4 ms·

> worst genocide in human history Yes, racial slavery was a terrible evil. But it wasn't genocide, which has a specific definition (intention to wipe out a spe

> worst genocide in human history Yes, racial slavery was a terrible evil. But it wasn't genocide, which has a specific definition (intention to wipe out a specific people). Slave traders wanted enough people alive to sell at a profit. The scope of the death toll was large, but spread over a long period. From Wikipedia: > Approximately 1.2 – 2.4 million Africans died during their transport to the New World. More died soon upon their arrival.[1] Over 300 years. Compare to other genocides[2], which murdered similar numbers (or much more) but happened over just a few years. Maybe you meant "worst" in the sense of most injustice? It certainly stands out, but it doesn't hold a candle to the death inflicted on a colossal scale by the governments of the 20th century during both war and peace. Estimates place Stalin's body count between 3-9 million.[3] WWII civilian deaths are estimated at 50 million and included the genocide of the Halocaust.[4] Slavery is evil, but war is so much worse. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_tol... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

rags2riches 8y ago
Ugh. It just struck me how the tragedy of the commons could apply to a human population.
Larrikin 8y ago
Thank you for well sourced minimization of the slave trade. It really helps to know that enslavement of millions of people shouldn't be thought of as all that bad.
- clarkmoody 8y ago
  Today I learned that calling something evil -- but not the worst -- is minimization.
  - JoshCole 8y ago
    It's not. Plenty of people read what you wrote and understood it for how you meant it and also understood that the person who responded to you wildly distorted your point. You're not going to find a good conversation there. Its very sad that this type of distortion happens so often, but we live in a world where some people don't appreciate subtle truths.
  - dang 8y ago
    It's not, and the parent reply was uncharitable, yet I can understand why someone would feel revulsion at your post. It feels a bit like a parlor game with numbers. Not technically wrong, let's say—but so incongruent with what it's talking about as to leave one feeling chilled and dehumanized. In that way it does come across as minimizing.
    - ChainOfFools 8y ago
      but dang you can't put 'feeling chilled' and 'dehumanization' into rational numbers, and for a certain kind of person the inability to enumerate something or quantify its cost, is an automatic 'irrationality discount.' i.e. 'What can't be counted, can't count for much.'
      - dang 8y ago
        Maybe that's part of why collating slavery vs. war goes wrong. Mixing even a little quality with all that quantity would change the mentality, it seems to me.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I don't read that in their comment? They said genocide has a specific definition, and the Atlantic slave trade does not match it. You are free to disagree on that point. I personally don't think it's a very good point to make here. Instead you made some argument that they are trying to argue that it wasn't that bad, which is not based on a literal interpretation of their comment. Can you believe white supremacists use the same kind of thinking? They also toss around the word genocide where it does not apply, assuming one against whites. If you were to say what the commenter said, they'd do the same: Instead of engaging the arguments based on merit, they'd accuse you of wrongthink. Better to let people be honest and judge argument's on their merit rather than start accusing people of wrongthink so easily. Perhaps this is a pretty big problem in the politics right now. If it becomes impossible to correct the definition of words without being branded as a wrongthinker, then what good is that going to do?
  - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
    Words have meanings, terms have definitions. I'm with the pedants more and more. Otherwise people can simply say awful things and claim not to have meant it that way. That how lying becomes a bit ok.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
joewee 8y ago
genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group genocide - systematic killing of a racial or cultural group Kidnapping a single ethnic group from their homeland and accepting that some percentage of them will die while transporting them in cages sure sounds like genocide.
- BadassFractal 8y ago
  The majority of Africans sold in slave trade were acquired and sold by other Africans, not kidnapped by people from Europe or the Middle East: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade If we want to call it genocide, it would be more likely genocide of one African tribe towards another. Note that this isn't to paint a picture of "look at these African savages killing each other", but only to highlight that historically members of the same ethnicity (at least the modern definition of "ethnicity") are rather eager to kill each other over resources (and moral differences to cover it up). Europeans, Asians, indigenous Americans etc were all quite successful in constant tribal warfare at various degrees of scale, there was nothing special about Africa here. In fact you could say that the Soviets were the most successful people in the history of the world at exterminating their own kind for one reason or another.
  - joewee 8y ago
    One Native American tribe killing another Native American tribe is still genocide. Africa is a continent, the slave trade was focused on nations / tribes within the continent. I think the appropriate application of ethnic group is applying it to the tribes / nations within the continent of Africa. Not the entire continent, which is made up of hundreds of ethnicities.

rags2riches 8y ago

Ugh. It just struck me how the tragedy of the commons could apply to a human population.

Larrikin 8y ago

Thank you for well sourced minimization of the slave trade. It really helps to know that enslavement of millions of people shouldn't be thought of as all that bad.

clarkmoody 8y ago
Today I learned that calling something evil -- but not the worst -- is minimization.
- JoshCole 8y ago
  It's not. Plenty of people read what you wrote and understood it for how you meant it and also understood that the person who responded to you wildly distorted your point. You're not going to find a good conversation there. Its very sad that this type of distortion happens so often, but we live in a world where some people don't appreciate subtle truths.
- dang 8y ago
  It's not, and the parent reply was uncharitable, yet I can understand why someone would feel revulsion at your post. It feels a bit like a parlor game with numbers. Not technically wrong, let's say—but so incongruent with what it's talking about as to leave one feeling chilled and dehumanized. In that way it does come across as minimizing.
  - ChainOfFools 8y ago
    but dang you can't put 'feeling chilled' and 'dehumanization' into rational numbers, and for a certain kind of person the inability to enumerate something or quantify its cost, is an automatic 'irrationality discount.' i.e. 'What can't be counted, can't count for much.'
    - dang 8y ago
      Maybe that's part of why collating slavery vs. war goes wrong. Mixing even a little quality with all that quantity would change the mentality, it seems to me.
wallace_f 8y ago
I don't read that in their comment? They said genocide has a specific definition, and the Atlantic slave trade does not match it. You are free to disagree on that point. I personally don't think it's a very good point to make here. Instead you made some argument that they are trying to argue that it wasn't that bad, which is not based on a literal interpretation of their comment. Can you believe white supremacists use the same kind of thinking? They also toss around the word genocide where it does not apply, assuming one against whites. If you were to say what the commenter said, they'd do the same: Instead of engaging the arguments based on merit, they'd accuse you of wrongthink. Better to let people be honest and judge argument's on their merit rather than start accusing people of wrongthink so easily. Perhaps this is a pretty big problem in the politics right now. If it becomes impossible to correct the definition of words without being branded as a wrongthinker, then what good is that going to do?
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
  Words have meanings, terms have definitions. I'm with the pedants more and more. Otherwise people can simply say awful things and claim not to have meant it that way. That how lying becomes a bit ok.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

joewee 8y ago

genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group genocide - systematic killing of a racial or cultural group Kidnapping a single ethnic group from their homeland and accepting that some percentage of them will die while transporting them in cages sure sounds like genocide.

BadassFractal 8y ago
The majority of Africans sold in slave trade were acquired and sold by other Africans, not kidnapped by people from Europe or the Middle East: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade If we want to call it genocide, it would be more likely genocide of one African tribe towards another. Note that this isn't to paint a picture of "look at these African savages killing each other", but only to highlight that historically members of the same ethnicity (at least the modern definition of "ethnicity") are rather eager to kill each other over resources (and moral differences to cover it up). Europeans, Asians, indigenous Americans etc were all quite successful in constant tribal warfare at various degrees of scale, there was nothing special about Africa here. In fact you could say that the Soviets were the most successful people in the history of the world at exterminating their own kind for one reason or another.
- joewee 8y ago
  One Native American tribe killing another Native American tribe is still genocide. Africa is a continent, the slave trade was focused on nations / tribes within the continent. I think the appropriate application of ethnic group is applying it to the tribes / nations within the continent of Africa. Not the entire continent, which is made up of hundreds of ethnicities.