I've seen this word used a lot on Yahoo! Answers, so I did some research and found that the experts have varying opinions on what exactly makes genocide.
Is war between two nations automatically genocide?
Is there non-violent genocide?
Genocide = ethnic killing, but if I injure someone without killing them, it's not homicide, if I injure myself without killing myself, it's not suicide, so if I only kill half of an ethnic group, is it still genocide? I really want to know. What's your opinion?
2007-09-21 12:49:32 · 10 answers · asked by The Babe is Armed! 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So is there attempted genocide, partial genocide and complete genocide (theoretically complete, althought there may be historical examples, I don't know) ?
Does intent make any difference? I mean if People A attack People X, then People X kick their *** to near-extinction, are People X guilty of genocide for ending a war they didn't start?
2007-09-21 13:48:23 · update #1
No one expects that any genocidal regime could be so thorough as to successfully wipe out an entire race, so your caveat that it must be complete extermination is a bit absurd.
Hitler did not kill all the jews, but what he did was genocide.
I have to wonder why you would try to split this hair. And wouldn't you need to split all the hairs to be a hair splitter? (;?)
When one ethnic group attacks and kills members of
another, aggressively and continuously, this is genocide.
A bank robber needn't steal all the money in the world to be a thief, right?
I believe that you are looking for a justification that would make it alright.
Nations fighting nations is not the same thing as nations wiping out ethinic groups.
But I have a feeling you aren't making this distinction.
2007-09-21 12:57:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the aggressors intent in a war is to eradicate another ethnic group or make them irrelevant by killing off parts of their population then you are committing genocide. Two nations fighting a war is not automatically genocide because the intent of the war could be the annexation of lands and/or material wealth of the other nation or many other varied reasons. Actually the more common wars that involve genocide are civil wars where two or more significant ethnic/religious populations inhabit a region and one or more wish to exert their influence/beliefs in the region. This kind of fighting has been going on since the dawn of history and sadly looks to not have an end any time soon.
2007-09-21 20:04:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it would still be genocide. Genocide is the attempt to kill off a race or ethnic group in a region.
2007-09-21 20:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by Razgriz01 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not just a matter of two countries going to war, and fighting each other and getting killed in the process. Genocide is the deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire race of people. (See Armenia, Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Holocaust...)
2007-09-21 22:14:57 · answer #4 · answered by dvatwork 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe if the intention is to completely wipe out a group then it is genocide even if the project wasn't completely successful.
Examples there are still Jews in Germany but it was a genocide and there are still Hutus in Rwanda but it was a genocide.
Anyone looking for a doctorate or masters thesis??? there is one here.
2007-09-22 00:03:26 · answer #5 · answered by ithinkiatetoomuch 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe you are right, but like suicide and homocide, genocide takes time, and like in Darfur, that place in the process of genocide. Even the attempt at homocide or genocide is important, though.
2007-09-21 19:54:16 · answer #6 · answered by Daniel 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I define it as the purposeful killing of a large group or groups of people. And it seems from what is going on the world that is a appropriate definition.
2007-09-21 19:54:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Genocide is basically trying to wipe out an entire race. Like Hitler tried to do with the Jews. Or the Armenian Genocide.
2007-09-21 19:53:42 · answer #8 · answered by Liberal City 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
i agree with "who cares"
except for the armenian 'genocide' part because clearly we did nothing to them...
2007-09-22 22:36:27 · answer #9 · answered by .ooo. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on which side of the gun your on. if you are the victim it's genocide. if you are the shooter, it's not.
2007-09-21 19:53:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋