Rape, racism, censorship & injustice?

World War II American Military
#21

That is an interesting statement, as the first major genocide in Africa recorded was conducted by educated white Europeans during the Age of Imperialism. Specifically, Belgian King Leopold’s “rape of the Congo” in which his “protectorate” was savagely ruled and guarded by his Military Police as they murdered, raped, and maimed the local populace for decades. No one is sure of the numbers, but I think something between 600,000 and well over one million Congolese died. But then, some would argue that calling the victims “Congolese” would be an added insult since no nation known as “the Congo” existed there prior to European colonialism and its habitation as a colonial space, which is actually the greatest problem in Africa–the arbitrary creation of (multi) nation-states where competing tribes and ethnicities were paired together within borders with no natural barriers setting them up for decades of instability and infighting.

And as for your statement, I’m pretty sure white Western Europeans, North Americans, and Eastern European slavs were much more effective and killing millions of people than black Africans ever were…

#22

Perhaps it might be more a case of some of the rear echelon troops during the active phase of a war, as with the rear echelon in France in 1944 while the relatively distant front was still hot and at times fluid, having the time and opportunity to engage in rape, looting etc, and then some of the fighting troops used as occupation troops after the war having the time and opportunity to do the same.

Then again, the nominal fighting troops in an occupation might not always have been those who had a great deal of combat experience but might be Johnny Come Lately reinforcements lacking the discipline of combat soldiers.

Or maybe they were combat soldiers who were more ruthless and efficient than rear echelon troops in acts of violence.

I suspect it was probably a combination of all of the above, for the small proportion who offended.

#23

Noway. it was first RECORDED and documented genocide in Africa. But it’s pretty naive to think it was FIRST majore genocide in Africa or in America.Seen the Mal Gibbson’s “Apocalipto”? The ethnic and religious genocide was a regular for the all the ancient tribes ( including our european prehistoric ancestors).

And as for your statement, I’m pretty sure white Western Europeans, North Americans, and Eastern European slavs were much more effective and killing millions of people than black Africans ever were…

All those speculations don’t justify the extremally low level of culture and education ( and hence strong mutual ethnic hate) of different African tribes today.
Actualty whites are superior in mass killing of peoples, however, we don’t kill each other ALL the time…

#24

Of course. But genocide without some form or organized, systemic structure is very difficult to carry out. Certainly mass killing of populations for various goals (democide might be a better term for this?) has been done pre-history; most cultures have engaged in what they may later perceived and record to be a defensive operation that may have been more of an aggressive war of annihilation of their weaker enemies.

I think there’s a theory that the modern man may have decimated the neanderthals in what amounted to a democide for control of Europe…

All those speculations don’t justify the extremally low level of culture and education ( and hence strong mutual ethnic hate) of different African tribes today.
Actualty whites are superior in mass killing of peoples, however, we don’t kill each other ALL the time…

The low level of culture is a bastardized mix of local and Euro traditions and most of the educated Africans flee to the West making it easier for the tin-pot *****s like Mugabe to take over or retain control. And if you’re speaking of Rwanda, that is a classic example of a patchwork country arbitrarily created where none existed, and forcing two competing tribes into a coexistence resulting in decades of instability…

#25

A feature common to all racially exterminating and racially brutal cultures is a dominant group which demonises the victim group and or renders it sub-human or otherwise unworthy of consideration (e.g. nowadays infidels by some extremist Muslim groups being everyone, including other Muslims, who don’t toe their extremist line, and some of their opponents who respond with a similarly atttitude).

With the possible exceptions of a few groups such as Buddhists and Quakers, the rest have to a greater or lesser degree probably participated in some form of extermination of or racial brutality towards what they see as lesser people and peoples at some point in their history, and probably not all that far in the past.

#26

But to what extent is recent history a consequence of things beyond arbitrary borders imposed upon those places and peoples by invading imperial and or colonial powers?

For example, Yugoslavia, and Greece and Cyprus, reflect the consequences of Ottoman Islamic rule, in much the same way that Northern Ireland reflects the consequences of English Protestant rule.

Once the external ruler leaves the locals tend to resent and perhaps revolt against (a) the locals who are seen as collaborators or beneficiaries of the invaders and (b) the remnants of the invader population, as both (a) and (b) usually retain power and privilege until dispossessed by the much more numerous but less powerful and less privileged local masses.

#27

But Yugoslavia, or the recent conflict in, is not directly the result of Ottoman rule as I believe the opening salvos of that conflict were between the Catholic Croats and Orthodox (but ostensibly pseudo-Socialist) Serbian dominated" Yugoslav federal state. Northern Ireland is a bit more complex as there is English protestantism–and then there is Scottish Presbyterianism. And one could argue that the Irish Republic still reflects some of the legacy of English rule as the UK reflects some of the legacy of Saxon rule…

Once the external ruler leaves the locals tend to resent and perhaps revolt against (a) the locals who are seen as collaborators or beneficiaries of the invaders and (b) the remnants of the invader population, as both (a) and (b) usually retain power and privilege until dispossessed by the much more numerous but less powerful and less privileged local masses.

I concur. But one can argue that (Northern) Ireland is more similar to many of the former Soviet republics in that an external ethnic populace that posed problem for the ruling classes was essentially “planted” as a form of counterinsurgency and “pacification” (i.e. the Scots-Irish). But I think one can also take the opposite view that in some cases the minority left behind by the colonizers can often maintain an ascendant status economically and remain influential. Ireland is sort of the ideal example as the "Anglo-Irish (protestants) have tended to do very well and typically have had a higher standard of living until very recent times of the “Irish Tiger” economy…

#28

That’s your opinion. But nevertheless, it is in fact a theory–and one certainly not based on a single NY Times article. You can disagree with it all you want, but there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction. But yes, it is a controversial theory and there isn’t any consensus…

Because the cultures involved were already in serious conflict, and engaged in trying to eliminate each other long before Europeans superimposed their ideas of national structure on tribal society. It wasn’t that the colonial boundaries changed anything for the tribal conflicts, made them more intense, or more frequent. In fact, an argument could be made that, in some cases, the imposition of colonial government actually dampened the conflicts by imposing the same laws, more or less impartially applied by the Europeans, on tribal societies. Of course, this wasn’t the case in every situation. The current war in the Congo was not caused by colonial boundaries being imposed on geographic tribal structure, but by conflict over finite natural resources by small political elites within the tribes. These political elites use the long history of tribal animosity to promote their own selfish interests without regard for the larger implications.

Actually, one can argue that European Imperialism exacerbated tribal and ethnic conflicts that existed prior. For instance, in King Leopold’s Congo, Hutus and Tutsis were forced to carry ID cards stating their ethnicity even though the terms had largely lost much of their meaning in reference to cultural identity. And the laws “imposed” were hardly for the beneficiary of the colonized. And the current War in the Congo very much involves the Tutsi and Hutu identity, as various militias and state armies of both are among the belligerents. And some would say that the Congo War represents a modernist form of “Neocolonialism,” in which local warlords have taken the place of Europeans and the demand for the metal coltan, for use in cell phones and computers, has become the precious resource for export the belligerents are all fighting over…

#29

Why do you have to make a complicated situation even more complicated, when I was trying to keep it simple? :wink: :smiley:

I’d suggest that Ottoman rule, and its eventual decay after WWI, was crucial in developing many areas of recent and current conflict, from Yugoslavia to Greece to Cyprus to Israel, and that the collapse of the Ottomans allowed more local conflicts to rise up.

You are certainly correct in identifying the Croat / Serb division along religious lines, which allowed some of the most appalling episodes during WWII and which are conveniently ignored in the West which beats its breast about the Nazis, but it had little influence on the wider world, beyond disgust to the few who knew or cared about it, then or now.

However, the Ottoman loss of Palestine and the subsequent Jewish filling of that vacuum without any legitimacy recognised by local nations has been the focus of an enduring problem, but this is just another example of a more powerful group gaining ascendancy over a less powerful group, by whatever means, as did the various colonial powers before WWII. Except that after WWII the colonial powers generally lost their possessions while the invaders in Palestine consolidated their power.

Well, personally, I blame Boadicea.

And the Danes, because if they’d got all the Danegeld there was to get out of Britain it would have been broke and just a Danish paddock.

The difference in comparing Northern Ireland plants with Soviet plants is about three centuries.

The USSR came and went within about seventy years during the 20th century, but the British control of Northern, and for that matter most of, Ireland began in the 17th century and was not displaced until late in the 20th century.

The difference in times allowed much greater entrenchment in the social, political and economic fabric in Ireland than it did in the USSR.

#30

With regard to the Planters in Ireland the majority came from the west coast of Scotland.This area had been settled by tribes from Northern Ireland several centuries beforehand,so it may be argued(perhaps feebly)that they were irishmen returning home.

#31

Yes, but an informed and rational opinion.

If your theory is not based on a single NY Times article, where is your documentation? The only data you have posted is the NY Times article and it is pretty feeble.

In any case, you are now trying to retreat from the idea that modern humans committed “genocide” against the Neanderthals; the statement that, “…there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction…” is a long, long way from the statement that modern man committed an act of genocide against the Neanderthals. I claim that no responsible anthropologist or archeologist today would be willing to flat out assert that he or she has evidence that modern humans deliberately attempted to exterminate Neanderthals, nor will they state that it is their theory that modern humans actually committed genocide against the Neanderthals.

If you can reference an authority (as opposed to some halfwit journalist trying to sensationalize his or her article) to the contrary, please do so.

Which would have been meaningless without generations of pre-existing tribal conflict. There is no evidence that such a requirement “exacerbated” anything except the bureaucratic burden imposed on tribal society.

No one ever said they were for the benefit of the colonial subjects. That they were imposed on everyone alike, in some colonies, tended to dampen tribal conflict, and in some cases even united tribes through their opposition to the colonial occupiers.

Yes, the identities of the tribes are involved and the underlying tensions are exploited by the political elites within the tribal structures, but they aren’t the cause of the conflicts, nor does the fact that the Congo was once the Belgian Congo have anything to do with the current warfare there. The tribes are simply continuing their conflicts with updated rationales; where once they fought over resources like game, water, and women, they now fight over the modern equivalents like exotic metals, diamonds, and oil.

It’s become fashionable to blame every problem in the third world on the prior existence of colonialism, without ever examining the real roots of conflict. Colonialism may not have been good in every case for the colonized, but it wasn’t always the progenitor of present day conflict and backwardness.

#32

As are mine. However, what you post later on here is anything but informed or rational as you seem to believe that this is somehow my personal theory all based on a NY Times article I have actually never read prior to doing a simple Google search. The Genocide theory actually is hotly debated and has been for the better part of the decade. Nobody asked you to agree with the theory. Nobody stated that THEY (i.e. ME) actually agreed with the theory nor did we actually discuss the merits and criticisms of said theory. Only that it is in fact a theory. Stating that it isn’t is silly nonsense (as if there is any sort of serious nonsense :slight_smile: )…

I’m debating the merits of the theory, merely its existence forwarded as one of the explanations for the sudden disappearance of the neanderthals…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

If your theory is not based on a single NY Times article, where is your documentation? The only data you have posted is the NY Times article and it is pretty feeble.

No. Actually it is based on research and conjecture. I’m unaware of anytime in history of a scientific theory being based on a newspaper article. And if you’re going to hold me to a standard much higher than the one you hold yourself to, at least point out specifically where the article is “feeble.” I mean, he/she’s a journalist and perhaps a science beat-writer, probably not an actual scientist. But I’m pretty sure the article was written in response to a hotly debated new theory, not the origin of it. Secondly, the article presented was actually reposted from a scientific blog, not the Times proper(website) IIRC. Thirdly, if your going to flame me for posting silly articles as the basis of my argument (even though they never were the basis of my argument) perhaps you should post some silly articles of your own for “documentation?”

In any case, you are now trying to retreat from the idea that modern humans committed “genocide” against the Neanderthals; the statement that, “…there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction…” is a long, long way from the statement that modern man committed an act of genocide against the Neanderthals.

Well, here’s where you’re getting a bit sketchy and strawmanish. I can’t “retreat” from anything since I never, ever stated conclusively one opinion or another. Firstly, I NEVER STATED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER regarding my personal beliefs of how neanderthals went the way of the Dodo. Secondly, I corrected the extraneous use of “genocide” with a term I would consider more accurate in “democide,” a semantic nuance which differs in that democide is less about premeditated mass extermination, and more about inflicting terror on one’s opponents as a means of more rational, tangible gains such as land, wealth, resources, etc. mainly by way of “ethnic-cleansing”…

I claim that no responsible anthropologist or archeologist today would be willing to flat out assert that he or she has evidence that modern humans deliberately attempted to exterminate Neanderthals, nor will they state that it is their theory that modern humans actually committed genocide against the Neanderthals.

Okay. And your basis of this claim is? You don’t agree with them and don’t like it, so it must be false?

Incidentally, Dr. Jared Diamond mentions the possibility of conflict between modern humans and the neanderthals not dissimilar to modern wars of extinction in his book The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses#cite_note-thirdchimp-7

If you can reference an authority (as opposed to some halfwit journalist trying to sensationalize his or her article) to the contrary, please do so.

Well, I had dozens of hits on Google and merely chose the article because it was a brief overview of the topic. But, I’ve seen a PBS (NOVA?) show on the topic IIRC. I’m also aware that this is actually a science genre novel on the subject in which a married couple of scientist have a rift as one believes in the genocide theory and the other believes that neanderthals died out due to indirect competition.

Which would have been meaningless without generations of pre-existing tribal conflict. There is no evidence that such a requirement “exacerbated” anything except the bureaucratic burden imposed on tribal society.

Actually many sources I’ve read stated that specially Belgian pass laws resurrected tribal conflicts by favoring the Tutsis over the Hutus (rural) classes and by reinforcing ancient class distinctions. That’s only one instance…

No one ever said they were for the benefit of the colonial subjects. That they were imposed on everyone alike, in some colonies, tended to dampen tribal conflict, and in some cases even united tribes through their opposition to the colonial occupiers.

Actually, there was a ‘moral dimension’ to imperialism that is reflected in “The White Man’s Burden” of “Christianizing” the orient as well as providing infrastructure…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

Yes, the identities of the tribes are involved and the underlying tensions are exploited by the political elites within the tribal structures, but they aren’t the cause of the conflicts, nor does the fact that the Congo was once the Belgian Congo have anything to do with the current warfare there. The tribes are simply continuing their conflicts with updated rationales; where once they fought over resources like game, water, and women, they now fight over the modern equivalents like exotic metals, diamonds, and oil.

The point is that the nation-states are all haphazard constructions of colonialism that follow no pattern of the previous kingdoms and hierarchical power-structures that existed prior fundamentally rewriting the continental boundaries with an incoherent mishmash and a constructed social order that was untenable. These arrived the way of carving up the map wherever said Euro nation happened to claim at the time. All Western nations have geographic boundaries such as rivers and mountain ranges, at least most do. The ones that do not tend to have histories of constant, or periodic, warfare such as Germany and France. I think this is generally accepted that nations constructed with some intent of patching different, often hostile, cultures together tend not to fare well in the end…

It’s become fashionable to blame every problem in the third world on the prior existence of colonialism, without ever examining the real roots of conflict. Colonialism may not have been good in every case for the colonized, but it wasn’t always the progenitor of present day conflict and backwardness.

Nobody is blaming anything on anyone except for the current douchebags that continue the cycle of repression (i.e. corrupt African gov’ts). Postcolonial theory is more expository and literary than judicial. It is only here to explain and record what was largely annihilated and the attitudes of the adherents and victims of colonization. But if it exposes prikks like King Leopold ala King Leopold’s Ghost, so be it…

#33

And your supporting evidence for the existence of a genocide theory to explain the demise of the Neanderthals is…a Monty Python YouTube clip???

I am NOT “flaming” you, so please don’t make false accusations.

What I am doing is claiming that the theory you claim exists does not, in fact, exist in serious scientific circles. If, as you claim, much research and conjecture exists on this topic, then certainly some reputable scientist has published a paper or two on the matter; it should be simple for you to reference such a paper to prove that the theory you have invoked does indeed exist.

All I’m asking is that you cite some responsible and reputable archeologist or anthropologist who has written about such a theory.

What you stated was that there exists a scientific theory to the effect that the demise of the Neanderthals was due to an act of genocide on the part of modern humans. Now, you are retreating from that statement by modifying the terms of reference to state that the theory is “that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction.” This does NOT describe an act of genocide, as merely “competing” with another species or race does not, by any measure, constitute “genocide”.

Either the theory exists and has been publicly expressed or it doesn’t. If it does exist please document it, or admit that you are mistaken.

No, the basis of my claim is that I have read extensively of man’s pre-history and have never heard or read of any reputable scientist expounding the theory that modern humans exterminated Neanderthals in an act of genocide.

Then perhaps you would be good enough to quote the passage in which the good doctor uses the term “genocide” to describe such conflict?

Ok, I can see that you haven’t read Dr. Diamond’s tome, but merely picked it out of a list of references listed on the Wiki article. The article itself mentions “genocide” but is not willing to say any scientist believes that genocide may have actually occurred; using such qualifiers as “comparable to” and “competitive exclusion”. The more you post, the more convinced I am that no reputable scientist entertains any genocide theory to explain the disappearance of the Neanderthals from the pre-historical record.

In other words a TV “dramatization” of science???

Hardly a convincing bit of “data”. Especially when scientists in real life actually do frequently publish papers on their theories; it shouldn’t be too difficult, if such a theory does indeed exist, to cite such papers with specific and clear allusions to the term “genocide”.

But that would have been very unlikely unless the tribal animosities still had currency.

A point not in dispute.

I would tend to agree with that, except that does not seem to have been the intent of colonial demarcation of boundaries. In Africa, in any case, Colonial boundaries were often very vague and indistinct, often being disputed by the neighboring colonial authorities. If the native tribes were even aware of such boundaries they seldom honored them unless forced to do so by border controls. Certainly, they seldom considered themselves part of an artificial construct imposed by Europeans; they continued to maintain their traditional tribal contacts and cultures, as well as their loyalties and conflicts.

Well, originally, you seemed to be stating that current tribal conflicts were largely attributable to the imposition on native cultures of European-style national structures, which, from a native perspective were purely artificial.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

#34

No. Actually I posted the Monty Python skit because it’s funny and that some people revel in arguments by exaggerating their opponents views to the contrary when not that far apart. And I also get annoyed having to take the internet this seriously…

I am NOT “flaming” you, so please don’t make false accusations.

But you make false proclamations that you attribute to me that I never actually made. I think you’re also falling into the trap of false ‘binary-oppositions’ in implying that there could be only one cause for the disappearance of neanderthal man. There are several theories, and ‘genocide’ via a war of annihilation is one of them…

What I am doing is claiming that the theory you claim exists does not…it should be simple for you to reference such a paper to prove that the theory you have invoked does indeed exist.

Perhaps you can give us a “paper” in that states the neanderthals disappeared that doesn’t mention genocide as a possible culprit? As I stated, it is hotly debated to what extent warfare and skirmishes perhaps became total warfare as far as any could be organized by Stonehenge herders/nomads in prehistory.

All I’m asking is that you cite some responsible and reputable archeologist or anthropologist who has written about such a theory.

I did. I’m waiting for you to post a reputable archeologist or anthropologist that would state that genocide (or democide more accurately) never could have happened and the fascinatingly rapid disappearance of neanderthals was somehow only through “competition” as you’ve previously stated. Since in no way could merely “competition” explain their rapid demise…

What you stated was that there exists a scientific theory to the effect that the demise of the Neanderthals was due to an act of genocide on the part of modern humans. Now, you are retreating from that statement…

Okay. Can you quote where I retreat from a statement? Um, “competition” can take many forms, Dr. Semantics. Firstly, I never conclusively stated my agreement semantically–including warfare and ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you can tell us the nature and definition of “genocide?” Actually, I corrected it as “democide.” A term I’m pretty sure you’ve never heard prior to this debate and a term coined to be broader than “genocide” in a distinction that scientists may fail to make. Secondly, I in no way implied that genocide was the only theory, nor did I state that all neanderthals succumbed to one sole factor. But personally, I do believe that competition for resources is pretty much what all war is about. Is it not? And genocides (or democide) tends to take place in a broader armed conflict as tactic. Does it not? So, where really is my contradiction and backpedaling? I simply believe that such events are inherently complex and there can be no single easy answer. I’m also well aware of the theory (or hypotheses a better term for all this I think?) that you put forward that neanderthals were in a sense trapped into a rigid, myopic way of life resulting from their lack of imagination and inability to operate on the same intellectual level as modern man.

But if the neanderthals had a diminished mental capacity when compared to modern humans even while they were vastly physically more robust–wouldn’t that be precisely the thing that could make them vulnerable to some sort of semi-organized armed pogrom against them by a physically much weaker specimen, yet a much faster thinking, adversary?

Either the theory exists and has been publicly expressed or it doesn’t. If it does exist please document it, or admit that you are mistaken.

So you’re saying no scientist has ever expressed that modern man may have slaughtered the neanderthals? That we lived side-by-side in blissful coexistence? I don’t think you have much historical precedence for that!

No, the basis of my claim is that I have read extensively of man’s pre-history and have never heard or read of any reputable scientist expounding the theory that modern humans exterminated Neanderthals in an act of genocide.

Fine. Who dismisses such a notion that is a ‘reputable scientist?’ There are certainly scientists who disagree with this particular hypothesis, or who believe warfare may have been a less dominant factor in the demise of the neanderthals. There is no smoking gun (unless you count bones with evidence of a violent demise, but even here there are too few examples)…

Then perhaps you would be good enough to quote the passage in which the good doctor uses the term “genocide” to describe such conflict?

I don’t have the book. Perhaps you could read it and enlighten us? I’m kind of busy with a military reading list leading me away from where I started and some other stuff I’d almost rather read…

Ok, I can see that you haven’t read Dr. Diamond’s tome, but merely picked it out of a list of references listed on the Wiki article.

Oh dear! How horrible! Well, apparently, you’ve missed it as well in your “extensive readings” of pre-history? But I did notice your explanation in a previous post is largely discredited because it doesn’t explain the rapid decimation of the neanderthals when coupled with the fact that they were well equipped to survive their environment.

The article itself mentions “genocide” but is not willing to say any scientist believes that genocide may have actually occurred; using such qualifiers as “comparable to” and “competitive exclusion”…

Here’s what it says. If you want to quibble of semantics, fine:

[i]Coexistence prior to extinction

Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted in Europe for several thousand years, but the duration of this period is uncertain.[2] Modern humans may have first migrated to Europe 40–43,000 years ago,[3] and Neanderthals may have lived as recently as 24,000 years ago in refugia…

[edit] Rapid extinction

Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[8] Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]

[edit] Competitive replacement

Even a slight competitive advantage on the part of modern humans could account for Neanderthals’ replacement by anatomically modern humans on a timescale of 10,000-20,000 years.[3]

The theory that early humans violently replaced Neanderthals was first proposed by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (the first person to publish an analysis of a Neanderthal) in 1912.[9]

Another supporter of competitive replacement is Jared Diamond who points out in his book The Third Chimpanzee that the genocidal replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans is similar to modern human patterns of behavior that occur whenever people with advanced technology invade the territory of less advanced people.[10][/i]

If we want to get picky and state that genocide is only when people are put in camps with gas chambers. Fine, you win. But then, what could one call the slaughtering of buffalo on the Great Plains in order to starve the Native tribes in the 1800s? Was that ‘genocide,’ ‘democide,’ or a legitimate tactic of ‘total war?’

In other words a TV “dramatization” of science???

Oh, by all means enlighten us with your learned background and post some of your sources. But NOVA is a TV ‘dramatization of science?’ Really? One of the best things on TV that’s well researched and near universally acclaimed and you can’t just dismiss it as if it were and episode of Three-and-a-Half-Men…

Hardly a convincing bit of “data”. Especially when scientists in real life actually do frequently publish papers on their theories…specific and clear allusions to the term “genocide”.

Firstly, having read numerous examples of them in the military, primary papers written by scientists are not always readily available on the open internet and would take weeks to decipher the gist to support contentions, which would bore all of us to death. So, why would I bother when you clearly haven’t?

Or perhaps you could refute my infantile notion of scientists, including one of the first to seriously study neanderthals, have stated that there is a possibility that humans may have engaged in a war of extinction (genocide or democide). Examples of which have often repeated by technologically superior cultures against less ‘evolved’ ones…

#35

But that would have been very unlikely unless the tribal animosities still had currency.

…I would tend to agree with that, except that does not seem to have been the intent of colonial demarcation of boundaries. In Africa, in any case, Colonial boundaries were often very vague and indistinct, often being disputed by the neighboring colonial authorities. If the native tribes were even aware of such boundaries they seldom honored them unless forced to do so by border controls. Certainly, they seldom considered themselves part of an artificial construct imposed by Europeans; they continued to maintain their traditional tribal contacts and cultures, as well as their loyalties and conflicts.

Of course they did. But the tribes were no longer hegemonic groupings in the Euro notion of a nation-state, they now had to live next door to each other wherein some cases they probably separated off into various kingdoms prior. Incidentally, no one is implying that African was some utopia usurped by the distopian arrival of colonialism. But the fundamental marginalization of various African cultures, the mainstay of easily corrupted industries of oil/mineral wealth were a relative few can steal from the impoverished many has contributed to a fundamental perpetuation of instability and a breakdown in the social fabric that Africa is only now beginning to recover from–not the intrinsic racial inferiority of blacks that another poster was sort of hinting at–rather odd givin’ his nationality (Russian) and some of his previous posts decrying the notion of the ‘superior Aryan’ over the ‘racially inferior Slav.’ Cyclical poverty and rigid class distinctions have far more to do with societal retardation than do genetics. So do corrupt, shit gov’ts, factions, and warlords stealing easily controlled mineral resources funneled to the unconscionable…

Well, originally, you seemed to be stating that current tribal conflicts were largely attributable to the imposition on native cultures of European-style national structures, which, from a native perspective were purely artificial.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I think post-colonial theory as begun by thinkers like Edward Said are largely misunderstood as some sort of left-wing apologia of African tinpot fascist/stalinist bastards when in fact much of it is an indictment of the current ones as “neo-colonialists.”

#36

I haven’t made any false attributions to you. You’d just like to get out of a situation where you made a rash statement that you now find you can’t document, without actually admitting you were wrong.

If “genocide” or a “war of annihilation” (which requires a far more sophisticated social organization than existed anywhere at the time) are actually theories held by scientists, it seems to me you should have been able to find a scientist who makes a specific statement to that effect. You obviously haven’t, despite searching the internet, so I conclude that such a theory does not, in fact, exist.

Well, that would only be duplicating your efforts; none of the articles, books or other documents you have found directly and specifically state that “genocide” is suspected as a cause. Violent competition, yes, even protracted warfare maybe, but neither of those terms rise to the level of genocide. Yes, violent conflict with modern humans is one theory for what caused the disappearance of the Neanderthals, but that is a far cry from the definition of “genocide”. Actually, most researchers now think that hybridization was a more likely reason for the gradual disappearance of the Neanderthals, but there are other theories, although genocide is not one of them.

Why should I? You were the one who rashly stated that genocide was one theory for the disappearance of Neanderthals, so the burden of proof that such a theory exists rests with you. I’m still waiting for you to produce a reference or citation proving it.

In case you didn’t notice, I did quote you. You were clearly trying to soften the term “genocide” to include mere competition for natural resources when that is definitely not part of the definition of genocide. It’s not I who is trying to hide behind a semantic smokescreen.

No, I’m saying that, in all my reading on the subject, I have never seen or heard of any reputable scientist suggesting that modern humans had the sophisticated social organization required to organize and carry out any program of genocide on the scale that would have successfully eliminated the entire Neanderthal race (or species, or whatever you want to call it).

Then you shouldn’t suggest that the author makes statements that support your claim.

Oh? Just how rapid was the disappearance of the Neanderthals? You seem to be setting yourself up as an expert on the subject, so when does the Neanderthal disappear in pre-history? You should note that there is no consensus on this, but the evidence seems to be that it took at least a thousand years, and more likely, tens of thousands of years for the Neanderthals to disappear. Pretty slow for a successful act of genocide. Just maintaining a goal of extinction in any primitive society over that period of time would be more or less impossible.

Yeah, I read that. But mere competition, even if it sometimes takes the form of violence does not constitute “genocide”. Even the learned Doctor Diamond does not say that modern humans practiced genocide on the Neanderthals. He qualifies his statements with terms like “comparable”.

No, I do not believe real genocide requires gas chambers and concentration camps, but it does require more than mere competition, even if that competition is sometimes accompanied by violent encounters. Real genocide is an attempt to exterminate all the members of a race or species through a deliberate program of extermination. Warfare is not genocide unless the purpose of the war is to eliminate permanently the entire opposition.

Well, because the burden of proof is yours rather than mine; you were the first to proclaim the theory exists, I claim it does not, not in serious scientific circles.

If you wish to use a scientist as proof of your claim, please cite a quotation by that person, specifically stating that modern humans may have engaged in genocide or a “war of extinction”. I don’t believe any scientist has ever made such a specific statement because there is little or no evidence for it.

Tthere is very little evidence that modern humans were all that technologically advanced over Neanderthals. They may have had slightly more sophisticated stone-working methods and may have used a wider variety of materials, but that’s about it. When it came to violent conflict, the Neanderthals would have held a huge edge in physical strength and agility.

#37

Note: I’ve deleted some of my response here because this seems to becoming a tit-for-tat, redundant pissing match and I want to keep things civil. I’m confining my response to the following: :slight_smile:

Super! Now we’re getting somewhere, I think there is some common ground here. It wouldn’t be one hundred percent accurate for a scientist on Diamond’s level to make absolute and categorical statements regarding theories/hypotheses, but he like us has a dilemma as again, we’re quibbling over a lack of definition of genocide. Something that is in itself hotly debated as terms for what goes on in places like the Sudan and Rwanda. Apparently, the Janjuweed militias’ Sudanese gov’t’s mass murderous “ethnic-cleansing” of darker skinned, non-Arabic Africans was not technically a genocide according to some, but a democide involving the use of terror and ethnic cleansing. Yet, the spasm of violence and mass murder of Tutsis that took place in Rwanda, that started on a national level–but very quickly became locally coordinated–is considered genocide based largely on numbers I suppose. Yet, “War of extinction?” I believe a solitary instance in the Bosnia Herzegovina city of Srebrenica was considered “genocide” by the ICJ even though the death toll was less than ten thousand, and not millions, and even though that wasn’t necessarily a “war of extinction” nor was it an attempt to completely massacre and entire Bosnian Muslim race as the Serb paramilitaries (mostly) allowed women and children out. Genocide is a politicized definition that is in itself hotly debated…

Semantics and qualifiers indeed, my friend…

This is why I stated that democide is a better term. Would it not be plausible that when modern men went into vast swaths of European river valleys and began a pogrom of massacring every neanderthal in sight in order to terrorize them out of said areas? After all, there are no black-and-white footage or documents pertaining too what took place, but it would seem that modern humans have done pretty much the same thing. As for genocide, it can start out as a form of ethnic-cleansing by killing large numbers of the supposed enemy, using terror to force them out of a given area. The question is the scale of said events and the numbers of dead. It could well have taken place over decades, even centuries and plausibly would have been more than just the odd tribes engaged in a pitched battle over cattle or hunting grounds. As far as there being “little evidence” for a “war of extinction,” that’s a bit of a false choice, because there is little evidence for the hypothesis that you advanced earlier. Or for any other. But the very lack of neanderthals currently would be one indication that even local wars would have contributed to their extinction.

You are correct that a Neanderthal would have been much stronger and that they had comparable brain capacity, which would in some ways make them even more of a threat. But I believe I read long ago that Cro-Magnons and modern humans had probably a better imagination and were more creatively inclined allowing for them to perhaps out-plan our cousins IIRC. Also:

Anatomical differences and running ability

Researchers including Karen L. Steudel of the University of Wisconsin have proposed that because Neanderthals had limbs that were shorter and stockier than those of modern humans, and because of other anatomical differences in their limbs, the primary reason the Neanderthals were not able to survive is related to the fact that they could not run as fast as modern humans, and they would require 30% more energy than modern humans would for running or walking.[13]

This would have given modern humans a huge advantage in battle. Other researchers, like Yoel Rak, from Tel-Aviv University in Israel have noted that the fossil records show that Neanderthal pelvises in comparison to modern human pelvises would have made it much harder for Neanderthals to absorb shock and to bounce off from one step to the next, giving modern humans another advantage over Neanderthals in running and walking ability.[14]

Sarcasm does not become you, but if it’s the only argument you have, give it your best shot…

Sarcasm is not an argument, it’s more of a tone and style, one meant to be humorous more than anything else. :slight_smile:

Yes, I suppose NOVA is the best of the lot, but it’s still entertainment. I notice that you didn’t give the scientists names, nor explain which one held the theory that you claim exists. So no, I don’t entirely dismiss the program, but you need to reference more information than just some TV program you once watched.

It’s not a single program I once watched, it’s a multitude of examples not unlike your comprehensive “reading” on the subject that has taken place over the years from TV documentaries to National Geographic articles. However, I did produce exactly what you asked for, Dr. Jared Diamond is one of the main proponents for human activity that was “comparable to genocide” and that violent confrontation and displacement may have been one of the primary causes for their demise. But who knows? We might have up to 4% of their DNA in our blood…

Regards…

#38

Now you have actually started to understand the problem.

Journalists and politicians trend to throw terms like “genocide”, “war of extinction”, and “ethnic cleansing” around without ever stating a precise definition. That is deliberate because they want maximum emotional impact without people starting to ask just what the hell they mean by these terms. The terms themselves were coined to produce outrage and anger, not sober reflection and careful thought.

Fortunately, most scientists value rational and calm reflection, and search for essential truths which are usually NOT to be found in the use of such imprecise language. That is why I do not believe any reputable scientist would use a term like “genocide” to describe what might have happened thousands of years ago. Even the good Doctor Diamond qualifies his use of the term by inserting the qualifier “comparable to”. That is because he knows his colleagues would not tolerate an emotional word like “genocide” in a dispassionate scientific work, and rightly so.

And no, it would not be plausible for modern humans to migrate into Europe and attempt to systematically annihilate every Neanderthal they found there. That would imply a level of social organization far above the rudimentary tribal system that was common to both modern humans and Neanderthals at the time. At most, a tribe of modern humans might plausibly decide to attempt to discourage a competing tribe from using certain hunting grounds, and failing that, might decide to make war on that tribe. It’s just as reasonable to assume the opposing tribe could be Neanderthals or, just as plausibly, modern humans. This competition, even when it might turn violent, in no way rises to the level of “genocide” or a “war of extinction”. It was most likely simply a desire to make their own survival easier, and was probably directed at any tribe of any race or species with which they came in contact.

All the evidence indicates that neither modern humans, nor Neanderthals, had the social organization, the time, nor the inclination to engage in anything more than tasks and projects directly related to their own survival; to put it another way, they didn’t have time for “wars of extinction” which imply massive social efforts, or “genocide”, which implies considerable effort to accomplish the systematic destruction of an entire gene pool.

Just for the record, I have advanced no hypotheses. I have simply stated, and maintained, that no reputable scientist has suggested that “genocide” or a “war of extinction” might have taken place in Europe in pre-historical times and might account for the disappearance of the Neanderthals.

#39

If, as Mr. Svoboda claims, “…one in eight soldier’s “ (I assume he includes US Army and Marines) in WWII were subject to courts martial nearly 6,600 soldiers each day of the US involvement would have received this high level action. It would be reasonable to assume an even greater number would have been subject to lower level disciplinary actions each day. When could they have found time to win the war?
I can accept that there is some basis for his claims and it would be easy, as a career soldier, to attribute this problem to poor low/mid level leadership. But the fact that there are few records available seem to support his claim that there was some high level apathy and cover up.
While stationed in Germany in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s I experienced similar high level command apathy to some (not all) Black GI’s reactions to the racial turmoil in the US. Leader’s at all levels seemed to be afraid of confronting Black’s, I guess from fear of accusations of racism.
I am not defending racism nor am I saying Black GI’s were not justified in their support of the civil rights movement, but some of them took advantage and Officers and NCO’s allowed it.
And before somebody gets their panties in a bunch I am not equating US racial discrimination and the civil rights movement with the rape of Japanese women.