islam, and perhaps lastly, the Catholics (though many conflicts in their name were political and ethnic in nature, not really church led).
August 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Mom, (70),
Quite intentionally. Thanks for saving me the explanation!
Absurd contrasts often best make a point.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
seeker (but not finder), (78),
“darwinist eugenics (Hitler)”
Oh, no. Not this gobshite all over again. Jfrater: when the whole round of an argument that’s already been played out on another topic starts up again, couldn’t you just copy out the sequence from earlier and save us all? I’m sure the careful academics and scientists in LV don’t want to go through this whole bloody idiocy all over again, repeating what they’ve already set out. Surely nor do the rest wish to join in or read it for the umteenth time.
JEWS, THE CHOSEN PEOPLE. dARWINIST EUGENICS.
Well there’s some alkali for you to neutralise the acid.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sorry about that repetitive fistful of *all over again*s, but it is.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
LOL, evolutionists are so sensitive to the foibles of their creation myth
August 21st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Anon: I try to make as little extra work as possible for myself – if you know where it played out you can paste a link to it
August 21st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Great list! No Dade Massacre?
August 21st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Gruesome list.
I have to say though that Nanking and Srebrenica aren’t really lesser known massacres.
I distinctly remember Srebrenica being all over the news after it was discovered and what can you say about Nanking?…
It’s one of the foremost reasons why many older Chinese despise the Japanese.
I’m also curious as to how much extra security the Japanese Olympic team has in Beijing at the moment?…
August 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Glowbug (77)
No it’s not. Very rarely does history or “social studies” make it into the 20th century. The Holocaust is taught as a separate entity, so it skips over time.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Jfrater,
So do I. If the skunk stinks I’ll follow the obvious solution. Avoid it.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Interesting and saddening list. Everyone should learn about these.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Iran has *officially* denied that the Holocaust took place (to eliminate sympathy for Israel, and remove a reason for a Jewish homeland). Does that still hold, can anyone say?
Also, am I right in remembering that an alarming number of present-day young people, even in Europe, think it’s some kind of fiction that didn’t actually happen in real life?
August 21st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I knew about 6 of these- whoohoo AP world.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Great list abhishek, just goes to show that we haven’t learnt through out the centuries to stop this stuff and how brutal the human species can be towards each other
I know that over in Japan, there’s a culture with in the younger generations that actually wear Nazi paraphernalia because they think its fashionable, naivety will be the death of us all if we don’t learn from these atrocities.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Reading through some of the comments particuly #77 and #86 it seems with the education systems in a lot of countries dont cover these incidents or anything of the matter.
its sad, in hindsight, that we have the ability to be able to research these historical events on the internet to educate/entertain our minds, but everyone is so caught up with their own lives and as long as it doesnt effect them, they dont care.
For children not to be introduced to history like these massacres just because they are deemed not safe for school is crap, society has gotten too used to individuals dictating what kind of history should be taught if any, and by doing that you end up with naive world, and thats when people start denying things like the Holocuast happening, because its just an old Germanic wives tale.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 am
I’d heard of Srebrenica, Babi Yar, and the rape of Nanking.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 am
I always tell my kids and anyone who wants to listen – it’s hard to be good, much easier to be bad, and that is our daily human struggle that we must master and overcome in order to be a higher being. What a sad and sorry lot we are and history will keep repeating itself.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 am
I can’t believe the Japanese did such a thing. We should bomb them again.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 am
doink – its thinking like that which created these atrocities. THINK
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
What they did is pleasure killing. What I suggested is justice.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
An eye for an eye will make the world go blind – sound familiar.
first Pearl Harbour, then Hiroshima, not right is it?
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 am
An eye for an eye will make the world go blind – sounds lame. What it would do is blind the wicked and give sight to the deserving. Oh and we apologized for Hiroshima so that makes everything better.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 am
obviously an unworldly kind of person, if you think it sounds lame, look up the origins, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
And in regards to the Hiroshima apology, correct, but it shouldn’t have happened in the first place just like all that’s on the list.
And to blind the wicked and give sight to the deserving, what a crock of shit; that would imply that the world is full of people with multiple personalities.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 am
I’ve come in late to this, partly because I’ve been preoccupied with unpopular movies and partly because I avoid confronting ideas. I doubt if there’s much that I can add that other people haven’t already said.
The thing that always stuns me is the sheer scale of these events. I can’t imagine 100s of thousands or millions of people, let alone dead bodies. I guess this is one aspect of this that leads to denial or reduction.
Killing on this scale is only possible once you have dehumanised or lesser-humanised or non-individualised the others. Killing “the Hun” is quite easy. Killing “Hansel and Gretel” is quite hard (unless you are a wicked witch).
Something else: I don’t know the background to many of these, but quite often the two groups had lived in anywhere between peaceful coexistence to simmering hostility, then something sparks them off.
Today is the anniversary of the Korea-Japan annexation treaty of 1910, which was basically forced on the Korean emperor. Korea also suffered under Japan, though not in the numbers as in China (simply because there aren’t as many). Koreans took on sport as a way of getting their own back at the occupiers. Koreans still love to beat Japan in anything. Intriguingly, Korea and Japan were playing today in an Olympic baseball semifinal. In the eighth, it was 2-2, then Korea broke away to win 6-2. (I hope that doesn’t trivialise what is a very dark history.)
Koreans still hate the Japanese. One discussion book had a chapter about Korea-Japan relations, and what the students said made what is left of my hair stand on end.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 am
CRSN: “that would imply that the world is full of people with multiple personalities”
Bingo.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
CSRN (92)
Reading through some of the comments particuly #77 and #86 it seems with the education systems in a lot of countries don’t cover these incidents or anything of the matter.
Don’t know where you live CSRN, but here in New Zealand one of the problems with the History curriculum is that for many years it consisted of almost exclusively English History with very little NZ history taught (James Cook’s discovery voyage quite literally covered NZ history when I was at school). Eventually (about late 70’s early 80’s) the cry of why do we have to learn about the lineage of the English Monarchy or the Magna Carta when we are taught nothing about what is relevant to *US* as a country/people. Consequently the curriculum was revised to be much more NZ centric and cover our three islands and world events largely only as they affected us (Hence WW2 covers more of the North African/Italian campaigns than other larger issues regarding the War and it’s various campaigns, atrocities etc.)
I suspect this pattern of self centred history is probably quite common throughout large parts of the world. Not perhaps a good thing but apparently there is only so much time to teach everything kids need to know these days (yes there is just the smallest bit of sarcasm intended)
Cheers
Lee
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 am
doink (99)
An eye for an eye will make the world go blind – sounds lame. What it would do is blind the wicked and give sight to the deserving.
And who are the wicked and who the deserving?
Cheers
Lee
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
k1w1taxi:
Those who initiated the crime would be the wicked. Those who do nothing but make money within the accepted system without question would be the deserving.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 am
Holocaust included ALL ethnic and various groups killed during WW2.
For some reason the term is ONLY associated with the Jews. But Gays, Handicapped, Ukrainians, Catholics, so on are all victims of the HOLOCAUST.
More Ukrainians were killed during and immediately after WW2 than Jews. Despite the death camp statistics on Jews being revised downward the six million total is never lowered.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 am
Now here is a ruler
“However, on July 29, 1014 at Kleidion (or Belasitsa) (present day Blagoevgrad Province), Basil II was able to corner the main Bulgarian army and force a battle while Samuil was away. He won a crushing victory and, according to later legend[13], blinded 14,000 prisoners, leaving one man in every hundred with the sight in one eye to lead his comrades home. According to the legend, the sight of this atrocity was too much even for Samuil, who blamed himself for the defeat and died less than three months later, on October 6. Although the story is probably a later invention, it did give rise to the nickname by which Basil II was known from the 12th century onwards: the ‘Bulgar-slayer’.[13]“
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 am
well … few of them …
isn’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than qualified for that list … and Bleiburg when english officers sent back more than 200000 peoples (defeated army and civilians in much greater number) to communists which are then killed most of them in next few weeks?
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 am
If you want to learn more about the Baby Yar massacre, D.M. Thomas’s novel “The White Hotel” is well recommended. Not for the faint of heart, however!
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 am
Most of known masacres are not on the list, like :
1. Masacres French soldiers on Algerian civils and soldiers on 1960 -th
2. Masacres Italian soldiers on Libyan civilis on 1939
3. Masacres in GUERNICA by German and Franco Airplans
4. Masacres in Afganistan by USA Soldiers and Nort Troops
5. Masacres on Nort Amrerican Indians by USA Army ( from 1800 – 1900 )
6. Masacres on Muslim in Krim , and Chechenya by Stalin troop after II world war
7. Masacres by Palestinian refuges in Sabra and Shatila in Libanon by Israel force
8. Hiroshima and Nagasaki by USA AIR FORCE
9. Masacres on Aliende party member by general PINOCHE in CHILE
10. and more …….
Must be a real to get all information to give correct result.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 am
“Most of known masacres are not on the list”
You’re joking, right? Did you not read the list title? *Lesser* known is right there, in the title. It sorta implies “most known massacres” just might not be on the list.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
astraya:
There was a Korean grad student here (actually several) that I befriended a while back… very nice kid, great sense of humor. One day we somehow got onto the topic and I mentioned that my uncle was killed in the Korean War. He became sad and seemed very sorry, and I had to convince him that it was my uncle’s own fault–he’d survived WWII from D-Day to the end of Germany, and he’d gone and re-activated his commission at the start of the Korean War, against the protests of my father, who’d said the family had done their duty for their country, (my father and two of his brothers had served in WWII) that it was time for someone else to step in. My uncle ignored him… and was killed. It wasn’t the fault of the Korean people, not even the North Koreans who killed him (or Chinese for all we know). He’d decided to risk his life again, when it wasn’t necessary to do so.
At this the Korean student asked where my uncles and father had fought in WWII, and when I mentioned that most of them had fought in the Pacific against the Japanese, there was a distinct pick-up in his mood and a gleam in his eye… and I think he said something like, “very good.”
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 am
And for the Very first place you forgot the United States Massacre of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The most effective massacre and genocyde in the history of human civilisation.
140.000 Killed in Hiroshima in 10 seconds, and 80.000 In Nagasaki in 10 seconds.
Bravo.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
urbishat:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets in the most terrible and bloody war in human history. Both cities housed military bases and installations (Hiroshima was home to a large part of the Japanese Navy and a large army group was stationed there–we killed thousands of them with the bomb). Moreover, Japanese war production was honeycombed throughout their cities “cottage industry” style, making it extremely difficult to pick out purely industrial targets from what was purely civilian.
Many MORE Japanese were killed in *conventional* bombing raids–in single nights–in Tokyo and Yokohoma, and other cities, than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Furthermore, these bombs brought a speedy and decisive end to a war which the United States DID NOT start but was forced upon it by a Japanese sneak attack.
“Genocide” refers to the deliberate slaughter of an ENTIRE particular ethnic or religious group with the intent of doing away with that group completely. It does not in the least apply to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
WWII was, however, a war between PEOPLES, and as such the most horrible war in human history. You are belittling it and speaking childishly and ignorantly by trying to phrase ONE atrocity within it as worthy of some particular heinousness, when in fact the ENTIRE WAR itself was a gigantic atrocity and the most terrible one in all of human history.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:44 am
Randall(114) – I could not have said it better myself…
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Randall, (114),
You know you have the usual support (and surely the same antagonism).
Apropos: see 80, 83 & 87.
I’m just losing too much time singing the same songs, but full of admiration for your worthy, persistent ability to defend the mature and broadminded viewpoints.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
114-116
Are we in the minority in this opinion? Seems like one of these people pop up at any excuse to call the bombings a massacre of innocents, a war crime, a holocaust, or whatever. I hope to God that these are not a representative sample of youth/foreign opinion on the subject. To think that some of these people would put the bombings on the same list as the rape of Nanking… Makes me sad.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
logar, (117),
Slight suggested modification of your syntax:
for *pop up* sub *pop out of the woodwork*.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
114-116
Are we in the minority in this opinion? Seems like one of these people pop out of the woodwork at any excuse to call the bombings a massacre of innocents, a war crime, a holocaust, or whatever. I hope to God that these are not a representative sample of youth/foreign opinion on the subject. To think that some of these people would put the bombings on the same list as the rape of Nanking… Makes me sad.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
logar:
I think it’s typical of people who have no experience of war, either directly or indirectly through relatives, and thus, sitting fat and happy in their privileged and rarified air, they feel free to pass judgement without caring to know the facts or experience as it is in reality. If you took these little brats and forced them into uniform (as many were in WWII) and forced them into combat against the Japanese in say, Saipan or Iwo Jima or Okinawa (I had uncles at a couple of these) so they could be witness to the horrors of it, to see their friends shot apart before their very eyes, to see heads and faces blown off, intestines spilled, hand to hand combat with an enemy that fights with insane zealotry, who booby-traps his own dead and wounded in order to maim or kill more American soldiers, or pretends to surrender so he can then blow himself up with a grenade, taking a few Americans with him…. then I *guarantee* that these brats, whoever they are, would soon lose their own humanity in due course, and begin killing Japanese with the same zeal and unbridled hatred that American soldiers and marines did in fact fall to, in those terrible days. And begin committing the atrocities which both sides committed–maiming bodies, torturing the wounded, collecting ghastly “souvenirs” from their bodies, etc. etc. AND THEN, THEN, when they’d been through this horror DAY AFTER DAY for months… feeling the terror daily of potentially losing their lives or being torn apart by the enemy–witnessing daily horrors such as corpses of both friend and foe rotting in the mud and dysentery ridden jungle pits and creeks—THEN, for them to hear that two atom bombs had been dropped on Japan, and that this had ENDED the war–and the brats would now get to LIVE, and no longer have to witness these terrible things and DO these terrible things—you can bet you ass they’d change their tune about it. There’s no question of it. None.
A thoughtful man realizes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE horrors, WERE atrocities in a sense–as ALL war is atrocity and horror. But to JUDGE it as some kind of particular massacre or “genocide” the way these idiots have done–like Arek over in the other thread or this guy here–is silly and childish and naively moralistic.
But on the other hand, I sincerely hope these brats never have to learn FIRSTHAND how wrong they were. It’d be the most wonderful thing of all, if such a war never, ever happens again. I’ll trade that for their naive, blissful ignorance and self-righteous moralizing in regards to thing which they know nothing about.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
jebao vam HITLER mater
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Randall, (120)
Better and far more graphically and gut-wrenchingly put than the similar *shortie/quickie* I have just offered over on *the other thread*.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
But Randall,
I’m sure you could cite half a dozen and more anti-war films from ‘All Quiet …’ onwards where such events as you describe are portrayed sufficiently graphically and realistically for anyone with an ounce of imagination and sensitivity to be able to *feel* themselves in the same situation. They cerainly affect me that way and leave me emotionally wrung-out afterwards.
So do such reconstructions simply represent violent fiction to others here? A form of slightly more realistic video or paintball game? Or are the events in question so far removed from their own experience and imaginative capacity that they are unable empathise? If so, Heaven help the human race. Or do they deliberately resist in case their high and remote moral judgements might be challenged and fail? (Claiming that such a response is *emotional* and clouds our rational judgement. Spare me that.)
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I am from bosnia same country where sebrenica happened and its so in humane i hope all the ustahe go to hell and satan sticks a needle in their eye
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I would remind visitors to this site of a shocking fact. In most advanced countries of the world legislation exists for intervention by law in cases of internal familial violence. Police have the right to enter a home and prevent anyone beating their spouse or abusing their own children, for example.
At international level we do not have an equivalent to protect minorities. There is actually no specific intervention law in the event of massacres and genocide, only retrospective judgement as crimes against humanity or war crimes. At best nations can table outraged and pious motions at the United Nations or apply sanctions, if within their power and effective. Other than that, refugees fortunate enough to escape can be accepted. Finally, given sufficient international agreement (which is never likely to be unanimous), or the independent will of individual nations, armed intervention may take place. Serious problems will often trail in the wake of that.
Offending nations resist by protesting they are *solving their own internal matters*, usually citing the victims as terrorists or some other threat to state security.
I have wondered what would have happened about Jews in Nazi Germany had WW2 been avoided. I can only conclude they would have been gassed just the same, and the world would not have been prepared to go to war over the issue. Simply look what Stalin did in the Ukraine during *peacetime*.
For my money this is one of the great challenges facing humanity. If we do not stand by and let a person beat or kill members of their own family in their own home, should the world wring its hands helplessly while states do the same or worse to countless numbers of their own often helpless citizens? What use appealing to the morality of a dictator or tyrant? If those had any sense of morality they wouldn’t be tyrants. How, too, can we ever get agreement for action between all nations of the world when every regime, however beyond the pale, is a client state or partner of others? How can we ask mothers to send their sons to die in protection of some tiny beleaguered minoity somewhere they have never heard of across the other side of the world? These are just a few of the contingent questions. Is there a solution?
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
These kind of horrors, and the additional horrors added by some of the posters, are exactly why, when my children were young, I didn’t leave all of their education to the schools. We talked about mans inhumanity to man. About the value of every man, no matter what his lot in life. We talked about the brutality of war, and why peace is to be treasured and kept, and why each persons life is of equal value (at that age, I didn’t get into the relative value of the most obviously evil v. the most obviously good. It’s an argument too complex for even the most intelligent and educated theologian). The obvious lesson I was teaching was moral acceptance.
It worked.
It worked for 3, now grown, people.
What would the world be like if every child were brought up to believe that everyone were just as special, just as important, just as valuable as they?
Mind-boggling, isn’t it?
Of course, that will never happen. In so many countries, the racial hatred, racial blood lust, runs so deep, and has lasted for so many generations, that the very idea is foreign to them. It saddens me more than I can say. Hate as a familial gift is a dreadful idea, but one which exists and exists with pride in many areas of the world. That innocent lives are lost aren’t part of their equation.
Hatred is *not* as much a part of the human psyche as love. Hate has to be taught. Love is natural. It’s too bad, but hate seems to be easy to teach, easy to learn.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Thessaloniki was a Greek town?
Thessaloniki (more preciselly Salonika) was first time a part of Greece at the 2nd part of the 19th century. Not to mention that old democratic Greece has nothing to do with the new counry Greece established in the 19th century.
During the mentioned massacre Salonika was a part of the Roman empire, before that a part of the Macedonian empire. It was mostly populated with Macedonians and Jewish people, but also some Greek.
So what makes you think it was “Greek” town?
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
113. urbishat
And for the Very first place you forgot the United States Massacre of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
****
urbishat , what’s the name of this list?
10 Lesser Known Massacres.
How on earth do Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as lesser known?
Do you understand what “lesser” means? I recommend you check a dictionary, rather than appear this foolish next time.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
110. Dine
Actually, Sabra and Shatilla was a relatively minor massacre, but that’s not my main problem with your comment. The massacre was actually committed by Lebanese Christians. They may have been allied with the IDF, but they were not part of the IDF.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
129. jogiff
Lebanese Christian armed by Ariel Sharon ( Israel General) and support by Israeli army .
Please read book “Israel Case” Roger Garaudy
( He is jewish ).
Small comment: Italian ocupation of Lybia in II WW , is’nt popular topic, but many things in that war are unknown like first use airplain to bombing civils , etc…
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
“Small comment: Italian ocupation of Lybia in II WW , is’nt popular topic, but many things in that war are unknown like first use airplain to bombing civils , etc…”
Wrong. In the summer of 1917, German Gotha bombers were carrying out regular raids on British towns such as London.
Much earlier, on 19 January 1915, three craft of the German Naval Airship Division had bombed towns on the east coast of England killing 4 people and injuring 16 others. Aircraft bombing of towns continued throughout most of WW1.”
The Italian airforce was notorious between the wars for dropping gas bombs on tribal villages in Abyssinia (Ethiopia).
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Dine,
Read what segue wrote to urbishat. With facts so hopelessly inaccurate, one wonders why you bother to post.
If you insist on citing massacres in the Levant, you would also present a better case by being slightly less selective.
By the way, those reported as killed in my previous posting were all civilians, among the very first non-combatant fatalities of air raids. It was not unusual for over 100 civilians to be killed in one nightly raid during WW1.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 am
doink (105)
And who decides which is which?
Cheers
Lee
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Dine (110)
Beside the issues already pointed out with regards your post the other major items wrong with your killings are that they are none of them single atrocities, rather each is an agglomeration of killings each forming part of a campaign of Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing.
For example to use the one I know most about (Though by no means an expert)
5. Masacres on Nort Amrerican Indians by USA Army ( from 1800 – 1900 ). Even the total of all these separate massacres barely equals some of the larger single event massacres on the list. None of the individual Massacres such as Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, Black Kettle nor even The Trail of Tears (though you might have difficulty making a case for that as fitting the definition of a massacre) compare on a numbers killed basis with those on the list.
Cheers
Lee
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 am
Kiwitaxi,
“9. Masacres on Aliende party member by general PINOCHE in CHILE”
“a campaign of Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing.”
To take (only) the case I know best. Neither. You are perfectly correct in that the killings he mentions are essentially aggregate.
However, the one above is exemplary of those that are neither
genocide or ethnic cleansing.
It was POLITICIDE. Elimination of political opponents.
(I.e. The military mind’s failure to appreciate you do not kill an idea when you kill the people who hold it. In effect *allendism* in Chile had already proven itself unworkable: the butchery was THAT unnecessary.)
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
Where in this list will you include campaign of Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing, that greek government did in 1949 over macedonians in the country?
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Lidice (WW2) should be included to keep it alive in our collective memory.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 am
Igor:
“Thessaloniki was a Greek town?”
Thessaloniki was, if I’m not mistaken (I rarely am) founded as a Greek colony by Greeks from… was it Cos, or Lesbos? May have even been another island, I can’t recall… anyway, founded by Greeks in, I believe, the 8th century BC.
“Thessaloniki (more preciselly Salonika) was first time a part of Greece at the 2nd part of the 19th century.”
Current (or 19th century) political boundaries are meaningless here. Especially in that part of the world. Thessaloniki was Greek and always has been Greek. The mere fact that it was part of an Ottoman province or had passed from overlord to overlord over the centuries does not negate its inherent “Greekness.” It always had a heavy Greek population and is considered “Greek.”
“Not to mention that old democratic Greece has nothing to do with the new counry Greece established in the 19th century.”
Well you could argue this, but in fact it’s not quite accurate. What “old democratic Greece” do you refer to? What we call “Greece” was a collection of city-states and colonies across the Aegean and all over the Mediterranean (and the Black sea as well) until united under the Philip of Macedon. Yes, the nation-states of today are different from what the collective entities and empires of ancient times, but that’s not really relevant here.
“During the mentioned massacre Salonika was a part of the Roman empire, before that a part of the Macedonian empire. It was mostly populated with Macedonians and Jewish people, but also some Greek.”
Macedonians ARE Greeks, Igor. And again, it doesn’t matter that Salonica was “part of the Roman Empire” at the time. It was still Greek. Egypt was part of the Roman empire as well… does that mean it was no longer Egyptian? Come now. An Empire is a collection of smaller political units and kingdoms. Not a nation-state such as we have today. And even today your logic doesn’t always work, when you consider all the “nationalities” existing within nation-states in Eastern Europe and so on.
“So what makes you think it was “Greek” town?”
History, and facts.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
4, Katyn massacre.
We should also recall this was for long considered a Nazi atrocity, misinformation augmented not only cynically by the Soviets themselves, but also by pro-Stalinist western intelligencia and artists, albeit with more, if blind, sincerity. I believe the great Polish director, Andrzej Wajda (‘Ashes and Diamonds’, ‘Kanal’), has recently made a film on the subject.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
abhishek,
My admiration for your careful attempt to keep this discussion on a broad humanitarian level by avoiding contemporary onging, controversial conflicts with the exception of one token example.
Of course it would be impossible to keep those with specific present-day axes to grind away from such a topic. So here they are, attempting to polarise opinion and detracting from an outraged yet objective and all-embracing view of man’s inhumanity to man.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Randall, macedonians were never greeks and they will never be! But let’s leave that arguement aside.
I seems that nobody knows that greeks masacred around 30000 macedonians after the greek civil war (with was not a civil war at all, but a macedonian uprising). People who managed to flee at the time are still alive and living in todays Macedonia, and all over the world.
But misteriously these events are mising from world’s history. I guess that victors always write the history.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I have long been aware of the divide between countries where significant self-criticism and soul-searching in reaction to such events in their past occurs and is *allowed*, and those where such analysis is difficult, impossible or non-existent.
The latter, of course, by official state policy and popular consent, either consider
(a) Their nation and its allies have never committed atrocities at all,
(b) Any such individually cited events didn’t happen,
(c) If so, they were justifiable revenge or legitimate acts of war or resistance to oppression, or
(d) They were too insignificant to count.
For them, these same let-outs don’t stand as acceptable responses to accusations they make against any *enemy* they consider to have committed the same actions against their own nationals or allies.
You will certainly find examples of some of these denials and one-sided attitudes in this topic. Hopefully you will also have taken note here and elsewhere of thoughtful, often pained, criticisms by others against their own countries.
This difference seems very telling to me.
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Greek masacre by the Macedonian’s children and women after the World War 2
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Where is Genocide of Macedonians refuges from Civil War in 1948 in Greece when was killed 60000 Macedonians citizens ?
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I woulda included the massacre at Canudos. It’s certainly significantly lesser known than a couple of the massacres on this list and it’s estimated that anywhere from 15 thousand to 30 thousand people died.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Just so’s we don’t lose sight of the fact that our worlds glorious saviour of democracy and freedom,i.e the Americans are unblemished,i have included this cowardly act during the Vietnam War.On March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam war, U.S. soldiers of Charlie Company massacred 504 unarmed Vietnamese civilians, mostly women, children and old men, in the village of My Lai (sometimes called Mai Lai) about 15 kms north of Quang Ngai.( And they fell into the dark,and the dark laughed and opened wide his arms and welcomed them )anon
August 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
And Greek masacre in Macedonia 1912/1913, and masacre in 1948 against Macedonians?
August 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
kiwiflyboy, (146).
“On March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam war, U.S. soldiers of Charlie Company massacred 504 unarmed Vietnamese civilians, mostly women, children and old men, in the village of My Lai (sometimes called Mai Lai) about 15 kms north of Quang Ngai.”
See my 142.
Further.
It is unlikely that any participant nation in any major war is free of such acts by individuals, whether or not part of its war policy. Two questions to ask. Is it part of the sanctioned war conduct of that nation? In this case no. Was it dealt with as a breach of discipline and crime by the nation concernmed. In this case yes.
Tell me for how many of these or other massacres you are able to supply those two answers.
How many of the nations involved in these massacres have themselves produced outraged books or films by their own nationals?
On my bookshelf I have a copy of ‘The Sinking of the Belgrano’. It is a fierce criticism by British journalists of an action by Britain during the Falklands war.
Would you care to cite me a few similar common examples at random from around the world: say Turkey, Japan, Serbia, to name but three. One criterion I insist on. Any such self-critics must be accepted and tolerated by their governments and populations at large.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Anon (148)
I’m sorry Anon I don’t quite get your point. Are you saying that because Lt Calley was tried and convicted by The US Army that My Lai is not/ should not be classified as a Massacre?
If so that is a very weird way of thinking.
Cheers
Lee
August 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
k1w1taxi, (149),
“U.S. soldiers of Charlie Company massacred 504 unarmed Vietnamese civilians”
Note the word MASSACRED.
” … such acts by individuals”
Note the word ACTS, which I would have thought unambiguously refers to *massacred* and in no way denies it. Or is my syntax that confusing? I hardly know how I could have made it clearer.
Of course I bloody well consider it a bloody massacre. What the FUCK else, a Teddy Bear’s Picnic? You clearly either have not read and therefore have little or no idea of my ethics in these topics, which I trust are consistent enough, or you consider me a hypocrite. I don’t excuse any actions where there is NO room for reasonable doubt, including by my own country and compatriots.
And that is exactly the point, and the only point I happen to be making. That Americans have admitted the crime in their own name and punished Calley. On the other hand there is a Turkish subject above saying that massacres amounting to subgenocide on a massive and nationally approved scale either never happened or were insignificant. That also happens to reflect the subject’s government’s posture. I cite a Turk and Turkey simply as a named example. The world is full of equivalents. I’ll offer you something yet more obscene, if you like. To feed it’s hatred of Israel the Iranian government has denied that the Holocaust existed (may still do for all I know).
Now I consider these total contrasts of attitude to be significant. Do you?
August 24th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I live in Chile. Only outsiders that watch too much american television think poorly of Allende. The economic reforms Pinochet took credit for were already beginning to benefit the nation when Allende was still in power.
Don’t talk about Chilean history and call Allende a failure when it is obvious you’ve never seen the inside of the country and the land he was and still is a hero in. The people here actually lived what you think you know about, and I’ve never met anyone who has been against Allende or for Pinochet, never met anyone who doesn’t know that Chile was advancing even before the fascists took power and murdered the people who were democraticaly elected.
Fascists aided and supported by the U.S. government, of course. Like most political crimes and such in the past 20 years.
August 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Mr Graves, (151),
I live in Chile and am married to a Chilean. I don’t want to re-iterate here what I have already posted in great detail elsewhere. Please be kind enough to check my more recent relevant comments under the ‘10 Books that Screwed up the World’ topic. There you will find an opinion of Allende from myself (and my wife) which is diametrically opposed to yours, and which is backed by personal experience and our own perceptions. To intrigue you, my wife’s father was a copper miner who started out as a fervent local political communist leader of the UP when it was elected (he even wondered whether he ought to give up his catholicism!). The fall into disillusion was that great.
In fact the outside world doesn’t consider Allende a failure. It always has cited him as a saint and martyr. Politically Chile is all black and white, not grey, to those who haven’t lived here. Margaret Thatcher scratched Pinochet’s back because of their mutual self-interested action against the omnipresent territorial menace of Argentina. That is as understandable in its way as Finland allying with the Nazis against the menace of Russia.
Don’t make the error of assuming we are Pinochet apologists. He was a brutal, vicious murderer: (for all their faults against people, the UP and Allende were not killers). On top of that, a man who claims in power to know when even a leaf falls anywhere in Chile, but afterwards beams like a nice, confused old grandfather and says he didn’t know what was going on, is not fit to float with scum on a cesspit. The filthy coward let his subordinates take the full rap.
But. I do consider both Allende and Pinochet to have been 100% sincere in their ways, and as believing themselves to be acting for their extreme concepts of Chile. The problem in both cases is that word *extreme*.
You must have a very narrow circle of friends indeed. Ours includes a sprinkling of pinochetistas and communists, although the vast majority share our *plague on both your houses* attitude. Even Anita’s immediate family is still widely divided, although subliminally rather than fanatically. The present support for direct Allende-type policies is about 3% of the population. The promulgation by TVN of Salvador Allende as one of the greatest 10 Chileans has created a national furore.
I’d also be interested in your reaction to my reasons for supposing U.S. support for Pinochet was nowhere near as strong and unconditional as you state.
I am amazed to find what we would regard as such a one-sided and simplistic viewpoint from someone who is actually resident in Chile. Did you live here throughout these events?
What papers do you read?
Mr Graves. How I should love to hear a Turk expressing himself about his country’s massacre of the Armenians as you do so uninhibitedly about your country. And so on.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Hey Anon,don’t get your tits in a tangle because others are just expressing their thoughts,perhaps it might be of interest to you to find out that cowardly Calley only served 3 YEARS of his sentence,that almost suggests that the good ol US of A ,war office, sanctions this type of MASSACRE !!!!
August 24th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Well speaking of lesser known massacares, or genocides for that matter I think the liberation war of 1971 deserves a place here. The Paki army committed numerous crimes against Bengali civilians in that war after Bangladesh declared their independence. I don’t know why this particular war always gets overlooked when the death toll was supposedly 3 million( that’s half the Jews who were killed by the Nazis). I got to know about the details and it really was a heinous affair.
There were some massacares here which are already well known and well publicised one would have to say. The writer did a good job but could’ve done better by including genocides which still remain in the dark of today’s information aware people. I would strongly recommend including the Liberation war of 1971 in lists like this.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Ro, (154),
Quite agree. I’ve already noted there is nothing for the main body of Africa, where appalling massacres have taken place and almost certainly are taking place. Perhaps there should be another list called ‘Unknown Massacres’.
Kiwiflyboy,
I would say you were quite definitely challenging me rather than simply expressing random thoughts, two quite different kettles of fish. Therefore I was legitimately untwisting my tits wot you had twisted. O.K. admittedly you did phrase it as a question. But you also implied strongly I might not have considered it a massacre. Do that and sorry, I’m gonna react, buddy. I wouldn’t put that to anyone unless they had made an unambiguous statement to the effect, like our Turlish friend above.
Well, I’m not going to defend letting Calley out. Again, I should say that happens just about everywhere too, not just in the U.S. However, I haven’t made a study of Calley, so don’t know and can’t say on what grounds he was freed. You obviously have and can. What I will say without fear or favour is that in too many countries the Calleys not only get away with it, they get promoted and get a medal for that sort of action. Deny that if you will, or make of it what you will. I’m a realist and a cynic, so I regard any kind of progress as better than none at all. Otherwise Germany, which acknowledges and deeply regrets with shame it’s war record, is no different from Japan, which doesn’t.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Correction: Turkish friend
August 25th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Anon.
Thank You for your reply. I can only plead a Spoon moment due to an excess of oven cleaner fumes prepping for a flat inspection.
Cheers
Lee
August 25th, 2008 at 1:19 am
k1w1taxi,
You’re welcome.
I know, it happens all the time in the best of circles. Don’t get addicted though. They say ther’s no cure for oven cleaner, you go roast turkey. (Sorry couldn’t resist that.)
Cheers
August 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The Word:
“Randall, macedonians were never greeks and they will never be! But let’s leave that arguement aside.”
Good idea, “the word,” because you’d lose that one hands down.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:15 am
omg randall,
ppl like you make the base of every massacre and genocide or holocaust or call it what you like. Those kind of things happen cuz some1 like YOU thinks he can tell OTHERS that they are something they are NOT. PERIOD! your fact (which is more of a pure fiction) is something we Macedonians have seen a lot. Uneducated assholes tampering OUR (Macedonian) history. OUR language which we kindly gave to others (Serbians, Bulgarians and many others in Europe). and OUR holy Macedonian orthodox church. People like YOU will always try to “persuade” other ppl to change their feelings with force. you are lost in this conversation cuz you are taking the wrong side. go support some other genocide and leave US Macedonians alone.
how can YOU in the name of god, tell ME what i am?
why do you think you have the right to do it?
every single 3year old child on this planet knows that Macedonians aren’t Greeks.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Whoa!!
Just typed out a reply to Ljupco and got an error message. Did a page refresh and got a whole new format. Nice Look but what a surprise.
Anyway, Ljupco. I doubt that a single 3 year old outside Macedonia knows about, or cares about, the Macedonians and their relationship with the Greeks.
If you were just trying to use stupid excessive hyperbole to make a point then all you really succeed in doing is to undermine any possible legitimacy in your argument.
It is EXACTLY the sort of statement that will ensure Randall chews you up and spits you out.
Cheers
Lee
August 26th, 2008 at 3:52 am
160 Ljupco
You have a point, but raised it in a poor fashion, Randall is an arrogant bully and will have a field day with your comments.
152 155 Anon
I agree, there were whole shades of grey in what Pinochet did with Chile. Codelco and others prospered and raised the living standards of the general populace. As you correctly point out though, he was a murdering turd.
There have been many massacres in Africa that never received the historical reporting that they deserve. The disgraceful behavior of the Italians in Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia bear far more telling, the early uses of aerial bombardment of civilians was appalling in the extreme.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
SK,
Having delivered you verdict on Randall, which would surely find some degree or other of accord, I wonder if you’d consider a rider or corollary? One that might be supported by at least some of those who agreed with you as well as by others. It certainly is by myself.
I.e. that some past and present in LV have not only asked for what they get from Randall, but probably deserve more.
A point about nationality:
If a full-blooded Mapuche from the south of Chile were to insist he and his race have always belonged to their own nation and are not Chileans, I could not and should not argue with him. A significant enough number do take that position. Argument will not win hearts and minds in such cases. I might point out that rightly or wrongly his government (which he would not accept as his) considers him Chilean, so does a vast majority of other Chileans, even of his own ethnic people (traitors!). He is counted as Chilean in national census figures and in numerous other stats. The world at large considers him a Chilean. But if he rejects all that and doesn’t feel himself to be Chilean?
Thank you for your short but informed comment on Chile.
If I may add a bit more to your outline:
Without building up the economy, and relying blindly on the basis of the copper market (which collapsed), Allende diffused and lost national reserves on massive social reform before creating a stable financial base.
Pinochet learned from the historical nitrate and copper crises and built a broad and varied base into the Chilean economy, a strategy that is sensibly adopted to this day. His policy led to economic recovery and a stable standard of living for all.
Allende blanket reforms dismantled Chilean agriculture and to a significant extent handed it over to people who were incapable of managing it (and at worst only wished to exploit it sahort-term): equivalent to expecting an air hostess to fly an aircraft, or a nurse to perform an operation.
Under Pinochet agriculture was developed as one of the supporting pillars of the economy.
Whatever his personal intention, Allende’s regime set class against class and destroyed the fragile social fabric of Chile.
Pinochet maintained that division, but evolved it more into a direct political struggle, incorporating monstrous brutality. However, his ruthless grip ensured there was little social upheaval.
It’s so easy to see how Pinochet, the rigid military mind, followed his training to fight an enemy relentlessly until it is totally defeated. He had no concept of the political and religious subtelties of the necessity to avoid creating martyrs at all costs. Also that the best way in politics is to demonstrate how your opponent has created his own mess and dropped in it. Pinochet’s crassest stupidity was to believe you can kill an idea by killing its proponents. That never has, never will and never could work. Where Marx’s predictions are failing is not through war, but because they are rejected as unworkable and unwanted.
My late ex-communist father-in-law stated that had he merely confined himself to the economy and maintaining order with minimum force, Pinochet would have been one of Chile’s greatest national heroes, and would surely have been elected democratically in any plebiscite. Of course, he would always have attracted critics for de-throning democracy, but probably his approbation would have stood a lot nearer Tito’s than Franco’s.
Allende worship is perhaps as much based on Pinochet hatred as evaluation of Allende himself. What if he had lived to take personal responsibility, a question often asked of Kennedy?
These are, of course, no more than my own analyses and personal opinions, even where shared by others, but I believe they stand up against the events in question.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Forgot the final parallel ironies.
Allende banked on decisive Soviet support which never came.
Pinochet banked on ad inf. *western* support for his brutality on the basis of the communist threat. The communist threat fell through and the support evaporated
August 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
130: Dine
So what if they were allied with Israel? The US was allied with the Communists, that doesn’t mean that we are responsible for the Great Purges. Sometimes you have to work with the lesser evil, and as bad as Sabra and Shatilla were, things like that were not too uncommon.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:43 am
for Igor (comment #127)
I’m from Thessaloniki and I can assure you that this city has always been Greek regardless of the various minorities and occupiers that have passed through.
Macedonia itself located in northern Greece.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Anon:
Thank you for the support…
I am, unfortunately, deeply engaged in business here at the university and will be, probably, for several days at least–remember, it’s the start of the Fall semester. So I’m up to my eyes in it.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Randall,
Pleasure.
If necessary I’ll try to hold any fort of mutual interest to us that needs my stumbling aid until you return (refreshed?) into the breach once more. Or until the eyes no longer have it.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Here is what Oric (commander of the Muslim forces within Srebrenica) did to Serb civilians prior to 1995 which provoked the Srebrenica massacre:
http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/
The amount of Serb civilians killed by Oric number around 3,500.
In contrast, the majority of those killed by RSV were prisoners of war and 1,000 of the 8,000 died before the massacre (but they‘re name were added to bolster the number of massacred for propaganda purposes.)
August 30th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Deucaon, I really don’t think that SerbiAnna is a totally reliable source.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
nope, not disturbed…
August 31st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Naser Oric , commander from Srebrenica was on HAG and he is
free of many accusation. He is Bosnia. He never hide , and
he stand up for truth.
On HAG relevant number is 180 serbs civils.
In HAG massacre is Srebrenica is valuated as GENOCIDE on
Bosniacs peoples.
August 31st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
@jogiff
Documented evidence (videos and pictures) doesn’t lie regardless of which website it is hosted on.
@Dine
The Hague tribunal is a sham. Especially after all Serb politicians/officers there are convicted for being apart of a “Join Criminal Enterprise” (i.e. command responsibility) when the same rule doesn’t apply to Croat, Muslim or Albanian commanders/politicians despite there being videos of them giving orders to commit crimes (and a video of Oric bragging to a reporter about how he slaughtered 100 Serb civilians in a single raid.) Now unless you admit that the killing of 3,500 Serb civilians before 1995 constitutes a “genocide” then you are a bloody hypocrite. And the term “Bosniak” is an Austrian propaganda term used to legitimise the presence of Turkish colonizers on the Serb nation of Bosnia.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:14 am
“The Word:
“Randall, macedonians were never greeks and they will never be! But let’s leave that arguement aside.”
Good idea, “the word,” because you’d lose that one hands down.”
Randall, keep on thinking like that!
Since the greeks themselfs said that the Mecedonians were barbarians, it’s obvious that they can not be greeks! The original meaning of barbarian is “one who does not speak greek” or in the modern equvavilent “one who just says bla bla bla”. This is a fact, and all of the killings that the greeks did in 1912 and 1948 are also a fact. Greeks should be grateful that the ancint macedonians dicided to spread the greek language (but not the culture) around the known world and put this silly argument aside. But have in mind that back then greek was like english today.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:20 am
I would have thought that 1, 3 and 6 were fairly well-known about. My mistake….
September 4th, 2008 at 6:20 am
“The word”
Do you actually believe any of this?
“..ince the greeks themselfs said that the Mecedonians were barbarians, it’s obvious that they can not be greeks!..”
Actually, Alexander the Great also used this phrase. Therefore, you seem to be a little misinformed.
This so called “Macedonia nation” that you are talking about, along with the alleged massacres is fiction. Please pursue this matter further (only) at unclyclopedia.org ( http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ).
September 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
ligeia, (175),
“I would have thought that 1, 3 and 6 were fairly well-known about. My mistake….”
To that I would add 4.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Tele….
Keep on ignoring 3 milion people and you will see what will happen!
) Very soon Greece will have to return the properties (or pay huge amounts of money) of those “fictional” people (as you say) who were chased out by the greek soldiers when this “fictional” masacre happened. Or you will say then that that thing never happened! 
)
September 8th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Answer to Deucaon
I am Bosniac and I am not Turk or Serbs.All time of war I was here in Bosnia. Former Yugoslavia are founded from 6 – republics. Macedonia, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegowina,Monte Negro and two autonomus area Kosovo and Vojvodina. This bloody war is Serbs politicals attend to take they imagine teritory that accommodating mostly all republics except Slovenia by Yugoslav Army. This army spend all arms to destroy cities like Vukovae, Dubrovnik , Sarajevo , Srebrenica, Tesanj, Mostar etc….
Around Srebrenica Serbs army had about 200 tanks , and many heavy artillery, etc..
Oric and his solders are armed just with guns that they take from Serbs soldiers in combat. In Hag are presented all clues but nowhere any clues about massacres on Serbs civilians. If you have please , put they names on internet.
For all bosniac victims UN expert take DNA analisys and they have name.
In the name of victims – Sunday bloody sundey.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
the word:
In fact, the ancient Greeks did NOT view the Macedonians as barbarians–for one thing, because the ancient Macedonians DID speak Greek. But the Greeks recognized the Macedonians as less respectable cousins of theirs, poorer relations which they looked down upon the way we slick New Yorkers look down upon people from Arkansas or Tennessee. I don’t say this was fair, but it’s how the Greeks saw the Macedonians.
Remember, “the word,” MODERN Macedonian (the language) has nothing to do with ancient Macedonian. Modern Macedonian is a Slavic language, most closely related to Bulgarian, I think. It doesn’t enter into the area that is Macedonia until the 6th century AD.
But Macedonians themselves, the people who have been there all along, were and are, ethnically, far more closely Greek than Slavic.
What Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander spread around the ancient world was GREEK language and GREEK culture because they themselves, as ancient Macedonians, were close cousins of the Greeks.
But enough of this quibbling. Here’s a recommendation from a so-called “ignorant” American. Why don’t you freaking clowns in the Balkans STOP with this shit of massacring and hating and oppressing each other and instead of acting like violent children, settle down and LIVE with each other? Hmmmm? Howzabout that for an idea?
We’ll all WESTERNERS, pal. We are all, in that sense, cousins and brothers and sisters and so forth. I have never understood freaking Europeans and their unending need to divide themselves into smaller and smaller nationalities whose sole purpose, it seems, is to hate each other. Get off it and grow up. Nationalism leads to barbarism, not civilization. Stop thinking of yourself as a goddamned Macedonian or Slav or whatever the fuck you think you are, and think of yourself as a EUROPEAN and a WESTERNER. Then join the rest of us in shopping at the Gap and sipping a latte at Starbucks.
Sheesh.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Randall, I would add the following to your good dose of common sense:
By all means retain your cultural identity. In fact don’t lose it. But as music, costume, architectural style, pride in artists and scientists from your region, pride in your countryside, harmless sporting rivalry, and so on. Not vicious hatred and murder.
Look at how we British now regard without hatred the very German nation we fought so bitterly against only 60-odd years ago. How can it be that Arab nations want to destroy Jews, yet Israel and Germany, which gassed millions of Jews, are now friends? Will you people never learn?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:49 am
For Randall:
I agree with you in principle but in practice the Balkans have always been messy. One of the reasons for this is when the superpowers (ie the USA) pull new nations out of their a@$# (ie Kossovo) through force. This opened the path for Russia to do the same with Osetia. The people of the Former Republic of “Macedonia” (FYROM) believe that they can do the same (they can’t).
As for the continuing(!) violence, I’m not trying to shift the blame from us, the locals, but interference from the superpowers are making matters worse.
Also, I notice you call yourself an “American” as in citizen of the USA. Do you believe that in conversation you would refer to yourself as a “North American” or a citizen of NAFTA? Also, when talking to fellow Americans when they ask “where are you from” do you say “USA” or actually use the state/city in which you reside. I view myself as a Greek, a Canadian (dual nationality), a European and a Westerner. I can be all of them without hate.
For Anon:
In Europe, the major issue was to get rid of territorial claims based on resource grabbing. This was achieved through the European Coal and Steel Community (which lead to the European Union). We now have a long lasting peace and was is unthinkable and it turned out that the fighting was about economics and not culture. The Arab nations and Israel are at each other as Israel (once again) was a nation pulled out of the USA’s a#$ which is there to keep in check the oil reserves. Create a Middle East Oil and Water Community and peace will prevail.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:51 am
FIXING THE LAST PARAGRAPH:
For Anon:
In Europe, the major issue was to get rid of territorial claims based on resource grabbing. This was achieved through the European Coal and Steel Community (which lead to the European Union). We now have a long lasting peace and waR is unthinkable. IT turned out that the fighting was about economics and not culture. The Arab nations and Israel are at each other as Israel (once again) was a nation pulled out of the USA’s a#$ which is there to keep in check the oil reserves. Create a Middle East Oil and Water Community and peace will prevail.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am
@Dine
The reason there was a war in Yugoslavia was because Slovenes, Croats and Muslims were brainwashed by their leaders into first fearing and then hating Serbs and Yugoslavia as a whole though a quarter of Muslims in Bosnia (mainly based in western Bosnia) decided not to follow the crazy Izebegovic and they decided to stay within Yugoslavia. In 1941 when the Nazis invaded Yugoslavia all the Slovenes, Croats and Muslims ran off to join the Waffen SS and local death squads while the Serbs joined the resistance movements of Chetniks and Partizans. Something similar happened in 1991.
In short, the reason why there was a war was because Slovenes, Croats and Muslims never believed in or wanted Yugoslavia and not because of some pseudo Serb aggression (its unbelievable that people actually believe that Serbs destroyed Yugoslavia to create “Greater Serbia” while they also believe that Yugoslavia was dominated by Serbs and that is the reason why Slovenes, Croats and Muslims wanted to leave in the first place. It would only make sense to an idiot that Serbs wanted to destroy something they presided over in order to create something which they preside over.)
What Muslims fought for (something which their Turkish forefathers failed to do) was to destroy Serbdom in Bosnia. They failed but they continue to try by attempting to disband Republika Srpska and Muslims politicians keep telling Serbs in Bosnia to “pack up their bags and leave.”
Also, an important note is that Muslims are the minority in Bosnia.
As for Srebrenica:
http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/
As for the war in Bosnia and Krajina:
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/index.html
Here are some irrefutable facts:
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/100facts/index.html
September 9th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I would also like to remind Dine that Serbs never “destroyed” Mostar (the city was divided between Croats and Muslims while Serbs were already ethnically cleansed from the area and RSV wasn’t even close to the city) which shows how much he knows about the war in Bosnia (no doubt as much as any fool who watched the CNN/BBC and took its propaganda seriously.)
September 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
tele,
Thank you for your measured and thoughtful response, which is always welcome.
I agree wholeheartedly that the European Union, perhaps together with the development of nuclear weapons, has totally eliminated the possibility of major war between the signatory nations. (Churchill was a strong force behind the conception for that very reason.) However, the motivation behind WW2 in particular was far from purely economic. Culture played a strong role. It came in the form of national bombast called the Aryan Master Race. Those who did not fit that cultural mould were called Untermenschen. Their destiny was to be exterminated or act as slaves. Another reason for both wars was Lebensraun rising to world domination; a third, particularly as a cause of WW1, imperial rivalry. Of course economics (oilfields, land for food production, colonial resources, etc.) was tied into this, but the complex situation was far from mere economics.
Your view of the foundation of Israel is also for me grossly and unsupportably simplistic. The essence of a Jewish homeland has its roots buried deep in history, long even before the U.S. was a twinkle in the eye of ‘Mayflower’ immigrants. Take, for example, the diaspora, the innumerable persecutions of Jews in Europe from at least around 1000 A.D. onwards in such nations as my own England, Spain, Russia, and of course Germany. The culmination, the Holocaust, could be regarded as the last straw and desperate impulse for a safe homeland. Safe????
A fair amount of the complex more recent history is outlined in another recent LV list. I will also say that my own nation, Britain, was far more involved in the early negotiations and problems involved in setting up a Jewish homeland than the U.S. ever was. In fact an idealistic British Labout government abandoned its responsibility to oversee a just settlement for various linked reasons. Firstly it was too war-weary and broke to function efficiently as a peace-keeper. Secondly, imagine how the British public saw its own young National Servicemen having to oppose and kill Jews. These were the very peoples they had just seen images as scarcely living human skeletons emerging from the concentration camps, or being buried in rotting heaps by bulldozers. Finally, the Jewish impulse itself to set up Israel had become logisitically irresistable short of open warfare.
As for subsequent out-and-out U.S. support for Israel, my reading on the subject offers a very different picture indeed. Certainly with regards to the desperate moments of Israeli national survival. Otherwise, why did Israel have to go to France and even the pariah South Africa for most its arms? Why was the 1947 war fought with allied (non U.S.) and German war surplus materials aquired through Czech arms dealers, the black market and other similar sources? Why has Israel needed to develop its own arms industry? Why have Israeli armaments not always been readily available standard U.S. latest export material, as Arab nations have always been supplied by the Soviets? Please ask yourself those questions.
Yes, I agree that that the conflict is indeed cultural. But Israel represents no threat of territorial aggression to the numerous large nations that surround her. How could she? She herself has no real resources that war and occupation would warrant. The two big issues are Jerusalem as a contested spiritual centre, and the displaced Palestinians. Both could surely be solved by sensitive negotiation and goodwill rather than an explcit threat of national annhilation and an implicit one of retaliatory nuclear warfare. I mentioned national bombast in my second paragraph. I would ask whether you don’t see that same monster lurking in this tragic situation.
As one with a good percentage of southern Irish blood, there is no doubt that the minority problem lies at the heart of so much bitterness worldwide. I have lived in Cyprus and had good friends in both communities. But unlike the rest of the world, I thoroughly understand the fears of the Turkish minority and their wish for separation. They are justified from my viewpoint. It was Turkey, not the sanctimonious U.N. which protected them in their moment of peril. I am no less aware that if the Greeks were a small, vulnerable minority, the boot would be on the other foot. Minorities are vulnerable and need protection because they are minorities, not because they are *better*.
I have no time for murderous IRA terrorists who only pay hypocritical lip service to *collateral victims*. However, I also appreciate that the Catholic minority in the north (I.m not religious at all) were being seriously disadvantaged. On top of that the Protestants do not want to be part of a greater Ireland any more than Falkland Islanders want to bcome part of Spanish Argentinian culture. Shouldn’t all these wishes be respected?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
tele,
Before you correct me, I Israel certainly has valuable freshwater resources. But even those are surely not (yet) worth going to war at the cost of … what? … for?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
tele:
“I agree with you in principle but in practice the Balkans have always been messy.”
You’re not telling me anything I don’t know, tele, I’m a historian. But don’t give me excuses, either. *Everyone* always has some kind of mess on their hands. Northern Ireland, Cyprus, the Basque separatists, you name it. It never makes it right or okay. The problem is people getting all atomistic and finding more reasons to “reduce” themselves into smaller and smaller groups so they can hate “the other” and take to whacking each other.
Europe overall has been going “international” for decades. The Balkans need to follow suit. It’s the grown-up, sane, civilized thing to do.
“One of the reasons for this is when the superpowers (ie the USA) pull new nations out of their a@$# (ie Kossovo) through force.”
Oh please. I don’t blithely defend American foreign policy at all turns, but by the same token, don’t blame us for the failings of the region. The US isn’t responsible for the bullying, oppression and ethnic cleansing that’s gone on in the Balkans.
“This opened the path for Russia to do the same with Osetia.”
Well perhaps, yes, but I’ll tell you what I think more generally: What opened the path for Russia to do what they did in Ossetia was Russia. It has always been and ever is the expansionist nutcase nation of the region. 60% of why Russia backed Ossetia is simple Russian hegemony–the Russians have always felt they have a right to tell their neighbors what to do and to hold sway over them in one form or another. The other 40% of why Russia did what they did is because of the Bush administration’s blundering, bullying, moronic ways of *handling* the Russians. Getting in their face and hyping up NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia, etc. is like *asking* for trouble from the Russians. They’re a proud, nutty people always on edge. You don’t handle them like that.
I don’t know who the hell we think we are, getting in the face of our former global adversary like that, and then we don’t expect them to react first chance they get. Bush and his cronies are idiots and bullies of the first degree. Unfortunately they bring our country, our alliance, and the various nations of the former USSR down with them.
You can bet your ass, tele, that had the Bush administration not had such a STUPID policy towards Russia the last few years, that we could have schmoozed them into behaving themselves better. As I say, they’re a proud people who for some reason have a gigantic self-esteem problem. The way to handle them is to stroke their ego and to never make them feel like they’re a second-class, excluded power. Putin’s a clever, mean bastard, but I think if he’d been treated less like a bullied former opponent and more like a sort-of partner, we wouldn’t have the situation in Georgia today. Of course, he’s still an authoritarian and Machiavellian creep in a lot of ways, but what’s new when it comes to Russia?
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the matter.
“As for the continuing(!) violence, I’m not trying to shift the blame from us, the locals, but interference from the superpowers are making matters worse.”
Well I’ll grant that in the past that has certainly been the case. Much of the trouble in the world today still stems from the Cold War. I can’t argue with that, and I’m frankly ashamed of it, as an American.
But nevertheless, no—you should never just deflect blame. Things might be made more complex or troublesome, but the US didn’t invent the hatreds of the region, just as we didn’t invent the trouble between Arabs and Israelis. I don’t know what you or anyone else would have us do in situations like this. During the Cold War we couldn’t afford to just allow hot spots to flare up incessantly–stability had to be kept for the sake of the entire world—remember tele, wherever you’re writing from–if there had been a nuclear war, you and everyone else in the world would have gone done with us and the USSR. For the sake of preventing that, a lot of expedient and nasty things were done. It wasn’t right, and it wasn’t always done smartly nor were the best decisions always made… but who ever said either the US or the USSR had some great wisdom in all this? I highly doubt any other nations would have done any better given the circumstances.
And today, in the world as it is—I admit freely that Bush is a douche, a complete asshole, and I literally do feel shame and sorrow for my country, for the way it’s going and for the reputation it now has around the world. But still–what would any of you have us do? Retire to our borders? I know a lot of Americans who’d gladly do that. But do you *really* think the world would be made safer if that was so? It would fix the current mess, ala Bush, sure. But in the long run? The world never sits still long for a power vacuum, tele. Someone always steps in to fill it.
“Also, I notice you call yourself an “American” as in citizen of the USA. Do you believe that in conversation you would refer to yourself as a “North American” or a citizen of NAFTA?”
You’re comparing apples to oranges. I was talking about ALL of us, Westerners, culturally. I WOULD refer to myself as a WESTERNER and do, and all Americans do, at least if they think about it for half a second.
North America, besides being a continent, is simply a region, a geographical sphere made up of Canada, the US and Mexico (and I suppose Central America). Europe also, besides being a continent, is a region… but it’s also more than that. Europe is a community (little c) and an identity in a way that “North America” is not. Europe is also a civilization, it’s the heart of the West, and we all, you and me—you as a European or Canadian, whatever… and me as an American, and otherse besides… we are all Westerners. We share not only the history of Christendom between us, but a collective set of values going back, yes, to the ancient Greeks–Western individuality and freedom, science and philosophy. The Western mind is still a very real thing. Doesn’t make us *better* than those from the East, just different.
“Also, when talking to fellow Americans when they ask “where are you from” do you say “USA” or actually use the state/city in which you reside.”
That’s even worse than comparing apples and oranges, it’s just silly. State identity in the US is nothing next to national identity. State identity is almost totally geographic, with some slight micro-cultural associations. Nothing more.
“I view myself as a Greek, a Canadian (dual nationality), a European and a Westerner. I can be all of them without hate.”
Good for you. But you’re not typical of the people in the Balkans in that sense.
And by the way, I’m part Greek myself.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
tele:
Sorry, but I also have to butt in here on your conversation with Anon:
A) As Anon says, your remarks about the creation of Israel are off the wall and completely wrong. Strategic oil issues played no significant role in Israel’s birth in 1948, as the US at the time still had its own vast oil reserves. The US did not “pull Israel out of its ass” as such, therefore, and as Anon points out adeptly, there were a great many other circumstances that led to the founding of that nation. The US, at best, was simply a facilitator.
B) WWII simply economic? What were they teaching you in grade school? WWII was ENTIRELY cultural–good god, do you need a primer in this? Even WWI was not largely economic in nature. But particularly WWII was not.
You seem the intelligent sort, tele, but when it comes to some of these off-kilter opinions of yours, I’d suggest you stop sniffing glue.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Thank you all for giving the time to answer my comments. This has been very interesting. Just a couple of points:
WARNING: SIMPLICITY AND OVERSIMPLIFICATION BELOW
- “Israel certainly has valuable freshwater resources. But even those are surely not (yet) worth going to war at the cost of … what? … for?”
We will talk about that in less than ten years.
BTW, I have nothing against Israel or any of the Arab nations (well, maybe freedom would be nice). I’m just pointing out that if it wasn’t for the oil fields most nations wouldn’t really give a damn about the whole region and definitely not interfere. Divide and conquer is not a slogan, but actual foreign policy for some. Also, the US always regarded Israel as a military stronghold to keep everybody else in check, and to use as a launching point for attacks (Desert Storm I+II, anybody?)
- WWII
“WWII simply economic?… You seem the intelligent sort, tele, but when it comes to some of these off-kilter opinions of yours, I’d suggest you stop sniffing glue.”
Love the glue remark. Economics always plays a major role (sometimes the only role) in war. Anecdotal evidence suggests a simple correlation: when you get rid of the economic problems (ie. by creating the EU) or you show that these are more easily addressed through cooperation you have peace. Otherwise, an audience is created for “patriots” and “ultranationalists” and other extremists.
Defeat alone did not change the German’s minds, it was also through the Marshall plan and the European Coal and Steel Community (which were the opposite of what happened to Germany after WWI).
The Soviets understood this concept better than anybody else. They would spread out the production process of many goods so that every region (former nation) would be dependent on all the others and therefore would not seek independence/separation. Ie. windshield wipers and tires for trucks would travel thousands of kilometers to reach the final assembly line. In the end, the desire for independence coupled with the face that this process was too costly and inefficient lead to regions seeking independence.
By the way, in school we are taught that a racist mad man named Hitler thought that he was better than everybody else and wanted to rule the world. Although accurate, this is a recurring theme. When talking about our enemies that crave(d) to conquer others we always say/teach that they were crazy (ie Napoleon, Mussolini). What about Bush? Cheney? Alexander the Great? Were the British monarchs stark raving mad when they enslaved parts of Africa and India? There is a double standard.
- “The US isn’t responsible for the bullying, oppression and ethnic cleansing that’s gone on in the Balkans. ”
No it is not. The fault is entirely local (well maybe the decisions by the Soviets had something to do with this but whatever). However, the case of Kossovo is different. Let’s say Canada attacks the USA and starts ethnic cleansing. The US backed by Germany fights back, wins, clears Toronto from all Canadians and then claims that Toronto has always occupied by Americans. Germany declares Toronto as independent and all are happy. Sounds crazy? That basically what happened. Kossovo was never a nation, it has been created by the USA AND the EU. This is immoral, sets a dangerous precedence (see Osetia) and will eventually lead to more violence down the road.
Sorry if the text was a little messy, I haven’t had my morning coffee yet.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am
tele,
“By the way, in school we are taught that a racist mad man named Hitler thought that he was better than everybody else and wanted to rule the world. Although accurate, this is a recurring theme. When talking about our enemies that crave(d) to conquer others we always say/teach that they were crazy (ie Napoleon, Mussolini). What about Bush? Cheney? Alexander the Great? Were the British monarchs stark raving mad when they enslaved parts of Africa and India? There is a double standard.”
A question if degree, dear boy, considerable degree. Nothing justifies empires today. In the past however they were an accepted world structure. By and large you either formed one or formed part of one. Of course, you fought to be free of one if you could. Unless, that is, you were pleased to belong to one because it protected you from rather nasty local neighbours. You don’t get or believe my point about degree. O.K. choose between living under Nazi gauleiters in Warsaw or as an Indian citizen of the British Empire. If you say there is no difference, the glue awaits you, my friend!
*enslave – make a person a slave.
slave – person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, human chattel*
“Oh my goodness gracious,” (Peter Sellars accent) “I didn’t know they had FORCED us to learn cricket.”
September 10th, 2008 at 1:17 am
tele,
Whatever Hitler’s state of mind, he was followed enthusiastically by vast numbers of his fellow countrymen who were far from clinically insane. That they were suffering from some kind of mass hysteria and surrender of individual will, as can happen with crowds, nations, and even lynch mobs, is probable. I’m not clinically qualified in that or any other field, so I can’t say it’s certain. However, they were not raving mad as such, and Hitler would hardly have conquered his next-door neighbour on his own.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:03 am
tele:
“…Also, the US always regarded Israel as a military stronghold to keep everybody else in check”
NOT when Israel was founded, tele. AGAIN, when Israel was founded, the Middle East was of FAR LESS strategic importance than it is today. Perhaps, yes, we were being prescient for once. But in 1948 the Cold War had only just begun. The situation in the Middle East, then, between influences of East and West, was not yet what it would later be. The US, then, did not play a role in Israel’s founding for this reason.
“, and to use as a launching point for attacks (Desert Storm I+II, anybody?)”
Uh, hate to tell you this tele, but you’re dead wrong here. Israel was NOT a staging point OR launching point for either operation. You really need to cultivate a better grasp of current affairs.
“Economics always plays a major role (sometimes the only role) in war.”
True enough, but that’s NOT what you originally said. You had characterized WWII as PRIMARILY economic. It wasn’t. Far from it. Economic depression, yes, helped bring the Nazis to power. But that’s the only bit of this that’s relevant. There were many more factors that came into play which brought WWII about, and few of them were economic in nature.
“Otherwise, an audience is created for “patriots” and “ultranationalists” and other extremists.”
You have a point, but these forces of barbarism are not ONLY unleashed when economic issues are left unaddressed, tele. Your grasp of history is tenuous. I suggest you study more.
Yup, keeping people fat and happy generally makes them docile and peaceful for a while. But it doesn’t solve all questions and problems. Neither does it address what happens when societies and civilizations begin to slip into enervation, boredom, and decadence.
“Defeat alone did not change the German’s minds, it was also through the Marshall plan and the European Coal and Steel Community (which were the opposite of what happened to Germany after WWI).”
Perhaps, tele, but let us also remember that Germany was not “defeated” in WWI in the way it was surely and decisively defeated in WWII. What was different was also the WAY in which German militarism and authoritarianism were finally dealt with–they were crushed, and not allowed to ever rise again.
Also, the Marshall Plan was not aimed, at any rate, at Germany alone, but all of Western Europe.
“When talking about our enemies that crave(d) to conquer others we always say/teach that they were crazy”
No, but we do always paint conquerors in a bad light, because they deserve to be so painted. Some conquerors, like Hitler, are purely evil mad man. Some conquerors are not so evil and not at all mad, but they are still wrong.
(ie Napoleon, Mussolini). What about Bush? Cheney? Alexander the Great? Were the British monarchs stark raving mad when they enslaved parts of Africa and India? There is a double standard.
Hardly. You’re being a bit too precious here. Empire building is a tradition of our species, albeit one we today look down upon. It’s historical. But what Hitler, Stalin, etc. did was something far different. If you can’t SEE the difference, I suggest opening your eyes a bit wider.
“However, the case of Kossovo is different.”
Only loosely. The main point about Kosovo is that was a region where people were being singled out and killed because of their religion and to some extent ethnicity. The creation of a separate state, then, was viewed as a way of saying “no more of this.” Had the genocidal abuses not happened in the first place, we would not have had a Kosovo to be concerned about. It’s the ethnic cleansing done by the Serbs that caused this situation, mainly.
“Let’s say Canada attacks the USA and starts ethnic cleansing. The US backed by Germany fights back, wins, clears Toronto from all Canadians and then claims that Toronto has always occupied by Americans. Germany declares Toronto as independent and all are happy. Sounds crazy?”
Only slightly, as it also doesn’t really describe what happened, accurately, in Kosovo. But I’d also say, tele, that the Serbs DESERVED losing a piece of their precious territory. There is NO EXCUSE fot this kind of shit in a post WWII world. The Serbs were acting like, and continue to act like, bullying little bastards. I suggest they learn a goddamn lesson from this and grow up and be part of the community of European civilized nations instead of the assholes they’ve acted like ever since Yugoslavia broke up.
Now granted, I too am VASTLY over-simplifying. I know that the history of this region goes WAY back and that no one here is really right or wrong. But enough is enough. I don’t defend the soveriegnty of Kosovo–I’m not saying that. For all I know it WAS a mistake to allow it to go independent. But what I mean is that the time for all this petty tribal fighting in Europe is OVER and people have to learn that once and for all. The Serbs are damn lucky they didn’t find their precious little country taken over by NATO entirely. It’s time for this stuff to end and it has no place in a Europe of the 21st century. Period.
“That basically what happened. Kossovo was never a nation, it has been created by the USA AND the EU. This is immoral,”
Why, precisely, do you see it as immoral, given the circumstances?
“sets a dangerous precedence (see Osetia) and will eventually lead to more violence down the road.”
That’s as may be. We’ll have to see. Again, I don’t say Kosovo was a WISE decision. That we don’t know.
But again, I also feel it was at most an EXCUSE that the Russians used in regards to Ossetia. They would have easily found another, trust me. Kosovod didn’t beget Ossetia.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:37 am
tele,
“Were the British monarchs stark raving mad when they enslaved parts of Africa and India?”
I made light of this a post or two back, but (as a Briton) really am getting thoroughly pissed off with LV moral revisionists who make absurd statements about the British Empire: statements which not only lack historical perspective, but also any shred of semantic accuracy. That therefore renders them down to hyperbolical cant.
Let’s start by asking you to go and tell the millions of Indian untouchables that the British turned them from proud and equal freemen into slaves.
Please show me in mainstream, serious historical literature any reference to British slaves and a slave-trade in India. Oh yes, you’ll find the words *African slaves* cropping up all over the place, of course. But unless you’re considering instances such as ‘The Heart of Darkness’ (see a certain Belgian king) you’ll find those in the Carribbean, Brazil and the United States, etc. In no way intending to defend or justify slavery – while you’re about it, take a long look too at the vast majority of those who snatched them from hearth and home and thus first branded them as slaves: principally their moslem arab neighbours.
The British Empire was founded on a mixture of occupation, treaty and conquest. Conquest I classify as need to repress by force any serious organised resistance by previous occupants. Thus North America itself is based partly on occupation, partly on treaty and partly on conquest vis-à-vis its indigenous populations.
For any who would compare the British Empire with Hitler, I suggest aggregating all the armed conflicts and mortalities during the entire period of British overseas occupation. Divide them to a roughly five-year average. Then take a comparative look at Hitler’s statistics over that same period. If that doesn’t shame the comparison, nothing will.
Considering slavery, it isn’t at all easy anyway to turn a large number of local inhabitants into slaves. Among the few relatively successful examples are Andean Indians working the silver mines. Brazilian attempts to enslave the Amazonian Indians proved a total failure, which is why they were obliged to *import* Africans. The thought of the relatively small number of Britons in India trying to impose slavery on its many millions of inhabitants over that vast terrain is no more than pathetic bathos in the extreme. Why yes, imagine too all those proud Zulu warriors in chains, their backs beaten and bent by savage British gang-masters. Of course the life of Africans under colonial rule was not in the least democratic and free. (To what extent is it nowadays in meaningful terms? Zimbabwe?). But neither was it slavery.
If you want the authority to criticize history, criticize with historical authority, as I try honestly to do for my own nation’s past and present, and as Randall does far better for his, history being his career. As he proposes, read some serious history first and at least become minimally proficient in it
September 11th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Anon:
I have to back you up on this. As a believer in American revolutionary principles (there seem to be fewer and fewer of us these days as America dumbs down more and more) I’ve never been anxious to defend the British empire. Like all empires it was rapacious and exploitative. But as a realist and as a believer in fair-minded history, I have also always acknowledged that as empires go, there have been few that were more *benign* that the British. Now, a dyed-in-the-wool Scotsman or someone of solid Irish descent wouldn’t agree with this, and they’d be right. But also, of course, we’re again talking about *empires* here. ALL empires are based in some measure on cruelty and injustice. As I’ve always said myself, had the British won our revolutionary war, there’s no doubt that they would have done to us what they did to the Irish. And perhaps, had that happened, then it might not have been possible to be so blithe about the British imperial record. But by the same token, when one examines, historically, the state of former British colonies, they are invariably in better shape (for the most part) than former French, Spanish, and Dutch colonies. The British weren’t always able to instil democratic principles in their colonial possessions–oftentimes they didn’t even try–but when one compares the mess left behind by other colonial powers, the British never look quite so awful.
STILL, all this is relative. And yet, then again, also, this kind of thing is rife throughout human history. The British empire gets picked out for particular disdain, I think, because it was simply the largest and most successful empire in human history. Easy to forget the awfulness, then, of the French, etc., when their empires collapsed so readily and were never so widespread in fame and success.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
As one who had ancestors on both sides of the American Revolution, I have to side with Anon.
All of the history I have read (a very great deal, though much less than Randall), also supports Anon. The British Empires brought with them a standard of civility, of peace, of education that would not have been available otherwise.
When the British were allowed to remain in countries whose populace required their assistance, the populace prospered. When the British were forced out prematurely, the populace suffered.
In America, the situation was different in that the population had come from England just a few generations earlier. Many of the sons were still sent back to England to be educated. So the population was an educated, basically British thinking, one.
When the colonists wanted independence, England wasn’t happy about it (Randall could explain with more assurance), but because of the distance between England and America, and the difference in fighting styles, England was at a disadvantage, and ultimately lost.
That they immediately welcomed American diplomats, and chose to recognize America as a country, is to their honor.
Whenever I read history, which was always a subject I loved, it always seemed that the British weren’t out to “own” the world (with the exemption, perhaps, of Ireland, which is another kettle of fish altogether), but to improve the world.
That they used their own yardstick as the yardstick for improvement is beside the point when their yardstick means a starving child receives enough to eat, and a decent education.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
seque:
I might not go as far as you here (I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that line about the British being out not to “own” the world, but to “improve” it… I think the evidence would speak otherwise on many points, but we’ll leave that alone, I’m still in your debt for being so nice to me previously regarding you-know-what) but as you know I do essentially agree.
By the way, I also had relatives on both sides. In fact, one of my ancestors was a Tory who owned a huge estate in New Jersey, and he lost everything and was banished to Nova Scotia after the fighting was over. Funny.
(I’m sure it wasn’t to HIM, but I find it amusing).
September 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Even I agree that the “own” v “improve” line was somewhat over the top.
So, now I can see our great-great-great-grandfathers and uncles fighting both shoulder to shoulder, and eye to eye!
I find it amazing that I am actually eligible for the DAR.
A bit weird.
I also have, in my family history, a complete list of those who fought in the civil war, again, both sides.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
segue:
Geneaology is great fun. I had a few ancestors in the Civil War (all on the Northern side) but more interestingly, my family (on my dad’s mother’s side) goes back to 1625 at the Massachussetts Bay Colony, and shortly after to the Rhode Island Colony. And one of *those* was Samuel Gorton—the Gorton’s fisherman! Cool huh?
Also, we had a sea captain in the family, pre-Revolution, named Elizur Collins… gotta love that name. In fact, a lot of the names are a hoot…. my favorite is one of my direct ancestors, whose name was Newbold Woolston H. And there was even an Ebeneezer in the family. I love it.
My grandfather had this awesome, earth-shattering full name (can’t share it here for privacy reasons) because he was named after a state-wide bigwigs who were close friends of the family. Cool stuff.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
“So, now I can see our great-great-great-grandfathers and uncles fighting both shoulder to shoulder, and eye to eye!”
Exactly!
The other thing is… interestingly… for years we had assumed that our patriarchal family line was German… but in contacting an old family relative in another state who’s done a lot of the research, it now appears they were more likely Swiss.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
segue and Randall,
Just caught up with you folks.
In fact a large chunk of my genetic makeup is inherited directly from very solid, very Southern Irish stock. (Where the hell else do you suppose all the blarney comes from?) About as far south as you can get. And I listen to it. I would hand over Oliver Cromwell to Vlad the Impaler to this day … plus the necessary lubricant! Hahaha.
North America, of course, was very different to India, to a degree parts of Africa, or even to Mexico, Guatemala or Peru, where existing large and sophisticated civilisations were conquered and dominated by force to a greater or lesser extent. North America was for the most part settled peaceably. In that respect it is more akin to Australia, the Carribean Islands, New Guinea and the more empty quarters of Africa. I’d hesitate to add New Zealand, especially in an overall LV context!
I have to remind you that force was much more used against the indegenous peoples of North America after Independence, I believe (I stand to be corrected if wrong in that assumption).
I have also picked up the idea that remaining with Britain was the wish of a very high proportion of your then citizens (direct ancestors). I even vaguely recall them having been noted as a majority, although again I’ll bow to your greater knowledge. If so, it certainly makes the Britain of the time look more selective than repressive.
By the way, I’m enjoying reading your lateral linked comments.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Anon 201.: “North America was for the most part settled peaceably.” Hmm, I suppose in the grand scheme of things, perhaps? I wouldn’t call it ‘peaceably’, though. There were nasty tricks (thinking of the smallpox blankets), wars, obliterations of entire tribes, some (but not very much) slavery, rape, etc. ad nauseum. I think it would be hard to compare how American Indians faired vs. Africans- both were treated horribly, but I guess the Indians to lesser extent. Now, if you were talking about Canada, that’s a different story. Not a fantastic story, but better and closer to what you may have in mind.
“I have to remind you that force was much more used against the indegenous peoples of North America after Independence, I believe”. Well, you’re talking about a different time scales, too. 1620-1776 (150 years) vs. 1776-present (250 years). During the first time slot, the eventual oppressors were vastly outnumbered thousands to one. They didn’t dare try anything. Yes, the biggest force was used probably between 1850-1890 when the European ethnic stock holding the country decided that aaaaall the way to the west was the way to go, when they vastly outnumbered the Indians. I’m not arguing with your point, I’m just saying that’s the reason why.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
199. Randall: Ooh, I’m also a Mayflower descendant (thought I’ve never taken stock in the pride that comes with it- I just don’t get it). Peregrine White was my descendant.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Cedestra makes reference to the smallpox blanket scandal… there IS some evidence for this (I don’t recall that it was ever SOLIDLY proven, but then that’s the nature of such things when you’re dealing with 18th century histories) and it WAS perpetrated by the British PRIOR to Independence.
However, I think Anon has a point that the violence towards indigenous peoples in N. America *was* at a lower level prior to Independence… this was, in fact, more in keeping with British and French policy. The British government was generally opposed to American expansion beyond the colonial frontier of the Appalachian Mountains.
After Independence, of course, the frontier opened… and the larger clashes between Americans and Indians began.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Cedestra:
Cool. No Mayflowers in my family that I know of… they begin in 1625 with the explosion of colonists to the Mass Bay Colony.
But I had an ex-girlfriend who came from a true-blue, blue-blood Boston family… they were REALLY into it. Of course, the level of these people… sheesh, you wouldn’t believe it.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Cedestra,
My point was really trying to define a difference between all-out wars of conquest and lesser settlements, rather than regarding sitting peoples as having been treated with peace, fairness and respect. For that reason I trod carefully over New Zealand and also struggled to come up with a useful definition. I agree the one I arrived at, *relatively peaceful*, lays itself wide open to objection.
I would also agree with what you said about the incoming pioneers having too much on their hands to need war against the sitting inhabitants (cf. Argentina and the timing of the ethnic genocide there). However, in the U.S.A. that also had to do with the terrain, the early state of exploration and settlement (or lack of). The fact remains that much of what happened cannot be laid at the door of the British Empire, nor can we even second-guess what policy would have been practiced had it prevailed (and been able to exert influence, of course).
At the same time, relative numbers mean nothing. The British were infinitely out-numbered in India, for example, but held it by a combination of force and diplomacy. The same may be said for Africa, where technology was probably the greatest factor. Look at the staggering relative numbers involved in the Battle of Rorke’s Drift (my first wife’s ancestor gained one of the many V.C.s awarded there). There was nothing to choose between the bravery or discipline of the two forces, one numbered in multiple thousands, the other as just over one hundred. It was technology that carried the day. In fact ultimately too we should not forget the astonished respect of Cetywayo for his totally outnumbered and beleaguered opponents, respect which caused him to withold the probable coup de grace and retire from the field. (Cf. Custer, inter alia, for the reverse.)
September 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
P.S. Rorke’s Drift is probably one of the most astonishing individual battles in all history. Imagine it had taken place at the time of Ancient Greece or Rome! We should probably regard its written epic from those times as pure myth.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Anon: Honestly, I hadn’t read much of the list prior to your comment and just added in my corrections. I probably should have worked on figuring out what your point was before interjecting. Since you brought up the British in India, I would say that if the American colonists had been as organized as the British in India, we would be singing a different tune. I guess I was a little…hmmm…perturbed? put off? No, not as badly, but upset, minorly, that you had said “peaceable” when I wouldn’t say it was peaceable at all. “Less conflict” would have been better. I’m not meaning to nitpick nor am I upset about it, in the least, I’m just politely explaining that “peaceable” wouldn’t be the word to use when discussing Anglo-AmerIndian affairs.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I have no problem feeling mild, qualified pride in my nation’s relative imperial record, while at the same time experiencing deep shame towards atrocities in Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere. (Note, that is not an apologia for the existence of the British or any other empire.)
I also have a number of friends from Eire (the Irish Republic). They view modern Britain and the British in much the same way as do the vast majority of you Americans. Their attitude to the North tends to be an exasperated, “Leave us out of it and for God’s Sake sort yourselves out, and soon”. One finds most public anti-British rancour in the likes of Mel Gibson and perhaps to a lesser degree, Liam Neeson. I find it curious that they can carry more bitterness towards my country than the majority of Jews bear towards modern Germany a mere 60-odd years after the Holocaust. My recent Irish forbears were lapsed Catholics. I was brought up in a basically Protestant environment but belong to no religion.
I have found the perceived Northern Protestant attitude to be deeply and unsympathetically intransigent and the Republican terrorist activities to be frighteningly sinister. The British have made appalling blunders, but at the same time too little appreciation has been given to their being trapped in the situation (albeit by their own past – but aren’t we all?) I might dismiss the situation with a laconic and cynical *plague on both your houses*. Yet at the same time I recognise that both *sides* have problems and both have rights. I can only hope they will sort these out between them, because there are so many fine people in their midst. I personally just find the partisan views of outsiders like Gibson to be inflammatory and nauseating given the sensitivity of the situation.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Cedestra,
Thanks. That was why I qualified with the word *relatively*.
I was, after all, trying to paint with a very broad brushstroke. In retrospect, better had I chosen *relatively less violent* for sure.
‘Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee’ has an honoured place on my bookshelf. So too does ‘Red Gold’ and ‘Poisoned Arrows’.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Oh, I meant to add as a rider that the home nations of the British Isles would not essentially be regarded as imperial possessions, by the way. In fact it was and is known as the British Empire, not the English Empire.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Anon
I am interested to know why you wish to tread carefully over New Zealand. As an outsider how do you (and any others who may wish to contribute) view the colonisation here.
Cheers
Lee
September 11th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
199. Randall , yes, geneology is fun and informative. We have a full family history back to 1725, at which time the family had been firmly entrenched in America for at least several generations, and then the records just stop…I’m sure if I had the time or interest, I could find more, but I don’t know if I really care that much.
When my youngest daughter and I saw Gangs of New York, she made a comment about our family probably being on the side of the Irish immigrants. I knew she’d at least perused the family history, so I was taken aback, and I said, “Uh, no sweetie, ours would have been the Know-Nothings.”
“Yes”, she said,”I know,”but, I *wish* they would have been.”
So we had a little discussion about not being responsible for the actions, good or bad, of your ancestors (this all took place waiting in line in the ladies room), when my explanation was done, I got a round of applause. It was embarrassing!
I do know that we had 750 soldiers in the Civil War, 500 for the confederacy and 250 for the union.
We also had Ebeneezers, and Colliers, and Elliases and a Little Berry and a Red Deer, brothers, my paternal grandmother was named Tennessee.
A lot of the early names sounded Scots/Irish, but could have been anything.
I do know my mother’s family was from Ireland, because they were relocated to Australia, gratis, by the British.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I am Australian of mixed British ancestry. We have traced ancestors to various parts of England, Ireland, Scotland and Cornwall. One was born in what was then British North America (New Brunswick tbp) and one served in Bermuda. My surname is typically Welsh, and we have traced that line to a town that was Welsh for longer than it was English, so there’s possibly Welsh in the mix as well.
This puts me in a hard place re British colonialism. If the British hadn’t “settled” Australia, I would not exist. Neither, for that matter, would most “aboriginal activists”, most of whom have at least part-European ancestry. Someone who is, say 7/8ths white can claim to be, and be accepted as, aboriginal. Although I am 7/8ths non-Scottish, I can’t claim to be Scottish. Well, I can, but they’ll laugh at me. I will mention that I do kinda like the sound of bagpipes.
There were massacres of aborigines in Australia, very few of which are ever discussed. The Myall Creek massacre of 1838 was important because it was the first time that “white men” were charged at law, convicted and executed, for killing “blacks” at large. (Others had been convicted for what were clearly instances of “murder”.) One leading newspaper of the time (still a leading newspaper) railed against the conviction. I don’t know whether they’ve ever rectracted that.
It is hard to explain Australian history to Koreans, with a history dating some 3,000 years. I’ve been asked “Is it true that the first people in Australia were prisoners?” “Er, no, the second people in Australia were prisoners.” and “Is your queen the Queen of England?” “Er, sort of, she’s actually quite independently the queen of Austrlia and Great Britain”. (btw Koreans use the same word for both “England” and “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. I’ve had to very carefully explain the difference.)
An obituary for my great-grandfather mentions the excellent relationship he had with the indigenous people on the land that he farmed, possibly in terminology that would sound patronising to the point of insulting these days.
I once very carefully said that Britain was the least worst colonising power.
Anon: it really was 99% the English empire and 1% the “with some help from the Welsh, Scots and Irish” empire. Those last three might have provided the manpower, but the whole thing was ruled by the English.
BTW, for most of Australia’s European history, having a convict ancestor was considered quite shameful. Then around 1988 (the bicentenary of transportation) it became quite fashionable, with the conceit that convicts were unjustly oppressed by the English (if you were Welsh, Scottish or Irish) or by the ruling class (if you were low-class English). I have no convict ancestors. We have traced each line to their departure from Britain (as paying passengers). The earliest came in 1855.
Cedestra: Unless you have a very unusual family, I think you’ll find that Peregrine White was your ancestor. (smily face)
September 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Astraya – Well said
anyways, thought i’d pop in, got the week off, So: Hi, Bye, Got to fly
September 12th, 2008 at 7:28 am
k1w1taxi,
I opted out of NZ because you folks are a force here, as also N Americans (you are the organising force, to boot), and I know next to nothing about the occupation of NZ. (Oh come on, Anon, nothing at all. Period.) At least I can throw in a bit tentatively on N. America and hope to get away with it. Curiously, a lot more has come to my attention concerning the aborigines, both as individual and collective cases. But then the best man at my first wedding was a mad doctor from Melbourne! Mind you, I don’t think we ever stopped horsing about for long enough to discuss anything seriously.
I do know Maoris had a long-standing, well-organised society and were outstanding warriors. Apparently there was no violent conflict, or else I imagine I couldn’t have avoided hearing about it. There’s probably something relevant on LV I haven’t come to yet, and certainly on the net, which I should probably look up, along with about ten billion other things I need or ought to know.
Here in Chile there is an ongoing issue about our southern indigenous people, the Mapuches. Inter-breeding is a contentious factor (average Indian blood/gene content per Chilean said to be 40%), along with integration. Of course there are some pure-blood Mapuches and pure-blood Europeans. In fact one of the latter wrote to our *top* paper announcing how proud he was to be 100% pur Spanish and glad to have not a single drop of Indian blood … and they printed the racist shit! The British maintenance of the Maoris as a proud peoples apart with their own culture respected is often raised for comparison and usually regarded with admiration.
Of course we also have the polynesian Easter Islanders, who are our ‘Maoris’! In fact the way they brought their society to its knees by outgrowing the capacity of Rapa Nui to support them, and depleted and largely destroyed its natural resources is sometimes cited as a paradigm for humanity on the planet as a whole.
As far as your early histopry goes, the opinion of you kiwis would be of value and relevance, not mine.
astraya,
Yes, I’m well aware of the difference between the semantic and historical realities of the British Empire! In fact those fiendish English would often set divided home nations one part against the other, or one nation against the other to maintain control. However, it was called the British Empire, my *proof* for pointing out that the home nations were not in fact *imperial possessions*.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
segue:
750 family members in the Civil War! It boggles the mind. My genealogoical details are not that exhaustive. I only know of a handful.
What struck me, in assembling the geneaology over the years (of course, I did have a lot of help—much of it was done by elderly relatives) was how few surprises there were. (Except for things I already knew). Just one hoity-toity Anglo-Saxon waspy name after another,
along with that German/Swiss (whatever it was) strain that is my direct paternal line. But even they go back to the very early 18th century, and as soon as they got here, they married right into a well-to-do English family. Climbers, or already-established names themselves? I dunno.
But except for one ancestor who tried to cut his wife’s throat (this was in the mid-19th century) and then killed himself, not many big surprises or “hey that’s cool” moments. Except for the fun names and a few other bits like the ones I already mentioned. A pirate in the mix would have been nice.
But I know we’re also related to Louisa May Alcott’s family, and to several ambassadors and whatnot… but I like the oddball stuff best.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Randall, yes, and that only includes the family members with my paternal surname! If I started adding in the others, well, it would get absurd.
The family started off, of course, in New England, moved to New York, moved to Virginia, then on to Tennessee, where they bought up an entire county.
I didn’t find any throat slitting ancestors, but they all seemed ready to join any fight at hand (thus the 750 civil war soldiers!).
I tried to back-figure it once. From the number of American’s fighting in the Revolution, about 150, how long had the family been in the country to have had enough invested in it to care one way or another?
There were too many variables, I couldn’t do it.
We didn’t find any famous ancestors, it seems to have been a fairly hum-drum family. Like yours, almost all of the work was done by elderly relatives, church records, etc. But the names!
My goodness! The names alone are worth ploughing through the several hundred pages.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Anon
*Curiously, a lot more has come to my attention concerning the aborigines, both as individual and collective cases.*
Yes, strange in a way that the two colonies so close in so many ways have historically been so opposite in their treatment of the indigenous races.
*I do know Maoris had a long-standing, well-organised society and were outstanding warriors.*
If by that you mean they were still a stone age society that was about one step above hunter gatherer before the arrival of Europeans then Yes.
*Apparently there was no violent conflict, or else I imagine I couldn’t have avoided hearing about it.*
Actually there was quite a bit of conflict. It resembled the NA Indians in that it was not total from the native side with many Maori siding with the British, often as a means of getting one up on their native rivals (especially before firearms became widespread). The consequences of these conflicts are only being sorted out today through the Waitangi Tribunal whose job it is to investigate Maori claims arising from British Settlement. This is a rather emotive issue here, depending usually on which colour ones skin is.
Having said that though, NZ is probably the one colony in the world where a stone age level indigenous race were not trampled over completely if genocide was not actively attempted.
*Here in Chile there is an ongoing issue about our southern indigenous people, the Mapuches. Inter-breeding is a contentious factor (average Indian blood/gene content per Chilean said to be 40%), along with integration.*
This is not an issue in NZ as there are no pure blood Maori left. If one *feels* Maori and can find even one somewhere back in the whakapapa (family tree) that is usually good enough. To qualify for The Maoris rugby team requires only 1/64 Maori blood.
*The British maintenance of the Maoris as a proud peoples apart with their own culture respected is often raised for comparison and usually regarded with admiration.*
The British maintenance was not always that respectful with many Maori even today able to remember being caned for speaking Maori at school. Until about 35 years ago the attitude was one of the Maori being the happy brown kiwi who could bring out the haka and suchlike as a handy show for the visitors.
Two other factors that speak to me of how good race relations are 1) the amount of Maori language that is in casual use throughout NZ society. 2)the lack of the sort of deep rooted hatred that exists in the Balkans or the Middle East (or Africa for that matter) where you can live next to someone for 20 or 30 years and suddenly turn on them because of their different race/culture.
I hope this somewhat long winded effort gives some little insight into out world:)
Cheers
Lee
September 14th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
k1w1taxi,
Long-winded? Reads like a telegramme beside some of mine! Anyway, many thanks for taking the trouble and giving me new insights.
May I suggest that your assessment of the Maoris as “a stone age society that was about one step above hunter gatherer before the arrival of Europeans” strikes me as a tad unfair, in particular by implicit comparison with continental societies. Perhaps I mean to broaden that to all Polynesians.
It seems to me that virtually all civilizations have been continental in origin and have had to be continental. Massive resources of raw materials, food supplies, manpower, division of labour, large-scale organisation, variety of talents and accumulation of vast amounts of knowledge form the basis of civilizations. Only large land masses can accomodate this. Furthermore, many and varied complex social structures are required. Where continental peoples have been divided and separated by tribalism or natural boundaries, they have often not advanced as much as the Maoris, despite longer occupation of their lands. In pre-Columbian America, for example, the only significant advances were by empires built mainly on conquest and to a lesser extent subservient alliance: the Incas, Aztecs and Mayas. It also seems that only temperate climates tend to favour maximum human advances. Perhaps the tropics are simply too exuberantly overwhelming, as probably for the Mayas. (The Incas were essentially high mountain temperate peoples).
Polynesians were basically fragmented into a large number of mainly non-interconnected island populations, usually quite small. They have therefore had neither the numbers or resources to develop beyond a certain limit. That does not necessarily speak for their latent potential. All things considered, their navigation skills must have been formidable, at the very least.
New Zealand is admittedly large enough to allow a good degree of development. Nevertheless, surely the original numbers would have been small, and a long period would be needed to settle, populate and *conquer* the natural surroundings? They must also have started off with the abilities of typical Polynesians. Who knows where they might have gone, given as much time on their own as Europeans, the Chinese and others had.
As a footnote, the world-famous Moai of Rapa Nui were entered for consideration as one of the new Wonders of the World. As far as I recall, this was perhaps the only entry that did not originate from a main civilization or proto-civilization (as Stonehenge). Considering the size of the island and its community and the resources available this is surely an astonishing achievement. In my opinion the Moai and Stonehenge in particular, but also Machu Picchu are the true wonders. This for their remoteness and/or difficulty of terrain, for the lack of precedents, and for the available technology of their peoples. By comparison those relatively modern buildings and statues as entered, no matter how impressive, had a long history of prior models, and were constructed by sophisticated, developed societies with far greater technological means.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Anon: there is a book a tv show by Jared Diamond called “Guns, Germs and Steel”, which looks at the “interaction” between the European cultures and those of Africa and the Americas. One of his points is that agriculture expands along lines of climate. Once agriculture was developed ?in the Black Sea/Aral Sea area, it could spread out across the whole of Eurasia. Africa, S America and N America, even at their broadest, are nowhere near as wide, and have natural barriers like rainforests, mountains (Andes, Rockies) and rivers (Amazon).
Not surprisingly, the most successful European settlements were those with similar climates to Europe – southern Canada, northern USA, Cape of Good Hope, southern Australia and Argentina. (BTW have you ever noticed the major wine producing areas of the world all lie on approx the same latitude north and south? You’ll be pleased to know that there’s a good supply of Chilean wine in Korea – probably more than Australian wine. There is a fledgling Korean wine industry.)
September 14th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Anon,
Sorry if my assessment of pre European Maori sounded harsh however it is basically accurate in that they had not developed beyond stone tool use and had only fairly basic agriculture. The cause of this may to a large extent indeed be a result of New Zealand’s geological and ecological make up. Metals were not easily available in NZ. In fact I know of no iron mining operations at all, and only one scheme that exports our iron sand to somewhere in Asia for processing. On an agricultural front while certain crops, most notably kumara, were grown there were no herd beasts of any description to facilitate either an easily controllable meat source or as beasts of burden.
However given these drawbacks the Maori certainly were in a much advanced state compared to Australia’s aborigines.
If you haven’t come across Guns, Germs and Steel as mentioned by Astraya there is a book version out that is very interesting on the topics described.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:42 am
astraya and k1w1taxi,
Thanks for your interesting feedback. I shall certainly be after the Diamond book. A gem by name, a gem by nature, that man. However, you’ve cited one of his I haven’t read.
Yes, I appreciate (essentially did all along) what you were implying by stone-age. The problem is the term carries a lot of baggage along with it that I’m certain does not in any way apply to Maoris (or probably to genuine stone-agers either). It could perhaps be summed up as *yabba dabba doo* if the protagonists of that series were not in reality as civilized and sophisticated as the rest of us, and just about as inventive in their way!
With a bit of reflection the Maoris might have taken a leaf out of the Flintstone book and tamed moas as beasts (or birds) of burden rather than eating them to extinction due to lack of other large-bodied meat sources! E. O. Wilson (another gem) quotes the famous New Zealand “No moa” ditty in his bit on extinction in ‘The Diversity of Life’. In fact that page and the previous contain a short review of the traumatic impact of Maori ingression on the endemic wildlife.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:35 am
1.5 million Christian Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Muslims isn’t big enough to make this list?
September 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Black,
The list is LESSER KNOWN massacres. One would hope the Armenian massacres are WELL KNOWN and not forgotten, and will remain to the fore at least until they are admitted by the perpetrator nation.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Anon, I’ve noticed that over and over, posters have made the same mistake.
It seems to me that what might be happening is that people see these massacres, all of which are horrendous no matter their size, and by some kind of mental/emotional circular logic think, “well, if this smaller massacre deserves a place on the list, surely *THIS* one does!”.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
lol I know about the Nanking massacre and St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. I know about Nanking because I myself am Chinese
(though not living in China) and had my own research about the incident. A woman gave her account that she was pregnant at the time and a soldier used a bayonet to slash open her belly and killed her baby. Miraculously, she survived from this. Sometimes, people just have no mercy or morals..
December 30th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
227. reich: That is one of the most horrendous tales I’ve ever heard.
Soldiers, in wartime, take on a mindset that allows them to perform actions which would horrify them in normal circumstances. Not all of them go overboard, like this man did, but it happens often enough to be really horrifying. I even heard stories from my dad, from WWII, that scared and sickened me. He couldn’t watch that kind of thing in a movie, but while telling me the story, there was a total disconnect between him and the event. It was weird.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:54 am
The picture of Babi Yar is actually a picture of the massacre on Skede Beach (Liepaja, Latvia). The Babi Yar ravine was much larger and the scale of the massacre was also quite a bit larger.
On Skede Beach 2749 people lost their lives in 3 days.
Aktion Erntefest needs a mention also. In two days the Nazi’s killed 42.000 people. 18.000 in the camp of Majdanek in day alone. The whole action was done by shooting the people in pits and the victims had to stand on those dying or already dead before they were shot.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Nanking was a major issue in its day but unfortunatley like alot of Japanese atrocities it has lost its place in textbooks.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:34 am
After the U.S. lost the Vietnam war, my people were targeted for extinction also which are known as the Hmong people. We were allies to the US and did all the dirty work in the woods where the US did not feel comfortable fighting. My people were well adapted to the rainforests of Asia and helped guided the US where needed. When the US decided they had had enough and left, it left my people running the way the Muslims ran in 1995, Bosnia. The only difference here is that my people are still running as i am typing and its been more than 3 decades. Check out Hmong Genocide on Youtube or Hunted like animals, Hmong.
My heart goes out to all the people that has had to go through something this horrific. Nobody should ever have to anything like this. God bless you all.
April 19th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Armenian genocide by the Turkish? As Armanians never wants to argue within scientific and historical facts and act like a cry baby there is no such thing as Armanian genocide no one can mention about it. but on the other hand there is a fact that armanians made such cruel things with the aid of the russians to their neighbours.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Finally someone talks about the Rape of Nanking!
June 18th, 2009 at 9:06 am
If you really want to know more then read my latest book,can be downloaded as an Ebook from redleadbooks.com It’s called :”NEWTON’S LAW 2060-The point of no return”.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am
we learned about the rape on Nanking in my history class. that was one of the most heart-breaking lessons ive ever been through.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:12 am
about the people saying the nanking massacres are too well known to be on the list i doubt it is very well known there are few documentaries and alot of people dont know about it less people than you may think
July 13th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Good list of bad stuff. Sad thing is that the people that did these things were allegedly the best and brightest of their respective nations. I have even heard ignorant people worldwide say this stuff never happened in the face of any evidence.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Hey should have osted of the massacre of the villagers here in the Phil., when a village was ravaged by rebels, i mean villages. I think it killed 600 to 1000 natives
September 1st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Weird, I only learned about the Rape of Nanking last night, and as I was just about to read this, I thought it would be weird if it was on it. And then I thought, if it was, it has to be first.
When I first read about it, I was pretty shocked…
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 am
Jallianwala Bagh massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre
Do read about it. Changed the course of Indian History
November 11th, 2009 at 5:00 am
Hi, how are you? I liking DIY. Unfortunately, that is the only provocative feature wide me.
http://thukamidsleeper.boliviabb.com/?p=4
November 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Hi all and sundry,what do all of you fall alseep on? I in the interest of myself I can impart that spending the heretofore occasional nights crashing on my friends divan made me appreciate my own bed all the more. Since I was miserable, I rumination I’d let the cat out of the bag my readers why.
http://oakwoodbed.atblogs.org/?p=4