Which nation has killed the most?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

inspired by this:
Justin hawkins (The Darkness) To Release Anti-German World Cup Song

So who has killed more people, the Yanks or the Brits? Are the Krauts any competition? The Russkies? Rome?

Side question: which Religion is the biggest instigator of murder and destruction?

― The First Guy Ever to Have The Crazy Frog Ringtone, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:06 (twenty years ago)

1) germany
2) xtianity

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:09 (twenty years ago)

1. The Brits didn't really kill that many did they? They never had large enough armies for a start.

2. Christianity by a mile.

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:11 (twenty years ago)

Eternal damnation.

― NickB (NickB), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:11 (twenty years ago)

1. The Brits didn't really kill that many did they? They never had large enough armies for a start.
Dude, the British Empire didn't start itself.

― The First Guy Ever to Have The Crazy Frog Ringtone, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:13 (twenty years ago)

But how much of the British Empire was gained thru war and conquest and how much by trade and politicking?

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:16 (twenty years ago)

british army was relatively tiny up till 1915. navy was big.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:16 (twenty years ago)

40/60

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:16 (twenty years ago)

Gunboat diplomacy!

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:18 (twenty years ago)

relatively (I mean in relation to their size accross the ages) or absolutely?

― clodia pulchra (emo by proxy), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:20 (twenty years ago)

relative to comparable rival colonial powers, relative to the scale of the operation, as it were.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:21 (twenty years ago)

I think it's only in the 20th century that wars have been mass affairs(There was no universal conscription prior to WW1) so it's almost certainly been Germany, or if you include killing your own people, Russia.

and religion probably, as the biggest religion, christianity.

― Bidfurd (Bidfurd), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:22 (twenty years ago)

20th century answers here maybe.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

― Pete W (peterw), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:23 (twenty years ago)

1. Unwanted impreg

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:25 (twenty years ago)

it's almost certainly been Germany, or if you include killing your own people, Russia.

Germany killed its own people too! The Jews were Germans (and Poles and Austrians, etc) or at least as German as Ukranians, Czechs, and Latvians etc. were Russian

but i do think it was Russia, which would make #2 = atheism

― Mack, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:45 (twenty years ago)

the xtianity-as-killer thing doesn't refer to a 'single incident' type thing -- it's more the long-term killings of indigenous peoples in like south american and australia and ting. it's shakey to put it down to religion in itself obv!

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:48 (twenty years ago)

Is atheism a religion? (xpost)

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:51 (twenty years ago)

1. Used to be commies, but now it's Al Quaeda.

2. The Pro-abortion Lobby

― George W. Bush, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:51 (twenty years ago)

The actions of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Imperial Japan in the 20th Century all pin them down as easily the most murderous bunch of nation states ever. The last 100 years of human history make the book of Judges look like a Hardy Boys adventure.

The strange thing is, and I know we all love to hate some organized religion on this board, but you really can't blame any of those countries' actions on Jesus (or any religion) one bit. Nationalism is a much more frightening tendency. Books written by God are notoriously more open to interpretation than "The good of the homeland at whatever cost."

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:52 (twenty years ago)

However the (supplemental) question was "which Religion is the biggest instigator of murder and destruction"

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:54 (twenty years ago)

imperial spain took its religion pretty seriously.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:55 (twenty years ago)

Mass murderers - dont forget Mr Mao.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

― Pete W (peterw), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:56 (twenty years ago)

a religion can't kill people any more than an ideology like nazism can -- but you could argue religion was as integral (and indeed non-integral) to spain as nazism and communism were to germany and russia.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:56 (twenty years ago)

....in which case Christianity is the winner (xxxpost)

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:57 (twenty years ago)

http://www.afscstore.org/store/images/0195085574.jpg

Christians v. indigenous ppl.

― gbx (skowly), Friday, 28 April 2006 12:58 (twenty years ago)

You guys are right, why bother having any kind of intelligent debate on this issue, let's just have another 200 post thread bagging on Christians. Pick on the fat kid! Pick on the fat kid!

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:01 (twenty years ago)

suprised to see no-one arguing USA - though i think you'd have to count all the murderous little despots employed by the USA in order to do so, which could get tricky.

― cfg, Friday, 28 April 2006 13:02 (twenty years ago)

surely there's a pie chart on the internet to solve this?

― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:03 (twenty years ago)

Pick on the fat murderous intolerant kid! Pick on the fat murderous intolerant kid!

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:03 (twenty years ago)

How in the fucking world could USA possibly top Russia unless you have absolutely no fucking clue about actual real historical events? Oh right, I guess I'm surprised no-one's arguing USA too.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:03 (twenty years ago)

You guys are right, why bother having any kind of intelligent debate on this issue, let's just have another 200 post thread bagging on Christians. Pick on the fat kid! Pick on the fat kid!
-- TOMBOT (tombo...), April 28th, 2006.

it's not bagging on christians to ponder whether their religion was an important component in the mass-killings of people in the americas by countries in which orgainzed religion played an absolutely fundamental role in government.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:04 (twenty years ago)

the people saying usa are crazy though, yes.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:04 (twenty years ago)

PLZ TO NAME ME THE RELIGION WHICH WORSHIPS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM WHICH IS NOT MURDEROUS AND INTOLERANT IN ITS MOST PRIMITIVE, THROWBACK FORM

GET ONE FUCKING HISTORY BOOK AND/OR LET'S PLAY WHO DOES ALL THE KILLING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:05 (twenty years ago)

by countries in which orgainzed religion played an absolutely fundamental role in government.

The role in question being 'excuse'.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:07 (twenty years ago)

who are you yelling at? I don't think anyone's made an argument of the type you're objecting to... nobody's saying USA... I only said I'm suprised no-one has!

― cfg, Friday, 28 April 2006 13:08 (twenty years ago)

I think that the interesting thing is that when countries have decided to perform mass murder (esp. on their own populations) since the invention of breech-loading weapons have been motivated to do so by largely nationalistic reasons (us civil war counts as does the aftermath of the french revolution, i would argue) and not on faith-based principles. Imperialistic genocide campaigns prior to the Enlightenment & the Revolutionary War vs. those that followed = very different strain of rhetoric.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:08 (twenty years ago)

do we chalk the pogroms up to russia or christianity?

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:09 (twenty years ago)

I'm yelling at Dada because it seems like he's the one most interested in having this thread just be about how Christ as your Saviour is the first step on the road to tying people up two by two to save bullets as you walk parallel to the mass grave you've dug for them

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:10 (twenty years ago)

Ha ha, what on earth are you on about? What can't you understand about the initial quesiton:

Side question: which Religion is the biggest instigator of murder and destruction?

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:12 (twenty years ago)

by countries in which orgainzed religion played an absolutely fundamental role in government.
The role in question being 'excuse'.

-- Andrew Farrell (afarrel...), April 28th, 2006

that, and, you know, imposing their law on the rest of the population and bestowing/withholding legitimacy on the ruling families of europe.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:13 (twenty years ago)

I'll repeat it again very slowly:

Which RELIGION is the biggest instigator of murder and destruction?

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:14 (twenty years ago)

dudes if we're talking religion then buddhism wins obv

http://www.moviezine.se/filmbilder/016/kung_fu_hustle.jpg

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/01/xin_00090230105773883657.jpg

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:14 (twenty years ago)

Which I take to mean which religion IN COMPARISON TO OTHER RELIGIONS

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:15 (twenty years ago)

OK well actually the religion which is the biggest instigator of murder and destruction would be Judaism. If fucking Abraham hadn't been a complete nutbag ready to kill his only son to prove his love for YHWH, none of the other shit we're talking about on this thread would have happened. We'd all believe in 20 or 30 or 300 different gods and you never would have heard of Jesus or Mohammed much less Sayyid Qutb or the Ku Klux Klan.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:19 (twenty years ago)

Prolly

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:21 (twenty years ago)

he didn't kill his son anyway.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:22 (twenty years ago)

wimp

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:23 (twenty years ago)

Yeah maybe he should have, that woulda ended the whole thing right there. Well I know what I'm doing with a time machine now.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:23 (twenty years ago)

BTW I wish the answer to this question was Gnosticism, just because.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:23 (twenty years ago)

Cain wiped out a fair chunk of the Earth's population single handedly.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:24 (twenty years ago)

But that's totally apocryphal. The Abraham thing really happened.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:29 (twenty years ago)

the sun is shining out there dudes

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:30 (twenty years ago)

What about Noah? Think of the lives that would have been saved if he had left Lions, Tigers, Bears, etc. off the Ark! He could have spared us the avian flu by letting all the birds sink too. Noah, you putz!

― cfg, Friday, 28 April 2006 13:34 (twenty years ago)

the sun is shining out there dudes
-- Konal Doddz (stevem7...), April 28th, 2006.

trudat

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:34 (twenty years ago)

"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." p. 202, Adolph Hitler by John Toland

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:41 (twenty years ago)

similarly, South Africa studied Canada's reservation system for Indians when they set up Apartheid.

― gwf, Friday, 28 April 2006 13:45 (twenty years ago)

there's something phoney about the phrase 'uneven combat', dontchathink?

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:45 (twenty years ago)

Tracer have you been attending Momus Class?

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:47 (twenty years ago)

I think we call that "asymmetrical warfare" now

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:47 (twenty years ago)

except the evil ducks!

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:47 (twenty years ago)

Tracer have you been attending Momus Class?

Which nation has killed the Momus!

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:48 (twenty years ago)

Apocalypse Crew

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 28 April 2006 13:50 (twenty years ago)

there's something phoney about the phrase 'red savages', dontchathink?

― Captain Obvious, Friday, 28 April 2006 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Aye, he probably said Injuns.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:06 (twenty years ago)

possibly the author was using irony as a rhetorical tool.

xpost

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:06 (twenty years ago)

IT'S THE JEWS!

But how can you blame Judaism for Christianity or Islam? Perhaps you meant "expanding monotheistic" religions in general, because once the Torah wraps up, you don't hear as much about Israelite slaughter (but you do hear a lot about Jews being killed).

― mike a, Friday, 28 April 2006 14:11 (twenty years ago)

the biggest genocide in human history was the genocide of the american indians in both north and south america, and it was perpetrated by england, spain, portugal, holland, france, if that makes me Momus then slap on eyepatch on me and call me sweet Nickie. the more the world tries to wish away this nonpareil crime the thicker the karmic slapback is going to be; i know it's been a long time coming and it may be a long time yet but those old indian graves remember it all, and they are biding their time.

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:15 (twenty years ago)

those old indian graves remember it all, and they are biding their time.

Indeed. If we've learned nothing else from Scooby Doo, it should be this.

― cfg, Friday, 28 April 2006 14:19 (twenty years ago)

Yikes

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:20 (twenty years ago)

It was also perpetrated by a lot of other american indians. cf the Mayans not putting up much of a fight compared to their southerly neighbours.

I was just comparing your posting style of coming on thread to quote from a text "WHAM POW HITLER-USA CONNECTION" though Momus probably would have left out the page number.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:22 (twenty years ago)

but those old indian graves remember it all, and they are biding their time.

Listen, we've all seen "Poltergeist" too...

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:24 (twenty years ago)

then you know exactly what the fuck i'm talking about

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:26 (twenty years ago)

haha tom r u saying that native american genocide was perpetrated by native americans?

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:27 (twenty years ago)

but those old indian graves remember it all, and they are biding their time.

the native americans are gonna raise seven types of hell in amsterdam.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:28 (twenty years ago)

Self-genocide!

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:30 (twenty years ago)

Do you count death from disease though? Because that's how a lot of the American Indians died.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:32 (twenty years ago)

It was also perpetrated by a lot of other american indians. cf the Mayans not putting up much of a fight compared to their southerly neighbours.

"not putting up much of a fight" = "perpetrated"???

― what?, Friday, 28 April 2006 14:33 (twenty years ago)

Abbadavid Berman, thank you for that, i'm sure many people here were totally unaware of that.

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:35 (twenty years ago)

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries
1 55 million Second World War 20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C
4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
7 20 million Annihilation of the American Indians 15C-19C
8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C
9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
13 15 million First World War 20C
14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
15 9 million Thuggee 13C-19C
16 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C
17 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
18 7 million Thirty Years War 17C
19 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C
20 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C
21 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C
22 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C

From here:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

"The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: the Conquest of the New World (1992) page x

"The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: I - Our Oriental Heritage (1935) page 459

"Little did we guess that what has been called the century of the common man would witness as its outstanding feature more common men killing each other with greater facilities than any other five centuries together in the history of the world." Winston Churchill

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:37 (twenty years ago)

So it looks like China is the winner.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm saying the Aztecs took what they wanted from Mayan civilization long before any Spaniard even got a look at it

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)

In what way do you mean it was the biggest genocide in the history of everything ever? Percentage wise or sheer numbers? (XPOST I SEE A LEGENDARY WAKEBOARDER HAS PROVIDED SOME STATISTICS, THX) And we're going to need to figure out what ppl mean by genocide and etc etc etc on this thread because it's all well and good to say "Hitler killed 7 million ppl AT ONCE by HORRIBLE METHODS" but it's talking apples and oranges to compare that to American Indians developing disease and famine and, yes, more than occasionally, outright murdered. It would've been helpful to have better parameters to the question, is what I'm saying I suppose.

You're very obsessed with this topic by the way, not in a manner that you talk about it all the time, but whenever an opportunity arises to say exactly what you said about dead American Indians sucking us into their graves or what have you, you like to say it!! It is a little funny to me.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:43 (twenty years ago)

And wow, yeah, China!! Angry bastards!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:44 (twenty years ago)

20 million American Indians dead is almost certainly far far too low - there have been recent books about this whose names i can't remember, with new scholarship and new archaeology suggesting that "intial" reports of the size of indian villages often came several months after first contact had been made, and the europeans would be somewhat mystified at how many perfectly fine villages had been "abandoned" - it was these numbers that formed the basis for the modern understanding of am. indian pop. size right up to the present day. what had happened of course was that everyone had died in the intervening time. anyway, not everyone agrees on the exact numbers but the idea that the americas were this big "mostly empty" space is wishful, self-justifying thinking.

xpost yeah i dunno i get all winstanley about this shit. it's just crazy that it's within our parents' lifetimes that popular imagery of indians has faded out and everyone acts like this giant piece of land just belongs to us and we lecture other countries about freedom and terrorism and the rule of law and we're sitting on like the most giant, blood-soaked theft in the history of the world.

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:45 (twenty years ago)

Yeah evidently it is a lot better to go ahead and be an American Indian than live anywhere NEAR the mainland of Asia or its "subcontinent."

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:46 (twenty years ago)

hungry bastards

xposts

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:47 (twenty years ago)

Tracey Hand, that link actually addresses the estimates:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Popular imagery of indians has faded out?? Haha I still see little kids at school round Thanksgiving time doing "pilgrims and indians" replete with the faux feather headress and the savage face paint...that was kind of cringey for me even when I was a kid!!

Anyway, you're right, about the hypocrisy of it but there isn't much you can do about it. The type of people in America who feel bombing the shit out of terr'ists and lecturing everyone else about freedom are also the type of people who are going to say, "Yeah well they have casinos now, fuck 'em." And to be honest it's not as if American Indians go about making a huge deal about it, so that might be a reason why it's pretty easy for people to push it off and pretend this WAS a big empty wasteland prior to the white man's arrival? It's not like "they're over it" but more like...ok well it's pretty hard to forget about the Holocaust what with everyone mentioning it ever 48 seconds, right? In my experience they're just not as vigiliant about this issue as other groups with similar treatments have been.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:54 (twenty years ago)

as it goes people in eg poland and white russia are pretty quiet/forgetful about the jewish holocaust for similar reason, ie said holocaust was very successful.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Friday, 28 April 2006 14:57 (twenty years ago)

Comparing Polish Jews to American Indians is a bit of an extreme, considering that there's about 5 Jews left in Poland still today, but yes that's part of it. That's rather definitely not all of it though.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:02 (twenty years ago)

I would have thought that Spain killed many more Native Americans than America ever did though.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:09 (twenty years ago)

By the time the US even became a country, I'd guess that most of the Indian killing had already taken place.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:11 (twenty years ago)

Nationalism, ethnicity & race. Hatfields and McCoys. Religion is usually used as an excuse, or a way to identify ethicity or nationality. I mean, Hindus vs. Muslims in India; is this really about religion?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Xenophobia (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:14 (twenty years ago)

What about perspective here? I remember reading that by far the worst war in German history wasn't the second or first World War but the Thirty Years War based on the percentage of Germans that died. Assuming Monsieur Shasta's cited numbers are roughly correct, the Native American holocaust killed what percentage of the population of the Americas? Absolute numbers are misleading. The Mongols may have killed as many as died during Mao's misrule but surely the percentage of distruction was bigger and also the result of greater malevolence.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:14 (twenty years ago)

By the time the US even became a country, I'd guess that most of the Indian killing had already taken place.

I think there was still a lot to be done. Let's not forget starvation as a method of disposing of unwanted people.

― They're Dairylea Mad, Them Kids (Dada), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:15 (twenty years ago)

That was what I was trying to ask by asking if Tracer was talking about sheer numbers or percentages but no one really answered :(

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:16 (twenty years ago)

(the website Shasta links to indicates about 50% of American Indians were killed)

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:17 (twenty years ago)

What if we included other life forms besides humans in the death toll, then which nation is the worst killer? Countries that sprayed insecticide across acres of jungle? Countries that polluted rivers and lakes, causing the fish to disappear? Countries that instituted mass vaccination programs (bacteria are life forms too)?

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:20 (twenty years ago)

the website shasta links to also tries to play down the higher numerical estimates of am. ind. pop. at every turn so i'm really not sure how much to trust it, but yeah, how do you measure the destruction of a people? what about land use, songs, sports, celebrations. all those things are gone except as ossified reconstructions. it's a whole system of living and way of conceptualizing society and nature that doesn't any more. i mean, talk about "totalitarianism"!!!! it's as if earthlings went to mars, discovered people living there who wore strange clothing, spoke a different language, ate different food, had little concept of private property, made strange noises in the night, and knew valuable skills that they taught the earthlings and suddenly a few decades later the earthlings were like "damn, shoulda sterilized that spaceship before we left i guess, doop de doo, i think i'm going to build a subdivision right here and grill up some corn"

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:26 (twenty years ago)

At the risk of getting pummeled here, I'd also like to point out how uncomfortable I often feel about the terms 'American Indians' or 'Native Americans'. Before the arrival of the Spanish, California, for example, had over 400 language groups, a diversity practically unheard of anywhere else on Earth. Europeans may all be from Europe (whatever that is, according to whatever abitrary delineation) and they may all look the same to an Indian, but they were historically no less capable of cordially or even violently hating each other than Asians, Africans, or even Native Americans. The thing that seems to unify all the American tribes is the fact that they were feared, hated and despised by the Europeans that came here and generally suffered similar fates, not because of any linguistic, ethnic, cultural or social similarities or any common affinity for each other.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:29 (twenty years ago)

Dude this reconstruction is totally ossified, let's blow this joint.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:30 (twenty years ago)

Europeans may all be from Europe (whatever that is, according to whatever abitrary delineation) and they may all look the same to an Indian, but they were historically no less capable of cordially or even violently hating each other than Asians, Africans, or even Native Americans

is it just me or is this the most confusing sentence ever?

― huh?, Friday, 28 April 2006 15:34 (twenty years ago)

m. white - very much agreed.

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:35 (twenty years ago)

American Indian is a term like Asian or African or what-have-you, it's just meant to be a general larger-race signifier, not what a person actually is or any kind of judgement of solidarity with one another (I mean christ just look at the Asians! Big winners in the killing each other stakes upthread!). I don't particularly care for the term American Indian but it's much more unwieldly to try to break them down by individual nations for a general discussion. No one really ever uses the term Europeans to describe anything modernly but they do use general catch-all "white" in the same fashion, I guess.

Also Tracer I'm really not sure it's fair to include disease-by-accident as genocide, I agree with that point in the linked article. Unless it's like God Genocide or something, I mean we could probably have a great thread about huge disease plagues, but those diseases would've occurred even had Spaniards immigrated peacefully.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:39 (twenty years ago)

Haha I'm going to just start using the term "what-have-you" to describe ppl not of my race from now on.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:41 (twenty years ago)

Ally,

How can you really justify No one really ever uses the term Europeans to describe anything modernly but they do use general catch-all "white" in the same fashion, I guess.? Europe is a cultural, political and social reality mentioned on the sporting pages, the business pages, and in politcal coverage. It exists, to a great extent, because Europeans want it to exist. My point about the appelation 'Native American' wasn't that there is no present feeling of solidarity among some Natives or that AIM doesn't exist or whatnot, but that at the time of the arrival of the Spanish, say, or the French in North America, they were newcomers but also just tribes amongst all the already existing tribes.

Native Americans dying from enslavement/warfare is worse than dying from exposure to hitherto unknown exotic pathogens

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:48 (twenty years ago)

Obviously them dying from enslavement and warfare is worse, which is why I think including the disease factor is jumbling up the issue and bad.

And I can easily justify my statement as there is not a single person in all of the United States who is a "European-American" but there are apparently millions of American Indians, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics (who don't even get "American" tagged on), etc--that statement you highlighted was actually my catch out if someone called me on "Well no one uses European-American" as a counter to "just some kind of catch all race term, unfortunately." White=European-American.

Sorry if this is convoluted at all, I shouldn't be on ILX at all right now and should be fully concentrating on elsewhere but too tempting a discussion :)

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:58 (twenty years ago)

the answer is turkey

― DEEDS NOT WORDS (vahid), Friday, 28 April 2006 15:58 (twenty years ago)

I get it. You mean in an American context. I have often contended that one of the most interesting social developments of the last several hundred years has been the invention of 'whiteness' to provide a commonality for the myriad pink and pale peoples of Europe. Incidentally, there is a theory that the epithet 'honky' derives from the Wolof word for pink.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:03 (twenty years ago)

yeah i just came here to say china but steve shasta beat me to it - 50 million ppl under mao alone + 4000 yrs of state killing before that, nobody is really fuckin w/ em

― -+-+-++-+++, Friday, 28 April 2006 16:05 (twenty years ago)

not to diminish the north & south american genocides of course, i was horrified to read somewhere a while back that the population of what is now mexico was like 10 million in 1600 and 100k a century later

― --+--++--+-+, Friday, 28 April 2006 16:06 (twenty years ago)

yay way to go china! pwn!

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:06 (twenty years ago)

50% must be averaged globally 'cause, ifrc, some of the tribes that Columbus so disobligingly 'discovered' in the Carribean went virtually or maybe even actually extinct.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:10 (twenty years ago)

Incidentally, there is a theory that the epithet 'honky' derives from the Wolof word for pink.

Proabably wrong.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:23 (twenty years ago)

50% would be a total average, yeah, I mean I don't think there are many sources who have bothered to even attempt to do a by-nation breakdown considering they can't even decide on a every-nation final tally.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:34 (twenty years ago)

According to anthropologist John H Bodley, author of Victims of Progress (Mayfield, 1999), capitalist civilization, both in its traditional and state capitalist forms, has been responsible for genocides of unimaginable ferocity. In every encounter between tribal and capitalist cultures, the same pattern has occurred. Capitalist economies depend upon unlimited growth, which leads capitalist societies to invade lands held by tribal people. The tribes are forced into submission, often through wholesale slaughter. Tribal economies are decimated, and the land’s resources are fed into the capitalist machine. Those tribal peoples who survive find themselves destitute, traumatized, and excluded from the power structures of the invading society. Many are enslaved.
Bodley estimates between 1780 and 1930 tribal populations worldwide fell by 30-50 million people. Take the Americas, for example. Prior to contact with Europeans, the tribal population of North America was approximately 7,000,000, while the tribal population of Lowland South America was 8,500,000. At their lowest point after colonization, these numbers had fallen to 390,000 and 450,000 respectively. Even Bodley’s figures may be conservative. Scholars like W E B DuBois, Walter Rodney, Cheik Anta Diop, Joseph Inikori, and Basil Davidson estimate that the European slave trade alone was responsible for the loss of between 50 and 100 million African lives.
In terms of raw numbers, several genocides in the 20th century rival this genocide of tribal peoples. Between 1940 and 1945, approximately 11 million people died in the Holocaust. According to Religious Tolerance.org, 20 million Soviet citizens were killed in the USSR between 1917 and 1987, while 35 million Chinese citizens were killed in Communist China between 1949 and 1987. These comparisons mask the severity of the genocide of tribal peoples in two ways. First, the planet’s population has increased dramatically in the last two hundred years. In 1780, the global population was approximately 1 billion. By the 1930s it had reached 2.2 billion, and by 1987 it stood at 5 billion. Relative to the population of the planet, the genocide of tribal peoples remains unparalleled in human history. Second, the Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese genocides didn’t completely wipe out the people they victimized, and afterwards the survivors were often able to rebuild and prosper. In contrast, during the genocide of tribal peoples, many tribes, such as the Beothuk of Newfoundland, were driven to extinction. Throughout the world, surviving tribal peoples remain marginalized and impoverished.
Our civilization was built upon the proceeds of a crime more nightmarish than the Holocaust. Of course, for some time now, we haven’t had to think about it. It was easy to rationalize our actions as the inevitable result of societal evolution. We were the torchbearers, carrying light into the shadows. We were waging a righteous war against savagery and superstition, banishing ignorance and bringing civilization to those lost in primitive squalor. Our way was superior to theirs, and inevitable, too.
Only now it turns out that while the planet could support small-scale tribal societies for many tens of thousands of years, our civilization is ruining global ecosystems and destabilizing the climate. Fifty-five million years ago, increased volcanic activity caused the planet’s methane levels to increase, raising global temperatures and triggering widespread extinctions. It took the Earth over 100,000 years to recover. Earth Sciences Professor James Zachos, the leading expert on this period, has reported that greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere at 30 times the speed they accumulated back then. Jim Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and President George Bush’s top climate modeller, predicts that melting ice sheets will cause sea levels to rise by 25 metres in the foreseeable future. World-renowned scientist James Lovelock believes that as a result of positive feedback loops, climate change is now irreversible, and that “before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable.”

― hmm, Friday, 28 April 2006 16:35 (twenty years ago)

anyway, even if the genocide of the indigeneous peoples of the americas may be the worst holocaust ever - it wasn't perpetrated by a single nation so it doesn't really answer the question. the chinese still win.

― hmm, Friday, 28 April 2006 16:45 (twenty years ago)

I don't think that most of the disease related deaths of the indigenous peoples of the New World count towards "holocaust" totals.

― JW (ex machina), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:47 (twenty years ago)

Not in most estimated totals, no.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 16:48 (twenty years ago)

Imagine how nice people would be without capitalism. Why can't we return to our pacifist tribal roots and be more like the Visigoths, the Vikings and the Basques?

Besides nationalism, I would say another big killer is mechanized warfare, which got it's start in WWI, and was first perfected by the Germans and Japanese in WWII.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts our Impending DOOM. Blast you, Capitalism! (Fluffy Bear Hear, Friday, 28 April 2006 16:54 (twenty years ago)

capitalist civilization, both in its traditional and state capitalist forms includes Visigoths, the Vikings and the Basques, dummy

― geoffery, Friday, 28 April 2006 16:58 (twenty years ago)

"capitalist civilization, both in its traditional and state capitalist forms includes Visigoths, the Vikings and the Basques, dummy"

geoffrey,

State capitalism refers to a capitalist system primarily owned or run by the state, like China or the USSR. When he uses the term "traditional capitalist" I think he is refering to liberal capitalism, like in the USA (some say that we are as much a state capitalist society as we are a liberal capitalist society).

Anyway, I'm prety ignorant, so can you please explain the Visigoth's economic system to me?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Enlightenment (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:08 (twenty years ago)

the visigoths were a tribal group colonized by the romans, who were capitalists (or mercantilists anyway), dummy

― geoffrey, Friday, 28 April 2006 17:15 (twenty years ago)

http://www.civfanatics.com/sotd/sotd12.jpg

― JW (ex machina), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:25 (twenty years ago)

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sgt_stryker/civhome.htm

― JW (ex machina), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:27 (twenty years ago)

wow waht!!!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:31 (twenty years ago)

capitalist civilization, both in its traditional and state capitalist forms includes Visigoths, the Vikings and the Basques, dummy

-- geoffery (defgeof...), Today 10:58 AM. (later)

not the basques duder.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:39 (twenty years ago)

the visigoths were a tribal group colonized by the romans, who were capitalists (or mercantilists anyway), dummy

Wrong. Visigoths were the Western branch of the Goths. They ended up invading Northern Spain and Southern France. Catalonia is named after them.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:57 (twenty years ago)

But how much of the British Empire was gained thru war and conquest and how much by trade and politicking?

Hate to be the voice of treason here, but I think you could safely say British Empire killed tens of millions. That is if by "killed" you mean "was responsible for the death of". The biggest killer was famine caused by negligent and in some cases deliberate policy. If in the death toll figures for Stalin and Mao you're including those who died by famine under the regime, you've got to do the same for the British Empire (10 million in the Bengal famine of 1770 alone).

This opens up a bit of a can of worms, however.

― Cathy (Cathy), Friday, 28 April 2006 17:58 (twenty years ago)

The Visigoths did settle along the northern edge of the Roman Empire and they did trade with the Romans. Eventually, the Roman Empire expanded northward. I suppose this does make the Visigoths capitalists. Geoffry's history and economics skills are unbeatable.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Antagonizing Geoffrey (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 28 April 2006 18:09 (twenty years ago)

the way i remember it fro class is the visigoths were caught between the huns and the romans, and lived under the protection/iron rule of the romans until finally rsing up against them... in any case, their existence does nothing to moot the tribal group vs. capitalist model that dude objected to

xpost

― geoffrey, Friday, 28 April 2006 18:11 (twenty years ago)

We should also note that the Ostogoths were neo-liberals. The Vandals, however, were anarcho-socialists.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Vandals (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 28 April 2006 18:14 (twenty years ago)

nitsuh otm

― geiffery, Friday, 28 April 2006 18:30 (twenty years ago)

People be killing people

― Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:16 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure what model of capitalism applies when we're talking about Rome, for example. The Romans may have been a mercantile nation and there may have been some amounts of private capital available to the better traders and to people of the senatorial class but it's hardly equivalent to what Marx and Engels were describing.

Ironically, many of the titles and pretentions and hereditary preoccupations that dominated Europe prior to the dawn of the capitalist era have their origins or derive from the practices of just the kind of germanic tribes like the Visigoths. There was nary a kingly line in the days of the Heptarchy which did not claim descent from Odin or one of the other gods of the germanic pantheon (many royal lines originally claim divine descent or the mandate of Heaven, e.g., Japan, China, Mexico, Egypt), and the deference shown for centuries to the Amali and later the Balti clans is hardly a phenomonon limited to the Goths.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:17 (twenty years ago)

i think you're getting hung up on irrelevent details... whether or not Rome is a modern capitalist state or not is a whole other argument, but bodley's description of the dynamic works nonetheless: Capitalist economies depend upon unlimited growth, which leads capitalist societies to invade lands held by tribal people. The tribes are forced into submission, often through wholesale slaughter. Tribal economies are decimated, and the land’s resources are fed into the capitalist machine. Those tribal peoples who survive find themselves destitute, traumatized, and excluded from the power structures of the invading society. Many are enslaved...

― geoffrey, Friday, 28 April 2006 19:22 (twenty years ago)

;_;

― JW (ex machina), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:23 (twenty years ago)

geoffrey = bethune??
visigoths=cheney/rove?

― timmy tannin (pompous), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:29 (twenty years ago)

geoffrey that's not how rome worked though - lotta lands carried on just as before as long as they paid a tribute each year and set up the local parochial boss roman w/a nice villa somewhere

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:31 (twenty years ago)

"The tribes are forced into submission, often through wholesale slaughter. Tribal economies are decimated, and the land’s resources are fed... Those tribal peoples who survive find themselves destitute, traumatized, and excluded from the power structures of the invading society. Many are enslaved..."

this is true of almost every society - in no way is it exclusive to capitalism.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:32 (twenty years ago)

(also Tracey OTM - but debating whether modern political appellations apply to ancient civilizations seems beyond pointless to me. that was then, this is now and all that...)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:32 (twenty years ago)

OK. I'll be serious for a moment. Here's what I really objected too in the post I originally quoted:

Capitalist economies depend upon unlimited growth, which leads capitalist societies to invade lands held by tribal people.

He is talking about the causal mechanism, here. What is his backup. What causes non-capitalist societies to invade the lands held by tribal people?

I agree that various economic, government and social constructs help to channel human behavior, but at the base, some of this has to be blamed on human nature and not one of the "isms".

Also, dude goes from imperialism to the extinction of the human race in about four paragraphs.

I think we have to look at more than the capitalist system if we are to gain understanding.

Can't hurt to start here.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts the Noble Savage (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:43 (twenty years ago)

Those tribal peoples who survive find themselves destitute, traumatized, and excluded from the power structures of the invading society. Many are enslaved...

This is all interesting considering the fact that the proximate cause of the fall of Rome was the invasion of its heartland by tribes whose reason for conquest was that there were other tribes behind them.

I'd be careful about romanticizing peoples too cut-off, too conservative, or simply too primitive to arrange for the institutions and technology with which to defend themselves. I don't mean to condone conquest or blame the victims. If you leave your front door open and someone steals all your shit, they're still bad but it doesn't make leaving the front door open good. If you knew there was crime in the world, your're either a naif or a straight-up fool and if you didn't, welcome to the cruel and indifferent workings of history.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 19:48 (twenty years ago)

People have done a lot of bad stuff for a lot of bad reasons. So what causes war?

Is poverty the cause of war?
Is nationalism the cause of war?
Is religion the cause of war?
Is capitalism the cause of war?
Is socialism the cause of war?

I think stuff is the cause of war.

Stuff killed more people than China.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Peace, Not Stuff (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Friday, 28 April 2006 20:16 (twenty years ago)

The visigoths are surely beside the point, the tribal society most relevant to this argument is surely the Mongols, who were very definitely not capitalists, not even particularly mercantile, and most of the time their destruction reached the levels it did because they weren't planning to stay too long in the area but head on further forward and so they could burn as many fields and kill as many locals as they felt like, it wouldn't be them who had to stick around and deal with the ensuing famine.

i mean, 40 million in the 13th century! that is a fuckload of people.

― permanent revolution (cis), Friday, 28 April 2006 20:25 (twenty years ago)

It's quality, not quantity, people!

― Don't knock masturbation, Friday, 28 April 2006 20:51 (twenty years ago)

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

― Dzhugashvíli (Miguelito), Friday, 28 April 2006 20:55 (twenty years ago)

Carrie Nation killed the most buzzes, that's fo'sure.

http://kansasdar.org/randolphloving/CarrieNation.jpg

― timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 29 April 2006 01:13 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.