- Feb 2017
- Latin America
You're dodging my argument.Indeed the “as such” is a relevant part. And no, if we look to the WWII, where the concept was born, we aren’t hard pressed to find explicit declarations.
Again, you'll also be hard pressed to find examples of other genocides killing groups "as such". Even in such bloody genocides between two different groups like the Bangladesh genocide, you will be hard pressed to find evidence of the Pakistanis killing Bangladeshis "as such".Maybe it’s enough for you, but it doesn’t fit with the definition. Neither the “en masse” is necessary, as we already saw while reading it.
I'm not walking away from anything. It's simply a fact that you're very hard pressed to find evidence of killing a group "as such". Not all 20th century genocides are like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide where we have records and writings that say the targeted group is indeed being targeted for belonging to such group. It's even worse when you get to purely politically motivated auto-genocides, as in Indonesia, Cambodia and Guatemala. That's why fulfilling the subsections are more important as evidence and are pretty much what clarify what is meant by the article itself.You will need to elaborate here. Because you seem to be changing your goals and walking away from the definition that you gave.
How is that not relevant? We have racist descriptions of the Japanese being inhuman for being Japanese, and the media were barking on about the necessity of killing Japanese to end the war. It's in fact even more clear than other genocides. That is indeed targeting Japanese for being Japanese. Ending the war and killing as many Japanese for being Japanese are not contradictory goals. By that same standard, the genocides I've been repeatedly mentioning are not genocides because there was a goal other than killing the targeted population.Don’t see the relevance. We have a working definition or the situation fits or it doesn’t fit. The bombs were dropped not to exterminate the Japanese, “as such”, but because the USA and Japan were at war and the bombs were seen as a necessity to end the war.
The Pakistanis invaded Bangladesh because they wanted to annex it, defeat the Bangladeshi independence movement and oust the Indians and Soviets from there, with a strong stated anti-Communist motivation too. The Indonesians and Guatemalans were fighting Communists, the latter in a civil war. Pol Pot was also fighting a civil war with Lon Nol and his genocide was to defeat him and to secure Communist rule. I follow the Guatemalan case closely, and the genocide-committing side constantly repeat again and again to deny they perpetrated genocide that their goal was to defeat the Communist insurgency which they did achieve, not to kill people for belonging to a certain group. In fact, a similar argument is used by the deniers of the Armenian genocide, defended by none other than the influential Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis, who said there was no genocide because the motivation of the Ottomans was to defeat the Allies, not kill Armenians for being Armenians.
People are engaging in special pleading for the Japanese case, and to make matters worse, it's even more crystal clear than other genocides because of the racist hatred of none other than Harry Truman and because the government and media were constantly saying the Japanese had a fanatical Shintoist warrior culture that wouldn't be defeated unless killing Japanese civilians en masse was done. Barking on "the intention was to end the war" is not only irrelevant in the end, it's not even the whole truth because it was by killing as many Japanese as necessary for being Japanese.