At 12:31 PM 3/20/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote:
>I am stunned. Over 200,000 *civilians* were killed in that conflict, and you
>still consider that "little to no evidence" of genocide? How many civilians
>would have to been killed before you call it genocide?
My operating definition of genocide is:
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial,
political, or ethnic group.
What occurred in Yugoslavia, particularly in Kosovo, was what is called
"ethnic cleansing", which usually uses a combination of deportation,
violent harrassment, forced emmigration, and mass executation to eliminate
an ethnic group from a particular region or area.
Since the actions in Yugoslavia would not have resulted in the elimination
of the Kosovar or Bosniac people, it is not quite genocide, which is the
distinction I am trying to make. This is not to say that ethnic cleansing
is not a serious or violent crime against humanity, but to note that it is
different, and some degree less serious than genocide.
A relevant example would be the US's ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee from
North Carolina in the 19th century. While thousands died in the process,
it was "ethnic cleansing", not "genocide."
>Would you call it genocide if those 200k+ civilians had been Americans
>rather than Yugoslavians?
In a country of @300million? Probably not. If, for example, it were
the deaths of 200k+ Navajo-Americans, for example, that would probably be
genocide.
>BTW, your exact words were "little to no evidence of serious genocide". Are
>you implying that there is any other (not or not-so serious) form of
>genocide?
No.... that is a typo..... it should be "serious evidence of genocidence."
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
