This kind of definition makes it seem like killing is somehow ”more OK” if it’s not motivated by an aim to wipe out an ethnic or national group.

For instance, some Turkish deniers of Armenian Genocide don’t actually deny that mass killings happened, but instead a certain type of logic is used by them to deny specifically the ethnic dimension of them. Apparently, killing en masse is fine and justifiable, just don’t do it for ethnic reasons!

This also makes Hitler’s Holocaust artificially appear as THE greatest mass killing of all time. In reality, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, and Timur Lenk killed greater numbers of people, but because it was mostly indiscriminate killing, these events are not seen to be as serious. We are - quite correctly - outraged over Holocaust denial, but where’s the equivalent outrage towards Stalin’s modern defenders in Russia, for instance?

The current, faulty definition of Genocide is at least partly tied to geopolitical factors. One aspect is that it allows certain nations to escape the need to examine their rosy national myths about certain events. Imagine the outrage Russia would feel if the UN declared that the ”heroic” Stalin was actually a genocidal monster on par with Hitler. Or that Mongolians were shamed for considering Genghis Khan to be a national hero. There are entrenched interests at work, folks.

Another aspect is the need to coddle the nation of Israel. If one is willing to be honest about it, that nation frequently uses the historical persecution faced by Jews as a method of gaining pity points: ”We had it so hard during the Holocaust, please look the other way as we now violate international law!”. This strategy would be far less effective if the definition of genocide were expanded, for then the Holocaust would be just one of the many mass genocides, not THE defining one.

ALL mass killing is bad, whether for ethnic reasons or otherwise.

Pics Removeddit

Wow america bad! If you know any world history every country has done fucked up stuff, but you won't see those posts on r/pics

• Im sorry, but yes, america and canada are fucking monsters for doing this. They ruined generations, and the residential schools only closed in the 90's.. Not to mention the 60's scoop, which took children from homes, Residential schools had a higher death rate than world war fucking 1. Children were raped, beaten, forced into white culture, they couldn't see their families, they couldn't speak their language, it was fucking terrible.
• YEaH BUT WhAddaBoUt???!?!!? Jesus, why do you Americans do this all the time, we can’t do something good because someone else isn’t. Learn to be fucking adults, accept your faults and work to fix them. Why not be the best at not being shit, how about making that a goal?

Unpopular opinion here: we do previous generations a disservice when we judge then by the current standards of behavior of nations. The peoples Americans displaced had themselves displaced others before them in a long cycle, and in much less humanitarian ways. The idea of the American natives as peaceful is entirely false. We're correct to condemn such behavior, but it's wrong to act as if it wasn't the way nation-states behaved at the time.

• Hate to break it to you bud but this wasn't ancient Rome, human society then was not that much different than the 20s or 40s. Sbit was wrong no matter what excuses or what aboutisms you make
• So the people that stole their kids were peaceful? A peaceful kidnapping?

This site is just an anti-America propaganda machine

• Propaganda is lies, if you think that these truths are anti American then you’re not blind... but you’re still blinded by patriotism to call it propaganda.

I don't think you know what the word genocide means...

[Tragic, inhumane, shameful, but not genocide - that’s not a word that should be thrown around lightl

Genocide is the systematic killing of an ethnic group because of their identity. The US targeted hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and killed them. Shouldn't this be considered a genocide?

Is Jason Rothenberg aware that he just depicted the genocide of the human species? His interviews are saying that we should find the ending bittersweet but ultimately "uplifting." But according to the UN definition of genocide, we just witnessed some random alien species commit genocide against all of humanity.

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

We know the aliens sterilized the remaining humans - fake Lexa says they will have no offspring. So the remaining humans are not able to reproduce anymore (method #4 of genocide). We also know that all living human children (and adults) were transcended - transcendence is becoming one with the alien consciousness (method #5). You could also make some sort of argument for #1 and #2 in that everyone's human bodies are gone (for those that transcended).

You could argue that individuals had a choice whether to transcend or not, but then #4 still applies - the human species can no longer reproduce because of these aliens.

The moral of the story here seems to be that humans can never be at peace until we are exterminated (essentially what Jasper wrote). How is that uplifting?