So if someone said they intentionally murdered all of a tribe, you wouldn’t consider it genocide?
Sand people is more of a word like Native Americans.
So it would be like if he went and intentionally murdered all of the Cherokee because the actions of one/some Cherokee.
Sure he didn’t hunt down the Seminoles afterwards, but the Cherokee have their own culture and beliefs.
As for the Jedi… His orders were to kill everyone of a certain religion. He stated with the younglings and then spent over a decade hunting down anyone who escaped.
I suppose if we will compare fantasy to reality to Wookiepedia we go
"A nomadic culture,[14] Tusken clan groups consisted of 20 to 30 individuals, and were led by clan leaders, tribal chiefs,[7] and warlords.[8] Tuskens traveled in single file to hide the number of individuals in their party.[15] The culture of different tribes varied greatly, with some surviving by killing outsiders, while other tribes used more peaceful means.[7] "
The description of his onslaught had over 2 dozen huts, where “I…I killed them. I killed them all. They’re dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They’re like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals.”
I would draw from that information that they had varied cultures, and he slaughtered one indiscriminately.
Thus completely wiping out their tribes culture, and of course the individuals as well. I’m not sure how that wouldn’t fall under genocide.
It would certainly be an atrocity, if that’s what you’re getting at. There is no less value to Palestinian or Native American lives than to European ones. Genocide, however, is the systematic persecution with the intent to eliminate a certain ethnic group.
The difficulty in your example arises with defining that “genus” in the modern sense of genocide, since “Parisian” is a very diverse mix of people. What makes them “Parisian”?
If their common association is, say, having their primary residence in Paris, or having been in Paris during a certain point or stretch in time, I suppose we could coin the term “urbicide”, but I don’t know if there’s a historical precedent for the systematic persecution of a specific city by whatever definition.
There is the historic phenomenon of soldiers wantonly slaughtering a chunk of the populace of a captured city, but if you wanted to actually use the administrative and productive value of that city you’d want to keep the killing in check. On the other hand, raiding other tribes or villages and killing inhabitants with the purpose of driving them away from your lands also involved the murder of civilians, but the intent was foremost to secure resources and prosperous land for your own people.
Failing any other classification, it would still be a massacre. We don’t need to slap particularly loaded labels onto everything bad to make it bad. Doing so dilutes the meaning of those terms, watering down both their political weight and their usefulness in classifying events.
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Cultural group means killing any village unless it has an identical twin with the same language, history, principles, beliefs, music, etc, means it will be genocide.
I don’t recall ani going there to wipe them out, only to get his mother. then the killings happened when she died in his arms. so how is this “… systemically…”
The system was a mix of his lightsaber and the force, moving 1 to the next…? Whether it was passion, right or wrong it doesn’t matter to the definition of the term.
A riot is a riot whether or not the riot was for a good reason. Terms be like that usually.
Given how thoroughly the Tusken Raiders are narratively linked to American Indians it’s also pretty fucking weird that you’d insist on this point. How many tribes do you get to wipe out before it’s a genocide iyo?
he didn’t plan to kill them just to get his mother then flipped his shit. so how is this genocide?
genocide would be like how the US food supply is tainted with GMO horsehit and fake lab chemical ingredients that causes all kinds of slow killing ailments to the American people.
I’d assume intention makes the difference here: Anakin was lashing out in anger at the ones immediately within reach, like a one-man pogrom, but I don’t know that he commanded an attempt to exterminate their entire kind.
Given how thoroughly the Tusken Raiders are narratively linked to American Indians it’s also pretty fucking weird that you’d insist on this point. How many tribes do you get to wipe out before it’s a genocide iyo?
I honestly wasn’t aware of that narrative link, which may be an artifact of my European cultural perception.
In any case, it wouldn’t change my stance: Massacring one tribe would be a massacre. Done out of racial hatred, it would be a hate crime. The criterion for genocide would be the scale and scope: Is your violence aimed only at a specific tribe?
Attempting to push a particular group from prosperous land has been a motivator for warfare since forever. That’s not what makes a Genocide in my opinion. A genocide is a systematic attempt to eradicate an entire people, not just displace them.
That doesn’t mean massacres or wars of displacement aren’t atrocities either, just that we don’t need to slap the label “genocide” on everything, thereby devaluing its gravity when applied to things where it actually fits (like the war of extermination on the Palestinian people).
Now, if I missed something and Anakin went on to chase down the rest of the Tusken people, that would be genocide too.
Well thats a very liberal application of genocide. The Sand people incident might be spun as a racial killing, but genocide? That’s way too much.
So if someone said they intentionally murdered all of a tribe, you wouldn’t consider it genocide?
Sand people is more of a word like Native Americans.
So it would be like if he went and intentionally murdered all of the Cherokee because the actions of one/some Cherokee.
Sure he didn’t hunt down the Seminoles afterwards, but the Cherokee have their own culture and beliefs.
As for the Jedi… His orders were to kill everyone of a certain religion. He stated with the younglings and then spent over a decade hunting down anyone who escaped.
It’s more like he murdered all of a single Cherokee village. Still awful, but the Cherokee nation still exists.
I suppose if we will compare fantasy to reality to Wookiepedia we go
"A nomadic culture,[14] Tusken clan groups consisted of 20 to 30 individuals, and were led by clan leaders, tribal chiefs,[7] and warlords.[8] Tuskens traveled in single file to hide the number of individuals in their party.[15] The culture of different tribes varied greatly, with some surviving by killing outsiders, while other tribes used more peaceful means.[7] "
The description of his onslaught had over 2 dozen huts, where “I…I killed them. I killed them all. They’re dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They’re like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals.”
I would draw from that information that they had varied cultures, and he slaughtered one indiscriminately.
Thus completely wiping out their tribes culture, and of course the individuals as well. I’m not sure how that wouldn’t fall under genocide.
rape culture got a bit of genocide boohoo
Yeah. What he did to the Sand People was a hate crime.
Yeah he hated they made him do it. /s
he only hated that he ran out of sand people
“Just” terrorism.
I’m going to see this comment in my history in a year and be like “…huh?”
Bibi moment
Anakin murdered one village, he didn’t prosecute a war of extinction against an entire people.
So if someone goes and murders ever Parisian it is not a genocide of Parisians? Or are some people lesser and their cultures dont matter as much?
It would certainly be an atrocity, if that’s what you’re getting at. There is no less value to Palestinian or Native American lives than to European ones. Genocide, however, is the systematic persecution with the intent to eliminate a certain ethnic group.
The difficulty in your example arises with defining that “genus” in the modern sense of genocide, since “Parisian” is a very diverse mix of people. What makes them “Parisian”?
If their common association is, say, having their primary residence in Paris, or having been in Paris during a certain point or stretch in time, I suppose we could coin the term “urbicide”, but I don’t know if there’s a historical precedent for the systematic persecution of a specific city by whatever definition.
There is the historic phenomenon of soldiers wantonly slaughtering a chunk of the populace of a captured city, but if you wanted to actually use the administrative and productive value of that city you’d want to keep the killing in check. On the other hand, raiding other tribes or villages and killing inhabitants with the purpose of driving them away from your lands also involved the murder of civilians, but the intent was foremost to secure resources and prosperous land for your own people.
Failing any other classification, it would still be a massacre. We don’t need to slap particularly loaded labels onto everything bad to make it bad. Doing so dilutes the meaning of those terms, watering down both their political weight and their usefulness in classifying events.
Genocide:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Cultural group means killing any village unless it has an identical twin with the same language, history, principles, beliefs, music, etc, means it will be genocide.
I don’t recall ani going there to wipe them out, only to get his mother. then the killings happened when she died in his arms. so how is this “… systemically…”
The system was a mix of his lightsaber and the force, moving 1 to the next…? Whether it was passion, right or wrong it doesn’t matter to the definition of the term.
A riot is a riot whether or not the riot was for a good reason. Terms be like that usually.
LOL the system?
yes it does matter maybe read the definition of genocide again
Partial genocides are still genocides.
Given how thoroughly the Tusken Raiders are narratively linked to American Indians it’s also pretty fucking weird that you’d insist on this point. How many tribes do you get to wipe out before it’s a genocide iyo?
he didn’t plan to kill them just to get his mother then flipped his shit. so how is this genocide?
genocide would be like how the US food supply is tainted with GMO horsehit and fake lab chemical ingredients that causes all kinds of slow killing ailments to the American people.
I’d assume intention makes the difference here: Anakin was lashing out in anger at the ones immediately within reach, like a one-man pogrom, but I don’t know that he commanded an attempt to exterminate their entire kind.
I honestly wasn’t aware of that narrative link, which may be an artifact of my European cultural perception.
In any case, it wouldn’t change my stance: Massacring one tribe would be a massacre. Done out of racial hatred, it would be a hate crime. The criterion for genocide would be the scale and scope: Is your violence aimed only at a specific tribe?
Attempting to push a particular group from prosperous land has been a motivator for warfare since forever. That’s not what makes a Genocide in my opinion. A genocide is a systematic attempt to eradicate an entire people, not just displace them.
That doesn’t mean massacres or wars of displacement aren’t atrocities either, just that we don’t need to slap the label “genocide” on everything, thereby devaluing its gravity when applied to things where it actually fits (like the war of extermination on the Palestinian people).
Now, if I missed something and Anakin went on to chase down the rest of the Tusken people, that would be genocide too.
Completely depends on how big the parts are, otherwise it’s just mass murder. Well I guess intent also plays a role.