3 ms·

>Historically combatants have treated their opponents differently based on race and existing cultural attitudes Huh? when have that ever been true? European re

>Historically combatants have treated their opponents differently based on race and existing cultural attitudes Huh? when have that ever been true? European religious wars have been huge bloodsheds, communist regimes routinely genocided their own (often quite homogenous) populations, Lebanon's civil war saw neighbors shooting at each other. The truth of the matter is : when people want to fight, they will find something that makes their enemies different and alien, because it's uncomfortable to imagine yourself in the place of the dead body that was previously a living human. Race and Blood just so happen to be very convenient to latch on, because they're immutable (for now) genetic characteristics that make the gulf between you and your enemies look huge, a very desirable property in a dehumanization tactic. When people don't have those, they start latching on less immutable but nonetheless difficult-to-change things like religion, language and culture. And when people don't have those either, they start latching onto who their enemies voted for in the last election or their stance on <insert pet issue>, which are very mutable but also very numerous and can always be found and used as basis for dehumanization, their mutabilitiy and arbitrariness notwithstanding.

watwut 5y ago
Technically, this was actually true in WWII. German army behavior in west was horrible, in east much much worst. Their behavior toward gypsies was super bad. And their behavior towards Jews worst of the worst. But the range there is from "super bad" to "genocidal", so.
jeffreyrogers 5y ago
It's been true literally since written records of conflict have been kept. Look at the Punic Wars vs. the Peloponnesian War for example. Look at the Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s. Even in European history it is true. Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII. (Edit: or as a sibling comment notes, the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts). There's always going to be dehumanization in war, but how much depends on things like race, culture, and existing attitudes towards the enemy.
- Banana699 5y ago
  >Look at the Punic Wars vs. the Peloponnesian War for example Not sure how this supports your thesis. Are you trying to say that the punic wars was more devastating/brutal than the Peloponnesian because the first had people of different races fighting while the second had only Greeks fighting amongst themselves ? there are several problems with this : - We have no estimates of the casualties on both sides of both conflicts, Wikipedia only has an estimate of one side of the Peloponnesian, and it's only the military casualties. - In the Peloponnesian war, Sparta actually allied with the Persians. They were entirely OK with people of different races murdering their fellow Greeks, I think they had zero problems murdering their own race too. (and burning the whole city if it came to that, but it didn't, but that doesn't really mean Spartans were softer because their enemies were Greek, it just means the Athenians surrendered quicker and didn't try again, unlike the Punics) >Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s This is really comparing apples and oranges, those two wars are about 5-6 centuries apart, whatever you're comparing as proxy for 'brutal' or 'destructive' is very much confounded by technological advances in warfare. >Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII. I don't understand what this is trying to say. Did English attitudes toward Germany differ between WW1 and WW2 (besides the trivial differences explainable by the change in geopolitical atmosphere and warfare style)? how much of that is both parties seeing each other as different or similar races? >the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts I never said that race-based dehumanization isn't brutally effective and leads to astonishing results when it could be used, in fact I placed it at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to dehumanization algorithms. What I'm denying here is the claim that this efficiency of dehumanization can't be achieved using other methods or combination of methods, I'm asserting that it can, just with more effort/propaganda. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case in this specific Ukraine-Russia conflict, I don't trust the hose of (dis)information on this conflict the internet spews every day anyway, so I don't really have a strong opinion on anything in it besides the most naked facts. All what I'm disputing is the claim >Wars with same-race combatants are, always or most of the time or on average, less brutal than wars with different races fighting I'm saying that this is false and reductive, Religion in particular is a very strong counterexample. Communism-style genocides is another.
  - 5y ago
selimthegrim 5y ago
When German POWs were taken to American South in WWII, they were considered 'white' and treated better than black US Army soldiers on leave.

watwut 5y ago

Technically, this was actually true in WWII. German army behavior in west was horrible, in east much much worst. Their behavior toward gypsies was super bad. And their behavior towards Jews worst of the worst. But the range there is from "super bad" to "genocidal", so.

jeffreyrogers 5y ago

It's been true literally since written records of conflict have been kept. Look at the Punic Wars vs. the Peloponnesian War for example. Look at the Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s. Even in European history it is true. Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII. (Edit: or as a sibling comment notes, the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts). There's always going to be dehumanization in war, but how much depends on things like race, culture, and existing attitudes towards the enemy.

Banana699 5y ago
>Look at the Punic Wars vs. the Peloponnesian War for example Not sure how this supports your thesis. Are you trying to say that the punic wars was more devastating/brutal than the Peloponnesian because the first had people of different races fighting while the second had only Greeks fighting amongst themselves ? there are several problems with this : - We have no estimates of the casualties on both sides of both conflicts, Wikipedia only has an estimate of one side of the Peloponnesian, and it's only the military casualties. - In the Peloponnesian war, Sparta actually allied with the Persians. They were entirely OK with people of different races murdering their fellow Greeks, I think they had zero problems murdering their own race too. (and burning the whole city if it came to that, but it didn't, but that doesn't really mean Spartans were softer because their enemies were Greek, it just means the Athenians surrendered quicker and didn't try again, unlike the Punics) >Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s This is really comparing apples and oranges, those two wars are about 5-6 centuries apart, whatever you're comparing as proxy for 'brutal' or 'destructive' is very much confounded by technological advances in warfare. >Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII. I don't understand what this is trying to say. Did English attitudes toward Germany differ between WW1 and WW2 (besides the trivial differences explainable by the change in geopolitical atmosphere and warfare style)? how much of that is both parties seeing each other as different or similar races? >the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts I never said that race-based dehumanization isn't brutally effective and leads to astonishing results when it could be used, in fact I placed it at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to dehumanization algorithms. What I'm denying here is the claim that this efficiency of dehumanization can't be achieved using other methods or combination of methods, I'm asserting that it can, just with more effort/propaganda. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case in this specific Ukraine-Russia conflict, I don't trust the hose of (dis)information on this conflict the internet spews every day anyway, so I don't really have a strong opinion on anything in it besides the most naked facts. All what I'm disputing is the claim >Wars with same-race combatants are, always or most of the time or on average, less brutal than wars with different races fighting I'm saying that this is false and reductive, Religion in particular is a very strong counterexample. Communism-style genocides is another.
- 5y ago

selimthegrim 5y ago

When German POWs were taken to American South in WWII, they were considered 'white' and treated better than black US Army soldiers on leave.