Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

[PhinPhan1227]

Well, historically, climate change is responsible for a lot of movements of groups of people, and with it the war that ensues because of territory disputes, etc..

Just look at the history of the Asian steppes for one of the best examples of that (that history influenced Europe too.. start with the Huns, etc..)

I'd say that the biggest difference is that those migrations didn't involve genocide. Even the Huns would allow people to remain in their homes and towns, only slaughtering if strong resistance was given. "No quarter" is a recent development in human evolution.

[PhinPhan1227]

I'm sorry but I don't see it that way. You could also make an argument that climatic change created a set of conditions which allowed the Janjaweed to take advantage, which doesn't exonerate them but also explains the environment in which it took place.

Actually, you could say that the climate change innitiated the conflict. But the way the headline is phrased, it blames the climate change for the killing. There's a difference.

[cnc66]

I'd say that the biggest difference is that those migrations didn't involve genocide. Even the Huns would allow people to remain in their homes and towns, only slaughtering if strong resistance was given. "No quarter" is a recent development in human evolution.

how many did Gengis Khan spike... quarter million, one battle?

in fairness, it is said he sent in emissaries to the towns to allow them to surrender, if they refused, every man woman and child...no quarter.

I guess my poorly supported point is, I don't think it is new, and pogroms have gone on from the beginning. Weather changes.. climate changes have caused wars for thousands of years, the only "new" part is, in "this" change man is an exacerbating influence.

[ckb2001]

I'd say that the biggest difference is that those migrations didn't involve genocide. Even the Huns would allow people to remain in their homes and towns, only slaughtering if strong resistance was given. "No quarter" is a recent development in human evolution.

There was quite a bit of genocide back then. Some say the Mongol advances were partly initiated through climate changes, just like many other tribal movements in that area prior to it. Of course, Genghis Khan took things further and was more successful, but genocide was definitely a tactic he used to instill fear and help him conquer other cities and empires with less overt military action.

For example, Genghis Khan and what he did to the Kwarezmid Empire has no analogy in modern history, at least in terms of the willingness to massacre whole populations in the cities of Bukhara, Samarkand, Herat, Tus, and Neyshabur (major cities in Central Asia at that time).

Neither Stalin nor Hitler nor Pol Pot came close (percentage-wise) to inflicting that kind of atrocity.

[ckb2001]

how many did Gengis Khan spike... quarter million, one battle?

in fairness, it is said he sent in emissaries to the towns to allow them to surrender, if they refused, every man woman and child...no quarter.

I guess my poorly supported point is, I don't think it is new, and pogroms have gone on from the beginning. Weather changes.. climate changes have caused wars for thousands of years, the only "new" part is, in "this" change man is an exacerbating influence.

Nice, you beat me to it (had to double check which cities were razed on wiki
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[PhinPhan1227]

how many did Gengis Khan spike... quarter million, one battle?

in fairness, it is said he sent in emissaries to the towns to allow them to surrender, if they refused, every man woman and child...no quarter.

I guess my poorly supported point is, I don't think it is new, and pogroms have gone on from the beginning. Weather changes.. climate changes have caused wars for thousands of years, the only "new" part is, in "this" change man is an exacerbating influence.

The point of that exercise is that he did it once, maybe twice, and the rest of the towns and cities he conquered fell easily with little loss of lives. It can actually be argued that his method saved lives overall. The traditional method of siege and sack most conquerors used wound up killing most of the populace anyway, just through disease and hunger. Carried over hundreds of towns and cities, had Khan been more "gentle", it would have produced many more casualties overall.

Oh, and as for pogroms, you are correct that they are not new. They were however unique to Jews. The word was invented afterall in specific reference to them.

[ckb2001]

The point of that exercise is that he did it once, maybe twice, and the rest of the towns and cities he conquered fell easily with little loss of lives. It can actually be argued that his method saved lives overall. The traditional method of siege and sack most conquerors used wound up killing most of the populace anyway, just through disease and hunger. Carried over hundreds of towns and cities, had Khan been more "gentle", it would have produced many more casualties overall.

Oh, and as for pogroms, you are correct that they are not new. They were however unique to Jews. The word was invented afterall in specific reference to them.

You can argue his method saved lives overall? I'd like to hear that argument. His conquests before Kwarezmid involved much less bloodshed yet were no less impressive. In Kwarezmid, he murdered for revenge. Revenge, more than any other motivation we know of, caused that war and almost certainly increased the death toll from what would have been. I mean many of the massacres took place AFTER the conquests!!

In any case, on a smaller scale, killing all or many members of a village or city occurred quite often. Ever heard of the Aztecs? Or the Jurchen? etc.. Genocide was quite common in the past PhinPhan1227, though the scale was obviously different.

[PhinPhan1227]

You can argue his method saved lives overall? I'd like to hear that argument. His conquests before Kwarezmid involved much less bloodshed yet were no less impressive. In Kwarezmid, he murdered for revenge. Revenge, more than any other motivation we know of, caused that war and almost certainly increased the death toll from what would have been. I mean many of the massacres took place AFTER the conquests!!

In any case, on a smaller scale, killing all or many members of a village or city occurred quite often. Ever heard of the Aztecs? Or the Jurchen? etc.. Genocide was quite common in the past PhinPhan1227, though the scale was obviously different.

I already gave my argument if you cared to read it. Siege warfare took a massive toll on civilians through disease and hunger. It was not infrequent for entire cities to die from an extended siege. By surrenduring outright, the population was for the most part saved.

Now, on a small scall mass murder has certainly taken place. But you are talking tribal and city levels, not true genocide. Actually, I would argue that the first true genocidal attempt was that of the US government against the American Indian. The Aztecs aren't an example of PURPOSEFUL genocide. The Spanish wanted slaves, not corpses.

[ckb2001]

I already gave my argument if you cared to read it. Siege warfare took a massive toll on civilians through disease and hunger. It was not infrequent for entire cities to die from an extended siege. By surrenduring outright, the population was for the most part saved.

Now, on a small scall mass murder has certainly taken place. But you are talking tribal and city levels, not true genocide. Actually, I would argue that the first true genocidal attempt was that of the US government against the American Indian. The Aztecs aren't an example of PURPOSEFUL genocide. The Spanish wanted slaves, not corpses.

Yeah, I read what you wrote and I gave a response to it. Let me show you some stats:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll see there that the Mongol conquests seem to have killed an estimated 40 million, which is as much as Mao Zedong (much of which was due to famine), and is only behind WW2 at 55 million.

Now, if you scroll down, you'll find a book on the Mongols says:

QUOTE:
"Man make a rough guess that 1.25M people were killed in Khwarezm in two years-- that's 25% of 5M original inhabitants."
----------------

The point is when compared to many other conquests by other conquerers, the Mongols well outdid them in terms of genocide and numbers killed. Like I said, many of those killed came AFTER the conquests. It was a conquest based on revenge, not just based on acquiring territory.

So, what you need to do is show me the traditional method of siege warfare when conquering similar territory with similar population levels produced that level of destruction. You may find individual cases where much of the population died, but by and large, Genghis Khan's method produced more casualties than the traditional methods of conquests, at least in Kwarezm.


Oh, and as far as genocide and American natives are concerned, some scholars agree genocide, or at least as you put it "purposeful" mass murders, was involved:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras.[6]"
------------------

And for our purposes, "democide" is more accurate than the strict legal definition of "genocide". Democide is defined as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder"
(
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[PhinPhan1227]

Yeah, I read what you wrote and I gave a response to it. Let me show you some stats:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll see there that the Mongol conquests seem to have killed an estimated 40 million, which is as much as Mao Zedong (much of which was due to famine), and is only behind WW2 at 55 million.

Now, if you scroll down, you'll find a book on the Mongols says:

QUOTE:
"Man make a rough guess that 1.25M people were killed in Khwarezm in two years-- that's 25% of 5M original inhabitants."
----------------

The point is when compared to many other conquests by other conquerers, the Mongols well outdid them in terms of genocide and numbers killed. Like I said, many of those killed came AFTER the conquests. It was a conquest based on revenge, not just based on acquiring territory.

So, what you need to do is show me the traditional method of siege warfare when conquering similar territory with similar population levels produced that level of destruction. You may find individual cases where much of the population died, but by and large, Genghis Khan's method produced more casualties than the traditional methods of conquests, at least in Kwarezm.


Oh, and as far as genocide and American natives are concerned, some scholars agree genocide, or at least as you put it "purposeful" mass murders, was involved:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras.[6]"
------------------

And for our purposes, "democide" is more accurate than the strict legal definition of "genocide". Democide is defined as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder"
(
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

None of that matter CKB. Because regardless of whether Genghis used traditional sige warfare, or the "surrender or die" tactic, those follow up deaths likely would have occured anyway. The savings in lives came from those cities which didn't undergo siege. Simply from escaping the innevitable disease which such warfare brings you have a savings in lives overall. Disease has always killed more people in warfare than actual weapons. This is no different.