Awesome Protest Signs

[Askold]

I have gotten the impression that the Troubles were a lot more political than religious and it just happened to be so that the division went along the religious line.

[Art Vandelay]

I thought it was largely ethnic. Basically, native Irish vs. the descendents of Scottish and English settlers. Religion just happens to be the most visible difference between the two.

[Canadian Mojo]

Wanna try again?

Iraq.

[Askold]

What about Bosnian genocide? Do the participants count as white/european ethnically? Honestly I'm not sure how people draw these lines, but it was a genocide and the victims were chosen by ethnicity and/or religion.

[Even Then]

- The alleged modern genocides committed by ethnic Africans in Africa don't erase systemic ethnic inequalities in the West.
- Crime statistics don't exist in a vacuum. The systemic, centuries-long disenfranchisement and marginalization of an ethnic group can logically lead to a larger number of the members of said group descending into crime or being tried for said crime more frequently than the privileged ethnic group precisely because of said marginalization (which is not to say that the marginalized ethnic group committing crimes is excusable or justified or that members of marginalized ethnic groups only commit crime because of their marginalization, just to nip that in the bud before it blossoms). Again, crime statistics don't exist in a vacuum.
- Contextless crime statistics aren't an argument for one ethnic group being inherently more violent than another one. By saying otherwise, one implies that arson, vandalism, sex offences, drunkenness and breaking liquor laws are inherent to the white condition in the USA (and by pulling other nations into it, one further implies that the same is true of all white people, everywhere).
- None of what I just wrote will stop TheContrarian from being a deliberately obtuse wanker.

Am I in the ballpark?

[Ultimate Paragon]

- The alleged modern genocides committed by ethnic Africans in Africa don't erase systemic ethnic inequalities in the West.
- Crime statistics don't exist in a vacuum. The systemic, centuries-long disenfranchisement and marginalization of an ethnic group can logically lead to a larger number of the members of said group descending into crime or being tried for said crime more frequently than the privileged ethnic group precisely because of said marginalization (which is not to say that the marginalized ethnic group committing crimes is excusable or justified or that members of marginalized ethnic groups only commit crime because of their marginalization, just to nip that in the bud before it blossoms). Again, crime statistics don't exist in a vacuum.
- Contextless crime statistics aren't an argument for one ethnic group being inherently more violent than another one. By saying otherwise, one implies that arson, vandalism, sex offences, drunkenness and breaking liquor laws are inherent to the white condition in the USA (and by pulling other nations into it, one further implies that the same is true of all white people, everywhere).
- None of what I just wrote will stop TheContrarian from being a deliberately obtuse wanker.

Am I in the ballpark?

I'd say so, but who knows?  Maybe he'll pleasantly surprise us.

[TheContrarian]

Yep.  The troubles.  Obviously genocide.

I mean put it side by side with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the war in the Congo and you can see the immediate similarity.  ^_^

[TheContrarian]

What about Bosnian genocide? Do the participants count as white/european ethnically? Honestly I'm not sure how people draw these lines, but it was a genocide and the victims were chosen by ethnicity and/or religion.

I'm not actually convinced Serbia is a real thing.  I think it's an elaborate practical joke Russians have been playing on the world since about 1448.

In any case, time for a brief musical interlude.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB9WgR_N4h4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB9WgR_N4h4</a>

[Askold]

What about Bosnian genocide? Do the participants count as white/european ethnically? Honestly I'm not sure how people draw these lines, but it was a genocide and the victims were chosen by ethnicity and/or religion.

I'm not actually convinced Serbia is a real thing.  I think it's an elaborate practical joke Russians have been playing on the world since about 1448.

Funnily enough you decided to ignore the Bosnian genocide while talking about shifting goals.

[TheContrarian]

What about Bosnian genocide? Do the participants count as white/european ethnically? Honestly I'm not sure how people draw these lines, but it was a genocide and the victims were chosen by ethnicity and/or religion.

I'm not actually convinced Serbia is a real thing.  I think it's an elaborate practical joke Russians have been playing on the world since about 1448.

Funnily enough you decided to ignore the Bosnian genocide while talking about shifting goals.

Who was it committing the bosnian genocide?  Oh yeah Serbs.  I believe I may have given them a mention XD

[guizonde]

Yep.  The troubles.  Obviously genocide.

I mean put it side by side with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the war in the Congo and you can see the immediate similarity.  ^_^

pardon my latin, but in a stricto sensu definition of genocide, it is the targetting of victims based both on race, origin, and religious beliefs. meaning that by a technicality, the troubles count, since it was targetting the irish by the irish, based on their faith. hell, it's that technicality that allowed the nazis to indiscriminately target ashkenazi, sefardic, falasha, and other ethnicities of jews.

i'll give you that race was not the primary factor in the troubles, thus my questionning it based both on political and religious reasons, as others have said before me.

also, i'm not gonna expound on it, but have we mentionned the armenian genocide here, yet? just out of curiosity and completionism.

[TheContrarian]

Yep.  The troubles.  Obviously genocide.

I mean put it side by side with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the war in the Congo and you can see the immediate similarity.  ^_^

pardon my latin, but in a stricto sensu definition of genocide, it is the targetting of victims based both on race, origin, and religious beliefs. meaning that by a technicality, the troubles count, since it was targetting the irish by the irish, based on their faith. hell, it's that technicality that allowed the nazis to indiscriminately target ashkenazi, sefardic, falasha, and other ethnicities of jews.

i'll give you that race was not the primary factor in the troubles, thus my questionning it based both on political and religious reasons, as others have said before me.

also, i'm not gonna expound on it, but have we mentionned the armenian genocide here, yet? just out of curiosity and completionism.

1. If you suddenly decide to classify every period of sectarian violence in history as genocide your list becomes so long as to basically become meaningless. 

2. The initial accusation was that white people commit 90% of all genocides.  Ottoman Turks are now...white?  Bit of a stretch, why don't we include the rape of the nanking aswell if we're going for completionism eh?

[guizonde]

Yep.  The troubles.  Obviously genocide.

I mean put it side by side with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the war in the Congo and you can see the immediate similarity.  ^_^

pardon my latin, but in a stricto sensu definition of genocide, it is the targetting of victims based both on race, origin, and religious beliefs. meaning that by a technicality, the troubles count, since it was targetting the irish by the irish, based on their faith. hell, it's that technicality that allowed the nazis to indiscriminately target ashkenazi, sefardic, falasha, and other ethnicities of jews.

i'll give you that race was not the primary factor in the troubles, thus my questionning it based both on political and religious reasons, as others have said before me.

also, i'm not gonna expound on it, but have we mentionned the armenian genocide here, yet? just out of curiosity and completionism.

1. If you suddenly decide to classify every period of sectarian violence in history as genocide your list becomes so long as to basically become meaningless. 

2. The initial accusation was that white people commit 90% of all genocides.  Ottoman Turks are now...white?  Bit of a stretch, why don't we include the rape of the nanking aswell if we're going for completionism eh?

1. i never said that. i didn't stress the point that for a genocide to occur, the be-all end-all goal is to kill as many as possible. the crusades weren't a genocide. there was a goal behind it. the killing of europeans/muslims was incidental.

2. once again, i believe you misinterpreted a remark. there was a mention of "90% of genocides are committed by people that resemble you", but once again, i insist that that was a general "you". meaning that no, there's no "90% of genocides are committed by whites"(assuming you're white), more like "90% of genocides are committed by people that look alike/share a background/culture". at least, that's what i'm talking about. i don't know for the rest of the board. so based on my interpretation, the troubles counts (irish vs. irish), rwanda counts (hutu vs. tutsi), and nazis count sort of (in the case of the ashkenazi).

but since you brought up the rape of nanking, it's asian vs. asian (granted, not chinese vs. chinese, but vs. japanese). i believe the 90% figure is a pidooma, but there is an undeniable pattern. off the top of my head, the only counter-example i can think of is regarding native americans. there's more i'm sure, but let's face it, i'm only giving this discussion cursory interest.

[mellenORL]

There is the point that "white" only refers to pale Caucasians of northern European ancestry. Turks are most assuredly included in the old school description of the Caucasian Group of "races", just like the Persians/Iranians, the Greeks and Italians, Semites, and peoples from northern India (who were thought to have migrated there from the Steppes).

[Ultimate Paragon]

Yep.  The troubles.  Obviously genocide.

I mean put it side by side with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the war in the Congo and you can see the immediate similarity.  ^_^

pardon my latin, but in a stricto sensu definition of genocide, it is the targetting of victims based both on race, origin, and religious beliefs. meaning that by a technicality, the troubles count, since it was targetting the irish by the irish, based on their faith. hell, it's that technicality that allowed the nazis to indiscriminately target ashkenazi, sefardic, falasha, and other ethnicities of jews.

i'll give you that race was not the primary factor in the troubles, thus my questionning it based both on political and religious reasons, as others have said before me.

also, i'm not gonna expound on it, but have we mentionned the armenian genocide here, yet? just out of curiosity and completionism.

1. If you suddenly decide to classify every period of sectarian violence in history as genocide your list becomes so long as to basically become meaningless. 

2. The initial accusation was that white people commit 90% of all genocides.  Ottoman Turks are now...white?  Bit of a stretch, why don't we include the rape of the nanking aswell if we're going for completionism eh?

1. i never said that. i didn't stress the point that for a genocide to occur, the be-all end-all goal is to kill as many as possible. the crusades weren't a genocide. there was a goal behind it. the killing of europeans/muslims was incidental.

2. once again, i believe you misinterpreted a remark. there was a mention of "90% of genocides are committed by people that resemble you", but once again, i insist that that was a general "you". meaning that no, there's no "90% of genocides are committed by whites"(assuming you're white), more like "90% of genocides are committed by people that look alike/share a background/culture". at least, that's what i'm talking about. i don't know for the rest of the board. so based on my interpretation, the troubles counts (irish vs. irish), rwanda counts (hutu vs. tutsi), and nazis count sort of (in the case of the ashkenazi).

but since you brought up the rape of nanking, it's asian vs. asian (granted, not chinese vs. chinese, but vs. japanese). i believe the 90% figure is a pidooma, but there is an undeniable pattern. off the top of my head, the only counter-example i can think of is regarding native americans. there's more i'm sure, but let's face it, i'm only giving this discussion cursory interest.

There are other counter-examples, like the Australian Aborigines, the Haitian massacres, or the Namibian genocides.