11 ms·

Why not just call genocide what it is -- genocide? Wouldn't it be far more accurate, and just as concise, to say "Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocid

Why not just call genocide what it is -- genocide? Wouldn't it be far more accurate, and just as concise, to say "Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocide by European settlers"?

yamtaddle 3y ago
"Genocide" applied to the killing of animals would be a very unusual usage. Something like "extermination" would probably be more appropriate.
- smcl 3y ago
  The genocide in question is that of the indigenous people, not of the Bison
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    If we're adding detail to the story because we think the reader might not be aware of why there weren't many bison left, I'm not sure: > Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocide by European settlers is going to help. Any reader who'd benefit from specifying why bison had been largely wiped out, probably won't connect the dots here, and will instead read that as genocide against bison. Readers who read "genocide" as referring to "genocide against indigenous people, part of which was eradication of bison" didn't need any of this called out to begin with.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - smcl 3y ago
      I don't think it's right to hold a comment on HN to the same standards as a magazine article, though. It's entirely possible to write that sentence you had a problem with in a way that describes what happened without any confusion.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The purpose was to force them onto the reservation, not exterminate them. See "Empire of the Summer Moon". https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591060/ https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful... An excellent read for anyone curious about the history of this.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I’m comfortable calling an extermination attempt the actions that would certainly destroy their culture and history and food supply and language.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        I recommend getting the book if you have the remotest interest in the topic. It's only $3 on Amazon. It's a great read, better than any novel.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Sure, I appreciate the recommendation. I’ve actually read a decent bit on the subject and having been born on an Indian Reservation and lived next door to them my entire adolescence (the impoverished kind, not the casinos-near-major-cities kind), participated in crown dances, etc it’s not all that alien to me. Does this book explain how stealing children and sending them to boarding schools to be tortured, raped, murdered, and buried in unmarked mass graves is “not extermination” and is “an attempt to confine them” to the literal shittiest plots of land that settlers could locate on the continent?
        WalterBright 3y ago
        I wouldn't want to spoil things for you! The Comanche were a lot like the Vikings. They were empire builders like the Vikings, and you wouldn't want to be their neighbor any more than you'd want to be a neighbor to the Vikings. It's a great epic, and I don't know why somebody hasn't created an epic series about them. There have been a couple pathetic westerns about the Comanche, which are best ignored. Check out the book. You won't be disappointed!
- porkbeer 3y ago
  No it really isnt, that is the most common usage besides ww2 history.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    Got a source? Webster's and Dictionary.com both list a single sense, and it's to do with peoples and cultures, not any living thing. I'm sure it's been used that way on occasion, but I'm quite confident that's not a common usage, and employing it for a general audience would tend not to be the best choice. (as another poster noted, the extermination was part of a genocide, that's true, but it remains weird to describe extermination of animals as "genocide" in this kind of context, where we're evidently concerned that the reader might not be aware of why the bison were few in number—it's strange to imply we committed genocide against bison. That is definitely not a normal way to phrase that.)

Why not just call genocide what it is -- genocide? Wouldn't it be far more accurate, and just as concise, to say "Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocide by European settlers"?

yamtaddle 3y ago

"Genocide" applied to the killing of animals would be a very unusual usage. Something like "extermination" would probably be more appropriate.

smcl 3y ago
The genocide in question is that of the indigenous people, not of the Bison
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  If we're adding detail to the story because we think the reader might not be aware of why there weren't many bison left, I'm not sure: > Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocide by European settlers is going to help. Any reader who'd benefit from specifying why bison had been largely wiped out, probably won't connect the dots here, and will instead read that as genocide against bison. Readers who read "genocide" as referring to "genocide against indigenous people, part of which was eradication of bison" didn't need any of this called out to begin with.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 3y ago
    I don't think it's right to hold a comment on HN to the same standards as a magazine article, though. It's entirely possible to write that sentence you had a problem with in a way that describes what happened without any confusion.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The purpose was to force them onto the reservation, not exterminate them. See "Empire of the Summer Moon". https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591060/ https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful... An excellent read for anyone curious about the history of this.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I’m comfortable calling an extermination attempt the actions that would certainly destroy their culture and history and food supply and language.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      I recommend getting the book if you have the remotest interest in the topic. It's only $3 on Amazon. It's a great read, better than any novel.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Sure, I appreciate the recommendation. I’ve actually read a decent bit on the subject and having been born on an Indian Reservation and lived next door to them my entire adolescence (the impoverished kind, not the casinos-near-major-cities kind), participated in crown dances, etc it’s not all that alien to me. Does this book explain how stealing children and sending them to boarding schools to be tortured, raped, murdered, and buried in unmarked mass graves is “not extermination” and is “an attempt to confine them” to the literal shittiest plots of land that settlers could locate on the continent?
        WalterBright 3y ago
        I wouldn't want to spoil things for you! The Comanche were a lot like the Vikings. They were empire builders like the Vikings, and you wouldn't want to be their neighbor any more than you'd want to be a neighbor to the Vikings. It's a great epic, and I don't know why somebody hasn't created an epic series about them. There have been a couple pathetic westerns about the Comanche, which are best ignored. Check out the book. You won't be disappointed!
porkbeer 3y ago
No it really isnt, that is the most common usage besides ww2 history.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Got a source? Webster's and Dictionary.com both list a single sense, and it's to do with peoples and cultures, not any living thing. I'm sure it's been used that way on occasion, but I'm quite confident that's not a common usage, and employing it for a general audience would tend not to be the best choice. (as another poster noted, the extermination was part of a genocide, that's true, but it remains weird to describe extermination of animals as "genocide" in this kind of context, where we're evidently concerned that the reader might not be aware of why the bison were few in number—it's strange to imply we committed genocide against bison. That is definitely not a normal way to phrase that.)