"Director of genocide studies" sounds like such a bleak title. I can just imagine this guy not wanting to talk about his job for fear of losing his humanity the more he has to think about it.
You are aware that genocide is a bery human thing to do? I mean the director of genocide studies literally showed that we are doing it since the agricultural revolution...
On the contrary. Being in contact with history makes you keep those things in mind so as not to repeat them. The historian is not trying to get into the minds of the genocidaires and their ideology to see things as they saw them... nor is he being indoctrinated to militantly believe in that. Perhaps the worst thing that could happen is that studying the worst, most extreme examples of genocide may cause to miss more subtle or veiled examples... like "nah, is not that bad". I'am not sure XD
@@GatekeeperGuardian-wv3cd That is not your humanity that you feel you lose, but your innocence or your faith/hope in humanity. You have to keep in mind that you are facing one of the worst examples of human beings, fortunately there are many fewer murderers than normal people.
That's the power of having your nation be based on historical examples of nations that existed irl ~ Unless you ho wrong somewhere along the way, they'll most likely be realistic.
Thats why storytelling is so great, Avatar in particular shows kids the signs of genocide and imperialism before theyre even forced to learn about it in school.
Yep. And that makes it, if not accurate, at least feel authentic. A shame that LoK lost the plot so hard that the best villain is a nihilistic airweeb.
My family's originally from Armenia, fleeing after my great-grandfather was killed by the Young Turks. I don't know about agriculture, but they definitely wanted to restore the Ottoman caliphate's power, hated the Christians, and sought to expand their empire into then-Russian territory.
I am half Armenian on my Father's side. Everyone knows about the systematic killing of Armenians under the Young Turks. But it started before the Young Turks came to power in the 1890s under Abdülhamid II and continued under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Source: Simon Payaslian: The History of Armenia. So you need to assess the ideology of both the predecessors to the Young Turks and their Successors in addition to the Young Turks themselves to really get the full picture.
@Bell_plejdo568p You clearly don't know what a human rights degree even is. They are one of the best degrees out there. They provide a vast array of skills and knowledge that can be applied toward a whole host of jobs from just about every possible career field you could possibly think of.
It's just a load of claptrap this guy is spouting. He calls the native Americans victims but is calling modern opponents of mass migration the perpetrator. He is just another anti white drone. You can see his ideology turn on a dime depending on which group is in question.
Manifest Destiny, which in that case is essentially the inverse of a cult of antiquity. It still has the characteristics of a cult of antiquity, but it was built on a promised future of national glory and a 'moral obligation' to higher power to expand their way of life and culture as they saw fit.
@@canarybird9983 Yes, the genocide of the Native Americans was the exact opposite of something that was motivated by nostalgia. It was rationalized on the basis that the New World belonged to the forces of modernity.
The cult of antiquity isn't true in many cases. Often, genocide occurs for precisely the opposite reason, where an ideology violently lashes out against tradition and antiquity for the sake of a distorted vision of progress. Mao is the biggest example of this.
Mao wasn't genocidal though. His regime killed dissidents, "class traitors" etc., not ethnic outsiders. It's only genocide if the people you want to destroy form an ethnic/ethnoreligious group. That's what the "geno-" part means.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs i didn't realize scholars made such a strict distinction. Anyways, mass killing phenomena are a lot broader than genocide, so we need to identify all ideological markers that can lead to mass killing.
@@snakyjake9 They do! You need clear definitions and terminology precisely because there are lots of different mass killing phenomena with different causes and methods. This video is specifically about genocide.
Bruh, what do you expect from a guy that only bases his arguments on what other people have said, instead of using his own reasoning? All these guys are the same: "this man has a recognition for his works on genocide... he must be right" which translates to: "im an idiot who doesn' know how to think and need the words of others to validate my ideologies"
@@snakyjake9Obviously theyre gonna make that distinctions so they can approve and promote that kind of politics, in some point, and they say: "techbically killing millions of people osn't genocide" 🤓☝️
@@mikesmnell414 perhaps, but only because every nation has far right elements who are one economic crisis and one lucky election away from doing a genocide
Great little video! I've also noticed that wife beaters, cult leaders, and dictators share a lot of the same traits. Isolating their subjects from the outside world, stripping them of their independence, cutting them off from any way out, opposing any disagreements often with violence. A wife beater will often make his wife cut off contact with her parents, so she has no one to run to. He will not allow her to work, that way she has no money and no means to leave. She's not allowed to go out and socialize, cutting her off from the outside world. If she speaks up, she'll get beaten. And she's fed the poisonous lies about how much he actually cares for her, until she starts believing in it. Cult leaders and dictators operate the same way. Children who grow up in abusive homes, in a sense live with their own personal tyrants.
Tyrants love foreigners, but it they hate to let their own people talk to them. The CZcamsr SFO did a great video on that awhile ago. I can’t find it though.
I feel like this might be a dumb question but if the group with the harmful ideology has a lot of people who openly express a desire to eradicate the target group from existence and at the same time is actively trying its best to pass laws that make it impossible for the target group to even exist in society, that would be a bit genocide-y too wouldn't it?
Yes, for instance in nazi germany jews weren't just suddenly thrown into death camps. They passed laws over the years that marginalized them more and more. For instance, one of the first laws permitted the government to remove "undesirables"(non-aryans) from civil service like doctors or teachers. Sounds familiar? In the United States that's what far right group openly suggest about gay and trans people, that they should be removed from those specific positions.
This isn’t the first genocide the j-ws have under their belt. They’ve been doing this forever, which is why they were historically viewed as so toxic and kicked out of so many countries. The holodomor is a horrible genocide they orchestrated which doesn’t have any Hollywood movies, (I wonder why?)
I feel like these are intentionally very narrow definitions, perhaps in part to single out *certain* genocide by *certain* groups but downplay *other* genocide by *other* groups.
@@vanta9608 the ingredients of a genocidal ideology listed in this video neglects the nomadic empires like that of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun and includes to some degree or another any successful world power
This only seems to line up with some genocides and also doesn't add up because a lot of political groups have had these philosophies with power and never committed genocide.
What genocides does it not line up with? And yeah, those groups didn't commit genocide but still committed atrocious acts. The National Party of South Africa didn't commit genocide, but they DID enforce apartheid for decades, which is totally unjustifiable and still a human rights violation.
This is what happens when you start with ideology and not material conditions. Idealism is a misguided and incorrect position because it assumes the ideology is the reason for the actions and not a post-hoc justification. The reason for genocide is to take people's land and resources, end of story. The fantastical story you make up to justify it doesn't matter except as an indicator of future intent.
Sad but my grandad's like this. He's always talking about the past, loves to garden, complains about grey squirrels being an invasive species and is on the waiting list for an allotment.
We can learn from the past. At age 68 I am more adept at discussing the past than I am at keeping up with mass culture. That's fine. I learned a few things from people who lived in the horse-and-buggy era. I'm tempted to say that many of our youths would do better to put down the electronic toys and do something more genuine... like touch football, card and board games, ice-cream socials, and sing-alongs. Turn off the idiot screen and do some genuine reading and art. Hey -- maybe learn a few things about gardening. Consider this: you have had great experiences in life. How many of those involved watching some screen?
@@paulbrowerDefinitely worth doing those things but they way you're saying it seems akward and forced, like going out just for the sake of going out... it's kinda weird.
Characteristic no. 4 seems marginal with a lot of modern genocidal ideologies? They're often more focused on ethnically cleansing an existing nation-state rather than territorial expansion.
by ethnically cleansing an existing nation-state, they are expanding (within the nation state) into the land formerly occupied by those people (see: israel). they are not expanding the borders of their nation as a whole, but the group holding the genocidal ideology is still expanding.
To be fair this is just done to consolidate power. Most of these people very much have ideas about expansion, they just can't do them yet without risking further instability, so they want to "squash the bugs" first.
The mongols didn’t have a cult of antiquity, fetishization of land nor ethnic enmity yet they were the greatest genociders in history. Seems like your professor was an expert at studying groups he didn’t like.
They were weird by every standard. They adopted the cultures of the people they ruled, unlike other powers that came after. They treated people equally and allowed them to live the way they wantsd. But if you refused to be ruled by them, they would wipe you off the face of the earth.
@@FictionHubZA They didn't allow people to live how they wanted, I don't know how you learnt that. Mongols forced Muslims to adopt a non-halal diet and demanded that their Jewish subjects eat Kosher. They were as authoritarian figure as most conquerors get.
@@brad5426 thats just saying generally "they were bad", while this guy commented that the agriculture fetish or whatever it is called and the antiquity thing are too restrictive alias: you can be bad also when you arent a conservative/traditionalist
Nomads would've likely shown enmity towards settled civilizations in general (including the people living within it) as seeing them as both resources to exploit upon and as a dangerous theat. The reason why nomads are an exception to this professor's argument is because nomads didn't see land like we do. They tended to see the people inhabiting the agrarian lands as resources than the land itself, ofc for the simple reason that nomads didn't work the land they conquered. while they wouldn't have a need to commit genocide in a traditional sense of "taking land", them being heavily reliant on good produced by settlements, and having military superiority as their only wedger against the more populated and culturally dominant agrarian settlements, would mean they would've had reasons to show enmity and awareness towards settled civilizations in general, rather towards a certain ethnic group. i guess this might have triggered their genocidal behaviors in the times of nomadic conquests. it's still hard to discern whether this would make them "genociders" for the record though. The line between "plundering" and "commiting genocide" blurs when talking about nomads, and often times you see cases like when Kyrgyz nomads destroyed the Uyghur Empire along with its people and just.. left 🤷♂️ it's a tough topic really. hope someone else takes off from here. this is as far as i know lol.
Ben Kierman was an apologist for the Pol Pot regime and a denier of the Khmer Rouge genocide while it was happening. He failed to spot genocidal ideology BECAUSE he was looking for these 4 themes. You aren't going to find 1 in a regime that seeks to do away with history and culture prior to a declared "year zero", or 2 in an ideology that characterizes private land ownership as exploitative and treasonous.
Sometimes it isn't even an idealized past. Sometimes things change for the worse within 5 or 10 years people will realize that their past is objectively better because they lived in it.
Eh? As someone who was born in the year 2000, things have done nothing but go downhill. And there's no one to blame but us and our government, it's our fault as a society, not the randos coming across the border. And also yeah, since I was narry a teeth suckling babe, I certainly don't know first hand the geo political climate of the 2000s, much less the 90s, yet we keep on hearing about how good it was.
@paulbunyangonewild7596 yeah people say that because of nostalgia bias. Every generation thinks the decade they grew up in was the best and so much better than the present.
@Abdullahgnathodus Farmers are literally the base of civilization... They do the exact opposite of forcing everyone to be farmers, they enable everyone else to do whatever work is profitable and still eat.
4. This contradicts #2. (I mean so did the Colonialism example.) The more obvious explanation for the trend is that expanding empires are generally the ones with the means to eradicate smaller groups.
Not exactly. The concept of “chosen land” in number two is nonsensical because it assumes a god or higher power is granting your people that land. Because no one can interact with that higher power, leaders can expand the claims of what constitutes the “chosen land”, leading to the concept in number four. Manifest destiny, the white mans burden, god/gold/glory, the “breathing room” argument used by Hitler. These are example of leaders arguing in favor of genocidal ideologies. The genocide isn’t always overtly stated, but to accomplish the proposed goal would usually require extermination of whoever lived there first.
@@TheBenjaminArgo Yeah, so nationalism plus expansionism. An empire. Empires conquer things. Conquest is violence for the sake of utility. Genocide is violence plus dehumanization and to an extent that exceeds utility. (Hitler devoting resources to ramping up killing Jews in preference to shoring up the Nazi's last stand at the end of the war). The question should be "what kind of philosophy makes a group of people value the extermination of people they hate over their own material benefit?" And the answer is of course extreme vilification. Usually by making that group the scapegoat for the society's actual sources of discontent.
@@777Looper I don't agree that nationalism + expansionism = empire. More recent Empires (last 300 years), yes. Older ones, not necessarily. I think Nationalism and the "nation-state" concept are more recent developments in human history, a more extreme form of earlier tribalism. Also, not all Empires require genocide or expand using genocidal ideology (as defined by the video). There is definitely a strong correlation between genocide happening as an Empire occurs, but genocide can also happen on much smaller scales within a kingdom or nation. You definitely bring up some good points about Empire/Genocide but I don't think your earlier point about contradiction between 2 and 4 stands. Cool discussion though.
@@TheBenjaminArgo Unless you're saying that people thought of "this land" and "that land" as the same thing, which it is historically *extremely* clear they didn't, then the two points are actually saying the opposite things. "How do you know if a political ideology is inclined to genocide? 1. It's obsessed with its own land. 2. It's obsessed with land that it doesn't own." And moving to the more general assertion "genocides are generally committed by groups with strong connection to/desire for land" is uselessly broad. The first describes literally all cultures prior to the modern era (Yes even nomads. They were on regular circuits.) It is only in the highly artificialized and globally connected world that a strong sense of place has become absented from culture. And the second describes every expansionist group. And surely not all expansion via force/economy is properly understood/best explained as being genocidal.
It is partial fear of life partial greed for opertunity of land. Humans are usually self centered to a degree, it is only once they realise what they can lose by fighting then they look for ways of peace. It is actually very simple but nobody would do it. Baby swap! mix bloodlines that kind of thing, once everybody is a mix of both then everyone can share the land because everyone is equal, good luck getting Palestinians and Israelis to marry each others children off and treat them with dignity and respect when they have families. It is the idea of pure blood that drives them, genetic cleanliness. Silliness to me we are all human created by God and deserve equality of sorts, or at the least a bit of respect and dignity.
I agree. Europeans (and Euro descent people) are like 15% of the world population and there's an ongoing genocide against us and no one recognizes that, its said to be a fringe thing or supremacist for whatever reason. Really sad. 😢
No one cares until it happens, then it's all "why did this happen, why didn't anyone care", that's how it is for everything. It's not just genocide, people are just like that. That's why it's so important to care yourself, because no one else is going to.
How do these apply to Soviet Russia? There was no fetishisation of antiquity. And yet, between them, Lenin and Stalin committed genocide far worse than anything Hitler could achieve.
If I'm thinking right, they chose the romanovs and the previous Royals in power as their group to get rid of. Anyone that was against them they got rid of but with the starvation of their own people I'm not sure how it correlates beyond growing too big or not being able to control corruption and fear within the system
«Between them, Lenin and Stalin committed g-cide far worse than anything Hitler could achieve» How the heck did you manage to come to this absolutely wild conclusion
@@AlinaProbably - the low end estimate of Stalin's bloodlust is about 10 million, the high end around 60 million. The truth is, as they say, probably closer to the middle, so call it 30 million.
@@smokedbrisket3033 And? These are just isolated numbers about Stalin, which was only one of the parts of your statement P.S. Also even these numbers don't tell me anything. You're treating a few dozen million like it's nothing, what are these numbers? The people who perished due to Stalin's repressions or the overall number of deaths during the time he was in power, including WWII, where an estimated 20 million of people died? Please specify what the numbers you're citing are
This definition feels too flexible to help people. We see Hamas and Likud pop up here. You could also point out the ACS colonization of Liberia. Then you get to Zanu-PF and ANC which probably fit this as well. China's crackdown on historically Islamic cultures probably falls under it. The states next to Russia which have attempted to de-russify could also fall under this.
hi, i kinda suck at world politics, but it does sound like all of these are or are close to be genocidal ideologies (close to be = they are not launching missiles but are implicitly making it easier for certain groups of people to be mistreated or starve). where exactly are you drawing the line? (this is genuine plz dont hate me
@@mariazitelli8587 IDK. That's the biggest problem I have with this methodology. The term "genocidal ideology" hold a lot of weight and this seems to make it uncomfortably easy to throw around against a lot of groups.
@@thes6550 got it, thanks. If it helps, it's sounding to me that it's easy to give such names to many groups because that's the standard for very long (i'd say since colonization) And now they're just using what seems to have worked for the actual hegemonies
@@Yaggerbomba If you're comfortable with that, go ahead and use it that way. Just recognize this could make you a supporter of a group with genocidal ideas.
The second part you explain it as an ancestral land. But both manifest destiny and labensraum, were for new land not old land. Same with Roman imperialism. Same with Russian imperialism (not modern this one actually fits, im talking about the Tzardom), imperial Japan, no old land, but an east asian coprosperity sphere. OMG how could i forget the MONGOLS they are the opposite of worshipping land. Not only did they not care for land, litteraly worshipped the sky AND were the most genocidal of them all. Comanche similar deal, nomadic killed everyone, not for some old land (im no expert on great plains cultures) if i understand correctly for prestige. Spanish conquistadors were litteraly in the new world. While on that note Aztecs, they belived themselves to be foroigners in the land they lived in and used that to justify otherising their vassals and victims. I think the point about land doesnt stand. (Sorry for my bad english)
Well, at least Germany's case, they wanted Germany to themselves, and then they wanted MORE Germany to themselves. Ukraine happened to be “More Germany” enough for them.
@@SabirothCarastor Thanks. Some English words have hard spelling on purpose. Like the word for a person living close by, and word for a person living far away.
@@AaronGeller Let me rewatch the video and compare everything he said to Zionism. 1 Cults of Antiquity - Zionists argue that Israel’s existence is contingent upon the fact that the land of Palestine belongs to the Jewish people because of the existence of the Kingdom of Israel: an ancient kingdom founded by the Jews that lasted from c. 1047 BCE-930 BCE. It should also be noted that many Zionists and Israeli nationalists consider the kingdom of Israel to be a golden age in Jewish history. Since Israel’s claim to statehood is based on the existence of this ancient Jewish kingdom, it qualifies as a cult of antiquity. 2 Fetishization of land and/or agriculture - It is no secret that Israel has been stealing land from the Palestinians and using said stolen land to build Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law. It is no secret that Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian land since at least 1948. And it is also no secret that Israel completely disregards international law concerning Palestinian rights and sovereignty. Why? The reason is simple: Israel wants ALL of Palestine’s land. All of the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea is land that Israel considers to be their land. You can even see it in the way Israel refers to different parts of Palestine. For example, the international community refers to the Palestinian territory of the West Bank is simply the West Bank. However, the Israeli government official name for the West Bank is the Judea and Samaria district. Why is the Israeli name for the West Bank different than the one that used by the international community and the Palestinians themselves? Simple because Israel doesn’t see the West Bank is Palestinian territory. They see the West Bank as Israeli territory waiting to be “liberated” from the Palestinians. 3 Ethnic hatred - Do I really need to explain this one? It is absolutely no secret that Israel hates the Palestinians. This can be seen in the way Israeli government officials describe Palestinian people. For example: "We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly." - Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Nothing says “I hate Palestinians” as much as comparing them to animals. Not just that but ever since the fall of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, Israel has been the only apartheid state that still exist today. Palestinians living in Israel in the occupied territories are subject to military courts and military law. Meanwhile, Israeli citizens are subject to civilian courts and live under civilian law. 4 Expansion - Israel has made it clear, through the illegal settlements in the West Bank, that they are not afraid to see his land and expand living spaces for Israeli Jewish settlers. There are also plans being drawn up by Israeli government officials for settlement of Gaza once the genocide in the Gaza Strip has been completed. The Israeli government is already drafting contracts with real estate companies to sell beachfront property to Israeli settlers. In addition, at least 200 Israeli families have signed up for settlement programs that will help them settle in Gaza. If you have any questions, or wish to see any proof supporting my argument, please feel free to get in touch with me. I have the exact same username on Discord that I have on CZcams. Thank you.
Really interesting points, but I'm curious if there could be a causation vs correlation thing happening here. I mean nostalgia for tradition isn't bad unless of course the tradition itself is immoral . And protecting your land can be necessary for the survival of the people on that land. I think the best indicator of a potential genocide is whether or not the people believe in the intrinsic value of human life.
Well I don’t think it’s bad to like traditional stuff. But I think what he meant was believing that your traditions trump other traditions in importance. That your group was chosen in some way. For instance Christian’s often had this problem, and when you look at the crusades and all the deaths and problems they caused, you can see how if they had the means, they would’ve murdered everybody there to get back their land that they had a religious right to.
@@giorgospapoutsakis5271 What? Like Iran is justified in sentencing people to death for apostacy? How incredible! Or lets look at the dark ages too, like slavery wasn't just another form of genocide? Or forced assimilation, "No let's just say it's a 'cultural shift' or something nice." You know this is honest and you're ignorant to not blame EVERY party possible.
i feel like the nostalgia for the past is a correlation, usually in any poor economic times people get nostalgic for a fake past and hungry people are more angry, theres also often an esoteric element to fascist groups
The Weimar Republic was definetly real, though. In fact, that whole thing gained so much traction because much of the German public knew how things were before WW1.
1. So if a society that's obsessed with some vision of the future decides to eradicate a group of people on the grounds that they're "obsessed with an idealized version of the past", then that isn't genocide. (By this guy's definition.) Okay copy that. Carry on...
@@VoxaPopsa No no. When the title is "How to spot a genocidal ideology" and the conclusion is "people with this political outlook must be kept out of power at all costs", it is very appropriate to take a bit of time to poke around for any inconsistencies.
Wow. Many native cultures fit these four criteria, my own included. But calling for our political suppression won't lead to genocide? I think you are full of it buddy.
@@wickeddave5148 Reactions like yours really show me how easy it is to manipulate the average voter. Bet you didn't even read anything their party actually stands for, just judging based on the name.
For anyone smugly watching this thinking that this refers to everyone you disagree with, if you can’t think of at least one historical example of a genocide that doesn’t fit each of these themes, you don’t know enough history to be smug, and blind faith in an ideological intellectual class has led to the majority of the biggest manmade mass deaths in history.
Anyone with critical thinking skills should be looking at the groups they support and making sure they’re not dangerously close to those ideologies. Not all genocidal ideologies result in genocides. Sometimes they’re tempered by saner voices within the group. It’s when the most extreme people with those ideologies get power and also sink into groupthink, expelling anyone who questions them, that things get bad.
@@evilsharkey8954the problem is, you never know how things will develop. Looking at the history of my country, Germany, the liberals and conservative were pretty sure the extremists within the Nazi party would be contained by a more moderate majority. But that wasn't the case. So I go with Niemöller here, one shouldn't wait too long, because suddenly you realise things are going the wrong direction, but those who understood it in time are already in jail, abroad or dead and you don't have any help left.
@@helgaioannidis9365 The Nazis were a more obvious threat, with their overt hatred for Jews, even if genocide wasn’t on their platform. They also checked all the boxes on another threat that people too often ignore: authoritarianism. That’s the one I’m more worried about in the US. One of our candidates checks every box, but his supporters either don’t believe it or don’t care because they believe they’ll be on the right side and never suffer the effects of it. This is why it’s so important to teach world history.
@@evilsharkey8954 a lot of people just don't want to see it. E.g. the Turkish government and parts of the parliament follow a genocidal ideology, glorifying the conquering of Constantinople as most glorious achievement of their ancestors, pushing a narrative that Greece practically stole "their" islands, openly threatening to repeat what happened in Izmir 100 years ago and saying that Turkyie with its growing population "needs space and deserves" a bigger part of the Aegean. Yet nobody in Europe adresses this, because it's an important NATO member. I've been saying for years that Trump is an openly declared fascist, but I'm not sure if he plans on a genocide. Do you see indicators for that?
2. So if a nomadic group decides to eradicate the agrarians who are screwing up their pasturing route, that's not genocide. Or if a group was forced to leave their native soil and decide to eradocate the native residents of some better soil, that's not genocide. Makes sense.
If a nomadic group does believe in all these things they still have a genocidal ideology, and if they manage to carry out genocide it’s still genocide. But chances are it is the agricultural society with the ability to organise it.
"so basically genocide is the people I disagree with." The fact that religion or ideology wasn't even mentioned as a key factor shows how invalid this is alone.
He didn't say that at all but yes, I do think you should disagree with anyone who wants genocide. Crazy that this is a hot take to you, you must have some violent desires
Any cohesive group posses these 4 values. Ancestor worship, love of country, ethnic centrism (hatred of the out group) is the most natural human behaviour and Lastly expansion. Or rather we need resources and you have them. A masters degree to reach conclusions that mean nothing. 👏 Waste of money. So the ideal is what? A selfish mono generational person, who doesn't value any land, country or border, doesn't care about in group bonds or deems a stranger equal to family and lastly no expansion. We just sit on the rock we're on and starve. Cool story bro.
You're conflating fetishisation with appreciation. There is a massive difference between "blood and soil" and the four common values you're describing.
@@TheBryce98 No there really isn't. If you need to summon up a virtue and it lies within a life story, or myth of you ancestors leaning into that isn't fetishism. It's the correct way to oreint your psyche. I suggest you read the poem the 'The Stranger' by Rudyard Kipling. Just because people may look similar or share common language doesn't make them the same culture or group. Also a fetish is a corruption of something. Building statues to your fallen heroes and God's, Wearing symbols that your culture holds dear isn't a fetish. It's a expression of identity. It's just scary for an out group that can't imagine believing in anything so abstract, so strongly.
@@TheBryce98 If your ancestors possess a virtue which you don't; be it within a story, a life work or a myth it's not fetishism to manifest it. Either in physical being, artwork or sculpture. It's the correct way to orient your psyche. It's terrifying for the out group as they realise no matter how hard they try they can't have an authentic bond with these abstract ideas. I recommend you read the poem "The stranger" by Rudyard Kipling. Just because someone looks similar or speaks your language doesn't make them the same as you. They are merely imitations. Lastly "Blood and Soil" is so scary to the out group as again they can't easily gain access to the in group and be seen as part of it. As an example your family in your own home. That's the basis of blood and soil. All of your family are related by the blood of your mother and father. You don't need societal paper work to corroborate your foundations and bonds. If a stranger comes into your house they aren't your brother. They aren't the same as your father etc. So blood is a very real metric that most base life bonds on instinctively. Next soil. You own the deed to your house, if a stranger tries to break in are you goin to let them? If a unknown visitor barges over the threshold will you not stop them? Do you keep you front door closed to prevent intruders? The way you treat your house is how you should treat your country. Blood and soil is a basic mode of being. It's not responsible for Genocide.
It's just psychobabble nonsense made to perpetuate anti nationalism in European democracies. Anything which might restore a sense of national pride will be considered genocidal. Commies are these thinkers friends so such things don't enter into their analysis.
Well Maybe instead of an ideolised glorious past, the ideolised a glorious future where communism dominated the world. They do fetishize land and agriculture somewhat considering their very pro-farmer rethoric, thus holding in high regard those who till and therefore are closest to, the land There was ethnic hatred in the USSR, for example, towards Ukranians since they were seen as counter-revolutionaries and, later, for Germans because of what they did during Oepration Barbarossa. Lastly, the USSR clearly wanted to expand their lands in former Imperial borders since they took over the Baltics and tried to take over Poland and Finland.
Thats because there weren't soviet "genocides", that's cold war and ww2 propaganda (coming from either nazis or capitalist block). There were a lot of deaths, yes, but they weren't planned out to happen that way. The soviet purge was a way to try to fight nazi infiltrators (wich was a real treat) but got the whole population and politicians paranoid because it created a self sustaining loop of mass paranoia, spiraling the situation out of control. Now something like the holodomor was indeed a famine that happened, but was not planned out, it was caused by a combination of natural conditions those years leading to bad harvests and poor resource management from the soviet government. The whole thing saying stalin wanted to kill ukranians came from the nazis at first, and US later bought into that narrative during the cold war era (feel free to look this up). If you think about it, it made no practical sense at all for the soviets to create a genocidal death in Ukraine at that point, that would be just counter intuitive. I won't go into other soviet or chinese "genocides" but short answer is: they weren't genocides. Sometimes a lot a people died, but it's more complicaded than just genocide this and that; and sometimes the whole thing is just made the fuck up by americans during the cold war, and we believe it still, because they won the cold war, but not all of them, of course.
This list is for Ideologies that are ALWAYS genocidal. An Ideology can encourage Genocide without really meeting the Criteria in the video. How, you May ask? By only encourages Genocide based on the current Political climate. (This is just my interperetation of the video. And Opinion btw.)
I think an important note that is left unsaid in the video is that the "cult of antiquity" doesn't have to be correct. In the case of Rwanda (and also Nazi Germany) there may be a widespread belief that "this is the way it was in the good old days" even if that past isn't factually true. A good analog to this is modern day Wicca (not trying to throw shade), where many of the "ancient" rituals being practiced are outgrowths of syncretism and new age spiritualism rather than actual ancient traditions. So the idea that the Hutu and Tutsi were ancient enemies and had always been at odds with eachother may have been widely perceived as true, even if it was in actuality a fairly recent fabrication. I'm not well versed enough in the overall situation to comment on the second point, but that's my take on the first one.
Antiquity claimed by times before Tutsi migration Expansion you can find even nowadays. What is Rwanda doing in Congo and what happened in Burundi? This country was expansionist since foundation
I won't doubt your credentials, but these are extremely specific circumstances, and certainly many genocidal regimes lacked several, and many that aren't have some of these features. I have no degree, but I'm pretty sure all it really takes to identify a genocidal regime is an expressed desire to eradicate certain groups of people, or concerted efforts thereof. They don't often hide it you know. It's generally stated within their manifesto or at rallies.
@@brad5426 Basically. This video used a lot of words to say that genocidal ideologies hate people that arent themselves and want to take over the world. Simple as that.
So basically having a culture and some land to go with it makes you a possible practitioner of genocide? I mean it's not wrong, but it's almost every country in the world right?
I think you’ve caught on. They consider them “genocidal” any type of people group who wish to work for their own self interest and be connected to nature. As opposed to people who willingly give money to people that make their society worse and are completely dissociated with the natural world.
@@thebrowncow441it's like you guys have a new buzzword and just go on using it without realising it makes you sound like an idiot. HOW is op a zionist?
@@karlbjorn1831 Yes. How did the American revolution gain traction? George Washington gave farmers special concessions. Just like Cromwell and even Mao. Dude. There's an entire chapter dedicated to all of this in Machiavelli's Prince.
@@karlbjorn1831 and easy way to disprove him would be to provide a historic example of a world power that is not described by the factors listed in the video and didn't commit a genocide and i cant think of one. There are genocidal ideologies but this video paints a definition with such a broad brush that it unintentionally provides a checklist for the successful acquisition of power
This exactly. What he's describing is any nationalist movement in history. While it's true that all of these traits do describe genocidal ideation, they also describe a lot of _other_ things that aren't genocides. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
@BoomBangin Turkey was born genocidal. That's literally their entire history. Look at what they've done to the Greeks. I don't have to explain that to you. It's self-apparent. All of Anatolia was once Greek. It's not anymore. Let that sink in.
@@psychosytheXmediaXco honey I just said I wasn't aware of any instances. Ancient mongols certainly did a lot of warring and raiding. I know I don't approve of that if we're going there. But I'm not aware of any instances of them deliberately targeting an entire ethnic group for elimination, which is what genocide is. A reasonable response would be to just say "well there was the x genocide" and then I could look that up and learn something.
@@CorbiniteVids Well for it to be called "the x genocide" I would have to already be convinced that it's a genocide, which would make the point of this comment thread somewhat moot. So I would point towards Genghis Khan's campaigns to unite the Mongol tribes, also possibly the Conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire, not as direct examples of genocide, but as wider conflicts in which you may find instances of what you would consider genocide, or not. No need to honey me.
This describes literally every country/people that own land. There is always an out group that is contra the land owning group. Those with more knowledge of land operation or perceived land operation will hate those that waste it.
There’s one question I have for this subject: what if - as unlikely as it might be - one hand both the means and ideology for this act…yet doesn’t actually do it?
@@thomas.thomasthat's ridiculous and insane, most traditional societies are like this but still prioritize peace because that's most pragmatic for survival in the modern world. This is just pathologizing natural human group behavior.
@@aunnaqvi3133 read it again, I said societies might have that desire, but in the modern world will prioritize peace out of pragmatism, meaning they will prioritize that OVER expansion. Valuing territory =/= actively pursuing expansion.
This video has helped me a lot in understanding genocidal societies and how people can do things like this to an ‘other’ despite being of the same species (sometimes even the same family) I’ve been reading a series on Reddit called Nature of Predators, where humanity explores the stars and finds a federation of about 200 species or so whose main ideology is that ‘prey is the only true sapience in the galaxy' which i found to be a really interesting concept. And as you may have guessed there cant be only prey animals on even a singular planet, which is how the genocide comes into play, in order to keep prey creatures on top, they burn any corpse and any predator they can to discourage any predatory behavior in the herd. so this video really helps to bridge the gap in understanding how such an extreme ideology could potentially be followed by hundreds of species each with their own idea of what is right. there's a few quotes that i keep coming back to from a specific character in the series, but one he says; “it is our beliefs that can make a thing good or evil." After all, you don’t have to be insane to kill someone, you just have to think you’re right.
By these standards Stalin's USSR or Mao's China wouldn't be considered a genocidal ideology, but we both know that they commited atrocities. I think the problem is getting the order wrong, you don't commit genocide based on your ideology, you want to commit genocide and THEN create an ideology to justify that. But these 4 things aren't the only justifications. Like i mentioned, Mao used the idea of "progress" to justify the famines and extermination of millions of people.
@@i_dont_pay_taxes491but they're not, these are only true for the conventionally "ultra-right wing" genocidal ideologies. But my point still stands, you don't commit genocide because of ideology, you create an ideology to justify genocide.
@@Enceladus2106lmao, really? Killing 60 million of your own citizens from famines or executing 2 million property owners because they were "evil money hungry capitalists", all that isn't genocide?
@@Enceladus2106They purged people, culture, and religion by the tens of millions and their country changed fundamnetally as a result of the exterminations. They were genocides. Russian and Chinese culture was purged out of existence. What you see now is a shallow reflection of their former selves.
@@munkbok are you delusional? The spread of Islam across the MENA literally included mass-Arabization. It replaced tons and tons of languages with Arabic, and where it failed to do so it replaced their scripts with the Arabic script which is often very clunky and mismatched. Not to mention its replacement of a lot of cultures' traditional architecture & clothing, as well as the various racist hadiths from Muhammad where he calls Berbers disgusting, calls blacks "raisinheads", trades several black slaves for pale concubines & he and Ali say Arabs are among the best of creation who will "inherit the Earth". There's also the fact that most Muslims are made to pray & read Qur'an exclusively in Arabic, and Muslims berate you relentlessly if you criticize the religion if you're not an Arabic speaker. There are more examples but these are just a few off the top of my head.
Most religions can/have been used to justify ethnic superiority, it's just a matter of material conditions that bring about that aspect. Due to events starting in the 20th century, the Islamic world has been under an enormous amount of socioeconomic and international/political stress, so it's only natural for ethnonationalism to arise, just as it arised in Germany after world War 1. This is not inherent to Islam, just as nazism is not inherent to Germans. If you truly want Islamic radicalism to end, then call for an end to the endless wars that have shaped their material conditions rather than promoting the very propaganda that led to those conditions to arise in the first place.
The writer he cites literally helped prosecute the Khmer Rouge and some of u call this video “an idiot with a degree citing another idiot with a degree”. Why are u so defensive and insecure about listening to experts with a lifetime of research and experience? Afraid someone will tell u ur wrong? About genocide?
In theory because the court will listen to 3rd hand knowledge they have no awareness of cuz it sounds like a court of peers doesnt know shit anyway so the best tool to use in persecution is marketing not reason.
@@Hypnoticbauch Israel hates no one and hurts no one who doesn't hurt them. The belief that a certain land belongs to a certain nation is a universal belief that all nations of the world believe in. But Israel doesn't teach hate, Israel teaches peace. Israel hurts no one, only defend herself.
Under this logic, God would not be a serious person and i think even the tinniest bit of biblical knowledge would disprove the idea that god is not serious.
There is this dilemma in my mind. On one hand, my language and culture is fading and being pushed out, not necessarily becaus ethe people in power are evil, but becaus ethey simply do not care. I wish for them to be pushed back or adopt the ways of my language and culture. On the other hand, i wish not to punish someone because they are born and simply exist.
@@thevillager8339 Do you mean Norway? 80% of your population is native norwegian, and other 10% are of european ethinicity, and this is assuming some of those european descendants did not adopt norwegian culture already. Your culture is absolutely fine.
@arthurcosta4643 except half practically speaks Danish, and the other half speaks various forms of actual Norwegian in decay. Also, the Sami are fine. They should own their land more
Both Israel and Palestine: 1. Belive that they should have the land because their people lived there for many years 2. Belive that they own the land 3. Both hate each other 4. Both Belive that the other shouldn't exist
Interesting explanations- and that is all they are. “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem-neat, plausible, and wrong.” -H. L. Mencken
Which is why these lists are not useful imo (same with that Umberto Eco “traits of fascism” list that gets passed around). They don’t actually capture distinctive features of genocidal ideology, they just describe characteristics that are to some degree ubiquitous.
3. Okay this one actually makes sense. In order to form the will to eradicate a different ethnic group, they have to be identifiable as an ethnic group and have cultural values that differ from yours. Almost tautological.
I believe people are subconsciously wired to feel a certain way towards a certain word more than others and thus when trying to emphasize a part or feeling of something, they use that word without factoring in the technicalities. Example, since the word genocide holds a lot more weight that democide, people intentionally or unintentionally include things that are democide INTO genocide to emphasize its terribleness, even though democide just means mass killing of everyone regardless of any defining trait, really. What's my point with this? I believe that we should try to remove and halt anyone from any seat of power with democidal tendencies or politics, of which are very much different from just genocidal politics. For example, pol pot, mao, stalin, and hitler actually have similar ideologies where it was basically a revolution where traditions are thrown away and the new ideology arrives to sweep the people into prosperity. Out with the old regimes and in with the new sort of thing. Also, yes, i do believe communism is inherently fascist as in, no matter what, it naturally and inevitably ends up being "all for the state, nothing outside of the state, and anything against the state is capital sin." I believe nazism is just honest and sincere fascism and that the word "socialism" in national socialism is not incorrect.
In conclusion, this is obviously just a convoluted way to argue that rural (agrarian) conservatives are inherently (and even uniquely) genocidal, and that politically opposing them and supporting urban progressives is morally (or literally) equivalent to preventing genocide.
Would this video fall under the Dehumanization stage then? I mean he doesn’t call them something other than human but he does morally equate them as a genocidal group.
@@davidscott9394 lol But no I think it's still just slander. There is a difference between dehumanization and "mere" demonization. "You have an evil ideology" is different from "you are inherently unqualified as a truth-seeking moral agent". Though, if the implication goes as far as "those who have been socially formed within a rural conservative framework will inevitably be predisposed to genocide until they have fully deconstructed their upbringing" then yeah. I think that counts.
That's a disingenuous take. Rural communities could lack any one of these traits and not be considered genocidal. For example, rural communities could welcome immigrants and people with other ways of life with hospitality, or let people with urban ways of life be free of their demonization. They could live with the freedom that they are already privy to and be content that others are doing the same, even if they don't "agree" with them. But a group that 1) Idealizes the 1950s way of life and wants EVERYONE ELSE to live that way, 2) Mythologizes their divine right to America and desires to "take it back" under some banner (Christian nationalism for example) 3) Believes America (their land) is only for people like them (Christian, white, non-immigrant, cis-heterosexual, conservative), and 4) Desires to spread this ideology to other areas and/or take them over (Cities, Blue states, the third world, the second world, ect), would absolutely be classified as genocidal. If you've noticed that "Rural Conservatives" have these qualities, then you've noticed a problematic group that shouldn't make decisions for the entire country. Not only does the ideology want to cast out people that ARE Americans, but their policies aren't in the best interest of everyone living here, and many of them are shaped around the removal of freedoms that everyone should have from these "target groups".
@@thecreatornooj1328 Wanting society and culture to be a certain way does not make you genocidal. (Moral subjectivism is not a necessary sacrifice for avoiding authoritarianism or dehumanization. They are in fact very difficult to avoid if humans are not allowed to make meaningful assertions about reality. You just need to evaluate those assertions under the authority of evidence and reason, rather than threat of force.) I do agree that hyperfixation on group identity and a preference for advancing your ideology/special interest via censure and violence over public discourse and democratic process does begin to lay the groundwork for atrocities like genocide. What you want is a culture and system of government that maximally affirms and facilitates the citizen's capacity as truth seeking moral agents. i.e. is maximally humanizing. What we have is an infantilizing education system, a hedonistic pop culture, a tribalistic main stream media, and an authoritarian government. I do have some hope that people are figuring out that what we're doing isn't working. I just hope that enough of the old liberal western tradition is found intact to let us land relatively on our feet when it's time once again to pay the old historical piper of cultural decadence.
At first I thought this was an "orange man bad" video, but this is actiually really interesting. I think the third point should be changed to "Collective blame of a certain group/ethnicity" because you have the Bolshevik's burguosie, the Nazi party's Jewish thieves and the christian Church's Muslim heretics to name a few. Also, one more thing is that genocide breeds genocide, for example, the spanish conquistadors brutally slaughtered the Natives because they themselves were being slaughtered by the Ottomans, which only began their campaign of genocide because they were prosecuted by the Mongols and tried to get as big of an advantage as they could against other potential invaders. Sorry for the yapping session, not many people actiually sit down and talk about this stuff like rational adults.
I realize now that I haven't really elaborated on the whole "collective blame" thing, so this is a continuation of my yap session. In pretty much all of the examples, the genocide was justified because group A is responsible for problem B. That's pretty much all my argument there sums up to, if anyone needed some clarification. Also this is pretty much the root of the Israel - Palestine war (shocking, I know), where the Zionists really didn't have much of a foothold with the general population until Hamas made his "we will push them into the sea" speech. This sent the Jews into a panic because most Islamic states have been radicalizing pretty fast (also the Holocaust is burned into every Jewish person's mind), and when people panic, radical ideas that show a clear bad guy that has to be beaten gives people comfort in showing people an enemy in an otherwise murky and ambiguous crisis. The citizens of the Islamic states then hear about the radicalizing Jews, they get angry, the Jews get angry, and the cycle goes on and on and on. The worst part is that the only way the people that started this whole mess get what they deserve is that the other side wins and inacts their "justice", which leaves one group disproportionally worse off, the young men of the winning side are scarred for life and one side of the pople who benefit from all this get to walk off scot-free,.
@@Kokolitofora The zionist colonization of the Westbank started in 1967, Hamas was founded in 1987. It was a zionist extremist that killed Rabin because of peace talks with the PLO. An assasination that Netanyahu and Ben Givr are involded in. Israel made sure Hamas won the elections in Gaza, becasue they needed a terrorist organisation to frustrate any talks of peace with the Palestinians. Claiming that zionists had no power in Israel before 2014 is just you making history fit your conclusions.
@@romanscum5678 Palestinians are not an ideology. Furthermore, Arabs ruled Jews and Christians for hundreds of years before the Turks did. If they wanted to genocide Jews, they would have done that long ago.
@@romanscum5678Both Israel and Palestine: 1. Belive that they should have the land because their people lived there for many years 2. Belive that they own the land 3. Both hate each other 4. Both Belive that the other shouldn't exist
interesting how the first commenter said that an ideology was violent and is a problem. Then you replied by saying that an entire ethnic is violent and is a problem. What do you plan to do about this problem ethnic group? Do you have some kind of final solution to fix the problem and protect those they threaten?
Yeah, it's crazy how obsessed with classical culture some Americans are and have been... Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, obviously MAGA neo-Nazis one and all.
@@Pospolite-Ruszenie Well, I think we should be. But they had the "obsession" with classical Greece and Rome that slartybartfast says indicated a genocidal ideology. For that matter, so did the whole Renaissance. Also, canceled because slavery.
@@brucetucker4847 I mean he said modern conservatives, most conservatives aren’t obsessed with either Ancient Rome or Greece. They are on average more focused on great men from their own countries history. So in the US they are mostly obsessed with the founding fathers aswell as a few other presidents.
Well, well, well... "Funny" how we can connect this to a specific group of people who is committing genocide right now but will use a past genocide as an excuse for being unable of any wrongdoings...
I'm proudly the opposite of genocidal ideologies. I hold a positive view of the future, fetishize cities (especially futuristic architecture), and support ethnic diversity.
Ethnic diversity don’t work. I’m not saying that it’s something you shouldn’t support because it is already here and you can’t exactly send them out but you shouldn’t support it either because that only leads to mass immigration and cultural diversity which leads to an unstable society which leads to radical ideas which leads to segregation
It’d be nicer if every city could stick to their roots and build building that match up with how they historically have built building because that makes every country different and more interesting to visit
1:52 a bit skeptical on this, after all there are claims homo sapiens wiped out the other hominids before they even discovered agriculture and they were nomadic themselves. Also mongols...
Guy just listed the ideologies of every country thats ever existed. 1. You're way underplaying this concept and its not just ideals of the past its usually some form of envisioned nirvana or utopia such as that of communism or the closeely related socialism. 2. Every country fought for their peoples land and would still fight to keep it safe dont believe me try putting a chinese blimp over American air. 3. Ethnic enmity Is kinda right if not a little vague cause ethnic differences arent a requirement of genocide. And also because its obvious you are attempting to point out Israel here a large portion of Israels population is palestinian so if it was ethnic enmity wouldnt they start there? 4. This is just a gift of humanity that is also a curse. We are ALL trying to expand our lives on some form or another whether thats greed for money or just wanted to better your self or in the case of many countries wanting more land. Every country would like to expand they are run by humans after all.
Well for most of human history the standard practices of warfare would certainly have the Hague working overtime. Especially during the Medieval period in Europe.
I get why you didn't mention Israel and Zionism cuz a) most people really don't want to admit it, and b) it is controversial bc most ppl don't wanna say that Israel is comitting a genocide. But, backed by the US government, they have been doing it for decades and all four points fit Israel and Zionism very, very well.
The fact that you couldn’t make out his implications were intentionally anti-zionist is a little concerning. He literally said “those that think they are the chosen people” and “those with a certain blood bond with the land, and a fetization of agriculture.” He then goes on to explain a love for mythology or religion… This whole video screams Israel, and it was done completely on purpose.
@@kvzgm6316 he should've mentioned Israel as a country committing genocide then. We can't carelessly read intentions, especially when a lot of liberals actually like Israel and Zionism. In my own comment, I tried to be a bit more amicable and gave them an out, but he definitely should've mentioned Israel.
I think it would be more accurate to say *cultural* hatred rather than ethnic, because our most recent examples of these ideologies demonstrate that they're not just against people who have different ethnic backgrounds, but also any other marginalized group that has a culture that questions "the way things should be" or "the return back to a better time." These can be groups with cultural heritages that are not necessarily inherited genetically, such as LGBTQ+, disabled, and homeless. And these marginalizations can have intersectionalities that vary individuals' experiences in ways that complicate resistance to those ideologies. This difference in one word is especially important in context of the concept of whiteness, which is a relatively new social construct enforcing conformity within the group at the expense of all cultural influences that could possibly be at odds with that conformity.
As somebody who just wrote a paper on this for my MS in Ag program, yes 100%. The famine itself was the culmination of a couple hundred years of genocidal policy similar to that enacted against Native Americans in the US.
I think this is a rather foolish view on the nature of people to dislike outgroups. It doesn't have to have a thing to do with ethnicity. You could grow up next to someone on your street who hates and covets your success enough to want to ruin you. That was what happened with the kulaks in Russia for example. It was just a made up name for a group of serfs who finally achieved some measure of financial success and were pulled down by the crab bucket of socialist ideologues as a boogeyman for the masses to latch their hatred onto. Haiti famously genocided their white population but it had little to do with any of the other things on your list. Any ideology that blames all of societal problems on one scapegoat group is a genocidal ideology. That's it. That's the metric. Simple. The rest is all set dressings and smoke. Any ideology can be genocidal if a politician can whip up a group of people to hate someone else and blame everything on them. That's called human nature. Edit: also, the illegal migrant issue has nothing to do with genocide and everything to do with economics. The more cheap labor the lower the wages and the more people willing to work for less. Also human trafficking is rampant by simply allowing people to cross unchecked and unverified and anyone who ignores these facts is simply duplicitous and lying. There's no excuse for ignorance at this point.
Some of this stuff feels very ànti Indigenous because us Indigenous people also feel deeply connected to the land but we're not genocidal. This needs to be clarified.
When they use the word "Colonizer" it means they want to genocide the race that is a racist dogwhistle for. Pretend you cannot figure out who they mean.
I once read that the difference between a serial killer and a genocidal dictator was an army of yes-men
mind = blown
I would disagree. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
I’d argue there are more differences
@@shori8438these army of yes men have to be armed and dedicated to the idea of this dictator as well?
I assume by "yes men" you mean AIPAC and their servants?
"Director of genocide studies" sounds like such a bleak title. I can just imagine this guy not wanting to talk about his job for fear of losing his humanity the more he has to think about it.
You are aware that genocide is a bery human thing to do? I mean the director of genocide studies literally showed that we are doing it since the agricultural revolution...
On the contrary. Being in contact with history makes you keep those things in mind so as not to repeat them. The historian is not trying to get into the minds of the genocidaires and their ideology to see things as they saw them... nor is he being indoctrinated to militantly believe in that. Perhaps the worst thing that could happen is that studying the worst, most extreme examples of genocide may cause to miss more subtle or veiled examples... like "nah, is not that bad". I'am not sure XD
@@the_epipan I dunno. I'm pretty sure part of someone dies when they look at Mengele's work and thinks "So just another Tuesday then".
@@GatekeeperGuardian-wv3cd
That is not your humanity that you feel you lose, but your innocence or your faith/hope in humanity.
You have to keep in mind that you are facing one of the worst examples of human beings, fortunately there are many fewer murderers than normal people.
@@GatekeeperGuardian-wv3cdgovernments are the biggest killers in history. Including the “good guys”.
“I have a degree in human rights, and my source has a degree in human wrongs”
Degree in human rights truly feels like a self proclaimed title
@@rizzllerr In this context, "human rights" is simply an area of study.
@@jfm14it’s nonsense
@@rizzllerrit’s nosense
@@Bell_plejdo568p
No, you just don’t recognize specialization….or maybe study in general.
Huh, the Fire Nation's genocidal war in Avatar the Last Airbender fits literally every single one of these commonalities.
That's the power of having your nation be based on historical examples of nations that existed irl ~
Unless you ho wrong somewhere along the way, they'll most likely be realistic.
Thats why storytelling is so great, Avatar in particular shows kids the signs of genocide and imperialism before theyre even forced to learn about it in school.
No shit they're based off the Japanese 😂
They were inspired by ww2 Japan, makes sense
Yep. And that makes it, if not accurate, at least feel authentic.
A shame that LoK lost the plot so hard that the best villain is a nihilistic airweeb.
My family's originally from Armenia, fleeing after my great-grandfather was killed by the Young Turks. I don't know about agriculture, but they definitely wanted to restore the Ottoman caliphate's power, hated the Christians, and sought to expand their empire into then-Russian territory.
My condolances to you mate
Womp womp
🇹🇷🇦🇿🤜🇦🇲🏳️🌈
"The Young Turks"?? is that what they were really called???
@@G8tr1522 yes that is what cenk ugur decided to call his news outlet 😂
I am half Armenian on my Father's side. Everyone knows about the systematic killing of Armenians under the Young Turks. But it started before the Young Turks came to power in the 1890s under Abdülhamid II and continued under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Source: Simon Payaslian: The History of Armenia.
So you need to assess the ideology of both the predecessors to the Young Turks and their Successors in addition to the Young Turks themselves to really get the full picture.
Didn't know one could get a masters degree in human rights but after thinking about it that makes sense
Is it possible to get a comparable degree in Human Lefts?
It’s a nosense degree
@Bell_plejdo568p You clearly don't know what a human rights degree even is. They are one of the best degrees out there. They provide a vast array of skills and knowledge that can be applied toward a whole host of jobs from just about every possible career field you could possibly think of.
@@Bell_plejdo568p mine would be a no-nonsense degree. . .
@@E4439Qv5That would be a boxing school ?
What was the nostalgia that motivated the genocide of the Native Americans? That’s the only one that doesn’t seem to apply to North America.
It was because of their lack of resistance to small pox and love of fire water.
It's just a load of claptrap this guy is spouting. He calls the native Americans victims but is calling modern opponents of mass migration the perpetrator. He is just another anti white drone. You can see his ideology turn on a dime depending on which group is in question.
Manifest Destiny, which in that case is essentially the inverse of a cult of antiquity. It still has the characteristics of a cult of antiquity, but it was built on a promised future of national glory and a 'moral obligation' to higher power to expand their way of life and culture as they saw fit.
Ironically the Native American social justice/landback ideology today fits every point on this list.
@@canarybird9983 Yes, the genocide of the Native Americans was the exact opposite of something that was motivated by nostalgia. It was rationalized on the basis that the New World belonged to the forces of modernity.
The cult of antiquity isn't true in many cases. Often, genocide occurs for precisely the opposite reason, where an ideology violently lashes out against tradition and antiquity for the sake of a distorted vision of progress. Mao is the biggest example of this.
Mao wasn't genocidal though. His regime killed dissidents, "class traitors" etc., not ethnic outsiders. It's only genocide if the people you want to destroy form an ethnic/ethnoreligious group. That's what the "geno-" part means.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs i didn't realize scholars made such a strict distinction. Anyways, mass killing phenomena are a lot broader than genocide, so we need to identify all ideological markers that can lead to mass killing.
@@snakyjake9 They do! You need clear definitions and terminology precisely because there are lots of different mass killing phenomena with different causes and methods. This video is specifically about genocide.
Bruh, what do you expect from a guy that only bases his arguments on what other people have said, instead of using his own reasoning? All these guys are the same: "this man has a recognition for his works on genocide... he must be right" which translates to: "im an idiot who doesn' know how to think and need the words of others to validate my ideologies"
@@snakyjake9Obviously theyre gonna make that distinctions so they can approve and promote that kind of politics, in some point, and they say: "techbically killing millions of people osn't genocide" 🤓☝️
I would call theme number one "cults of imperial legitimacy"
I love that name
Yeah because the Cult of Antiquity would apply to almost every nation.
@@mikesmnell414 perhaps, but only because every nation has far right elements who are one economic crisis and one lucky election away from doing a genocide
@@everettbr*as if far left elements like authoritarian communism aren't also powder kegs that lead to inevitable genocide*
@@mikesmnell414 also like, it's perfectly valid to long for the time when workers had rights
Great little video! I've also noticed that wife beaters, cult leaders, and dictators share a lot of the same traits. Isolating their subjects from the outside world, stripping them of their independence, cutting them off from any way out, opposing any disagreements often with violence.
A wife beater will often make his wife cut off contact with her parents, so she has no one to run to. He will not allow her to work, that way she has no money and no means to leave. She's not allowed to go out and socialize, cutting her off from the outside world. If she speaks up, she'll get beaten. And she's fed the poisonous lies about how much he actually cares for her, until she starts believing in it. Cult leaders and dictators operate the same way. Children who grow up in abusive homes, in a sense live with their own personal tyrants.
My California governor said I could talk to you to tell you that you're wrong...and that you're a racist.
Tyrants love foreigners, but it they hate to let their own people talk to them.
The CZcamsr SFO did a great video on that awhile ago. I can’t find it though.
Not even in your best interests, it is your moral obligation, your moral imperative to ensure that that group does not get a single ounce of power
No, it's not.
No it’s not, your only tangible and realistic moral obligation is to breed.
Moral relativism begs to differ
@@xhawkenx633
it doesn't matter on perspective when that group will cripple you, your surroundings, and your environment
@@xhawkenx633 moral relativism is such a funny idea to me.
“Erm it’s bad to kill entire groups of people actually.”
“Nuh uh”
I feel like this might be a dumb question but if the group with the harmful ideology has a lot of people who openly express a desire to eradicate the target group from existence and at the same time is actively trying its best to pass laws that make it impossible for the target group to even exist in society, that would be a bit genocide-y too wouldn't it?
Yes, for instance in nazi germany jews weren't just suddenly thrown into death camps. They passed laws over the years that marginalized them more and more.
For instance, one of the first laws permitted the government to remove "undesirables"(non-aryans) from civil service like doctors or teachers. Sounds familiar? In the United States that's what far right group openly suggest about gay and trans people, that they should be removed from those specific positions.
Yes but genocide from any party to any party is still genocide no matter what justifications are used, which we should always seek to avoid.
I wonder who you could possibly be referring to
Please elaborate
This isn’t the first genocide the j-ws have under their belt. They’ve been doing this forever, which is why they were historically viewed as so toxic and kicked out of so many countries. The holodomor is a horrible genocide they orchestrated which doesn’t have any Hollywood movies, (I wonder why?)
I feel like these are intentionally very narrow definitions, perhaps in part to single out *certain* genocide by *certain* groups but downplay *other* genocide by *other* groups.
Like...?
@@vanta9608 the ingredients of a genocidal ideology listed in this video neglects the nomadic empires like that of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun and includes to some degree or another any successful world power
If you know, you know.
@@vanta9608 I second that question, please tell us what you are reffering to, enlighten the masses
@@Filther-13 then please educate us
This only seems to line up with some genocides and also doesn't add up because a lot of political groups have had these philosophies with power and never committed genocide.
This video is intentionally cultivated propaganda to draw attention away from what's going on somewhere next to the sea and the desert
What genocides does it not line up with? And yeah, those groups didn't commit genocide but still committed atrocious acts. The National Party of South Africa didn't commit genocide, but they DID enforce apartheid for decades, which is totally unjustifiable and still a human rights violation.
@@voicelessglottalfricative6567you just answered yourself……
This is what happens when you start with ideology and not material conditions. Idealism is a misguided and incorrect position because it assumes the ideology is the reason for the actions and not a post-hoc justification. The reason for genocide is to take people's land and resources, end of story. The fantastical story you make up to justify it doesn't matter except as an indicator of future intent.
@@alexjeffrey3981land and resources doesn’t explain the holocaust
"why do we have to learn history"
Because this.
Sad but my grandad's like this. He's always talking about the past, loves to garden, complains about grey squirrels being an invasive species and is on the waiting list for an allotment.
We can learn from the past. At age 68 I am more adept at discussing the past than I am at keeping up with mass culture. That's fine. I learned a few things from people who lived in the horse-and-buggy era. I'm tempted to say that many of our youths would do better to put down the electronic toys and do something more genuine... like touch football, card and board games, ice-cream socials, and sing-alongs. Turn off the idiot screen and do some genuine reading and art. Hey -- maybe learn a few things about gardening.
Consider this: you have had great experiences in life. How many of those involved watching some screen?
God forbid your Grandad be the way he is, what a dangerous genocidal man
Pfft
Okay this got a chuckle out of me
@@paulbrowerDefinitely worth doing those things but they way you're saying it seems akward and forced, like going out just for the sake of going out... it's kinda weird.
@@ZainAhmad-jl4vtforced? Seemed suggestive to me.
Characteristic no. 4 seems marginal with a lot of modern genocidal ideologies? They're often more focused on ethnically cleansing an existing nation-state rather than territorial expansion.
by ethnically cleansing an existing nation-state, they are expanding (within the nation state) into the land formerly occupied by those people (see: israel). they are not expanding the borders of their nation as a whole, but the group holding the genocidal ideology is still expanding.
"Less of them, more for us" I guess.
Look up "Great Israel". They don't want to stop in Palestinian land.
it goes well for '800 nationalisms, this definition is quite biased towards european doctrines
To be fair this is just done to consolidate power. Most of these people very much have ideas about expansion, they just can't do them yet without risking further instability, so they want to "squash the bugs" first.
The mongols didn’t have a cult of antiquity, fetishization of land nor ethnic enmity yet they were the greatest genociders in history. Seems like your professor was an expert at studying groups he didn’t like.
They were weird by every standard.
They adopted the cultures of the people they ruled, unlike other powers that came after.
They treated people equally and allowed them to live the way they wantsd.
But if you refused to be ruled by them, they would wipe you off the face of the earth.
@@FictionHubZA They didn't allow people to live how they wanted, I don't know how you learnt that. Mongols forced Muslims to adopt a non-halal diet and demanded that their Jewish subjects eat Kosher. They were as authoritarian figure as most conquerors get.
@@brad5426 Idk if that it true. But, the Mongols did convert to Islam, where they ruled over Muslims.
@@brad5426 thats just saying generally "they were bad", while this guy commented that the agriculture fetish or whatever it is called and the antiquity thing are too restrictive
alias: you can be bad also when you arent a conservative/traditionalist
Nomads would've likely shown enmity towards settled civilizations in general (including the people living within it) as seeing them as both resources to exploit upon and as a dangerous theat.
The reason why nomads are an exception to this professor's argument is because nomads didn't see land like we do. They tended to see the people inhabiting the agrarian lands as resources than the land itself, ofc for the simple reason that nomads didn't work the land they conquered. while they wouldn't have a need to commit genocide in a traditional sense of "taking land", them being heavily reliant on good produced by settlements, and having military superiority as their only wedger against the more populated and culturally dominant agrarian settlements, would mean they would've had reasons to show enmity and awareness towards settled civilizations in general, rather towards a certain ethnic group. i guess this might have triggered their genocidal behaviors in the times of nomadic conquests.
it's still hard to discern whether this would make them "genociders" for the record though. The line between "plundering" and "commiting genocide" blurs when talking about nomads, and often times you see cases like when Kyrgyz nomads destroyed the Uyghur Empire along with its people and just.. left 🤷♂️
it's a tough topic really.
hope someone else takes off from here. this is as far as i know lol.
Ben Kierman was an apologist for the Pol Pot regime and a denier of the Khmer Rouge genocide while it was happening. He failed to spot genocidal ideology BECAUSE he was looking for these 4 themes. You aren't going to find 1 in a regime that seeks to do away with history and culture prior to a declared "year zero", or 2 in an ideology that characterizes private land ownership as exploitative and treasonous.
Source?
@@enraikow6109 "The Wrong Man to Investigate Cambodia" by Stephen J. Morris and "Grantsmanship and the Killing Fields" by Peter Rodman
And the USA funded the Khmer Rouge for at least 6 years, oops 🤷♂️
Sometimes it isn't even an idealized past. Sometimes things change for the worse within 5 or 10 years people will realize that their past is objectively better because they lived in it.
That's not what he was talking about though with that point.
Eh?
As someone who was born in the year 2000, things have done nothing but go downhill. And there's no one to blame but us and our government, it's our fault as a society, not the randos coming across the border.
And also yeah, since I was narry a teeth suckling babe, I certainly don't know first hand the geo political climate of the 2000s, much less the 90s, yet we keep on hearing about how good it was.
@@tessaPMpro I was referring to one of his foundational points
@@EzekielDeLaCroix then it seems you missed the point or misunderstood it.
@paulbunyangonewild7596 yeah people say that because of nostalgia bias. Every generation thinks the decade they grew up in was the best and so much better than the present.
fellas, is it genocidal to be a farmer
Only if you enjoy it.
Yes
Over here in Nigeria, it is the herders who often attack the farmers.
His definition was bad and biased.
@Abdullahgnathodus Farmers are literally the base of civilization... They do the exact opposite of forcing everyone to be farmers, they enable everyone else to do whatever work is profitable and still eat.
4. This contradicts #2. (I mean so did the Colonialism example.)
The more obvious explanation for the trend is that expanding empires are generally the ones with the means to eradicate smaller groups.
Not exactly. The concept of “chosen land” in number two is nonsensical because it assumes a god or higher power is granting your people that land. Because no one can interact with that higher power, leaders can expand the claims of what constitutes the “chosen land”, leading to the concept in number four.
Manifest destiny, the white mans burden, god/gold/glory, the “breathing room” argument used by Hitler. These are example of leaders arguing in favor of genocidal ideologies. The genocide isn’t always overtly stated, but to accomplish the proposed goal would usually require extermination of whoever lived there first.
@@TheBenjaminArgo Yeah, so nationalism plus expansionism. An empire. Empires conquer things.
Conquest is violence for the sake of utility. Genocide is violence plus dehumanization and to an extent that exceeds utility. (Hitler devoting resources to ramping up killing Jews in preference to shoring up the Nazi's last stand at the end of the war).
The question should be "what kind of philosophy makes a group of people value the extermination of people they hate over their own material benefit?" And the answer is of course extreme vilification. Usually by making that group the scapegoat for the society's actual sources of discontent.
@@777Looper I don't agree that nationalism + expansionism = empire. More recent Empires (last 300 years), yes. Older ones, not necessarily. I think Nationalism and the "nation-state" concept are more recent developments in human history, a more extreme form of earlier tribalism.
Also, not all Empires require genocide or expand using genocidal ideology (as defined by the video). There is definitely a strong correlation between genocide happening as an Empire occurs, but genocide can also happen on much smaller scales within a kingdom or nation. You definitely bring up some good points about Empire/Genocide but I don't think your earlier point about contradiction between 2 and 4 stands.
Cool discussion though.
@@TheBenjaminArgo Unless you're saying that people thought of "this land" and "that land" as the same thing, which it is historically *extremely* clear they didn't, then the two points are actually saying the opposite things. "How do you know if a political ideology is inclined to genocide? 1. It's obsessed with its own land. 2. It's obsessed with land that it doesn't own."
And moving to the more general assertion "genocides are generally committed by groups with strong connection to/desire for land" is uselessly broad.
The first describes literally all cultures prior to the modern era (Yes even nomads. They were on regular circuits.) It is only in the highly artificialized and globally connected world that a strong sense of place has become absented from culture.
And the second describes every expansionist group. And surely not all expansion via force/economy is properly understood/best explained as being genocidal.
It doesn't. It's viewing areas that are not under your control as rightfully yours.
There is a worrying amount of people in this comment section who are like "well I don't care about genocide"
It is partial fear of life partial greed for opertunity of land. Humans are usually self centered to a degree, it is only once they realise what they can lose by fighting then they look for ways of peace. It is actually very simple but nobody would do it. Baby swap! mix bloodlines that kind of thing, once everybody is a mix of both then everyone can share the land because everyone is equal, good luck getting Palestinians and Israelis to marry each others children off and treat them with dignity and respect when they have families. It is the idea of pure blood that drives them, genetic cleanliness. Silliness to me we are all human created by God and deserve equality of sorts, or at the least a bit of respect and dignity.
I agree. Europeans (and Euro descent people) are like 15% of the world population and there's an ongoing genocide against us and no one recognizes that, its said to be a fringe thing or supremacist for whatever reason. Really sad. 😢
Wel i do understand when they feel powerless to prevent it even though its their own governement.
@@tinypanda2218
Yeah it do feel like that the powerlessness and such
No one cares until it happens, then it's all "why did this happen, why didn't anyone care", that's how it is for everything. It's not just genocide, people are just like that. That's why it's so important to care yourself, because no one else is going to.
How do these apply to Soviet Russia? There was no fetishisation of antiquity. And yet, between them, Lenin and Stalin committed genocide far worse than anything Hitler could achieve.
If I'm thinking right, they chose the romanovs and the previous Royals in power as their group to get rid of. Anyone that was against them they got rid of but with the starvation of their own people I'm not sure how it correlates beyond growing too big or not being able to control corruption and fear within the system
«Between them, Lenin and Stalin committed g-cide far worse than anything Hitler could achieve»
How the heck did you manage to come to this absolutely wild conclusion
@@AlinaProbably - the low end estimate of Stalin's bloodlust is about 10 million, the high end around 60 million. The truth is, as they say, probably closer to the middle, so call it 30 million.
@@smokedbrisket3033 And? These are just isolated numbers about Stalin, which was only one of the parts of your statement
P.S. Also even these numbers don't tell me anything. You're treating a few dozen million like it's nothing, what are these numbers? The people who perished due to Stalin's repressions or the overall number of deaths during the time he was in power, including WWII, where an estimated 20 million of people died? Please specify what the numbers you're citing are
@@AlinaProbably - those are the numbers estimated that Stalin had murdered, apart from WWII. Holodomor alone was as many as 10 million.
This definition feels too flexible to help people. We see Hamas and Likud pop up here. You could also point out the ACS colonization of Liberia. Then you get to Zanu-PF and ANC which probably fit this as well. China's crackdown on historically Islamic cultures probably falls under it. The states next to Russia which have attempted to de-russify could also fall under this.
hi, i kinda suck at world politics, but it does sound like all of these are or are close to be genocidal ideologies (close to be = they are not launching missiles but are implicitly making it easier for certain groups of people to be mistreated or starve). where exactly are you drawing the line? (this is genuine plz dont hate me
@@mariazitelli8587 IDK. That's the biggest problem I have with this methodology. The term "genocidal ideology" hold a lot of weight and this seems to make it uncomfortably easy to throw around against a lot of groups.
@@thes6550 got it, thanks. If it helps, it's sounding to me that it's easy to give such names to many groups because that's the standard for very long (i'd say since colonization) And now they're just using what seems to have worked for the actual hegemonies
@@thes6550maybe the reason why it applies to a lot of groups is because a lot of groups have genocidal ideas 🤔🤔
@@Yaggerbomba If you're comfortable with that, go ahead and use it that way. Just recognize this could make you a supporter of a group with genocidal ideas.
The second part you explain it as an ancestral land.
But both manifest destiny and labensraum, were for new land not old land.
Same with Roman imperialism. Same with Russian imperialism (not modern this one actually fits, im talking about the Tzardom), imperial Japan, no old land, but an east asian coprosperity sphere.
OMG how could i forget the MONGOLS they are the opposite of worshipping land. Not only did they not care for land, litteraly worshipped the sky AND were the most genocidal of them all.
Comanche similar deal, nomadic killed everyone, not for some old land (im no expert on great plains cultures) if i understand correctly for prestige.
Spanish conquistadors were litteraly in the new world.
While on that note Aztecs, they belived themselves to be foroigners in the land they lived in and used that to justify otherising their vassals and victims.
I think the point about land doesnt stand.
(Sorry for my bad english)
Well, at least Germany's case, they wanted Germany to themselves, and then they wanted MORE Germany to themselves.
Ukraine happened to be “More Germany” enough for them.
@@GraingyAircraft They justified it as labensraum, not as irredentism
You make a great point despite some grammatical errors good on you for practicing English.
@@SabirothCarastor Thanks. Some English words have hard spelling on purpose.
Like the word for a person living close by, and word for a person living far away.
The mongols werent really genocidal, they rather to spare cities than seige them
wow Isreal really do be checking those boxes, god damn.
Not really
@@AaronGeller Let me rewatch the video and compare everything he said to Zionism.
1 Cults of Antiquity - Zionists argue that Israel’s existence is contingent upon the fact that the land of Palestine belongs to the Jewish people because of the existence of the Kingdom of Israel: an ancient kingdom founded by the Jews that lasted from c. 1047 BCE-930 BCE. It should also be noted that many Zionists and Israeli nationalists consider the kingdom of Israel to be a golden age in Jewish history. Since Israel’s claim to statehood is based on the existence of this ancient Jewish kingdom, it qualifies as a cult of antiquity.
2 Fetishization of land and/or agriculture - It is no secret that Israel has been stealing land from the Palestinians and using said stolen land to build Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law. It is no secret that Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian land since at least 1948. And it is also no secret that Israel completely disregards international law concerning Palestinian rights and sovereignty. Why? The reason is simple: Israel wants ALL of Palestine’s land. All of the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea is land that Israel considers to be their land. You can even see it in the way Israel refers to different parts of Palestine. For example, the international community refers to the Palestinian territory of the West Bank is simply the West Bank. However, the Israeli government official name for the West Bank is the Judea and Samaria district. Why is the Israeli name for the West Bank different than the one that used by the international community and the Palestinians themselves? Simple because Israel doesn’t see the West Bank is Palestinian territory. They see the West Bank as Israeli territory waiting to be “liberated” from the Palestinians.
3 Ethnic hatred - Do I really need to explain this one? It is absolutely no secret that Israel hates the Palestinians. This can be seen in the way Israeli government officials describe Palestinian people. For example: "We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly." - Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Nothing says “I hate Palestinians” as much as comparing them to animals. Not just that but ever since the fall of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, Israel has been the only apartheid state that still exist today. Palestinians living in Israel in the occupied territories are subject to military courts and military law. Meanwhile, Israeli citizens are subject to civilian courts and live under civilian law.
4 Expansion - Israel has made it clear, through the illegal settlements in the West Bank, that they are not afraid to see his land and expand living spaces for Israeli Jewish settlers. There are also plans being drawn up by Israeli government officials for settlement of Gaza once the genocide in the Gaza Strip has been completed. The Israeli government is already drafting contracts with real estate companies to sell beachfront property to Israeli settlers. In addition, at least 200 Israeli families have signed up for settlement programs that will help them settle in Gaza.
If you have any questions, or wish to see any proof supporting my argument, please feel free to get in touch with me. I have the exact same username on Discord that I have on CZcams. Thank you.
@@AaronGellerYes really
Wow you really be buying anti semitic propaganda 😂😂😂😂
@@hubb8049prove it
Really interesting points, but I'm curious if there could be a causation vs correlation thing happening here. I mean nostalgia for tradition isn't bad unless of course the tradition itself is immoral . And protecting your land can be necessary for the survival of the people on that land. I think the best indicator of a potential genocide is whether or not the people believe in the intrinsic value of human life.
Please could you elaborate on the “tradition itself is immortal” point?
@@mattw2308 lol my bad. Meant to say "immoral". Thanks for catching that.
This is a bunch of bs literally 99% of history is defined by these things. It’s just a way to demonize normal human behavior
Well I don’t think it’s bad to like traditional stuff. But I think what he meant was believing that your traditions trump other traditions in importance. That your group was chosen in some way. For instance Christian’s often had this problem, and when you look at the crusades and all the deaths and problems they caused, you can see how if they had the means, they would’ve murdered everybody there to get back their land that they had a religious right to.
@@firemaster2191 which is objectively true. Again all this video does is demonize normal human behavior.
So Zionism?
No question
Theyre the first ones in doing it
Yes, ((they)) are the ones doing it.
Funnily enough also applies to Islam. Figures why they can’t agree on anything.
Yes.
Bro just described zionism
And Islam, ironic isn’t it?
@@bendriscoll4758Delete this and never come close to a keyboard for the rest of your life
@@giorgospapoutsakis5271 What? Like Iran is justified in sentencing people to death for apostacy? How incredible! Or lets look at the dark ages too, like slavery wasn't just another form of genocide? Or forced assimilation, "No let's just say it's a 'cultural shift' or something nice." You know this is honest and you're ignorant to not blame EVERY party possible.
i feel like the nostalgia for the past is a correlation, usually in any poor economic times people get nostalgic for a fake past and hungry people are more angry, theres also often an esoteric element to fascist groups
The Weimar Republic was definetly real, though. In fact, that whole thing gained so much traction because much of the German public knew how things were before WW1.
1. So if a society that's obsessed with some vision of the future decides to eradicate a group of people on the grounds that they're "obsessed with an idealized version of the past", then that isn't genocide. (By this guy's definition.)
Okay copy that. Carry on...
The video is about "How to spot a genocidal ideology," not "What is genocide?"
He just listed four common themes, and said nothing to exclude certain things from the definition of genocide. What are you on about?
@@VoxaPopsa No no. When the title is "How to spot a genocidal ideology" and the conclusion is "people with this political outlook must be kept out of power at all costs", it is very appropriate to take a bit of time to poke around for any inconsistencies.
@@777Looper A list of four characteristics that define a dog is not inconsistent with a list of four different characteristics that also define a dog.
@@rdkirk3834Everything he said can literally be applied to anyone who thinks of "how things should be".
Wow. Many native cultures fit these four criteria, my own included. But calling for our political suppression won't lead to genocide?
I think you are full of it buddy.
Here in Brazil, the conservative bench in the National Congress is called BBB (bullet, bull and bible) or Balas, bois e Bíblia in portuguese.
That is, the most amazing thing, I've ever seen in my life
@@craig2196its def not amazing, theyre responsible for majorly holding brazil back
@@Matheus_Brazthere's a word "Bible" in it, of course It's amazing!
@@Matheus_Braz Brazil has been held back way before this was a thing
@@wickeddave5148 Reactions like yours really show me how easy it is to manipulate the average voter.
Bet you didn't even read anything their party actually stands for, just judging based on the name.
For anyone smugly watching this thinking that this refers to everyone you disagree with, if you can’t think of at least one historical example of a genocide that doesn’t fit each of these themes, you don’t know enough history to be smug, and blind faith in an ideological intellectual class has led to the majority of the biggest manmade mass deaths in history.
Anyone with critical thinking skills should be looking at the groups they support and making sure they’re not dangerously close to those ideologies. Not all genocidal ideologies result in genocides. Sometimes they’re tempered by saner voices within the group. It’s when the most extreme people with those ideologies get power and also sink into groupthink, expelling anyone who questions them, that things get bad.
@@evilsharkey8954 I think both statements are true
@@evilsharkey8954the problem is, you never know how things will develop.
Looking at the history of my country, Germany, the liberals and conservative were pretty sure the extremists within the Nazi party would be contained by a more moderate majority. But that wasn't the case.
So I go with Niemöller here, one shouldn't wait too long, because suddenly you realise things are going the wrong direction, but those who understood it in time are already in jail, abroad or dead and you don't have any help left.
@@helgaioannidis9365 The Nazis were a more obvious threat, with their overt hatred for Jews, even if genocide wasn’t on their platform. They also checked all the boxes on another threat that people too often ignore: authoritarianism. That’s the one I’m more worried about in the US. One of our candidates checks every box, but his supporters either don’t believe it or don’t care because they believe they’ll be on the right side and never suffer the effects of it. This is why it’s so important to teach world history.
@@evilsharkey8954 a lot of people just don't want to see it.
E.g. the Turkish government and parts of the parliament follow a genocidal ideology, glorifying the conquering of Constantinople as most glorious achievement of their ancestors, pushing a narrative that Greece practically stole "their" islands, openly threatening to repeat what happened in Izmir 100 years ago and saying that Turkyie with its growing population "needs space and deserves" a bigger part of the Aegean. Yet nobody in Europe adresses this, because it's an important NATO member.
I've been saying for years that Trump is an openly declared fascist, but I'm not sure if he plans on a genocide. Do you see indicators for that?
2. So if a nomadic group decides to eradicate the agrarians who are screwing up their pasturing route, that's not genocide. Or if a group was forced to leave their native soil and decide to eradocate the native residents of some better soil, that's not genocide.
Makes sense.
The motivation is still land/agriculture. So that would still count as genocide.
At least: if i’m understanding this correctly.
If a nomadic group does believe in all these things they still have a genocidal ideology, and if they manage to carry out genocide it’s still genocide. But chances are it is the agricultural society with the ability to organise it.
You didn't watch the video then i assume. Genocidal ideology =/= Genocide
Someone's missing a few braincells
Sounds like anti-Palestinian dog-whistling to me lol.
"i have a masters degree in human rights"
Me, with a PhD in human wrongs: 🗿
"so basically genocide is the people I disagree with." The fact that religion or ideology wasn't even mentioned as a key factor shows how invalid this is alone.
Religion tends to get (ab-)used as part of the “cult of antiquity” and this whole video is about ideology.
He didn't say that at all but yes, I do think you should disagree with anyone who wants genocide. Crazy that this is a hot take to you, you must have some violent desires
Any cohesive group posses these 4 values. Ancestor worship, love of country, ethnic centrism (hatred of the out group) is the most natural human behaviour and Lastly expansion. Or rather we need resources and you have them. A masters degree to reach conclusions that mean nothing. 👏 Waste of money. So the ideal is what? A selfish mono generational person, who doesn't value any land, country or border, doesn't care about in group bonds or deems a stranger equal to family and lastly no expansion. We just sit on the rock we're on and starve. Cool story bro.
You're conflating fetishisation with appreciation. There is a massive difference between "blood and soil" and the four common values you're describing.
@@TheBryce98 No there really isn't. If you need to summon up a virtue and it lies within a life story, or myth of you ancestors leaning into that isn't fetishism. It's the correct way to oreint your psyche. I suggest you read the poem the 'The Stranger' by Rudyard Kipling. Just because people may look similar or share common language doesn't make them the same culture or group. Also a fetish is a corruption of something. Building statues to your fallen heroes and God's, Wearing symbols that your culture holds dear isn't a fetish. It's a expression of identity. It's just scary for an out group that can't imagine believing in anything so abstract, so strongly.
@@TheBryce98 If your ancestors possess a virtue which you don't; be it within a story, a life work or a myth it's not fetishism to manifest it. Either in physical being, artwork or sculpture. It's the correct way to orient your psyche. It's terrifying for the out group as they realise no matter how hard they try they can't have an authentic bond with these abstract ideas. I recommend you read the poem "The stranger" by Rudyard Kipling. Just because someone looks similar or speaks your language doesn't make them the same as you. They are merely imitations. Lastly "Blood and Soil" is so scary to the out group as again they can't easily gain access to the in group and be seen as part of it. As an example your family in your own home. That's the basis of blood and soil. All of your family are related by the blood of your mother and father. You don't need societal paper work to corroborate your foundations and bonds. If a stranger comes into your house they aren't your brother. They aren't the same as your father etc. So blood is a very real metric that most base life bonds on instinctively. Next soil. You own the deed to your house, if a stranger tries to break in are you goin to let them? If a unknown visitor barges over the threshold will you not stop them? Do you keep you front door closed to prevent intruders? The way you treat your house is how you should treat your country. Blood and soil is a basic mode of being. It's not responsible for Genocide.
It's like all of these things are just dubious and tolerable from a distance but then the "expansion" part comes in......
This is an interesting definition, but it doesn't really fit the Soviet genocides. Has further study been done since these initial findings?
I was thinking the same thing, as well as the maoist genocides.
It's just psychobabble nonsense made to perpetuate anti nationalism in European democracies. Anything which might restore a sense of national pride will be considered genocidal. Commies are these thinkers friends so such things don't enter into their analysis.
Well
Maybe instead of an ideolised glorious past, the ideolised a glorious future where communism dominated the world.
They do fetishize land and agriculture somewhat considering their very pro-farmer rethoric, thus holding in high regard those who till and therefore are closest to, the land
There was ethnic hatred in the USSR, for example, towards Ukranians since they were seen as counter-revolutionaries and, later, for Germans because of what they did during Oepration Barbarossa.
Lastly, the USSR clearly wanted to expand their lands in former Imperial borders since they took over the Baltics and tried to take over Poland and Finland.
They weren’t targeted specifically to ethnic groups so much as dissidents. Some of Stalin’s mass murders were genocidal but not all of them
Thats because there weren't soviet "genocides", that's cold war and ww2 propaganda (coming from either nazis or capitalist block). There were a lot of deaths, yes, but they weren't planned out to happen that way.
The soviet purge was a way to try to fight nazi infiltrators (wich was a real treat) but got the whole population and politicians paranoid because it created a self sustaining loop of mass paranoia, spiraling the situation out of control. Now something like the holodomor was indeed a famine that happened, but was not planned out, it was caused by a combination of natural conditions those years leading to bad harvests and poor resource management from the soviet government. The whole thing saying stalin wanted to kill ukranians came from the nazis at first, and US later bought into that narrative during the cold war era (feel free to look this up). If you think about it, it made no practical sense at all for the soviets to create a genocidal death in Ukraine at that point, that would be just counter intuitive. I won't go into other soviet or chinese "genocides" but short answer is: they weren't genocides. Sometimes a lot a people died, but it's more complicaded than just genocide this and that; and sometimes the whole thing is just made the fuck up by americans during the cold war, and we believe it still, because they won the cold war, but not all of them, of course.
How does the first and second apply to Rwanda?
This list is for Ideologies that are ALWAYS genocidal.
An Ideology can encourage Genocide without really meeting the Criteria in the video.
How, you May ask?
By only encourages Genocide based on the current Political climate.
(This is just my interperetation of the video.
And Opinion btw.)
I think an important note that is left unsaid in the video is that the "cult of antiquity" doesn't have to be correct. In the case of Rwanda (and also Nazi Germany) there may be a widespread belief that "this is the way it was in the good old days" even if that past isn't factually true. A good analog to this is modern day Wicca (not trying to throw shade), where many of the "ancient" rituals being practiced are outgrowths of syncretism and new age spiritualism rather than actual ancient traditions. So the idea that the Hutu and Tutsi were ancient enemies and had always been at odds with eachother may have been widely perceived as true, even if it was in actuality a fairly recent fabrication. I'm not well versed enough in the overall situation to comment on the second point, but that's my take on the first one.
Antiquity claimed by times before Tutsi migration
Expansion you can find even nowadays. What is Rwanda doing in Congo and what happened in Burundi? This country was expansionist since foundation
@@spaghettiisyummy.3623he actually said that himself, being genocidal and commiting genocide are two different things.
it's probably white supremacy
I won't doubt your credentials, but these are extremely specific circumstances, and certainly many genocidal regimes lacked several, and many that aren't have some of these features.
I have no degree, but I'm pretty sure all it really takes to identify a genocidal regime is an expressed desire to eradicate certain groups of people, or concerted efforts thereof.
They don't often hide it you know. It's generally stated within their manifesto or at rallies.
I think this is what happens when we try to make everything into a degree.
We convolute the conversation to be had, it just becomes a nothing burger.
@@brad5426 Basically.
This video used a lot of words to say that genocidal ideologies hate people that arent themselves and want to take over the world. Simple as that.
Spot on, it doesn't take much to know what a regime wants.
So basically having a culture and some land to go with it makes you a possible practitioner of genocide? I mean it's not wrong, but it's almost every country in the world right?
I think you’ve caught on. They consider them “genocidal” any type of people group who wish to work for their own self interest and be connected to nature. As opposed to people who willingly give money to people that make their society worse and are completely dissociated with the natural world.
zionist spotted?
@@thebrowncow441it's like you guys have a new buzzword and just go on using it without realising it makes you sound like an idiot. HOW is op a zionist?
That's literally any group that wants power. Literally any of them.
No
@@karlbjorn1831 Yes. How did the American revolution gain traction? George Washington gave farmers special concessions. Just like Cromwell and even Mao. Dude. There's an entire chapter dedicated to all of this in Machiavelli's Prince.
@@karlbjorn1831 and easy way to disprove him would be to provide a historic example of a world power that is not described by the factors listed in the video and didn't commit a genocide and i cant think of one. There are genocidal ideologies but this video paints a definition with such a broad brush that it unintentionally provides a checklist for the successful acquisition of power
This exactly. What he's describing is any nationalist movement in history. While it's true that all of these traits do describe genocidal ideation, they also describe a lot of _other_ things that aren't genocides. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
@BoomBangin Turkey was born genocidal. That's literally their entire history. Look at what they've done to the Greeks. I don't have to explain that to you. It's self-apparent. All of Anatolia was once Greek. It's not anymore. Let that sink in.
Soooo, are the Mongolians an exception or do they not count as genocidal because pastroralism?
Genuinely curious.
I'm not aware of any instances of mongolian-led genocides
@@CorbiniteVids Whoops, pardon me, are the historic Mongols an exception?
@@psychosytheXmediaXco honey I just said I wasn't aware of any instances. Ancient mongols certainly did a lot of warring and raiding. I know I don't approve of that if we're going there. But I'm not aware of any instances of them deliberately targeting an entire ethnic group for elimination, which is what genocide is. A reasonable response would be to just say "well there was the x genocide" and then I could look that up and learn something.
@@CorbiniteVids Well for it to be called "the x genocide" I would have to already be convinced that it's a genocide, which would make the point of this comment thread somewhat moot. So I would point towards Genghis Khan's campaigns to unite the Mongol tribes, also possibly the Conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire, not as direct examples of genocide, but as wider conflicts in which you may find instances of what you would consider genocide, or not. No need to honey me.
This describes literally every country/people that own land. There is always an out group that is contra the land owning group. Those with more knowledge of land operation or perceived land operation will hate those that waste it.
There’s one question I have for this subject: what if - as unlikely as it might be - one hand both the means and ideology for this act…yet doesn’t actually do it?
That's like a starving person sitting at a table with food, wanting to eat but still not doing it. Utter insanity
@@thomas.thomasthat's ridiculous and insane, most traditional societies are like this but still prioritize peace because that's most pragmatic for survival in the modern world. This is just pathologizing natural human group behavior.
That means (generally) that outright genocide isn't feasible, and cultural assimilation will probably occur
@@Nightmartlet how can territorial expansion and peace be pursued hand in hand?
@@aunnaqvi3133 read it again, I said
societies might have that desire, but in the modern world will prioritize peace out of pragmatism, meaning they will prioritize that OVER expansion. Valuing territory =/= actively pursuing expansion.
When you see that mindset in current events but people get so upset when you point it out
*A _fantasy_ of an idealized past. I'm yet to see a genocidal regime idealize a past that actually happened.
This video has helped me a lot in understanding genocidal societies and how people can do things like this to an ‘other’ despite being of the same species (sometimes even the same family)
I’ve been reading a series on Reddit called Nature of Predators, where humanity explores the stars and finds a federation of about 200 species or so whose main ideology is that ‘prey is the only true sapience in the galaxy' which i found to be a really interesting concept. And as you may have guessed there cant be only prey animals on even a singular planet, which is how the genocide comes into play, in order to keep prey creatures on top, they burn any corpse and any predator they can to discourage any predatory behavior in the herd. so this video really helps to bridge the gap in understanding how such an extreme ideology could potentially be followed by hundreds of species each with their own idea of what is right.
there's a few quotes that i keep coming back to from a specific character in the series, but one he says; “it is our beliefs that can make a thing good or evil."
After all, you don’t have to be insane to kill someone, you just have to think you’re right.
A nature of predators comment in the wild!
@@venlil Oh my, it seems i have been found!
@@arandomguy1336 indeed you have!
By these standards Stalin's USSR or Mao's China wouldn't be considered a genocidal ideology, but we both know that they commited atrocities. I think the problem is getting the order wrong, you don't commit genocide based on your ideology, you want to commit genocide and THEN create an ideology to justify that. But these 4 things aren't the only justifications.
Like i mentioned, Mao used the idea of "progress" to justify the famines and extermination of millions of people.
These are more "overarching similarities" then stone cold truths
@@i_dont_pay_taxes491but they're not, these are only true for the conventionally "ultra-right wing" genocidal ideologies. But my point still stands, you don't commit genocide because of ideology, you create an ideology to justify genocide.
Because they weren't genocidal
@@Enceladus2106lmao, really? Killing 60 million of your own citizens from famines or executing 2 million property owners because they were "evil money hungry capitalists", all that isn't genocide?
@@Enceladus2106They purged people, culture, and religion by the tens of millions and their country changed fundamnetally as a result of the exterminations. They were genocides. Russian and Chinese culture was purged out of existence. What you see now is a shallow reflection of their former selves.
a "master's degree in human rights"? Yeah, I call BS
He's right, you know. I have a PhD in powerscaling so I could attest that Goku solos your favorite verse.
mans roasted Israel without roasting Israel
my thoughts exactly lmao
Indeed.
I grew up there and all these themes are 100% on point for Israeli society. They’re all incredibly major parts of Israeli culture.
You are 1 for 4.
Only cultural enmity fits from the 4 points and even that is debateable
@@potzko2552 why don't You explain why doesnt apply point by point?
Ok. I have this country that is pretty much hitting all of these flags. What do we do about it then?
Well the world have to step in
Well according to the UN they are not in fact doing what you claim. Then again you are mostly just mad they are not being destroyed.
Islam/Islamism fits this perfectly. Especially with how it's caused several genocides and attempted many genocidal acts all throughout history.
islam doesn't contain a trace of ethnic nationalism
@@munkbok are you delusional? The spread of Islam across the MENA literally included mass-Arabization. It replaced tons and tons of languages with Arabic, and where it failed to do so it replaced their scripts with the Arabic script which is often very clunky and mismatched. Not to mention its replacement of a lot of cultures' traditional architecture & clothing, as well as the various racist hadiths from Muhammad where he calls Berbers disgusting, calls blacks "raisinheads", trades several black slaves for pale concubines & he and Ali say Arabs are among the best of creation who will "inherit the Earth". There's also the fact that most Muslims are made to pray & read Qur'an exclusively in Arabic, and Muslims berate you relentlessly if you criticize the religion if you're not an Arabic speaker. There are more examples but these are just a few off the top of my head.
Most religions can/have been used to justify ethnic superiority, it's just a matter of material conditions that bring about that aspect. Due to events starting in the 20th century, the Islamic world has been under an enormous amount of socioeconomic and international/political stress, so it's only natural for ethnonationalism to arise, just as it arised in Germany after world War 1. This is not inherent to Islam, just as nazism is not inherent to Germans. If you truly want Islamic radicalism to end, then call for an end to the endless wars that have shaped their material conditions rather than promoting the very propaganda that led to those conditions to arise in the first place.
@@gwgwgwgwgwgwgwgwgw Alright you're completely ignoring what I wrote down. Thanks.
@@joey_youtube Nope, I didn't
The writer he cites literally helped prosecute the Khmer Rouge and some of u call this video “an idiot with a degree citing another idiot with a degree”. Why are u so defensive and insecure about listening to experts with a lifetime of research and experience? Afraid someone will tell u ur wrong? About genocide?
Lmao yeah they don't wanna know, they don't wanna admit it
In theory because the court will listen to 3rd hand knowledge they have no awareness of cuz it sounds like a court of peers doesnt know shit anyway so the best tool to use in persecution is marketing not reason.
What is kmer rouge?
You just described Israel
The land of Israel does indeed belong to Israel only...
However, Israel hates no one, and hurts no one that doesn't hurt them.
@@achilles7607 How delusional are you, Hasbara troll? Literally fits every single point in the video.
@@achilles7607if its true why vote agaigst considering food as a human right.?
@@tinypanda2218
What?
Please make your question more clear...
@@Hypnoticbauch
Israel hates no one and hurts no one who doesn't hurt them.
The belief that a certain land belongs to a certain nation is a universal belief that all nations of the world believe in. But Israel doesn't teach hate, Israel teaches peace. Israel hurts no one, only defend herself.
Jeez. We really need not to give them more $$$ and weapons.
Director of genocide studies is such a baller title
So Israel, basically.
Yes, the nation of small hat people
It actually checks off the checklist.
Palestine too actually
@@jay-kx7ue erm, genocide is only white "people" behavior
i think he means Repubs and Trumpists in this instance.
Hard disagree with 1. Remembering your roots after years of displacement and hardship is not "genocidal" ideology
If you aren't calling out Zionism, then you aren't a serious person.
This
i disagree
Zionism is simply the right of Jews to self determination. If you oppose it you are an anti semite
Define Zionism
Under this logic, God would not be a serious person and i think even the tinniest bit of biblical knowledge would disprove the idea that god is not serious.
The fact that these characteristics can apply to multiple parts of the world is scaring the shit out of me.
Cry a river
In other words, how to create the perfect genocidal ideology
There is this dilemma in my mind. On one hand, my language and culture is fading and being pushed out, not necessarily becaus ethe people in power are evil, but becaus ethey simply do not care. I wish for them to be pushed back or adopt the ways of my language and culture. On the other hand, i wish not to punish someone because they are born and simply exist.
Where are you from?
@@arthurcosta4643 The nation of the way to the north
@@thevillager8339 Do you mean Norway?
80% of your population is native norwegian, and other 10% are of european ethinicity, and this is assuming some of those european descendants did not adopt norwegian culture already.
Your culture is absolutely fine.
@arthurcosta4643 except half practically speaks Danish, and the other half speaks various forms of actual Norwegian in decay. Also, the Sami are fine. They should own their land more
@@thevillager8339 No language decays. Dialects arise with time, but this is not the same as decay.
Is Norwegian just a decayed version of old norse?
This applies 100% to Israel and zionism
Shhh you obviously misunderstood the message he was trying to sneak past you
Both Israel and Palestine:
1. Belive that they should have the land because their people lived there for many years
2. Belive that they own the land
3. Both hate each other
4. Both Belive that the other shouldn't exist
Funny how it doesn't apply to Palestinians and Islam.
@@edwinamendelssohn5129 It does 😆
@@DinoBryce the genocidal ideology is Islam.
Ok, what to do if such group is already in power when they start showing these signs?
Hmmm I mean I'm not an expert but in my humble opinion...
*Run.*
Interesting explanations- and that is all they are.
“Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem-neat, plausible, and wrong.”
-H. L. Mencken
People from many sides of the political spectrum really going through it after watching this lol.
While I'm against labelization, I found this quite interesting. These traits can be found in most... almost all of the modern societies.
Which is why these lists are not useful imo (same with that Umberto Eco “traits of fascism” list that gets passed around).
They don’t actually capture distinctive features of genocidal ideology, they just describe characteristics that are to some degree ubiquitous.
Happening in Palestine as we speak
3. Okay this one actually makes sense. In order to form the will to eradicate a different ethnic group, they have to be identifiable as an ethnic group and have cultural values that differ from yours.
Almost tautological.
I believe people are subconsciously wired to feel a certain way towards a certain word more than others and thus when trying to emphasize a part or feeling of something, they use that word without factoring in the technicalities.
Example, since the word genocide holds a lot more weight that democide, people intentionally or unintentionally include things that are democide INTO genocide to emphasize its terribleness, even though democide just means mass killing of everyone regardless of any defining trait, really.
What's my point with this? I believe that we should try to remove and halt anyone from any seat of power with democidal tendencies or politics, of which are very much different from just genocidal politics.
For example, pol pot, mao, stalin, and hitler actually have similar ideologies where it was basically a revolution where traditions are thrown away and the new ideology arrives to sweep the people into prosperity. Out with the old regimes and in with the new sort of thing.
Also, yes, i do believe communism is inherently fascist as in, no matter what, it naturally and inevitably ends up being "all for the state, nothing outside of the state, and anything against the state is capital sin." I believe nazism is just honest and sincere fascism and that the word "socialism" in national socialism is not incorrect.
"Director of Genocide Studies" is insanely badass sounding title that immediately becomes terribly bleak after merely a moment of thought.
In conclusion, this is obviously just a convoluted way to argue that rural (agrarian) conservatives are inherently (and even uniquely) genocidal, and that politically opposing them and supporting urban progressives is morally (or literally) equivalent to preventing genocide.
You're right
Would this video fall under the Dehumanization stage then? I mean he doesn’t call them something other than human but he does morally equate them as a genocidal group.
@@davidscott9394 lol
But no I think it's still just slander.
There is a difference between dehumanization and "mere" demonization.
"You have an evil ideology" is different from "you are inherently unqualified as a truth-seeking moral agent".
Though, if the implication goes as far as "those who have been socially formed within a rural conservative framework will inevitably be predisposed to genocide until they have fully deconstructed their upbringing" then yeah. I think that counts.
That's a disingenuous take. Rural communities could lack any one of these traits and not be considered genocidal. For example, rural communities could welcome immigrants and people with other ways of life with hospitality, or let people with urban ways of life be free of their demonization. They could live with the freedom that they are already privy to and be content that others are doing the same, even if they don't "agree" with them.
But a group that 1) Idealizes the 1950s way of life and wants EVERYONE ELSE to live that way, 2) Mythologizes their divine right to America and desires to "take it back" under some banner (Christian nationalism for example) 3) Believes America (their land) is only for people like them (Christian, white, non-immigrant, cis-heterosexual, conservative), and 4) Desires to spread this ideology to other areas and/or take them over (Cities, Blue states, the third world, the second world, ect), would absolutely be classified as genocidal. If you've noticed that "Rural Conservatives" have these qualities, then you've noticed a problematic group that shouldn't make decisions for the entire country. Not only does the ideology want to cast out people that ARE Americans, but their policies aren't in the best interest of everyone living here, and many of them are shaped around the removal of freedoms that everyone should have from these "target groups".
@@thecreatornooj1328 Wanting society and culture to be a certain way does not make you genocidal. (Moral subjectivism is not a necessary sacrifice for avoiding authoritarianism or dehumanization. They are in fact very difficult to avoid if humans are not allowed to make meaningful assertions about reality. You just need to evaluate those assertions under the authority of evidence and reason, rather than threat of force.)
I do agree that hyperfixation on group identity and a preference for advancing your ideology/special interest via censure and violence over public discourse and democratic process does begin to lay the groundwork for atrocities like genocide.
What you want is a culture and system of government that maximally affirms and facilitates the citizen's capacity as truth seeking moral agents. i.e. is maximally humanizing.
What we have is an infantilizing education system, a hedonistic pop culture, a tribalistic main stream media, and an authoritarian government.
I do have some hope that people are figuring out that what we're doing isn't working. I just hope that enough of the old liberal western tradition is found intact to let us land relatively on our feet when it's time once again to pay the old historical piper of cultural decadence.
damn this video Israelly good
💀
"I have a master's degree in human rights.
Wow, now that's a bullshit degree if I've ever heard of one.
Wait till you see one in human lefts
My 5 year old believes in a genocidal ideology (he misses the days where he didn't have to go to school)
Seeing points being checked in my own country and not really being surprised anymore
At first I thought this was an "orange man bad" video, but this is actiually really interesting.
I think the third point should be changed to "Collective blame of a certain group/ethnicity" because you have the Bolshevik's burguosie, the Nazi party's Jewish thieves and the christian Church's Muslim heretics to name a few.
Also, one more thing is that genocide breeds genocide, for example, the spanish conquistadors brutally slaughtered the Natives because they themselves were being slaughtered by the Ottomans, which only began their campaign of genocide because they were prosecuted by the Mongols and tried to get as big of an advantage as they could against other potential invaders.
Sorry for the yapping session, not many people actiually sit down and talk about this stuff like rational adults.
I realize now that I haven't really elaborated on the whole "collective blame" thing, so this is a continuation of my yap session.
In pretty much all of the examples, the genocide was justified because group A is responsible for problem B. That's pretty much all my argument there sums up to, if anyone needed some clarification.
Also this is pretty much the root of the Israel - Palestine war (shocking, I know), where the Zionists really didn't have much of a foothold with the general population until Hamas made his "we will push them into the sea" speech. This sent the Jews into a panic because most Islamic states have been radicalizing pretty fast (also the Holocaust is burned into every Jewish person's mind), and when people panic, radical ideas that show a clear bad guy that has to be beaten gives people comfort in showing people an enemy in an otherwise murky and ambiguous crisis. The citizens of the Islamic states then hear about the radicalizing Jews, they get angry, the Jews get angry, and the cycle goes on and on and on. The worst part is that the only way the people that started this whole mess get what they deserve is that the other side wins and inacts their "justice", which leaves one group disproportionally worse off, the young men of the winning side are scarred for life and one side of the pople who benefit from all this get to walk off scot-free,.
Great comment
@@slavic_commonwealth Thank you
@@Kokolitofora The zionist colonization of the Westbank started in 1967, Hamas was founded in 1987.
It was a zionist extremist that killed Rabin because of peace talks with the PLO. An assasination that Netanyahu and Ben Givr are involded in.
Israel made sure Hamas won the elections in Gaza, becasue they needed a terrorist organisation to frustrate any talks of peace with the Palestinians.
Claiming that zionists had no power in Israel before 2014 is just you making history fit your conclusions.
What gave you the “orange man bad” concern?
Because if they line up that well then _hooo boy_ that is *NOT* a good sign.
Zionism checks all the boxes
Same with the GOP
Palestinians also tick these boxes, except unlike the Israelis, they're unable to put their plan in action
@@romanscum5678 Palestinians are not an ideology. Furthermore, Arabs ruled Jews and Christians for hundreds of years before the Turks did. If they wanted to genocide Jews, they would have done that long ago.
@@romanscum5678Both Israel and Palestine:
1. Belive that they should have the land because their people lived there for many years
2. Belive that they own the land
3. Both hate each other
4. Both Belive that the other shouldn't exist
interesting how the first commenter said that an ideology was violent and is a problem. Then you replied by saying that an entire ethnic is violent and is a problem. What do you plan to do about this problem ethnic group? Do you have some kind of final solution to fix the problem and protect those they threaten?
The idealized past especially reminds me of modern conservative extremists and their obsession with ancient Rome and Greece
Rome? Greece? What conservatives are you talking to?
Yeah, it's crazy how obsessed with classical culture some Americans are and have been... Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, obviously MAGA neo-Nazis one and all.
@@brucetucker4847 You just listed 3 great men. Why shouldn’t we be proud of them?
@@Pospolite-Ruszenie Well, I think we should be. But they had the "obsession" with classical Greece and Rome that slartybartfast says indicated a genocidal ideology. For that matter, so did the whole Renaissance. Also, canceled because slavery.
@@brucetucker4847 I mean he said modern conservatives, most conservatives aren’t obsessed with either Ancient Rome or Greece. They are on average more focused on great men from their own countries history. So in the US they are mostly obsessed with the founding fathers aswell as a few other presidents.
So the prerequisite to genocide is having a culture and wanting to win a war. Seems like a low bar.
Chosen people and a promised land... That sounds familiar.
*cough cough* Israel *cough cough*
oy vey
@@xmcererEverything said apply to both far right zionists and hamas militants
@@thalesanastacio760 Zionism is inherently far right
@@xmcerer It really isn't
Well, well, well... "Funny" how we can connect this to a specific group of people who is committing genocide right now but will use a past genocide as an excuse for being unable of any wrongdoings...
Yeh The funny looking guys that hide in sewers
"If Israelis don't want to be compared to the nazis, all they need is to stop acting like nazis." -Norman Finkelstein
I'm proudly the opposite of genocidal ideologies. I hold a positive view of the future, fetishize cities (especially futuristic architecture), and support ethnic diversity.
massively based.
Ethnic diversity don’t work. I’m not saying that it’s something you shouldn’t support because it is already here and you can’t exactly send them out but you shouldn’t support it either because that only leads to mass immigration and cultural diversity which leads to an unstable society which leads to radical ideas which leads to segregation
And segregation leads to radical ideas again which just furthers this divide
And futuristic architecture is disgusting
It’d be nicer if every city could stick to their roots and build building that match up with how they historically have built building because that makes every country different and more interesting to visit
1:52 a bit skeptical on this, after all there are claims homo sapiens wiped out the other hominids before they even discovered agriculture and they were nomadic themselves. Also mongols...
Yeah, we all know who this guy is trying to talk trash about. It’s a little nauseating as well
There is 0 evidence homo sapiens wiped out other hominids. There is plenty of evidence behind the points made in the video
Guy just listed the ideologies of every country thats ever existed. 1. You're way underplaying this concept and its not just ideals of the past its usually some form of envisioned nirvana or utopia such as that of communism or the closeely related socialism. 2. Every country fought for their peoples land and would still fight to keep it safe dont believe me try putting a chinese blimp over American air. 3. Ethnic enmity Is kinda right if not a little vague cause ethnic differences arent a requirement of genocide. And also because its obvious you are attempting to point out Israel here a large portion of Israels population is palestinian so if it was ethnic enmity wouldnt they start there? 4. This is just a gift of humanity that is also a curse. We are ALL trying to expand our lives on some form or another whether thats greed for money or just wanted to better your self or in the case of many countries wanting more land. Every country would like to expand they are run by humans after all.
He's has a "Master's in Human Rights". LOL
But he is talking about specifically wanting more land, not wanting more money or more abstract improvements in yoru country.
@@SewblonSo, Palestine, not Israel.
He DOES, but only "for the purposes of this video", lol. 0:00 @@connorperrett9559
Well for most of human history the standard practices of warfare would certainly have the Hague working overtime. Especially during the Medieval period in Europe.
I get why you didn't mention Israel and Zionism cuz a) most people really don't want to admit it, and b) it is controversial bc most ppl don't wanna say that Israel is comitting a genocide. But, backed by the US government, they have been doing it for decades and all four points fit Israel and Zionism very, very well.
The fact that you couldn’t make out his implications were intentionally anti-zionist is a little concerning. He literally said “those that think they are the chosen people” and “those with a certain blood bond with the land, and a fetization of agriculture.” He then goes on to explain a love for mythology or religion…
This whole video screams Israel, and it was done completely on purpose.
@@kvzgm6316 he should've mentioned Israel as a country committing genocide then. We can't carelessly read intentions, especially when a lot of liberals actually like Israel and Zionism. In my own comment, I tried to be a bit more amicable and gave them an out, but he definitely should've mentioned Israel.
Is this a comedy skit? Just checking
I dont think so.
@@tinypanda2218 I feel like the second half is more relevant than the first
I think it would be more accurate to say *cultural* hatred rather than ethnic, because our most recent examples of these ideologies demonstrate that they're not just against people who have different ethnic backgrounds, but also any other marginalized group that has a culture that questions "the way things should be" or "the return back to a better time." These can be groups with cultural heritages that are not necessarily inherited genetically, such as LGBTQ+, disabled, and homeless. And these marginalizations can have intersectionalities that vary individuals' experiences in ways that complicate resistance to those ideologies.
This difference in one word is especially important in context of the concept of whiteness, which is a relatively new social construct enforcing conformity within the group at the expense of all cultural influences that could possibly be at odds with that conformity.
Would the Irish Potato Famine be considered a genocide nowadays? I’ve heard arguments both sides.
As somebody who just wrote a paper on this for my MS in Ag program, yes 100%. The famine itself was the culmination of a couple hundred years of genocidal policy similar to that enacted against Native Americans in the US.
I think this is a rather foolish view on the nature of people to dislike outgroups. It doesn't have to have a thing to do with ethnicity. You could grow up next to someone on your street who hates and covets your success enough to want to ruin you. That was what happened with the kulaks in Russia for example. It was just a made up name for a group of serfs who finally achieved some measure of financial success and were pulled down by the crab bucket of socialist ideologues as a boogeyman for the masses to latch their hatred onto. Haiti famously genocided their white population but it had little to do with any of the other things on your list.
Any ideology that blames all of societal problems on one scapegoat group is a genocidal ideology. That's it. That's the metric. Simple. The rest is all set dressings and smoke.
Any ideology can be genocidal if a politician can whip up a group of people to hate someone else and blame everything on them. That's called human nature.
Edit: also, the illegal migrant issue has nothing to do with genocide and everything to do with economics. The more cheap labor the lower the wages and the more people willing to work for less. Also human trafficking is rampant by simply allowing people to cross unchecked and unverified and anyone who ignores these facts is simply duplicitous and lying. There's no excuse for ignorance at this point.
To be frank, only #4 is invalid ... the rest are perfectly reasonable pillars of society.
Did he list Israel in his book? Cuz that's jackpot all 4.
And, not coincidentally, HAMAS as well.
Basically describing current Israel with this video
Actually describes Islam, especially Hamas,Hezbollah,ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc.
I'm so glad that none of these traits fit with Israel, although antisemites keep saying they do. Am Yisroel Chai! 😊
yeah, if anything, it fits the islamic ideology, because they want to expand into israel. "Free palestine" movement literally checks all the boxes.
Some of this stuff feels very ànti Indigenous because us Indigenous people also feel deeply connected to the land but we're not genocidal.
This needs to be clarified.
When they use the word "Colonizer" it means they want to genocide the race that is a racist dogwhistle for. Pretend you cannot figure out who they mean.
like those "Colonizing" russians in the eastern lebensraum... or the when the white americans kept calling indiginous folks "colonizers". fuck off