New at Reason

theOneState|9.20.05 @ 9:44AM|#

In the United States, some right-wing bloggers have been shrieking that the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11's Flight 93 is shaped like a crescent.

If I remember correctly, the design they initially proposed (an ice cream swirl) was also nixed.

Rich Ard|9.20.05 @ 9:47AM|#

If we're going to have a serious war on drugs, we need to start with the opiate of the people.

norbizness|9.20.05 @ 10:00AM|#

An interesting article, especially on the day that Simon Wiesenthal passed away at age 96.

But how about the 1.5 million Armenians killed by the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923? If you read the FAQ, it certainly seems like a model that the Nazis used.

|9.20.05 @ 10:03AM|#

"Genocide Memorial Day".

What a great occasion to go out on a picnic.

|9.20.05 @ 10:18AM|#

It was the first, and so far the only time that, as Cornell University historian Stephen Katz put it in his 1994 book The Holocaust in Historical Context, that "a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people."

That's up for serious debate. Honestly, is Katz not aware of the Roman Empire's effort to eliminate the Jewish population within its borders? Or for that matter the systematic slaughter of the Canaanites (condemned en masse to death by Yahweh)? Or the systematic Roman slaughter of the Helvetii or the people of Carthage (in the latter example the Roman state clearly planned on wiping the Carthagenians off the map)? Or the Catholic Church's/France's cursade against the Cathars (vowing to kill every last one of them). Sorry, many states have set out to do exactly what the Nazis tried to against the Jews (and other people in Europe).

Also, how you define 'specific people' is of interest as well. Were the kulaks a 'specific people?' Or the population of the Ukraine that Stalin specifically targeted? Were the artists, intellectuals, business people, etc. of Cambodia a 'specific people?' And what about the other ethnic, etc. groups that the Nazis worked up a bloodlust against - homosexuals and gypsies? Honestly, I do not see much good coming out of priviliging the victims of one horrific atrocity over another horrific atrocity. So no, Young and Katz are wrong.

|9.20.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Hakluyt, I think the key word is "state." The power of a modern state was brought to bear on the effort, and modern states are far more powerful, and do things in far more comprehensive a manner, than the old empires and tribes.

|9.20.05 @ 10:27AM|#

And further to Joe...that tribes employed such tactics 3000 years ago, or empires did so 1500 years ago - not so surprising, not so worthy of mention. That a modern, 20th century state, considered at the time to be the most culturally advanced of Western nations, embarked on such a course...very worthy of singular attention. This Thing is Not Like the Others. How annoying and depressing that the point has to be made.

|9.20.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Most of the victims Hakluyt cites were persecuted for their ideas. The Romans warred against Zealot insurrection, not the Jews of Alexandria (who were more numerous); Carthage was rebuilt with chastened Carthaginians. Likewise, the purges against the Cathars, kulaks and intellectuals were purges against peoples holding specific ideas, not a racial identity. That is the essence of Katz's claim.

|9.20.05 @ 10:32AM|#

joe,

Yes, and all the parties I mentioned were STATES systematically killing off groups of defined people. Duh! Pick up a copy of The Oxford History of the Roman World and educate yourself. The Roman Empire was just as bureaucratic, centralized, etc. as any modern state is. Indeed, it was this ability to gather resources via bureaucracy that allowed it outmatch its rivals.

|9.20.05 @ 10:35AM|#

How 'bout we let whomever wants to comemorate (sp?) these tragedies do it on their own time and their own dime - then they can do it however they please.

Really - I agree with Hak that while awful, the Holocaust was far from the first instance, and unfortunately, far from the last. The relative "value" of each tragedy is entirely subjective, based on your connection to the victims.

I keep the memory of the Holocaust alive, along with Stalin's pogroms, as irrefutable evidence that the Hatfield/McCoy problem raised by those opposed to anarcho-capitalism is small potatoes compared to murderous rampage modern states have been on for the last century.

In fact, it almost cheapens the event (the Holocaust) to try to make it unique - it's not. The impulse is alive and well in human character, and all it takes is the right combination of events, starting with the existence of an unlimited state, to unleash it again. By saying it was unique and purely a product of Naziism, we set ourselves up for a repeat.

|9.20.05 @ 10:36AM|#

cdunlea,

Read the comments on Carthage in the Roman Senate; you'll find that Carthaginians are labelled specifically in race-like terms and must be exterminated because of such.

Regarding the Cathars, they too are labelled not only for their ideas but also with a race-like identity; see the language of the Church and the French government.

|9.20.05 @ 10:38AM|#

"not a racial identity"

Please define the term racial identity in a way that includes Judaism, but is exclusive of a common belief.

|9.20.05 @ 10:39AM|#

The Canaanites and the Amakelites are also labelled specifically for qualities that are race-like.

|9.20.05 @ 10:41AM|#

joe,

For am example of the bureaucratic, etc. power of the Roman world look at the history of the port of Ostia.

|9.20.05 @ 10:45AM|#

remember, we've only had a few hundred thousand years of distinction from monkeys, so maybe we'll stop acting like them in another few hundred thousand years.

|9.20.05 @ 10:47AM|#

Hak, Did the entire concept of the modern state, and how it is distinguished from past states, go over your head?

The comparison between the extent of the Roman state and that of other states at the time is not important here - it's the comparison between the Roman state and the 20th century state that matters.

Why are you such a prick when you post? Most everyone else manages to express themselves without the playground taunts.

|9.20.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Anyway, the point is that many states have set out via an intentional policy to annihilate a "specific people," that the Nazis applied industrial qualities to the issue has more to do with the development of various technological practices than anything. That they were far more effecient at murdering people speaks more to a difference in performance than anything.

|9.20.05 @ 10:54AM|#

joe,

Did the entire concept of the modern state, and how it is distinguished from past states, go over your head?

You're making a distinction without a difference as far as the point is concerned. I suggest you pick up a copy of The Nation-State and Violence. What the modern state has allowed for is increasing centralization in a whole host of areas, but that doesn't mean that they differ in the goals of states since the time of Sumeria.

Now you tell me, what is the difference between the Roman state systematically annihilating the Carthegenians based on a racial notion of Carthage and the Nazis systematically annihilating the Jews for the same reason?

Why are you such a moron when you post?

|9.20.05 @ 10:56AM|#

The answer lies in the tools available to the modern state; but that hardly makes a difference as far as the goal of the state is concerned, its motivations, etc. Essentially one state is more effecient than the other in committing murder. If that's the distinction you are yammering about then I suggest that its not a very important one.

|9.20.05 @ 10:58AM|#

Yep, this is about the level of acrimony I expected in this thread. I'm a little surprised by the direction it's taken, but there's still plenty of time for other points to be made.

At least I was correct in guessing the tone of this thread.

|9.20.05 @ 10:58AM|#

joe,

BTW, I do again suggest that you actually learn something about the history, governmental practices, etc. of the ancient world before you start commenting on them.

Phil|9.20.05 @ 10:59AM|#

Predictions:

1. Hakluyt will, in a thread that will approach or exceed 100 comments, have three or four comments in a row three or more times. Odds: 2-1.

2. Hakluyt and joe will continue to snipe at each other like four-year-olds instead of just getting a room already. Odds: 3-1.

3. joe's irony meter will fail to go off in re: using ad homs on people. Odds: 1-2.

|9.20.05 @ 11:00AM|#

thoreau,

Sorry, trying to privilege one genocide over another is flat out stupid and speaks more to the ability to create good P.R. than anything else.

|9.20.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Here's one thing which might make Germany's holocaust unique: the historic betrayal it represents.

Have you ever wondered why there were so many Jews in Germany in the first place? Or why so many "Jewish" surnames are actually German (Einstein, Goldfarb, Rosen, etc.)? Perhaps because the German states were among the most welcoming to Jews. Indeed, a large Jewish community was part of the reason for Germany's success. To have contributed so much to a state, only to have that state turn on you in an attempt to eliminate you (a largely successful attempt, too) must surely constitute something especially hateful, no?

|9.20.05 @ 11:01AM|#

thoreau,

BTW, you're more than welcome to address these other, fabled points.

|9.20.05 @ 11:03AM|#

JMoore,

Well, such betrayals are common throughout history as successful minority groups are cast as scapegoats by majorities.

|9.20.05 @ 11:05AM|#

Phil-

On the plus side, these guys are providing a diversion that may prevent people from rehashing certain controversies in the Middle East, and all the nasty things that can come up in such a discussion. Really, the qualitative differences between modern and ancient states was the last thing I would have predicted for this thread.

I suspect that at some point gaius marius will enter this fray. Since Hakluyt is drawing analogies between past and present I would think gm would enter on Hakluyt's side. But gm doesn't like to really take anybody's side, so he'll probably find a way to take issue with Hakluyt as well as joe.

|9.20.05 @ 11:07AM|#

German behavior in WWII just wasn't all that unique outside the effeciency aspects I've already mentioned. I believe we like to think its unique for a number of reasons, but as what has happened in East Timor, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. have demonstrated, its common for the state (and obviously followers of the state) to single out specific groups of people (no matter how fanciful the grouping) based on various race-like qualities and slaughter them.

|9.20.05 @ 11:08AM|#

Sorry, trying to privilege one genocide over another is flat out stupid and speaks more to the ability to create good P.R. than anything else.

I'm not taking a stance on that question. I'm just enjoying the show and putting down odds.

BTW, you're more than welcome to address these other, fabled points.

Like I said, I'm just enjoying the show.

|9.20.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Here's another thing which might make the Holocaust unique:

It is still within living memory.

I won't presume to argue comparisons with ancient Rome or the Albigensian Crusade--largely because of my ignorance thereof--but I can say that no one alive today could possibly offer a first-person view of either.

|9.20.05 @ 11:09AM|#

thoreau,

Always a wallflower I see. :)

Phil|9.20.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Sorry, trying to privilege one genocide over another is flat out stupid and speaks more to the ability to create good P.R. than anything else.

Well, you know those Jews. They're crafty.

thoreau: I can't wait until the day that Israel proposes a light rail system into Jerusalem while simultaneously capping gas prices. Those two might simply explode in a giant matter/antimatter reaction.

|9.20.05 @ 11:12AM|#

Jmoore - yes. That is a valid subjective reason for saying it was worse than most. But then what do you say about the American Indians who permitted the European settlers to survive - actually shared food and knowledge with them - only to be returned the favor of large scale displacement and extermination?

Is that a bigger or smaller betrayal? I might say that the Holocaust was bigger, but you might get a different answer from the descendants of American Indians.

The point being that the "awfulness" of these tragedies depends in large part upon your inherent biases and identity. For the biggest example of this, notice that Hitler and the Nazis are nearly uniformly condemned for the their genocide, but Stalin and the Soviets, who murdered more of their own citizens than the Nazis, are nowhere near as reviled in the mainstream here in the states.

Trying to argue which tragedy was worse is akin to arguing how many angels fit on the head of a needle. Which is why memorials should be left to those who wish to spend their own time and money in creating them.

|9.20.05 @ 11:13AM|#

JMoore,

Well, yes, most folks are wholly unaware of previous genodies prior to the Jewish holocaust, and the Jewish holocaust simply has gotten much more airplay since WWII.

|9.20.05 @ 11:16AM|#

I always hate to say this, but I agree with Hakluyt on this point. The Holocaust is notable for its intensity and thoroughness, which were more the result of access to modern technology than because of a unique hatred for Jews. Various tribes, empires, and nation-states have certainly succeeded at the total or near-total eradication of particular ethnic groups from within their geographic boundaries for millenia. (It could also be added in terms of more recent events that the Khmer Rouge targeted ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, and Chams for particular efforts at extermination.)

|9.20.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Phil,

Its not an issue of Jewish people being "crafty."

|9.20.05 @ 11:20AM|#

The important here is that state sponsored genocide against 'specific people' isn't rare, its unfortunately and quite terribly common. That's why trying to rank genocides (by what measure?) turns out to be such a silly endeavour.

|9.20.05 @ 11:20AM|#

SR,

Heh. :)

|9.20.05 @ 11:23AM|#

Quasibill,

Which is why memorials should be left to those who wish to spend their own time and money in creating them.

Well, any memorial is going to ultimately be inherently political.

|9.20.05 @ 11:23AM|#

Yes, I've commented before on the weirdness--from my POV--of Hitler's being portrayed as the devil while Uncle Joe (almost) gets a pass. Body counts make the Georgian bastard worse than the Austrian one.

I heard one interesting take on why so many consider the Holocaust special a while back. It was so unexpected! For centuries, German intellectuals had referred to their countries as the "Land der Dichter und Denker" (the country of poets and philosophers--note that this was NOT a compliment). They meant that this region of Europe was the place where intellect--not action--ruled. Germans were held to a higher standard (think Kant, for God's sake) than other nations by the intelligentsia. Anyway, this view of the H. holds that Germans should have been above such crimes (as opposed to the French, from whom we should expect nothing less).

IN its own way, this view is just as offensive, but it is one theory.

|9.20.05 @ 11:28AM|#

4 in a Row! Phil, we have a winner.

|9.20.05 @ 11:29AM|#

JMoore,

Well that view of Germany should have been smashed by the "rape" of Belgium and northern France in WWI.

|9.20.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Hakluyt

Should have been. But wasn't. I'll bet that even today, your impression of Germans is that they are smart. The best they have going for them is that they are essentially intellectual: they make great engineers, doctors, scientists, poets, writers, etc.

For them to attempt to eliminate a whole class of people distinguished by intellectualism could be seen as a unique betrayal of their own identity.

|9.20.05 @ 11:37AM|#

There are lots of genocides that predate the Holocaust, such as the Spanish Inquisition. The big difference is the time and place of the Holocaust. In the past, oppressing segments of the population was the norm. By the 1920's Western countries had stopped slavery, established freedom of religion, and were well on their way to universal suffrage. There were still some major flaws and mistreatment of groups, but no one could imaging repeating the genocides of the past. Germany was one of the first European countries to stop discriminating against Jews. Reform Judaism started there in the early 19th century and emphasized forming good relationships with non-Jews. That the Holocaust could happen in Germany after a century of progress against discrimination is a warning that genocide isn't something that happens in other times and other countries. It is something we have to guard against here and now. The change from a peaceful democracy to a Nazi dictatorship happened so gradually, most people just let it happen. We can't let that happen again.
If Holocaust remembrance stopped at the Holocaust, it would not be meaningful. The cry of "Never Again" means we have to look at current events and stop genocide when we see it. It is definitely appropriate to bring up Bosnia and Sudan as genocides we responded to or need to respond to. However, the objections made in the UK over Holocaust Day had less to do with inclusion and more to do with slandering Israel. Including Palestinians among genocide victims stretches the definition of genocide beyond belief. Israel has made repeated attempts at peace with the Palestinians and has just withdrawn from Gaza unilaterally in the hopes that this will spur the peace process. That isn't the type of action a government would take if it planned on eliminating a people off the face of the Earth.

|9.20.05 @ 11:38AM|#

JMoore,

My impression of Germans is that they have some rather stupid with their economy. :)

Having been around a number of Germans, I can't that they are any more smart on average than your average American.

|9.20.05 @ 11:39AM|#

jtuf

Well said.

|9.20.05 @ 11:42AM|#

jtuf,

Well, that's just an issue of idealistic expecations then.

|9.20.05 @ 11:43AM|#

It should also be noted that Karl Marx was a German Jew. Hmmm.

OK, that was uncalled for....sorry.

|9.20.05 @ 11:48AM|#

There are lots of genocides that predate the Holocaust, such as the Spanish Inquisition

Wrong. The spanish Inquisition may have been state-sanctioned torture but it was not genocide. The Inquisition was directed against anyone believed to be either a heretical Catholic, a Protestant, a secret Jew (there were no open Jews in Spain then!), or a secret Muslim. Jews were not targeted by the Inquisition, as shown by the large number of them in the Spanish Netherlands in the 16th-17th centuries; only "converts" or their kids who were believed to be recusants.

|9.20.05 @ 11:51AM|#

Honestly,

Have I been talking (writing) out my ass today? I've re-read my comments, and I think to myself "You've been drinking, haven't you?"

Please ignore everything I've posted here today.

|9.20.05 @ 11:53AM|#

I can't wait until the day that Israel proposes a light rail system into Jerusalem while simultaneously capping gas prices.

1000+ posts! Guaranteed!

|9.20.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Living among Germans, I can attest to the fact that they are no smarter than Americans. I can also attest to the fact that they were off to the restroom when God was passing out a sense of humor.

But they make some bitchin' beer, though.

|9.20.05 @ 12:01PM|#

German behavior in WWII just wasn't all that unique outside the effeciency aspects I've already mentioned

But that's the point, isn't it? Most of the other slaughters mentioned here were a) the result of war vengeance, like the Roman response to Carthage you erroneously refer to, which was not a systematic procedure of exterminating Cathaginians but the destruction of their city and farmland; or b) state-approved random violence such as in Rwanda; or c) state action against a dissenting idelogical group such as the Cathars (cite me where LeRoy Ladurie infers there was a racial component to the Cathar witch hunt by the Inquisition).

None of these events measures up to the deliberate, premeditated bureaucratization of mass murder on the basis of race. And BTW...

Please define the term racial identity in a way that includes Judaism, but is exclusive of a common belief.

Irrelevant. In the mind of Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi theoticians, Jewishness was a racial feature, hence their emphasis on determining the "racial composition" of candidates for the Party, the SS, etc. Just because we see the folly doesn't make theirs any less true.

|9.20.05 @ 12:02PM|#

It strikes me as odd that while focusing on "genocide" that occured thousands of years ago the Rwandan genocide, which occured ten years ago, receives only passing reference. It is probably the last time "a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people." Perhaps someone could also bring up the events occuring RIGHT NOW in Sudan. I agree with joe that Hak is a dick, but the only thing that makes the Nazi Holocaust historically unique was the scale made possible by Hitle's Europe-spanning empire and modern technology.

|9.20.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Would it help if governments stopped defining holidays... like they ought to stop defining marriage?

|9.20.05 @ 12:03PM|#

For them to attempt to eliminate a whole class of people distinguished by intellectualism could be seen as a unique betrayal of their own identity.

I wouldn't say that the Nazi genocide machine was fuelled by a desire to eliminate a people "distinguished by intellectualism". The thought was that the German nation had to rid itself of a parasite sucking its life blood. Interestingly, the most efficient cogs in the machinery were the German intellectuals, who did not see a betrayal of their identity in their actions, but rather a fulfillment thereof.

|9.20.05 @ 12:05PM|#

the Rwandan genocide was centrally planned and controlled by the ruling Hutu-Nationalist party. It went beyond "state-approved random violence".

|9.20.05 @ 12:11PM|#

I hate to threadjack, but since this thread is already thouroghly jacked I was wondering how y'all think we (as Americans, liberals, libertarians, westerners, etc.) should do when confronted with genocide in the here and now. I tend to oppose U.S. intervention abroad but surely there are times when the power of the state should be used in the face of such ultimate evil.

Any takers?

|9.20.05 @ 12:12PM|#

As was touched on before, a big difference between the Nazis and medieval anti-Semites was that the medieval ones, at least in theory, were opposed to Judaism exclusively as a religion--Jews who converted to Christianity were accepted into the fold. (In theory.) The Nazis viewed Jewishness as a racial thing, though--if two Jews converted to Christianity and raised their child as a Christian, that child, and the child's child, were still considered Jewish by the SS.

Oh, and Hakluyt--don't bother explaining that "anti-Semite" is an improper term to use here because "Semite" also refers to Arabs and Hitler didn't focus on them and blah blah blah. I already know this.

|9.20.05 @ 12:14PM|#

The Nazis viewed Jewishness as a racial thing, though--if two Jews converted to Christianity and raised their child as a Christian, that child, and the child's child, were still considered Jewish by the SS.

Edith Stein being an excellent example of this.

|9.20.05 @ 12:17PM|#

Hmm, I take that back. She's not an excellent example of what Jennifer was saying, but if converting to Roman Catholicism and becoming a Carmelite nun wasn't enough, then it really was a racial thing.

|9.20.05 @ 12:23PM|#

cdunlea,

...a) the result of war vengeance, like the Roman response to Carthage you erroneously refer to, which was not a systematic procedure of exterminating Cathaginians but the destruction of their city and farmland...

It was the systematic extermination of Carthagenians. The streets ran with their blood and it was the purpose of the Roman government to kill every last one of them for a time. I don't see where a "war of vengeance" makes a difference regarding the Third Punic War. the Roman government (as demonstrated by speeches in the Senate at the time) was hell bent on destroying the Carthagenians as a people; whether that was precipated by past wars or other reasons for animus doesn't seem to be of much importance.

...b) state-approved random violence such as in Rwanda...

Sorry, but the violence wasn't random there. It was a well-planned out genocide.

...or c) state action against a dissenting idelogical group such as the Cathars (cite me where LeRoy Ladurie infers there was a racial component to the Cathar witch hunt by the Inquisition)...

Heh. Why is that only book anyone ever reads on the Cathars?

Actually, the race-like component comes from the ethnic differences in France, since the region they were generally in was settled by the Visigoths. The religious division thus was mirrored in an ethnic division, and language about both spewed from the monarchy and the papacy.

|9.20.05 @ 12:28PM|#

Heh. Why is that only book anyone ever reads on the Cathars?

Because his is the THE defining work on the Cathars. Whatever you, I, or anyone else here knows about them is because of his work. So, yeah, in regards to the Cathars, I take his cite quite seriously, since neither I nor (to my knowledge) you spent 10+ years in archives studying them.

So, again, where's the cite? Some proof that the locals knew they were Visigoths, and not Gaulish? And cared? And that the Church and the local barons who let them operate cared?

|9.20.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Here's another thing which might make the Holocaust unique:

It is still within living memory.

Comment by: JMoore at September 20, 2005 11:09 AM

Rwanda and Kosovo are within living memory, and there are people alive today whose parents survived the Armenian genocide.

|9.20.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Jennifer,

There was also a race-like dimension to medieval and renaissance notions of Judaism; which is why the notion of 'blood purity' (meaning purity of one's family line) was so common in both time periods. One of the most full-blown forms of this can be found in Spain.

I suggest you check out Epstein's Speaking of Slavery, where the author discusses racism in medeival Italy. Another book, Slavery and Social Death, also discusses the racial/ethnic discriminatory qualities found in nearly every variant of slavery found throughout the sweep of human history.

|9.20.05 @ 12:36PM|#

It was the systematic extermination of Carthagenians. The streets ran with their blood and it was the purpose of the Roman government to kill every last one of them for a time. I don't see where a "war of vengeance" makes a difference regarding the Third Punic War. the Roman government (as demonstrated by speeches in the Senate at the time) was hell bent on destroying the Carthagenians as a people;

Again, show me the cite. Appian, in his Punic Wars, does refer to slaughter but not to a systematic extermination, most Cathaginians were taken as slaves, which is a perpetuation of their lives, not an end. The Punic Wars were about destroying Carthage and her power, not the people.

|9.20.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Hak, "What the modern state has allowed for is increasing centralization in a whole host of areas, but that doesn't mean that they differ in the goals of states since the time of Sumeria."

True, but irrelevant here. When people talk about the uniqueness of the Holocause, they are not referring to the goal being any different than that of past genocidaires. They're talking about the introduction of an efficient bureacratic/technological machinere - a state sponsored murder INDUSTRY - onto the world scene.

Someone wrote, "the only thing that makes the Nazi Holocaust historically unique was the scale made possible by Hitle's Europe-spanning empire and modern technology." Well, yes. And the only thing that made the automobile different that carriage was modern technology. The only thing that made our system of road transportation different from that of the 18th century was the scale of our efforts, and modern technology. Still, that's quite a difference, both in the thing itself, and in its consequences for the world.

|9.20.05 @ 12:39PM|#

cdunlea,

No, his the most popular work on the Cathars. Sorry, my copy of his book is in N.C., I am not in N.C. currently.

|9.20.05 @ 12:40PM|#

"The Punic Wars were about destroying Carthage and her power, not the people."

And, ultimately, incorporating them into the empire as subjects. The Romans made a lot of places run with blood, but in the service of conquest, not exterminationism.

|9.20.05 @ 12:42PM|#

There was also a race-like dimension to medieval and renaissance notions of Judaism; which is why the notion of 'blood purity' (meaning purity of one's family line) was so common in both time periods. One of the most full-blown forms of this can be found in Spain.

You're confusing discrimination with state-sanctioned slaugher. A family history of Judaism was often enough to get targeted as a secret Jew, but that would not necessarily mean the Inquisition would come for them. It discouraged some marriages, but that's hardly the same thing.

|9.20.05 @ 12:42PM|#

I agree with Solitudinarian: Germans = doubleplusunfunny.

|9.20.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Which is to say, the proper Nazi comparison to what was done to Carthage is Poland or Russia, not Europe's Jews.

|9.20.05 @ 12:45PM|#

cdunlea,

Taking people as slaves is destroying a people. Slavery entails 'social death' after all. And using slavery along with mass murder was a common means to wipe out city and ethnic populations in the Roman world. That's how the Romans wiped out the Helvitii after all. I provided about a clear dozen examples; you've attacked three, and haven't undermined any of them yet.

joe,

Now you've just switched tunes. Also, if you got your head out of your ass and looked at the original statement quoted by Young, you'd see that its not the mechanization, etc. which the author is talking about.

|9.20.05 @ 12:46PM|#

cdunlea,

No, I'm making another poster's comment addressing another issue entirely. I mean, duh dude.

theOneState|9.20.05 @ 12:47PM|#

The Nazis viewed Jewishness as a racial thing, though--if two Jews converted to Christianity and raised their child as a Christian, that child, and the child's child, were still considered Jewish by the SS.

Wouldn't they also be considered jews by...jews?

Anyway, instead of arguing whether it's unique or not in general, why don't you address the points made by the link Cathy provided?

link

Hak, do you disagree that none of the other major massive killing efforts contain more than one of those four elements?

|9.20.05 @ 12:49PM|#

No, his the most popular work on the Cathars. Sorry, my copy of his book is in N.C., I am not in N.C. currently.

Understood about the book being in NC, but while his is the most popular, it was also groundbreaking in its depth. I simply don't recall the crusade against Catharism having a racial quality, nor Ladurie mentioning it. I should think that as he was writing about fellow Frenchmen in the 1960s, from a Marxist, anti-Vichist perspective he would have mentioned something regarding a French genocide.

As to "popular", the derivative work of Natalie Davis is much more so.

|9.20.05 @ 12:50PM|#

joe,

The Romans made a lot of places run with blood, but in the service of conquest, not exterminationism.

Do shut up. The Romans wiped out numerous ethnic populations in Europe not as a means of conquest, but to simply exterminate people they didn't like for one reason or another (generally they'd justify this based on defense of the state, but often as not it was to satiate the populations bloodlust). You really need to stop watching so many movies about the Roman republic/empire and read a few books instead.

|9.20.05 @ 12:55PM|#

I provided about a clear dozen examples; you've attacked three, and haven't undermined any of them yet.

In your opinion. Your inability to cite backup, along with a dismissal of a serious monograph without a countercite, is hardly impressive.

Slavery entails 'social death' after all. And using slavery along with mass murder was a common means to wipe out city and ethnic populations in the Roman world.

Uh, wouldn't just lopping off their heads be a better example of mass murder? Doesn't sound like a state policy designed to kill people, just turn them into economic tools. Duh, dude.

|9.20.05 @ 12:56PM|#

cdunlea,

Well, I was never basing my comments on his book to begin with. I am basing them on a conversation I had with a medievalist and a historian of France on the subject though. Both made much of the ethnic component of the war. That's not surprising, given the general ethnic hostility found throughout much of French history. I mean ask yourself a question. Why is that both the Cathars and the Huguenots found much of their most fervant support in southern France?

|9.20.05 @ 12:56PM|#

Slavery entails 'social death' after all.

Nonetheless, slavery and genocide are two different things.

|9.20.05 @ 12:57PM|#

You really need to stop watching so many movies about the Roman republic/empire and read a few books instead.

Like what? And where, between the Twelve Tables and the Theodosian Code, is the edict demanding the ethnic cleansing of an entire race of people on the basis of their birth?

|9.20.05 @ 12:58PM|#

"I tend to oppose U.S. intervention abroad but surely there are times when the power of the state should be used in the face of such ultimate evil."

I admit this is a tough question. The answer I've arrived at is that you have to be responsible for your own morality. Acting through the state destroys this responsibility in myriad ways, and always leads to further degradation of personal responsibility for morality - it's a self-reinforcing trend.

So, by using the state (and its inherent violence) for reasons not directly related to the protection of natural rights of citizens (whom the state victimizes through taxes and other means) you, yourself, are committing an evil, for which you are personally responsible, as well as sowing the seeds for more evil in the future.

The answer, as always, lies in private action and encouragement of empowering individuals in relation to their states. If you want to stop a genocide, get personally involved - supply victims with weapons to defend themselves, etc.

|9.20.05 @ 1:02PM|#

Why is that both the Cathars and the Huguenots found much of their most fervant support in southern France?

The Cathars were hillbilles in the Pyrenees holding a pagan-infused belief in gnosticism. The Hugenots were Protestants in the Calvinist mode, generally found in commercial centers and cities. Indeed, there were many Hugenots in the north and west; Nantes, after all, is closer to Bretagne than Toulouse, and by your thesis are probably Bretons.

|9.20.05 @ 1:03PM|#

cdunlea,

Your inability to cite backup, along with a dismissal of a serious monograph without a countercite, is hardly impressive.

Even if these were an adequate criticism, it only concerns one of the dozen examples I presented. Of course you're the one claiming that the genocide in Rawanda was random, when in fact the thing was planned out long in advance, coordinated with the shoot down of a plane, directed by radio broadcasts, etc. Calling that random absolves the perpetrators of their responsibility for their crimes.

As to "popular", the derivative work of Natalie Davis is much more so.

It is a best seller and ranks up there with other history like A Distant Mirror.

|9.20.05 @ 1:03PM|#

By which I mean, the connection between these two groups is tenuous at best.

|9.20.05 @ 1:06PM|#

It is a best seller and ranks up there with other history like A Distant Mirror.

Popular...to whom? I don't know anyone outside of academia who's even hear of Ladurie, never mind read him. For Davis, on the other hand, all you need to do is mention Sommersby for recognition.

|9.20.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Hakluyt:
Or the systematic Roman slaughter of the . . . people of Carthage (in the latter example the Roman state clearly planned on wiping the Carthagenians off the map)?

I just finished an excellent book on the Punic Wars (The Punic Wars
by Adrian Goldsworthy), and it argues that the Romans were intent on destroying the Carthagenian state, not the people. In particular, Punic culture wasn't destroyed, and the people of Carthage were sold into slavery, not exterminated. The Roman goal was to destroy a potential rival state, not a culture or a people.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304352845/reasonmagazineA/

|9.20.05 @ 1:13PM|#

"Hak, do you disagree that none of the other major massive killing efforts contain more than one of those four elements?"

I would say that from a victim's standpoint, those four elements are largely irrelevant. The crime is the intent coupled with the action. Most of those points are distinguished from SE Asia and African genocide only in that Germany was technologically advanced compared to those societies (for example, the point about people returning home from working at concentration camps - in Africa and Cambodia, the economy was (is) not such that these lifestyles are possible).

Again, the efficiency of the Nazi state isn't really relevant to how evil the crime was. It's first degree murder if you intentionally kill someone with a single gunshot to the head or if you stab them multiple times in the back. The Soviets, Rwandans, Kmher Rouge, etc. all set out to exterminate a certain class of citizens, and killed many pursuant to this intention. That is the crime. Everything else is a matter of subjective valuation, upon which principled people can disagree in good faith.

|9.20.05 @ 1:16PM|#

cdunlea,

The Cathars were hillbilles in the Pyrenees holding a pagan-infused belief in gnosticism.

Wrong. Now I know you're talking out of your ass. It was the majority religion in the region by the 13th century of both the peasantry and the nobility. I mean really, 1/2 a million people were killed when France had a population which only counted in the millions; the rich and powerful Count of Toulouse and every Cathar noble, etc. under were stripped of their lands, titles, etc, as was the viscount of Beziers. Indeed, the King of Aragon (who had vassals in the region) died fighting against the Crusade. Also, that region of France in the 12th and 13th centuries was one of the most vibrant cultural and economic centers of Europe (indeed, the genocide basically made it into a backwater), and Occitan, the native tongue of the region, was well known throughout Europe because of the troubadour scene at the time.

|9.20.05 @ 1:21PM|#

Don,

Well, that contrasts starkly with what I recall of W.V. Harris' work and with Senate speeches I have read.

cdunlea,

It is a best-seller. I run into non-academics who own it all the time.

|9.20.05 @ 1:23PM|#

Hakluyt: Do shut up. The Romans wiped out numerous ethnic populations in Europe not as a means of conquest, but to simply exterminate people they didn't like for one reason or another (generally they'd justify this based on defense of the state, but often as not it was to satiate the populations bloodlust). You really need to stop watching so many movies about the Roman republic/empire and read a few books instead.

Wow, Do shut up is such a powerful argument!

The Romans were quite willing to extend Roman citizenship to many populations, and they were willing to make deals with many populations. When they went to war, they went to war to win a complete victory where the enemy state would never again be their equal.

It was all about reducing threats to the state.

Now, for the soldiers and leaders involved, a part of the plunder was involved, and there are examples where Romans attacked friendly tribes just to divide the plunder. But that is greed, not racial extermination. Further, success in battle could be turned into political success for leaders and their desendents. So individual actors had personal motives, but from the state perspective, the goal was defense of the state.

|9.20.05 @ 1:24PM|#

quasibill,

Well, there's also the issue that seems to be running through this thread its worse to be killed because of your "race" or "ethnicity" rather than say your economic class, your political allegiance, etc., which just flat out absurd on its face.

|9.20.05 @ 1:25PM|#

It was the majority religion in the region by the 13th century of both the peasantry and the nobility

Hardly. It was an esoteric cult meeting out of sight of the local authorities, both civil and religious. If it was a majority--which you again give no real cite for except your opinion--the locals would never have allow the burning of these heretics to take place.

|9.20.05 @ 1:26PM|#

Christ guys, of all the pointless pissing matches I have read on this site this one takes the cake. Do you people even know what you are arguing about anymore? Does it even matter to what degree the Holocaust was a unique event in human history?

Sheesh.

|9.20.05 @ 1:27PM|#

(Gratuitous Insult) + ("Nuh-uh") + (Instructions to read more books) = Typically vacuous Jean Gary Hak post.

cdunlea is really kicking your ass today.

|9.20.05 @ 1:29PM|#

Will everybody else just stop posting so that Hak can get 3 in a row again? Phil's prediction was 3+ in a row, 3+ times. He's only been able to do it twice so far because other people keep interrupting.

|9.20.05 @ 1:29PM|#

Well, there's also the issue that seems to be running through this thread its worse to be killed because of your "race" or "ethnicity" rather than say your economic class, your political allegiance, etc., which just flat out absurd on its face.

To you. I think most people can intrinsically understand someone wanting to kill you for a choice you make in your actions or beliefs, or because you are an economic or political threat to them, rather than for the minimal, unintentional accident of race.

|9.20.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Does it even matter to what degree the Holocaust was a unique event in human history?

Sure it does. I'ts the difference between institutional murder and mob violence, the first time racists used a mismarriage of fake science and the will of the people, as expressed in the state, to totally exterminate another people.

|9.20.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Don,

The Romans were quite willing to extend Roman citizenship to many populations...

Yes, by the time of the late Empire. Their willingness to extend citizenship depends on the time period in question. You too need to stop watching so many movies.

|9.20.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Well, that contrasts starkly with what I recall of W.V. Harris' work and with Senate speeches I have read.

I searched for books by Harris on Amazon; most appropriate seemed to be War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327-70 B.C. (Paperback)
by William V. Harris ($55 & no reviews! But used are available). The book description ends with this:

The author answers these questions within an analytic framework, and comes to an interpretation of Roman imperialism that differs sharply from the conventional ones.

Perhaps the author's "unconventional" interpretation is correct, but for the time being I'm sticking to what I've read.

|9.20.05 @ 1:37PM|#

"I think most people can intrinsically understand someone wanting to kill you for a choice you make in your actions or beliefs, or because you are an economic or political threat to them"

Not that I'm even going to go so far as accepting such moral relativism in reality, but given your position, do you really not know that much of the hatred of Jews whipped up in Nazi Germany was because they were seen as political and especially as economic threats? To speak of the Holocaust being only about "race" (however that is defined, because you can't do it genotypically) and having nothing to do with economics or politics is missing the point so badly that it makes me wonder if it is intentional.

fyodor|9.20.05 @ 1:43PM|#

I just jumped in, but I'd like to make some distinctions here.

Murdering someone is equally as bad regardless of the reason it's done or who does it to whom.

But the reasons why it's done and who does it to whom may affect how interesting it is or how useful it is to know about it and study it.

Anyway, human psychology being the way it is, some stories are just going to make better press or better history than others. But just as that's true, there'll always be those who'll find some nefarious unseen motives to explain why some stories get more attention than they supposedly "should" and why others get less. Ho-hum, nothing new here, move along...

|9.20.05 @ 1:44PM|#

cdunlea,

I'm curious, if the Cathars were such a small religion, etc. in the hills, why did the Catholic Church view them as a existential threat that they had to throw a crusade at (indeed, large armies using large amounts of resources that could have been used to fight the Saracens)?

joe,

Yes, he's kicking ass at showing his ignorance. You're doing a pretty good job of that yourself. Are you willing to back up his claim about Rwamda? Or that the Cathars were a bunch of hillbillies? Put your money where your mouth is punk.

|9.20.05 @ 1:50PM|#

cdunlea,

Also, you've cited to nothing. You've merely stated "go see this book."

|9.20.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Yes, by the time of the late Empire

And that explains why Saul of Tarsus' father was awarded Roman citizenship in the days of Tiberias, right? Sounds like the early empire to me. Try again.

|9.20.05 @ 1:54PM|#

Geez. All this Roman talk and no gaius? What's the deal?

As for me, I hate the bloody Romans. Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done?

Phil|9.20.05 @ 1:54PM|#

Also, you've cited to nothing. You've merely stated "go see this book."

Hahahaha. Aside from the irony of the fucking EMPEROR of "go read this book" complaining about his own trick being used, I think such a cite is far more robust than, say, "A conversation I had with a medievalist" and "some Senate speeches I read."

|9.20.05 @ 1:55PM|#

You've merely stated "go see this book."

The pot calls the kettle Hak!

|9.20.05 @ 1:57PM|#

joe,

He basically attacked three of the dozen points I made. One of his criticisms fell flat on its face (his claim about Rwanda). His statement about the Cathars was undermined by his ignorance of Albigensian culture, history, etc. (he's got some chronology issues apparently). As to the bit about Rome's usage of Carthage, the biggest point he can make is to try to differentiate enslavement v. actual death as a means to destroy a population of people.

|9.20.05 @ 1:58PM|#

cdunlea,

Note that my comment referred to a statement about "populations" and not individuals. Remember, reading the comment that is commented upon is essential. :)

|9.20.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Yes, by the time of the late Empire. Their willingness to extend citizenship depends on the time period in question.

I realize it depends upon various factors.

I also realize the Romans were often quite harsh, but from what I know, they acted so either for personal reasons or for defense of the state. To my knowledge, elimination of race or culture wasn't a motivation.

You too need to stop watching so many movies.

Mostly I watch Spy Kids, Rollie Polli Ollie, and other kid fare. Given that my 3 & 5 year old have gained control of the TV set. Haven't seen a movie in the theator in years . . .

But, I have just finished a book on the Punic Wars . . .

|9.20.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Phil,

Actually, I generally give you page number and quoted language. I could do that for any book I've mentioned here today if I were in N.C.

|9.20.05 @ 2:02PM|#

I think most people can intrinsically understand someone wanting to kill you for a choice you make in your actions or beliefs, or because you are an economic or political threat to them, rather than for the minimal, unintentional accident of race.

I can intrinsically understand that I wind up dead in any case. I think fyodor is right that it is of useful interest to find out the motivation behind mass murder, but that there is - ulitmately - no real difference between "Up against the wall, Jew-boy" and "Up against the wall, capitalist pig".

|9.20.05 @ 2:04PM|#

There's no legitimate distinction to be drawn between genocide and enslavement? Damn, Hak, when did you turn into Chuck D?

|9.20.05 @ 2:10PM|#

As to the bit about Rome's usage of Carthage, the biggest point he can make is to try to differentiate enslavement v. actual death as a means to destroy a population of people.

Hakluyt, in the Third Punic War, Rome accepted Punic forces that traded sides. Further, while they destroyed Carthage, they did not exterminate/enslave all of the people in the surrounding countryside, except to the extent it made military sense or in payback for specific actions, or as part of poor disipline of the Roman forces at that time (looting, etc., and failing to follow orders).

|9.20.05 @ 2:10PM|#

As for me, I hate the bloody Romans. Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done?

The Aqueduct?

|9.20.05 @ 2:28PM|#

As for me, I hate the bloody Romans. Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done?

Brought peace. :)

|9.20.05 @ 2:28PM|#

I suggest that everybody here read every book in Jean Bart's personal library before they embarass themselves any further.

|9.20.05 @ 2:31PM|#

cdunlea,

Indeed, Rome wasn't always so giving regarding the status of citizenship, for example, the Italian demand for Roman citizenship ended up bringing about a war, the 'Social War' in 91 BCE. About half the peninsula rose up against the republic; the revolt was partly defused by granting citizenship and then using the allies gained on the peninsula from this to crush the remaining rebels.

joe,

Not when the issue is whether a race/ethnic group/etc. is wiped out. Maybe you should pay attention to the actual contested issue at hand instead of being the king of the inapposite.

Don,

To my knowledge, elimination of race or culture wasn't a motivation.

Yes, and the Roman effort to wipe out the Helvetii never happened I am sure. Nor did the Roman effort to eradicate the culture of the Gauls and create good little Romans out of them either.

...they did not exterminate/enslave all of the people in the surrounding countryside...

That's why I keep on writing things like cith of Carthage, etc.

|9.20.05 @ 2:31PM|#

I suggest that everybody here read every book in Jean Bart's personal library before they embarass themselves any further.

|9.20.05 @ 2:35PM|#

Don't forget the vomitorium.

|9.20.05 @ 2:36PM|#

By the way, the Punic defector (and his 2,200 cavery) accepted by the Romans in the Third Punic War was Himilco Phamaes. His defection is mentioned in pgs 345-346 of The Punic Wars (which I linked above).

smacky,

The Romans developed concrete that could set under water.

|9.20.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Don't forget the vomitorium.

|9.20.05 @ 2:39PM|#

"Brought peace"?!

DO shut up!!

|9.20.05 @ 3:22PM|#

cdunlea is really kicking your ass today

One might even go so far as to say that he's uleashed Chiang upon your ass ;>)

|9.20.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Don't forget the vomitorium.

If I ever build a home, I am going to include a vomitorium in the design plans as a testament to the sheer opulence of my living quarters. (But I will have to figure out where I can find the vomitory equivalent of "urine cakes" -- don't want my decadent home smelling like puke.)
There I will host lavish reason Hit and Run gatherings. I will also accidentally lock Gary in the library.

|9.20.05 @ 3:26PM|#

thoreau,

~2,000 books seem like a tall order in a day.

|9.20.05 @ 3:34PM|#

Hakluyt-

How would you know how many books Jean Bart has in his library? :)

|9.20.05 @ 3:36PM|#

There I will host lavish reason Hit and Run gatherings. I will also accidentally lock Gary in the library.

Poor Gary - it was smacky with the lead pipe in the library.

|9.20.05 @ 3:36PM|#

jim,

cdunlea has unleased his inner ignorance on my ass. :)

smacky,

Oooh, sounds like my sort of party. :)

cdunlea,

I think I finally figured out what your problem is. You don't realize that the book in question is dealing with Catherism in the 14th century after it had been largely crushed by the crusade. That's why you don't realize how big and fast Catharism flowered in the 12th and 13th centuries.

|9.20.05 @ 3:37PM|#

thoreau,

He sent me a picture and I estimated. :)

|9.20.05 @ 3:39PM|#

Nice, thoreau.

That was like a sneaky Atticus Finch-esque lawyer trick. Pulled upon another (future) lawyer no less.

|9.20.05 @ 3:44PM|#

TheDumbFish,

That'd be true if I were making any denials about anything. :)

|9.20.05 @ 3:58PM|#

You're saying you've never denied being Jean Bart?

Now you're changing your story!

|9.20.05 @ 4:00PM|#

cdunlea is really kicking your ass today

One might even go so far as to say that he's uleashed Chiang upon your ass ;>)

|9.20.05 @ 4:05PM|#

thoreau,

Well, more accurately I'm saying that I am making do denials now.

jim,

cdunlea has unleased his inner ignorance on my ass. :)

|9.20.05 @ 4:11PM|#

Hakluyt,

Leading up to the Third Punic War, the Romans demanded that Carthage relocate inland, therby removing Carthage from its source of wealth. The Romans (as you are no doubt aware from your reading of senate speaches) were concearned that Carthage wealth would enable future Punic military power.

When the Romans were giving siege, Roman prisoners were tortured to death on the walls of the city, perhaps to remove surrender as a option. Yet, when the Romans were fighting within the city, the citizens of Carthage reached a surrender agreement with the Romans (Roman deserters within the city were offered no agreement, and chose suicide). Slavery for the citizens of Carthage, under the circumstances, could be considered lienient; and it seems clear that the Romans did not intend to destroy Punic culture or any race in this war.

I won't comment specifically on other Roman wars, since my knowledge of these is poor.

|9.20.05 @ 4:19PM|#

Announcement of Gathering in the DC Area
This is a thread-jack. If you do not cooperate we will unleash the wrath of Allah on your server!....oh, wait, never mind.

Anyway, in light of how successful the other gatherings have been, Mr. Nice Guy and I are looking to have a gathering in the DC area, any weekend from Oct. 28 through mid-December.

Here's how it works:
-If you're interested, contact me. The address is real if you remove the part about spam.
-Let me know which weekends you can meet in the DC area. If you aren't sure of your schedule but want to be on the mailing list for the event, just send me an email and I'll keep you in the loop.
-Most popular weekend wins.
-I'm fairly new to the area, so if you have a suggested venue, preferably near a Metro stop, let me know that too.

I'm thinking an evening, preferably a Saturday, but whatever time works for the most people is what we'll do. Mr. Nice Guy and I will try to organize a trip to the shooting range (in Maryland, not DC, obviously) in the afternoon before the event for those who are interested. Both of us live near Metro stations and can probably take in somebody who wants to crash.

Also, Smacky is coming to DC for a wedding Oct. 14-16. I'm busy that weekend, her schedule with the wedding is kind of busy, and I figure that the shorter notice might not work for those wanting to come from out of town, but if somebody is interested in putting something together, you might want to get in touch with her and see who else is interested.

|9.20.05 @ 4:29PM|#

Don,

You make the Roman attitude seem almost paternalistic. No, following the events in the Second Punic War Rome was seriously pissed at Carthage, but were kept busy in the east while they collected their yearly reparation from Carthage. Indeed, if all the Romans were interested in was a negotiated settlement, the Carthagenians were more than willing to take it (see the demand for a couple of hundred children of wealthy families for hostages deal). Yet when deals were struck the Romans simply ignored them once the Carthagenians had followed through.

Thence followed an expensive and time consuming three year seige (149-146 BCE) in which much of the population starved to death. Aside from 50,000 Carthagenians sold into slavery (15%-20% of the population), the rest of them died because of starvation, disease or were killed in the fierce, blood-soaked fighting of the last days.

|9.20.05 @ 4:38PM|#

One point being missed in this endless comparison of the Holocaust to the Roman Empire and the Cathars is that the very notion of "race" as the Nazis understood and applied it had only existed since the mid-late 19th Century--as a pseudo-science that sought to classify ethnic groups as akin to sub-species.

As such, the Romans could apply the same overall *mindset* to their genocides of the Carthaginians and various Gaullish/Germanic tribes, not to mention the Teutonic Knights to the Prussians, Turks to the Armenians, etc. etc., without seeking the same exact goal, since without the pseudo-scientific stuff, assimilating the survivors of a massacre would be an equally effective way of getting rid of them--since 'them' was a cultural, not biological, concept.

As such, the Holocaust may well be unique in that respect. But the underlying *mindset* is as old as the hills and persists to this day, unfortunately.

|9.20.05 @ 4:41PM|#

In the United States, some right-wing bloggers have been shrieking that the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11's Flight 93 is shaped like a crescent.

Looking at the design pictures I've seen, I'd venture that it is, as well.

Are there ones where it isn't?

|9.20.05 @ 4:47PM|#

ChrisO,

Well, maybe a "scientific" justification is new (but its older than you realize - it dates back to a french writer named Bernier in mid-17th century), but the idea that there are different sets of human beings who are actually varying types of animals (some inferior and others superior) goes back at least to Aristotle.

|9.20.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Hak has decided to neither confirm nor deny because I got him to give it up this weekend.

crimethink can back me up on that.

|9.20.05 @ 4:50PM|#

joe-

I skimmed that thread. Where did he claim a military background? I found the part where crimethink accused him of claiming one, and I saw his reply, but I didn't notice the part that crimethink was responding to.

|9.20.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Hakluyt, the Romans wanted to ensure that Carthage would never again be a threat. The final Roman demand was for the citizens of Carthage to relocate inland, and the existing Carthage would be raized. That would destroy Punic power, and, not surprisingly, the Punic people did not accept.

You are correct that many in Carthage starved, but it is also true that Hasdrubal had kept much of the food stores for his army, allowing the civilian population to suffer the brunt of the starvation.

My point, in any case, is not that the Romans were in the right in this war, or that they behaved well by modern standards. In fact, they were in the wrong, and their behaviour was typical of the day. However, their motivation was to remove Carthage as a potential threat, not to destroy a race or culture.

|9.20.05 @ 4:52PM|#

"Looking at the design pictures I've seen, I'd venture that it is, as well."

Yes, Eric, but you seem to have the good sense not to shriek about it.

|9.20.05 @ 4:54PM|#

joe,

You did? Since I got back I hadn't realized that I was denying anything about l'affair Jean Bart, etc. Its certainly news to me.

ChrisO,

I should say it dates back at least that there. There were so many gentleman-scientists poking around with this or that firsts are hard to be certain about.

|9.20.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Don,

The final Roman demand was for the citizens of Carthage to relocate inland, and the existing Carthage would be raized.

After the Romans had gone back on their promises, do you honestly think this Roman demand could have been taken as an ameliorative measure?

However, their motivation was to remove Carthage as a potential threat, not to destroy a race or culture.

I'd say that its both actually.

|9.20.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Oh, I get it! Very clever, crimethink!

And crimethink knows a thing or two about multiple identities. He's not some innocent angel.... ;)

|9.20.05 @ 5:02PM|#

thoreau,

Actually, I didn't make any claim about being in the military. Maybe joe and I should meet at Club Chaos in D.C. instead. :)

|9.20.05 @ 5:05PM|#

cdunlea-The differences between Northern and Southern France did exist. I don't know that it's exactly proper to characterize them as ethnic as such, but anyone who has been there can tell you that Northern and Southern France are very different places, even today. And, while I doubt that the numbers were as high as He Who Must Not Be Named was trying to place them, the Cathars did constitute a significant percentage of the population between 1000 and 1200. The reason they were largely ineffectual in their struggles was mostly due to the fact that most of the clergy and practitioners were unwilling to take up arms in their own defense, believing, like most martyrs, that it was better to die in service of their faith than to live having broken it's rules. Especially for Cathars, who held some really draconian views about the nature of the Earth and what happened to people who failed. As a result, they were forced to depend upon the kindness of strangers, so to speak, and consequently they eventually fell.

I should point out that I don't agree that the Crusade constituted a genocide in any legal sense of the word; outside of the Cathar strongholds it was theoretically possible to recant and survive the purges. There were nobles who did just that, if I remember correctly. The point is that genocide has a racial component, and outside of the Church's actions against "Saracens" very little of what they did concerned itself with race.

|9.20.05 @ 5:07PM|#

Hakluyt,

I think you are dead on. The Germans just happened to be more efficient and honest about it, while explting modern technology. The world, especially the Western world holds it with higher regard then other genocides because the West actually fought to stop this one.

Think of the moral dilemma it would create if we admitted that Stalin was worse then Hitler.
It would beg the question why did we(the West) do nothing to prevent the gulags and genocide in Russia?

Also if it was on par with other Genocides should the West then go about creating a homeland for the survivors of those?

Well I guess they did in the US, they call them Reservations.

|9.20.05 @ 5:08PM|#

I specifically did not assign a date to the notion of race as a scientific concept for that very reason: (a) I don't know enough about to speak authoritatively, and (b) it probably evolved here and there along with the development of actual science.

You are correct that ancient peoples often thought of others as non-human. In fact, the modern English word "Germans" derives (I believe) from the French allemagne, which in turn derives from the ancient Germanic Allemanni tribal confederation. That term literally meant "all men." In other words, any non-allemanni was not considered a "man." We also know that the Greeks believed something similar about Barbarians. But, curiously, outsiders could join both Greek culture and Germanic tribes. As such ancient genocides tended to take the form of slaughter of fighting-age men and boys, with either enslavement or incorporation of women and children. The notion that it was necessary to carry out some kind of total "blood purge" in order to rid oneself of an annoying neighboring tribe would probably have seemed alien to most folks then.

So in that sense, I still say that the Nazi Holocaust had a unique element to it. But that said, it should not be used to obscure or belittle other atrocities committed in recent times.

|9.20.05 @ 5:11PM|#

Shem,

Sorry, but genocide need not have a racial component. It can be against a racial, ethnic, cultural, etc. group.

I don't know that it's exactly proper to characterize them as ethnic as such...

The regions diverged as to language, dress, etc. as much or more as can be found in what was Yugoslavia (indeed, it took the French state hundreds of years to crush many of these ingrained differences). This is why the various peoples of France considered themselves not to be Frenchmen but Bretons, etc., and subjects of the French crown.

|9.20.05 @ 5:26PM|#

Huh. Guess the UN *would* call it genocide. My mistake.

I still don't agree that the differences were ethnic, though. Ethnicity as we would discribe it didn't exist at that point in history. The differences were there, but I don't think that we should be applying the terms in retrospect.

|9.20.05 @ 5:28PM|#

The Occitan language (some would say group of languages) was spoken as a primary language throughout southern France until surprisingly recently. It is still the local language in a number of areas, though almost all speakers are also fluent in French. Occitan is much closer to Catalan than to French, from what I've read on the subject. I think that the French govt. only began attempting to crush the other cultures in France after the Revolution, in the throes of nationalism, and the notion of other cultures being a form of 'rural idiocy' closely tied to the ancien regime.

|9.20.05 @ 5:32PM|#

ChrisO,

There were spotty efforts to reign in differences from the Renaissance onward. Obviously one these efforts revolves around the French Wars of Religion. But a full on concentrated effort by a centralized state doesn't come into being after the Revolution. What the Revolution and the period that follow it due is heighten trends, etc. that had already been in play at a more limited level before it (be it centralization, the creeping uniformity in language, etc.).

|9.20.05 @ 5:33PM|#

ChrisO,

And of course centralization was a theme of the monarchy off and from the time of Merovinigans (with less or more success depending on the circumstances).

|9.20.05 @ 5:41PM|#

The reason the Holocaust is important is because it was the most spectacular of all the failed attempts to destroy us. Where are the Romans and the Inquisition and the Nazis, gone. Yet we survive.

You hate us because we are the chosen people but because we are the chosen people you are unable to destroy us. You Gentiles ought to just give it up.

"In each generation they try to destroy us, but God saves us from them."

(from the Haggadah if I remember correctly)

|9.20.05 @ 5:53PM|#

In the United States, some right-wing bloggers have been shrieking that the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11's Flight 93 is shaped like a crescent.

Yeah, and part of the year it will be a red cresent. Actually, it won't be because the design is going to be changed. Further, there were charges it faced Mecca.

|9.20.05 @ 5:59PM|#

"In each generation they try to destroy us, but God saves us from them."

This statement presumes that someone cares to begin with. :P

drf|9.20.05 @ 6:08PM|#

Smacky:

the trick to get around that is to invent some screen named alter egos to care for them...

besides a fun run around with Gary et al, do these posts do anything?

jest askin'.

And why is there this urge to put on my chaps and try to get the sofa into "council of the cow" position???? hmmmmmmmm.

dammit. need to stop freebasing purel.

|9.20.05 @ 6:09PM|#

Madame Smacky,

Perhaps it isn't God who saves us, yet the billions of you have never been able to destroy the millions of us.

Next year in Jerusalem!

|9.20.05 @ 6:15PM|#

"In each generation they try to destroy us, but God saves us from them."

Maybe he does, but given the fact that he doesn't seem too cheerful about it, is such sanctimony a good idea?;)

|9.20.05 @ 6:17PM|#

I thank God that the Volokh Conspiracy contains little that might possibly allow someone (e.g., Hakluyt) to comment on ancient Rome.

Ever think of consolidating your posts, Hakluyt? It worked well for my undergraduate and law school loans.

|9.20.05 @ 6:33PM|#

yet the billions of you have never been able to destroy the millions of us.

This is the sentiment I was taking issue with; I wasn't commenting about whether or not a god even exists. I should've been clearer in my previous post.
That statement is presuming that all non-Jews even so much as care enough to try to destroy Jews. That takes a lot of effort. Don't flatter yourself too much. That's a pretty weighted statement! (I myself don't give a shit what people believe in as long as it's not directly going to affect me.)

Gotta go now.

|9.20.05 @ 7:27PM|#

Sorry, but genocide need not have a racial component. It can be against a racial, ethnic, cultural, etc. group.

That's your definition, not the one the rest of the world holds.

|9.20.05 @ 7:37PM|#

Shem, I don't really disagree with much of what Hak says about the Cathars (with the exception of the absurd statement that "1/2 a million people were killed" in the religious strife of the 13th century). And it doesn't really matter what the truth about the Cathars is here. This is (was?) a discussion about genocide, the purposeful murder of an entire ethnic group. The purge of the Cathars simply does not qualify, any more than the Salem Witch Trials; the Church declared war on heretics because they believed in error, as the saying went, not because they were Visigoths/Celts/Iberians/whatever.

You can only make that case if you can PROVE, with an extant document found in a catacomb or archive somewhere, that Pope A decided to send the Inquision to exterminate the people of southern France. Can Hak point to any such document? No, because if he could he would have brought it up by now (even though he's not in NC, but then, neither am I).

Hak's entire case is based on using the world "genocide" in the sense of "cultural genocide". But that's not what's being discussed right here, because that's the not the intent of the British promoters of Holocaust Day; they are not concerned with Jewish cultural death but physical death.

|9.20.05 @ 7:47PM|#

"In each generation they try to destroy us, but God saves us from them."

Having just read a portion of Josephus' War of the Jews, I have a different idea of what happened when Titus besieged Jerusalem. It was a brutal and violent episode, no doubt, but one does get the idea that the jews left the Romans very little choice but to destroy the city.

Of course, Josephus was a "guest" of the Romans at the time. So one can take it with few grains of salt. Interesting read tho'

|9.20.05 @ 8:35PM|#

drf,

Blogging is strictly for entertainment. :)

cdunlea,

I don't really disagree with much of what Hak says about the Cathars...

Now you are just flat out fibbing.

And it doesn't really matter what the truth about the Cathars is here.

It seemed to matter earlier when you were "correcting" me with a bunch of erroneous assertions. I revealed that were making comments on the 12th and 13th century about a book that dealt with the post-Crusade period in the 14th century. I mean honestly, this is how hopelessly clueless you are. And yes, that is an accurate body count. Between 10,000-20,00 were killed at places like Bezeirs alone.

The purge of the Cathars simply does not qualify, any more than the Salem Witch Trials...

The Salem Witch trials included a handful of deaths. Sorry, comparing that the numbers killed during the Crusade against the Albigensians is just stupid.

Can Hak point to any such document?

Asked to distinguish Cathar from non-Cathar amongst Occitan speaks, the Abbot of Citeaux stated quite bluntly that the army should "Kill them all, God will know his own." Yes, as we can see, they really were after the Cathars and no one else, that's why they were so discriminating in the wanton slaughter they committed.

This war threw the whole of the nobility of the north of France against that of the south, possibly instigated by a papal decree stating that all land owned by Cathars could be confiscated at will. As the area was full of Cathar sympathisers, this made the entire area a target for northern nobles looking to gain new lands. It is thus hardly surprising that the barons of the north flocked south to do battle for the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar

Yep, couldn't have been any internal rivalries going on based on anything other than religion, no way that was possible.

Oh where, oh where did your statement about Rwanda go?

Into the dust heap.

That's your definition, not the one the rest of the world holds.

I suggest you consult Webster's you twit. Ignorance just exudes out of your body, huh?

Main Entry: geno�cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=genocide

I suggest you rethink your claims before you sully yourself even further. I guess it must be some conspiracy by me to change the meaning of the term "genocide." Ha!

Shem,

You see, this ignorant twit attacked three of my dozen examples; one he failed miserably on from the start. The other two he's been flailing about upon ever since.

|9.20.05 @ 8:39PM|#

cdunlea,

BTW, having egg on your face over the definition of genocide is especially choice given your "not the rest of the world" statement. :)

|9.20.05 @ 9:41PM|#

"Kill them all, God will know his own."

AHA! I've been wondering what the hell a "Cathar" was. Never heard of it. But I'd heard (from a tape of a talk by David D. Friedman) that the expression, "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out" originated during the attempts to suppress "the Albigensian heresy." Now, after a little research to be sure, I have discovered that "Albigensian" is a somewhat less accurate term for Cathar. Hoo.

|9.20.05 @ 10:13PM|#

By the way, I have a hypothesis about why the Nazi holocaust seems so much more "meaningful" and horrible and fascinating to us than do other genocides in other times and places. It's because the Germans of the 1930s-1940s are so much like us -- more so than Africans or Asians or ancient Romans or even Eastern Europeans. It shocks us that people so much like "us" should be capable of such brutality and, even as bystanders, ethical tone-deafness. Worse, at some level this event suggests that we, ourselves, might be capable of similar horrible things.

And part of the way we avoid confronting that awful possibility is to latch onto the idea that the Nazi Holocaust was, somehow, a freakish and uniquely evil event. The more vigorously we condemn it, the more we excuse ourselves and distance ourselves from our own capacity for evil.

And by "us" I mean modern Western Europeans and WASP-y traditional Olde American types. (And I'm talking about the kind of culture we identify with, rather than actual ethnic types or long-past descent -- for example, most African-Americans are culturally WASPs/Western Europeans, compared to most Africans in Africa.)

I think that's why "we" tend to treat the Holocaust in a unique way. The flip side of this is a bit of condescending racism. We aren't nearly as shocked and horrified and obsessed by savage behvior among Third Worlders and Slavics and late-to-join-the-industrialized-world Asians. On some level, we think of them as savage or barely emerged ex- savages anyway.

Could I be right about this theory of cultural identification? Speaking personally, I'm completely German on my dad's side, and mixed-Slavic on my mom's side, but I'm sure I identify more strongly with Germans. To me, old-country Slavics have an air of mysteriousness and backwardness.

And it seems this cultural divide goes both ways. I could be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that Asians, Russians, Africans, and even Latin Americans don't obsess and chew over the Holocaust nearly as much as WASPy Americans and Western Europeans do. They don't seem to have the same emotional baggage about it. In part, because they many of them have ethnic holocausts in their own little histories that were comparably brutal if smaller in scale -- But also because they don't have this strong emotional need to distance themselves from Nazi Germany.

|9.20.05 @ 10:19PM|#

I have no idea whether the thing I just wrote was a penetrating insight into the unexamined psychology of Westerners or a stupefyingly tedious elaboration upon the obvious.

|9.20.05 @ 10:33PM|#

So The Singing Nun's song "Dominique" is about a genocidist (whether directly or by proxy)? ("A l'époque où Jean Sans Terre d'Angleterre était le roi / Dominique, notre père, combattit les albigeois".)

|9.20.05 @ 10:44PM|#

Were shared ideas really what united the kulaks as a group? I've read assertions that the Jews under Hitler's murderous reign suffered worse than the kulaks under Stalin, because the Jews knew that Hitler meant to kill their entire group, which struck me as utterly fatuous. One has a hard time imagining a starving kulak, musing to himself, while gnawing on what was yesterday his daughter's forearm, "Well, things could be worse; at least Comrade Stalin isn't trying to kill all the Ukrainians!"

|9.20.05 @ 10:45PM|#

Aw crap. "A l'epoque ou Jean Sans Terre d'Angleterre etait le roi / Dominique, notre pere, combattit les albigeois". (When Landless John of England was king, our father Dominic fought the Albigensians.) It goes on about how he converted them with his joy alone. Hmm, yeah, sure.

|9.20.05 @ 10:50PM|#

Can Hak point to any such document?

Asked to distinguish Cathar from non-Cathar amongst Occitan speaks, the Abbot of Citeaux stated quite bluntly that the army should "Kill them all, God will know his own." Yes, as we can see, they really were after the Cathars and no one else, that's why they were so discriminating in the wanton slaughter they committed.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Killing Cathars does not equal killing them for their race--which was one of your original points (some hogwash about Visigoths, I believe) before you threw your temper tantrum. And the good bishop's dictum hardly amounts to a planned policy of extermination, papi.

BTW, nice work with Websters'. Didn't know you had it in you, given that you seem apt to throw around wild statements without backup (still waiting on the half million dead Cathars reference, BTW.) But here's another definition from American Heritage:

1) genocide. The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Greek genos, race; see gen- in Appendix I + -cide.geno�cidal (-sdl)...

I don't see anything there about religion, do you? Again, when you get something pertinent to state planned genocide rather than a general policy of persecution, let me know. Otherwise, DO shut up.

And if I have Rwanda--which I concede may fit the modern definition of genocide better than I thought--you certainly went out on a limb on Carthage, which you suddenly seem to be silent on after getting your ass whipped. Seems there are some cracks in your glass house, dude.

|9.20.05 @ 10:59PM|#

Were shared ideas really what united the kulaks as a group?

No, but they had one thing in common: they were landowning peasants who didn't want to be collectivized, and for that reason were an enemy of Koba. So, it goes more towards being an economic threat (or, in that case, impediment) to the interests of the totalitarian state.

I agree with your point regarding Hitler and the Jews, though; very few, if any, realized before the later stages of the war that Hitler intended to kill them all. Scholars of the Holocaust point out that the Jewish ghettos and even the death camps were run to an extent by Jews themselves; the residents believed that by cooperating with the regime and proving their economic worth as slave workers they would be allowed to live. Even after the ghettos were shut down after 1944, few of them realized places like Auschwitz were just giant slaughterhouses; most believed they were going to new slave factories in the country.

|9.20.05 @ 11:18PM|#

Stevo,

Does that mean because the non-WASPY populations in the Middle East don't seem to have the same "emotional baggage about [the Holocaust]" because of that reason? http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html

The book Ordinary Men should be read by all.

|9.21.05 @ 12:02AM|#

FMB: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say or ask. I think you either left a word out of your post, or put too many in.

But you bring up a point. I deliberately left Middle Easterners out of my grand hypothesis because I wasn't sure how/whether they fit in. It could still fit for most of the rest of the world, though.

I am not very well informed here, but my understanding is that today many non-Jewish Middle Easterners hate the Jews because of the establishment of the modern state of Israel, which they see as a taking of land, an intrusion, and an opportunity for outsiders to push Arab or Muslim Middle Easterners around. (Does the modern antipathy to Jews in the M.E. region go back further than that?)

As for Middle Eastern attitudes toward the Holocaust, they seem to include: (1) a tendency by some to deny that it happened, because such thinking tends to undermine the idea that there is some "justice" behind the creation of modern Irael; and (2) approval by some of the Holocaust and perhaps a wish that it could happen again. How many Middle Easterners actually share this view? At any rate, it doesn't seem like non-Jewish Middle Easterns ostentatiously decry the Holocaust the way Westerners do; they don't seem to feel guilty about it. How many just don't seem to think about it that much, like other non-Westerners? Maybe Middle Easterner fit into my grand model after all.

|9.21.05 @ 2:28AM|#

cdunlea-Actually, the UN includes religion in it's definition. I checked it myself and was surprised to discover that fact.

From where I'm sitting Stevo wins the contest for most trenchant argument in this thread hands down.

|9.21.05 @ 5:31AM|#

Well, I dunno about that Shem, but thanks. I'll buy you a beer at the Grand H&R North American Get-Together 2006.

|9.21.05 @ 8:37AM|#

To me, old-country Slavics have an air of mysteriousness and backwardness.

Faaahhhk you, Stevo. Faaaahhk you. Infidel.

|9.21.05 @ 11:21AM|#

cdunlea,

Thank you for illustrating my point. Killing Cathars does not equal killing them for their race...

Actually, the qouted language fully illustrates this. Such little concern for whether they were really Cathars are not shows the sort of callousness needed to kill people because of their ethnicity.

As to the issue of Webster's, well, the meaning of genocide is well known to include things beside "race." Given that Jews aren't a race, that ought to be freaking obvious.

...throw around wild statements without backup...

Oh please. You're the one who reads a book and can't quite figure out that its about the 14th century of the Cathars as opposed to the 12th and 13th centuries, and then makes a whole bunch of claims about the Cathars being hillbillies, and then retracts that statement and claims that suddenly you take issue only with the death count and not my other characterizations of the Cathars.

(still waiting on the half million dead Cathars reference, BTW.)

...which you suddenly seem to be silent on after getting your ass whipped.

My ass was never whipped and I was never silent on the issue. You are the one who went silent. Don and I continued on the subject for some time though after you abandoned it out of abject ignorance.

No, but they had one thing in common: they were landowning peasants who didn't want to be collectivized, and for that reason were an enemy of Koba.

A Kulak was something more than just a mere opponent of collectivization. Lots of Russian peasants were obviously opposed to it. Kulaks were "rich peasants" that resulted from the Stolypin reforms, and were meant to create a prosperous bulwark against the sort of rural revolt that plunged Russia into chaos during the 1905 Revolution. Indeed, the Soviet state singled them out for specific aspects of their then current status that were connected to the Stolypin reforms.

|9.21.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Stevo Darkly,

I am not very well informed here, but my understanding is that today many non-Jewish Middle Easterners hate the Jews because of the establishment of the modern state of Israel, which they see as a taking of land, an intrusion, and an opportunity for outsiders to push Arab or Muslim Middle Easterners around.

Well, Muslims have, as a general rule, always treated Jews in their midst as less than full members of their communities. Sometimes this lead to intense periods of persecution (bloody massacres and the like) and sometimes there were periods of relative calm and tolerance. However, hostility towards Jews by Muslims didn't start with the creation of Israel, its been around since the time of the Prophet.

|9.21.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Shem,

Well, Webster's uses 'cultural group,' which clearly includes topics like ethnicity, religion, language, etc.

Stevo Darkly,

I thought were comment was quite good, BTW. it goes to my point about the Jewish holocaust and good P.R.

|9.21.05 @ 11:45AM|#

And now Hak has 3 in a row for the 3rd time!

Phil's third prediction is fulfilled.

The first 2 predictions, however, depend on interpretation.

|9.21.05 @ 12:33PM|#

Stevo, you really hit the essential point, I think. And that is precisely what I dislike about so much of the literature about the Holocaust and the Nazis. The scary thing about Hitler is that he was NOT a "monster" or even necessarily "insane" (though maybe a borderline sociopath). He was one of us--he owned dogs and treated them affectionately, he was generally kind and courteous to those he worked with, he had hobbies and interests, etc. etc. That such horrible things could originate from such an ordinary man is truly frightening. And the genocide in Rwanda only backs that up--it was carried out by normal people against other normal people.

The human animal has incredible capacity for cruelty and destruction of itself. Nothing new there, unfortunately.

|9.22.05 @ 12:31AM|#

Wow, I'm glad I came back to this thread after it slipped off the page. Thanks for the info and comments, guys.

Reason.com

New at Reason

theOneState|9.20.05 @ 9:44AM|#

Rich Ard|9.20.05 @ 9:47AM|#

norbizness|9.20.05 @ 10:00AM|#

Phil|9.20.05 @ 10:59AM|#

Phil|9.20.05 @ 11:10AM|#

theOneState|9.20.05 @ 12:47PM|#

fyodor|9.20.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Phil|9.20.05 @ 1:54PM|#