Well, there's also the small matter of wiping out a whole culture. But why quibble. And it's so sloppy!
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> Subject: Re: Constitutional Longevity. Was Religiosity... To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:19:22 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980617121057.01281338 at popserver.panix.com> from "Louis
Proyect" at Jun 17, 98 12:10:57 pm Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Lou writes:
>
> >relatively small in comparison to the genocides attempted
> >against the Jews and the Armenians in the modern era.
> >Barkley Rosser
>
> Yes, but they must have seemed exceedingly large to the Tasmans themselves...
Yes. And this in fact constitutes a difficulty in all accounts of genocide or other forms of mass slaughter. Pain (e.g., pain at the slaughter of even 1 or 2 or 3 people near to one) is an *individualist* phenomena. Hence it makes little difference to a child whose whole family is slaughtered whether that slaughter is part of a genocide or a death squad raid only on her family. This probably is not *quite* true, but it is nearly enough true to make the separation sloppy rather than clear. And of course, a black man burned to death by a lynch mob probably does not feel the experience as a genocidal one but very personal indeed.
Carrol