Talk:List of genocides/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

RFC: Include Native Americans in the list of Genocides by death toll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Native Americans be included on this list? This comes up, both pro and con, all the time on the talk page, and it would be excellent to have a solid RFC consensus to point to.

Yes is to support the inclusion on the list.

No is to oppose inclusion on the list.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No, but only because of the yes/no question. I really think that this section should be amended, not removed. I don't object to the inclusion of Native Americans, only to the inaccurate information presented in the list alongside that inclusion. First, the locations mentioned (British Empire, United States, Canada) don't span the relevant area and don't match the cited sources, which explicitly analyze the death toll across both North and South America. The death tolls mentioned also have this problem; they are from articles covering both continents. One of the sources, the Yes! Magazine article, is extremely dubious. Second, the numbers listed rely heavily on an extremely generous estimate of the Pre-Columbian population of the Americas. Numbers in the 50-100 million range are generally considered to be on the very high end of that debate. Third, the events in question don't totally line up with the definition outlined as the guideline for defining a genocide here: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." It's obviously true that massacres and forced migrations took place and that they were reprehensible, but the historical consensus is that the vast majority of native deaths, perhaps as many as 80-90%, were caused by the spread of old-world diseases to which Native Americans lacked immunity. I don't think there is a sufficient argument there to claim intent. Europeans of the time obviously were unaware of the subtleties of immune-response. The first recorded use of smallpox blankets didn't take place until centuries after contact, by which time the vast majority of native fatalities had already occurred. If we do get into a debate over numbers, I don't think that disease deaths which were poorly understood by the Europeans themselves should be included. It's also worth noting that a significant majority of those deaths occurred well before the arrival of English settlers in large numbers nearly a century after Spanish contact. I think it would be reasonable to include Native Americans in the list if the entry were adjusted to better reflect historical truth. There were definitely events that I would consider genocide (ex. California Genocide, Trail of Tears, etc), but I think that the way the issue is handled here is generally unhistorical and politically influenced.ReadingSalmon (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• No - I gave my reasons already in a previous discussion earlier this week on the talk page. This entry was added with no consensus and most scholars don't describe it as a genocide from 1492 to 1924 either. This article is for clear cases. Nettless (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, Not only are the current figures light years from any serious consensus, but the nature of the deaths (the vast, vast majority due to disease) also precludes this from being considered a genocide. Beyond this, there existed no concerted effort by any government or group to eliminate native Americans (it should be noted that natives did not see themselves as a monolithic group, and frequently allied with Europeans against one another, prompting questions about their inclusion in the list of perpetrators...) as a group entirely. Further, the exclusion of Spain or Portugal is a bit of a red-flag. Both of these empires were undoubtedly involved in much larger-scale wars and massacres in Central and Southern America, yet they are not included on the list of perpetrators. This leads me to a rather simple conclusion; this edit was made by someone influenced by the deeply masochistic political situations in the U.K., US or Canada, on the basis of doubtful research. Rapid Disassembly (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Definitely not the way it is done presently[1] for the reasons given by User:Rapid Disassembly. Not categorically opposed to some type of inclusion. But the complicated situation, with overlapping causes (especially disease), does not lend itself to an obvious or easy answer. I can't think of a way of doing it that wouldn't be a vast oversimplification. Can anyone? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. Mainly due to the ridiculous inconsistency of splitting up the Nazi genocide"s" and lumping together 400 years of history into 1 event. This is not to say that I'm completely against inclusion; in fact, I think it would make more sense to group totals under a single organising individual or entity but I do realise this would require a heavy re-working of the list and may conflict somewhat with the received definition of holocaust. I feel that the killings of American indians could be included in the list but just differently with better sourcing. Strobelit (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. The summary of over 400 years of history with seeming inclusion of the infection rates for diseases in the Americas for it seems quite odd, as well as the use of just saying the USA, Canada, and the UK, because even using the basis that the article presents it would also include the French, Spanish, and Portugese. In fact the Dutch and Swedes might even be thought to be added to this due to their colonising in America. As well it seems odd to include this rather than anything in India which was arguably much more like the other genocides listed. I think the inclusion of this seems quite unencyclopedic considering the brazen ignorance in summing up over 400 years of events into one. --CIN I&II (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Only if all nations/empires responsible are listed. I actually would be interested in an honest effort to organize and include the section, but fairly and in specific more reasonable time frames (i.e.- Trail of Tears). The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese Empires aren't included means the user is banking on the average reader, especially those outside the continents, to not recognize the error and mislead them. It's saddening that some of us are resorting to deceit on a site many rely on so heavily on for historical information, but even more alarming is that the error has has been prevented from being corrected for weeks. If we're going to include Canada and the US, which I have no problem with, then a couple Latin American countries accused of similar actions, like Argentina and Brazil, should be included as well. Like I said, we should try narrowing down events within specific countries. If not, then every major country (or at least colonial empires) involved should be added, which is currently not the case.
• Absolutely, but more perpetrators (ex, Spain, Portugal, etc) should be mentioned.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, but only as is, the numbers should reflect the deaths that fall under the UN definition of genocide. Looking at the sources most of the deaths come from disease, this is not even by a stretch under the UN definition of genocide, where 'intent is paramount.Caperbush (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• No BUT there were certain operations like the Trail of tears, that were ethnic cleansing - removing their culture from one area, and a lot of them died in the process. Not genocide, but *close*. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes but with different wording. The large number of unintentional deaths that resulted from the introduction of Old World diseases to the New World do not constitute genocide. However, some actions against Native Americans were genocide and are reliably described so. We need better detail and sourcing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cite errors

There are two cite errors on the page. The first is that the reference "RAdalian" is no longer in use, but still appears in the reflist. It should be commented out or removed.

The second issue is that there is an undefined refname in the article. The original reference was removed in this edit as a non-RS source.
Both instances of:
<ref name="prokid" />
should be replaced with {{Citation needed}} tags.
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done special:diff/1051562821/prev —oscitare ^(talk | _contribs) 08:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Specific genocides involving Native Americans

Following on from the RfC, can we identify specific genocides involving Native American populations? A recent post at Electoral-Vote.com suggested (for North America): Kalinago Genocide of 1626, Pequot War and California genocide. All three seem to me to have a good case to be included. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to review these yet, but we need to keep in mind that the current consensus for inclusion on the list is mass killings which are recognised as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention. It requires the intent to remove or destroy an ethnic group, rather than just removing an ethnic group through war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe all three of these meet those criteria. But happy to start to going into details of what sources say if needed. I note two are already called "genocide" by Wikipedia! Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the refs I can access from the articles, and it doesn't appear Kalinago Genocide of 1626 was called a genocide in the one source I have access to a couple pages of. It sure sounds like a genocide, but per the list it needs to be recognized as legal genocide in significant scholarship. The Pequot War doesn't refer to it as a genocide, and the one source that mentions genocide is Pequots and the question of genocide. This doesn't mean I can't be swayed to support either of these, I'd just need to see the sourcing.

I've inserted some sub-section headings into the existing flow of the discussion to make it easier to discuss these three cases. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also see general reviews by doi:10.1093/ahr/120.1.98 and Cave (2008). Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

California

California genocide seems pretty cut and dry though, no objections to adding that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Rensink (2011), reviewing North American genocides, is supportive. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Kalinago

I've previously looked into the Kalinago Genocide of 1626 with an eye to expanding the article, but I've struggled to find much information, including on classifying it as a genocide - there is one widely reprinted paragraph that does so, but I have been unable to determine the original, and the places reprinting it tend to be unreliable. I would be hesitant to include it on this list (and have wondered if that article should be renamed to "massacre").

No opinion on the other two. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, what source were you having trouble getting access to? I've got good university library access.

doi:10.1080/00086495.2008.11829737 twice refers to European actions against the Kalinago as "genocidal". This conference paper calls it "genocide"; the author also has a 2014 book that I've not checked but seems relevant. There's a detailed analysis here that says this "could qualify" as genocide. doi:10.1080/00086495.2014.11671886 looks very relevant, but I've not gotten that yet. "The Torrid Zone: Caribbean Colonization and Cultural Interaction in the Long Seventeenth Century", edited by L. H. Roper (Univ of South Carolina Press, 25 May 2018) refers to events as a genocide. Bondegezou (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me say first that this sounds pretty genocidish to me, however it needs to be the consensus of significant scholarship, which is where I see the issue. I'm pretty late to the game when it comes to this article, but I assume that consensus was formed because the article topic is very contentious and having only undisputably sourced genocides is the only way to try and keep out editor interpretation of sources. Borderline and disputed cases shouldn't be included. For inclusion on the list I think that the solid majority of scholarly works should unambiguously refer to it as genocide. As for the sources I'll try to review them next week when I have a chunk of time where I can focus on that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Pequot

A key paper arguing this was a genocide is doi:10.2307/366259, but that was a response to another paper arguing against the term, doi:10.2307/366121. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Rensink (2011) says of the first of those papers, by Freeman, that: "Freeman's arguments, when compared with Katz's original statement provide an essential foundation for understanding much of the political debate amongst scholars over defining genocide and applying it to North American history." Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sand Creek massacre

Rensink (2011) describes the Sand Creek massacre as "An example of a genocidal event that has featured prominently in the field's historiography". The piece continues, "The massacre at Sand Creek is perhaps the most prominent event which has been examined as a genocidal event in North American history, but most certainly does not stand alone." Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Untitled

Why was carthage removed despite the mountains of references i provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.143.115 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

There is a typo in the "Proportion of group killed" cell for the Circassian genocide. The final sentence ends with "in mass" but should be changed to "en masse." Taborgate (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Holodomor, Aardakh, and Polish Operation of the NKVD

User:PlanespotterA320, please use this section to discuss your proposed removals; while I have, regretfully, no knowledge of the Aardakh, and minimal knowledge about the classification of Polish Operation of the NKVD as a genocide, I do know that the Holodomor is widely classified as such, and may warrant inclusion on the list. Either way, I believe a discussion would be prudent on all three before any removal. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The Holodomor was used by Lemkin as a key example, along with the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, when he invented the term "genocide". We should definitely include it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

1) Raphael Lemkin invented this term in 1943, 10 years before calling the famine in UkrUSSR genocide (1953). 2) No matter what he said about this famine, there is absolutely no evidence it was "planned" by Stalin or Soviet government, let alone "planned for exterminating ethnic Ukrainians". Marducus (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my poor wording. Lemkin used the Holodomor as a key example in his subsequent development of the term. The Holodomor article provides citations supporting the use of the term. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've read Lemkin's arguments and I now want to comment upon them: 1) "The decimation of the Ukrainian national elites". It's totally untrue. Ukrainian communist leaders (who were "Ukrainian national elites" at the time) were never purged, if they were considered loyal to Stalin. Those were hailed by official Soviet agitation and were very infuential in the USSR. 2) "The destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church". There was never an independent "Ukrainian Orthodox Church". Believing Ukrainians were part of the Russian Orthodox Church. There was an anti-religious campaign in the USSR at the time, but, of course, it was directed at all Orthodox Christian believers in the Union, not specifically at Ukrainians. And the church was not completely destroyed, only weakened. 3) "The starvation of the Ukrainian farming population". Neighboring Southern Russian farming population starved as well. Does it mean Stalin wanted to destroy ethnic Russians? 4) "Its replacement with non-Ukrainians from the RSFSR and elsewhere". It's nonsense. Well, in 1926 (6 years before the famine) ethnic Ukrainians were 80% of the UkrSSR's population and Russians were 9%. In 1939 (6 years after the famine) Ukrainians were 76,5% and Russians were 13,5%. This change is not very big and it never threatened Ukrainian majority in the population of Soviet Ukraine. Even so, someone might say it means that "Stalin replaced rural Ukrainians with Russians". That would be false too: most Russians who moved to Ukraine were urban workers, who came here to work in new factories. As you see, all Lemkin's arguments for considering 1932-1933 famine a "genocide" are untenable. We need to remove this famine from the genocide list. Marducus (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You are free to your own opinions on Lemkin's work, but Wikipedia's content is based on what reliable sources say, not the opinions or original research of individual editors. If you want to suggest changes to the article, you need to bring evidence from reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Those are listed in the article Holodomor genocide question. There are also many works by modern Russian historians, such as Victor Kondrashin. I personally disagree with many aspects of those works, but they are reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Marducus (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ukrainian cultural elite was persecuted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Freedom_of_Ukraine_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executed_Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuted_kobzars_and_bandurists The argument that Russians were targeted too seems spurious to me because Cambodia was considered a genocide when minorities were effected even though ethnic Khmer were widely targeted too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide I don't see why the Soviet case wouldn't be analogous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1501:1890:0:0:0:96F7 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Only those Ukrainian authors who were considered not loyal to the USSR were persecuted, not all of them. "Persecution of kobzars and bandurists" is nonsense, because playing this musical instruments was always very popular in the UkrSSR, there were even kobza and bandura classes in music schools and academies. In fact, Soviet period was a period of flourishing Ukrainian-language culture: Ukrainian-language literature and other books were published in extremely huge numbers in spite most of urban Ukrainians were Russophone (some of those books were distributed even in other Soviet republics) and traditional Ukrainian culture was widely propagated in the Union. And finally, how can we consider 1932-1933 famine a "genocide" if Ukraine's population (not only as whole, but also those of ethnic Ukrainians) actually increased between 1926 and 1939? Marducus (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

As before, we edit Wikipedia based on what reliable sources say. Without reference to reliable sources, none of your argument, Marducus, is going to carry any weight. Article Talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM, they are not for general discussion on issues. We are here to discuss improvements to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I named these sources above in the discussion. By the way, "Circassian genocide" description in this article is not only false in relation to the death toll, but also says nonsense about those Circassians who remained in Russia. "Only a small percentage who accepted to convert to Christianity, Russify and resettle within the Russian Empire were spared". I don't really understand who this Charles King takes his audience for. The only conditions the Tsar set for wanting-to-stay Circassians was loyalty to the Imperial government and resettlement from the mountains to the plains. Russian Circassians (Kabardian, Adyghe, Cherkess and Shapsug peoples) are Sunni Muslims, not Christians, and they are not "Russified" for they keep their ancestral language and culture. Marducus (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

Hello. I was looking for information on the Ukrainian genocide. Is there a reason why it is not listed? In terms of number of people killed, it dwarfs the others. Thank you. 136.242.8.31 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The edit request template is specifically for requesting an edit be made. Your question will remain on the talk page for other editors to respond to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It is listed, under the name Holodomor. Bondegezou (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Massacres of the Luwero Triangle

FengYuxiang24 added a row on these, and ScottishFinnishRadish reverted seeking more/clearer citations. I am happy for us to look at this in more detail and establish consensus. To start, I note that doi:10.4236/ahs.2015.45028 calls this genocide and doi:10.1080/03064220512331339391 refers to this as genocide in passing. doi:10.1515/9780691193830-004 appears to discuss this, but I can't access content. Bondegezou (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia article is Ugandan Bush War, which mentions this as genocide, but not very clearly. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

All I had access to was the google book search inside this book function, which didn't return anything for genocide. I took a brief look at the editor's history and decided a bit of caution might be in order. If there are good sources, then I have no objections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No criticism of your caution intended.

On an initial look, there are certainly some RS calling this genocide. We should consider whether there are enough RS to support inclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tamil genocide by Sinhalese army

Refer Sri Lanka civil war in Wikipedia. Lakhs of Tamils were killed, and displaced. Tamil woman were raped. We are still fighting for the justice. Literally i cried seeing video of Tamils who were killed and raped in YouTube.Our Old tamil books were fired(Jaffna Library), in that event we lost our valuable old text books. As per UN's definition of genocide, Tamil genocide is agreed to be considered as genocide. So I'm requesting you to add this. Please. Let people know this. I hope you will add. Thank you so much. Refer bbc tamil genocide. I can't able to add here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_during_the_final_stages_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tamil_Genocide_by_Sri_Lanka

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Jaffna_Public_Library

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_July

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_against_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8IwQ-74Ttk&feature=youtu.be

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JCAmxgZqVrc&feature=youtu.be

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=geSugt_hiQg&feature=youtu.be

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N91mOD_drVg&feature=youtu.be

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b11Vvb4uyPQ&feature=youtu.be

These are the proofs you asked. During the war, Sinhalese majority Sri Lanka government killed many lakhs of Tamils. Innocent Tamils were cried and died. The very sad moment is that Sinhalese army raped tamil woman and killed them. Many many more evidences are there. We lost many Tamils in this war. I request you to refer theses articles and videos and then add. India helps Sri Lanka by voting them in the UN meeting, if india vote against them means the president of Sri Lanka will be punished.But still we Tamils waiting for this moment. We too agree that Sinhalese were died in this war but in a very least amount compared to our Tamils who were lost their life in this war. Please go through it. Refer all this articles 49.205.84.18 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please provide some reliable sources (what that means is defined at WP:RS) that describe these events as a genocide. Decisions over what to include are based on what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. YouTube videos and other Wikipedia articles are not generally considered reliable sources. WP:RS describes what are considered reliable sources. Academic text books or articles are a good place to start. Other Wikipedia articles may cite sources that we could also cite here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir, as per UN definition of genocide, it is considered to be as a genocide. If you know any tamil person, please ask him to check this. Articles on Wikipedia is not fake, that's why i added these articles. Videos are real one taken by Sri Lankan army. In that video you will see that Tamils were killed by guns and their bodies taken into a vehicle.Many Tamils were migrated to Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, United States, United Kingdom etc... They are the real proofs. They are the real survivors. I can't able to find articles which you are asking. Atleast read " The Tamil genocide by Sri Lanka" wrote by Francis Boyle who is a human rights lawyer. I'm a common person, you only can investigate this, i can just give you only information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.84.18 (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the book as a reference. I've moved your comment from where you put it to make the discussion clearer; I hope that's OK. Link for that book for other editors to see. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.84.18 (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is Holodomor listed here?

Are famines genocides now? Unlike The Holocaust there is as far as I know no evidence of intent by the CPSU of killing Ukranians. It is also known that Gosplan was not equipped to change plans on a dime and that it tended to formulate "stiff" plans, with tragic results in this case. Fuckups do not genocides make. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

KetchupSalt, the Holodomor is listed because lots of reliable sources call it a genocide, and reliable sources trump the personal opinions of individual Wikipedians. Please advance an argument based on reliable sources if you want to see a change. Bondegezou (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion, but the academic consensus (as far as I can tell). None of the sources cited in the article consider it a genocide. Quite the opposite. I read the text by Ghodsee in full and she points to The Seventy Years Declaration, which in turn points out that the Prague Declaration's "double genocide" theory amounts to equivocating classicide and genocide, and thus diminishes the Holocaust and all other genocides. J. Arch Getty likewise points out that:

“The overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois’s co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan. Are deaths from a famine cause by the stupidity and incompetence of a regime . . . to be equated with the deliberate gassing of Jews?”

Davies and Wheatcroft agree:

"In our own work we, like V. P. Kozlov, have found no evidence that the Soviet authorities undertook a programme of genocide against Ukraine."

The final reference does not use the word "genocide" at all and in its introduction casts doubt on the still-lingering notion that the famines were "man-made". Therefore it seems the Holodomor doesn't belong here, and the sources cited in the article supports this. It there are reliable sources that support the Holodomor being a genocide then please cite them. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that call it genocide, e.g. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.009, doi:10.1080/14623528.2018.1528740, doi:10.21226/T2PP4Z, doi:10.5038/1911-9933.15.2.1809. I believe there are more than enough. However, there is certainly a debate apparent in the literature, e.g. [2], doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.2012.01641.x. If the sources given in the article are not right, we should certainly change them. Thanks for pointing this out: I'll look through these in detail later, if someone hasn't before me. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Does the existence of Holodomor genocide question here on WP not make the link in this list inherently POV? When WP itself disagrees what the correct term is, individual articles ought to adopt the same stance.

RE: sources, I have taken a look at some of the sources you cite, at least the ones I can access. The Bezo-Maggi paper takes genocide as a given and points to Naimark's work, which I can't access. The Dreyer paper talks about this narrative's role in present Russian-Ukranian relations, and does not take a stance beyond saying the same thing as the The Seventy Years Declaration and Getty, namely that it is a watering-down of the term. Dreyer cites more examples. The Moore paper cites the Davies-Wheatcroft paper and makes points similar to Dreyer.

But all this is perhaps besides the point, namely that WP itself has no consensus, hence POV. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The article makes clear at the top that it includes events that "are recognised as genocides [...] in significant scholarship". So, we don't include something because a couple of people claim it's a genocide. We need "significant scholarship". But we don't require unanimity in the scholarly coverage. There would be very little in the list if we did.

I think the current balance is right. That balance was agreed through consensus, and the inclusion of the Holodomor has been discussed at length and there was consensus for its inclusion.

This is a list article. Readers can follow links to the articles for each event, and those articles will have the space to consider the debates around different events. Inclusion here does not imply that everyone completely agrees that an event is a genocide. Do we need to make that clearer in the intro? Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How is there "significant scholarship" when all examples you've cited disagree with the supposed consensus? KetchupSalt (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your claim there. There is significant scholarship calling the Holodomor a genocide, there is also significant scholarship discussing the question. There is some scholarship that discusses the question and concludes "no", there is some that concludes "yes". There is other scholarship that takes "yes" as the answer and builds on that to examine other issues. There is yet other scholarship that doesn't seek to answer the question, but considers the significance of the question for today's politics.

I am very cautious with this article. It is highly contentious. There are always people wanting things added or deleted. I don't think we should rush to change what's listed, which is a product of many past discussions. (What we're doing here is right: discussing possible changes.) Right now, I don't see anyone else rushing to support your position, KetchupSalt. (I think your efforts might be very welcome at the Holodomor genocide question article.)

I am also aware that we have a backlog of half-formed discussions above, mostly things we might add but haven't gotten around to. The Holodomor has been argued over and we are where we are. Obviously, Ketchup, if you think we're wrong, you should continue to make your case, but I don't see a new consensus on that one. I would like for us to tackle some of these other changes where we appear to have run out of steam! Other editors generally may choose otherwise, of course. Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess we'll see. Maybe I'll toss my hat into the ring in the talk page on the main article as you suggest. Also reading the literature never hurts. Only Naimark seems to put forward arguments supporting the genocide view, and in my opinion they're weak. But they do exist, just like Ernst Nolte's arguments exist. It might be that Stalin knew exactly what was going on, as Naimark suggests, but based on my own reading this seems unlikely given Stalin's views.

For context, it's my own reading of the history and theory of planning and the successes and failures of planning in the USSR that causes me to raise eyebrows here. Malice vs incompetence etc etc. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There is some recent sources the have found discrimination against Ukrainians and Germans: Also even scholars that reject the genocide characterization of the famine acknowledge the Reversal of Ukrainisation that coincided with the famine: While Wheatcroft rejects the genocide characterization of the famine, he states that "the grain collection campaign was associated with the reversal of the previous policy of Ukrainisation." And the effects of this reversal had obvious demographic consequences in the Ukranian populated territory of Kuban (mostly due to assimilation rather than death though): The self-identification of the Ukrainian population of Kuban decreased from 915,000 in 1926, to 150,000 in 1939. and to 61,867 in 2002. This reversal was preceded by the Union for the Freedom of Ukraine trial: The total number is not known, but tens of thousands of people are estimated to have been arrested, exiled, and/or executed during and after the trial including 30,000 intellectuals, writers, teachers, and scientists. The problem is the linking of this reversal of Ukrainisation is based on indirect evidence, but recent evidence showing discrimination might add to the debate.2601:601:1501:1890:0:0:0:75BA (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are much better sources, thanks. I can't access the Naumenko paper, even though it's claimed to be open access. But the Markevich-Naumenko-Qian paper looks like it has more than enough meat. Marxist-Leninist cultural revolutions often involve getting rid of intellectuals deemed liberal/bourgeois, so I wouldn't put much stock in that aspect as far as genocide goes. Demographic changes are far more damning. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the so-called "Holodomor" should not be included in the list or considered a genocide. After all, there was famine in the areas not controlled by the Soviets at the time. Calling the famine a genocide is a poor false equivilance and completely distorts the very meaning of the word. Never did the USSR forbid the use of the Ukrainian ethnonym in passport papers/say Ukrainians weren't a "real" ethnic group/pretend Ukrainians didn't exist, on the contrary the Ukrainians were treated quite well in the USSR, having their own Ukrainian SSR and significant sway in high government levels after all.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Genocides perpetrated by the British Empire, the United States and the Spanish Empire?

This list is very lacking when it comes to genocides in the whole American continent, and areas colonized by the British Empire in particular. For the US, the genocide of the natives is the most glaring. For the British Empire, British India and Australia come to mind. I haven't read too much about the Spanish Empire as these things quickly become depressing. But I thought I should bring it up at least. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There are some specific discussions above at Talk:List_of_genocides_by_death_toll#Specific_genocides_involving_Native_Americans and subsequent about the Americas. It would be good if we could reach some conclusion on those. Feel free to take a look, add any further sources, or offer a judgement as to whether you think we have enough evidence and can move forward...? Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oops, missed that discussion. That still leaves things like British colonization of India, some of the estimates of which are.. staggering. But I'd have to find some proper academic sources. KetchupSalt (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This whole page is stunningly biased. There are weird semantic arguments about the "technical definition" of genocide in order to absolve things Westerners don't want to acknowledge. There is the fact that equivalent actions by Western countries are usually not considered genocides. Then there's the fact that "reliable sources" clearly means "Western sources". The West in fact has a long history of manipulating history to make it seem as though the West and capitalism have always been in the right or had the right intentions, and it's enemies were always evil.

Through these things, they've found a way to include the Holodomor, but exclude the Bengal and Irish famines, the atrocities in Congol by Belgium, and the Native American genocide as a whole. This is intentional. They get away with excluding their own atrocities by having their own technical definition and their own version of history, while the general public simply sees "genocide" without knowing the full story, so it reinforces their view of the West's enemies. Further, if deportations in the USSR qualify here, how would the deaths from the deaths from the forceful transport of Africans from Africa in the slave trade not qualify? Why isn't the ethically motivated killings of Chinese by the now long time ally of the West, Japan, in WW2 not included?

I know I'm just shouting at a wall, because most of you either know what you're doing and have a specific agenda, or you refuse to confront your biases. MalikMistyRory (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much this. Even the Holocaust, horrible crime against humanity as it was, was not without precedence. The Nazis made frequent reference to US, British and other Western policies when setting the system up. The main innovations were the heavy use of rail, poison gas and the speed of it. But not, nota bene, the scale of it. Compare this to North America, where an entire continent was depopulated. With India the numbers are on the order 100,000,000. Sven Lindqvist's book sv:Utrota varenda jävel (Exterminate all the brutes, in reference to Heart of Darkness) talks about this. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can shout at walls, or you can seek to improve the article. The way to improve the article is to present evidence from reliable sources that an event meets the agreed criteria. Or you could comment on some of the ongoing discussions above that await resolution, expressing a view as to whether you think the evidence presented is sufficient or not.

At Talk:List of genocides by death toll/Archive 8#RFC: Include Native Americans in the list of Genocides by death toll, we agreed not to have a row that put all Native American deaths together as a single act of genocide, but that we should include more specific events, when they met the agreed criteria. So, let's do that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Nazis claimed to be inspired partially by the American expansion weswards, to colonize Eastern Europe and to remove native slavic inhabitants. They also claimed to be inspired by Jim Crow laws to implement segregation against Jews before the Holocaust. The Holocaust, the systematic attempt to murder all Jews on the Earth, was without precedence (genocides until then were geographically bound)

It is widely known and accepted that the vast majority of native American deaths happened in the first century or so of colonization due to the introduction of diseases which advanced through the interior even before the arrival of Europeans. There were genocides of course, and they should be listed, however, to try to claim all deaths of indigenous people (even those not caused by disease) as one large genocide is like claiming that all murder of Jews, since the Roman period, can be considered a single genocide, "the genocide of the Jews by the Goyim". Knoterification (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"Then there's the fact that "reliable sources" clearly means "Western sources". The West in fact has a long history of manipulating history to make it seem as though the West and capitalism have always been in the right or had the right intentions, and it's enemies were always evil." True. But the Wikipedia:No original research policy typically translates to mirroring the ideas of our sources, whether we believe in them or not. Much of the Ideological bias on Wikipedia mirrors the biases of the sources we use, not the beliefs of individual editors. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There are important and fundamental questions about how Wikipedia's epistemological rules impact on the project. We are clearly not going to resolve those here. Again, there is plenty to be done here and your input would be very welcome in the multiple open discussions above, but general pontificating comes under WP:NOTFORUM. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This list is extremely biased

Five "genocides" allegely commited by Russia and the USSR, in fact, didn't exist at all. Let me explain:

1) Golodomor famine was NOT a genocide. It was a great famine with about 3 million deaths in Russia (RSFSR), Ukraine and Kazakhstan, that was caused by poor harvest combined with some problems during collectivisation. It killed as many Russians as Ukrainians. How can it be named "genocidal"? Population of Ukraine quickly recovered from a famine: does it mean Stalin was bad at making genocides?

2) Circassian migration to the Ottoman Empire was NOT a genocide. Russian government offered Circassian to stay, if they wanted, or emigrate to Turkey. Ottoman government and Circassian feudals persuaded most of Circassians to emigrate. Some of them died on the way to Turkey, because of migration's poor organisation, not because of Russian desire to kill them (why would Russians do that? Anti-Russian part of Circassians wanted to leave Russia anyway). Many Circassians stayed in Russia and nowadays they're known as Kabardians, Adygheans and Cherkess people. Numbers of dead here are also completely untrue: whole population of Circassia numbered about 350000-900000 people.

3) Deportations of Vainakhs and Crimean Tatars were NOT genocides. They were ethnic cleansings, aimed to punish those peoples for their alleged cooperation with Nazi Germany (it was true in case of Crimean Tatars: most of them actively supported Germans during the WW2). Of course, many of them died during deportations, but their numbers quickly recovered. If Stalin wanted to exterminate Vainakhs and C. Tatars, it would be easy for him to do so: but he wanted to punish them, not to exterminate.

4) Polish Operation of the NKVD was NOT a genocide as well. It was aimed to crush Anti-Soviet organisations among Poles living in the USSR. Many of those, who were executed, were in fact innocent: but most of Poles were not affected by this operation at all. There were about 1 million ethnic Poles in the USSR at the time and majority of them were neither resettled, nor imprisoned or executed.

Of course, English-language Wikipedia is full of Anti-Soviet and Anti-Russian bias and I understand it is nearly impossible to remove it. But, at least, it would be good to make this one article less biased. Marducus (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Circassian and Crimean Tatars faced genocide, Circassians because of their high death toll (circa 90%) and Crimean Tatars due to the combination of death toll and assimilation/anti-identity/"rooting" efforts that were complete with Nasriddinova demanding Crimean Tatars eat Uzbek bread instead of Crimean Tatar bread, the 1956 decree suggesting Crimean Tatars "reunify" (assimilate into) with the Kazan Tatars and offering financial support to do so, the official denial of Crimean Tatars being a distinct ethnic group (officially being reffered to by degrading euphamisms such as "people of Tatar nationality who formerly lived in Crimea" instead of the proper ethnonym, violent suppression of Crimean Tatar attempts to save identity by attempting to return to Crimea and live traditional lifestyle (it's for a reason that Yalibolyu culture is nearly dead, there are almost no Crimean Tatar fishermen anymore, and the highly Crimean elements of Crimean Tatar culture that remained after conversion to Islam were wiped out by 1944). Punishment for Nazi collaboration is a bullshit pretense when the Surgun affected Crimean Tatars who were staunch Soviet patriots who killed many nazis during the war, like Hero of the Soviet Union Abduraim Reshidov who almost committed suicide because of blatantly discriminatory propiska rules being used to keep Crimean Tatars out of Crimea and VVS flying ace Emir Chalbash not being allowed to live in Crimea despite applying for a propiska four times (of course, ethnic Russian scumbags like Aleksandr Shilkov, convicted of rape of a minor, and Nikolai Malyshev, a known womanizer convicted of killing his own son and was suspected of killing several women, had no such difficulty getting a propiska in Crimea). The so-called Holodomor is a joke, if the goal was to genocide Ukrainians then the Ukrainian SSR would have been dissolved and Ukrainians universally expelled from Ukraine and told not to identify as Ukrainian. But instead during that time Soviet presses oozed praise of Ukrainian communists in Ukraine. The "Polish operation" is not genocide either, since there was obviously no intent to eliminate the Polish people or Polish culture, only a small percent of people that happened to be Polish that were perceived as a threat; most Poles in the USSR weren't affected by it, ergo it was not genocide.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion should be based around what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  1) Death toll among Circassians was much lower than 90%. About 250000 people arrived to the Ottoman Empire. It's unknown exactly how many people chose to stay in Russia (estimated number is about 25%), but 1897 (35 years after the resettlement) there were more than 140000 Circassians in the Russian Empire. Whole population of Circassia before the resettlement numbered about 350000-900000 people (the most plausible number is 400000-460000). What is important, deaths of Circassians were caused by poor organisation of the migration by both Russian and Ottoman Empires, not by anyone's plan to destroy them. 2) Crimean Tatars were not subjected to genocide, because genocide involving growth in number of its victims is nonsense. 183155 Crimean Tatars were deported to Uzbekistan in 1944. 15 years later (in 1959) there were 397981 Tatars in the UzSSR. Most of those Tatars were Crimean Tatars, not Volga ones. As you can see, numbers of Crimean Tatars not only quickly recovered from deportation losses, but also increased. Therefore, it is impossible to name this deportation a "genocide", even though C. Tatars did face some (unsuccessful) attempts to merge them into Volga Tatar nation. Marducus (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Soviet census data of 1959 did not distinguish between Crimean Tatars and Volga Tatars in Uzbek SSR, allowing for that "397981" figure. If it was a census of just Crimean Tatars, the number would be much, much, much lower, very close to prewar levels despite the amount of time passed. It is universally acknowledged by reliable sources that the Crimean Tatar population PLUMMETTED in the first few years of exile under the special settler system and subsequent assimilation efforts - the current pop exists today only because of high birthrates of resistance to assimilation. Attempting to merge one nation unwilling into another is by definition genocide - it is a means of erradicating an "undesirable" identity and replacing it with a "desirable" one. It says a lot that the CT population was ~200k in 1939 and that there are still only about ~200k Crimean Tatars in Crimea right now - that's a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY slow population growth for a long time. In comparison, the non-Tatar population of Crimea has exploded - which would have happened to the Crimean Tatar population if there had not been the extreme efforts to destroy the Crimean Tatar national and territorial identity.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On the Circassian Genocide:

1. Your population estimate is unsourced.
2. You have not given a feasible enough explanation of why the Russians had no desire to kill them.
3. The Arabic, French, Indonesian, Chinese, Italian, Armenian, Urdu, Portuguese, Dutch, Bulgarian, Vietnamese, Azerbaijani, Persian, and Czech Wikipedias all describe it as a Genocide or at least ethnic cleansing. The fact Russian Wikipedia is the only one to not classify it as a mass murder campaign signifies something.

I'd talk about the others, but at the moment I'm too tired to write more. Dunutubble (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• 1) Well, I reviewed more sources about historical Circassian population. Russian official estimates before the migration were about 400-450 thousand people. Mikhail Pokrovsky, a Soviet regional historian, estimated their number as 700-750 thousand. Teofil Lapinsky, who was extremely anti-Russian and pro-Circassian Polish adventurer, claimed that there were 900 thousand Circassians (it looks like he regarded Abazin people as Circassians as well). I suppose the most accurate estimation is that of Vladimir Kabuzan, a modern expert on historical demography, who estimates that there were about 580 thousand Circassians and Abazins before their migration. We also know the number of Circassians and Abazins, who migrated to the Ottoman Empire. I'm sorry for incorrect citation above: it is known, that 30 thousand Circassians left in 1858-59, 50 thousand in 1862, 220 thousand in late 1863-1864 and many others left unofficially and were not included in those statistical numbers. Total estimate (made by A. Berzhe) is about 490000 muhajirs (a lot of them died on Ottoman ships on the way to Turkey or after reaching Ottoman territory). About 200000 of them were settled in Rumelia by the Ottoman government. 51 thousand people stayed in Russian Kuban Oblast. Remaining 40-50 thousand people died while waiting for ships, because their numbers were unexpectedly high for Russians and they had no food to feed all the muhajirs.

2) Russians had no desire to kill Circassians, because they wanted to leave Russia and that was just the Imperial government needed: Circassian muhajirs in Turkey are not able to resist Russian rule in Caucasus.

3) Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and all those descriptions are based on deeply biased and Russophobic works of modern Western historians. Those people try to use history as a political weapon against Russia (same with so-called "Uyghur genocide" in China, which "takes place" among record-high growth of Uyghur population). Marducus (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the Polish Operation of the NKVD

It has come to my attention that the Polish Operation of the NKVD has been removed from this section by @PlanespotterA320. While I tried to revert this, saying that is should be first proposed on the talk page, she reverted my revert and now there is no more section on this subject.

My point is that- no matter how much you disagree with something, that doesn't give you the right to remove it, especially without consensus.

Planespotter's reasoning that the Polish Operation is a fringe theory is unsupported by the article for the subject, which clearly states several times it is considered to be a Genocide.

I am notifying @Buidhe,@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Volunteer Marek, and @Bondegezou, who have so far made the largest amount of edits to this page as of late. Dunutubble (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted PlanespotterA320. We should all avoid WP:EDITWAR. Let's stick with the article's status quo while we discuss this case. Bondegezou (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

missing japanese genocide from north china 1935

not listed here genocide in north china through chemical and vivid human experiments under the command of japanese empire( city of harbin) japanese army unit 731, responsible for the genocide estimated death toll 500 000 , mostly chinese human experimentation, chemical human warfare experiments , vivid human experimentation

1935's covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that engaged in lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.34.91.139 (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

This article fails to mention the genocide of Native Americans in either North or South America. While the precise pre-columbian population cannot be know with precision, it is certainly greater than any listed here, and the post genocidal population is known. 2601:18D:8C7E:D740:24E3:9D26:1321:E728 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

California genocide is mentioned near the lower end which is part of what you're talking about. There was not one native American genocide but dozens perhaps hundreds of cases of serial genocide against individual ethnic groups. It's best to add multiple individual genocide rather than one big one.Unceremonious Individual (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See the RFC above, and provide specific changes you'd like made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

There was no native American genocide

Of course. White Americans were unique in their kindness!2A00:23C7:5981:A01:C54F:8C31:6A3B:319E (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Take down

This list is very vague, inconsistent, incomplete, and biased. This should be taken down 2600:8800:3216:AD00:2866:EE32:27D4:ED50 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to propose an article be deleted, you should follow the procedure described at WP:AFD. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the Inquisition on this list

Why isn't the Inquisition on this list why do Christians get to get away with it why are we still having to hide as pagans why is it still considered okay to harass a pagan and tell them that they're going to be burned alive while it's not okay to actually burn them anymore? 208.53.79.43 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Native American entry

There was no genocide

---

What supports that capricious argument? Hawkeye762 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Location" for the Native American genocide should be pretty much every nation in the Americas.

This is largely because of Spain and Portugal being the main perpetrators. In fact most of the sources that talk about 90% and 50+ million of the indigenous population of the Americas perishing have the dates around 1492 and 1600, Spain and Portugal were the ones that colonized during that time while the British didn't establish their first colony until 1607. I'm not saying that Britain and other North American nations aren't guilty cause they certainly had their fair share of contribution to it, but the current "Location" for the genocide in the wiki article makes it seem as if it was only a North American genocide.

While it is certainly the case that genocide against native peoples was widespread and ubiquitous, it would be incorrect to simply characterize 400 years of history and all native deaths as some sort of singular, unified, homogeneous genocide. This is for many reasons, not least of which is the usual required involvement of, or at the very least the tacit approval of, the government of the nation state which is sovereign in that region where the genocide took place. Given that a nation state claims the monopolistic right to perpetrate violence over a given geographic jurisdiction, in other words the legitimate use of violence, it is certainly the most logical place to begin when attempting to characterize and define a genocide as having had occurred in a particular place and time in the historical record.

Now while I am not making any excuses for the Portuguese or the Spanish, those large numbers which you refer to were primarily a result of infectious disease which was by and large not something which was intended or designed by the authorities in question. And while it is certainly true that there were instances of local commanders utilizing the disease for their own tactical advantage, distributing infected blankets for example, this was never the stated aim of the governments of Portugal and Spain. It could certainly be argued that Portugal and Spain chose to ignore widespread abuses which were occurring, but they never enacted legislation or policies which called for the direct extermination of peoples in the same way as for example the United States and California state governments did. Both of these latter entities paid bounties for evidence of the extermination of men, women and children, attributing a higher value to men as they were of course most directly carrying out armed resistance. All of this of course was spurred at the time by agencies of unrestricted capitalism within the context of the California Gold Rush which was taking place. In fact, California's first governor, Peter Hardeman Burnett, by every measurable metric, belongs on the same lists of men as Reinhard Heydrich, a.k.a., "The Butcher of Prague", or Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS. He said in the state legislature that "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct". And yet we don't see this because the forces of American exceptionalism have done such an thorough job at cleansing these sorts of stains from the historical record. But this is beginning to change.

You do raise some good points; that there were tremendous abuses which certainly rise to the level of genocide across the entire period of the colonization of North, central, and South America is without any doubt. I believe we owe it to all of these forgotten souls who were slaughtered and butchered in the unrestricted expansion carried out first by European polities (Spain, Britain, Portugal, etc) and then later by local ones (United States, Colombia, Mexico, etc) to investigate their stories and to enshrine them in the historical record for all time. There were many individual genocides which occurred and we must and should tirelessly document each and every one of them. And so the logical placements of these acts are to situate them within the geographic confines of the nation state which was governing that territory at the time which that act took place because ultimately it is the responsibility of that nation state for either participating in (eg. California genocide) or allowing the act to take place (eg. 19th century, east European pogroms). Any attempts at simply placing instances of genocide and mass murder within an overarching epoch of bad treatment by all parties is just an old trick at deflecting and deferring responsibility for the individual acts of genocide which occurred throughout the period. Should you wish to add to the list, by all means do so and provide supporting, peer-reviewed research to support your case.

Regards

Daystrom (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)