Defining a massacre [Archive]

Beeth

14th April 2013, 08:31

Recently I was conversing with a Facebook friend from the UK. We touched upon the Jalianwala Bagh massacre (see wiki if you do not know about this incident) where a British general opened fire upon many Indians. My FB friend says this isn't a massacre for the following reasons:

1) Unruly crowds are often controlled using force. Even today that is the case. it is damage control

2) Massacre involves planning and specific policies against the victims. This incident was just a random act of violence - intent was missing, it is not like the general carefully planned all this well in advance.

3) Present rules cannot be applied to past situations.

So he says, We must first of all define massacre. Killing alone isn't enough - there has to be intent, planning, etc. Otherwise, everything can be called a massacre. His point is that we must distinguish between actual massacre and damage control gone wrong.

So my question is, Must we redefine certain terms according to modern context? The holocaust would be a massacre or genocide no matter how we look at it, or even without regard to context. But are the likes of Jalianwal bagh a bit trickier than that?

Brutus

14th April 2013, 08:42

'An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.'
That sound about right for the aforementioned example. I'd say it was a massacre and your friend is being an idiot

Red Commissar

14th April 2013, 09:14

Beeth

14th April 2013, 09:40

What the fuck kind of "crowd control" kills hundreds of people? Even by both bourgeois and early 20th century standards that's excessive.

Massacres have been applied to instances where it was not planned or even done by the military so I'm not sure where that comes from.

According to his logic, there is intentional massacre of people (like Holocaust), and there is the killing that results from unforeseen circumstances like riots, crowds going out of control, etc. It is the latter he is talking about.

Flying Purple People Eater

14th April 2013, 11:07

Holy fuck beeth. your friend sounds like some banana-republic dictator.

It doesn't matter whether a massacre is intentional or not. It's still a massacre if there is, as Odysseus said, indiscriminate slaughter of numerous people.

Blake's Baby

14th April 2013, 11:57

Beeth, in the UK this event is always referred to as the Amritsar Massacre. Both the Queen and David Cameron have - without actually apologising - called it 'an episode of sadness' and 'shameful'. It's a massacre, obviously a massacre. You FB 'friend' is in the words of popular Australian comedian Adam Hills, 'being a dick'.

Philosophos

14th April 2013, 13:08

Oh yeah I can imagine how random this attack was... A guy just opened fire and the rest followed his example :confused:... I'm pretty sure they didn't take ORDERS to do so...

Anyway when someone says that we must define massacre: whenever lots of people get killed (I don't know about you but in Greece we use this word especially when the dead people couldn't protect themselves). If a crazy guy comes inside my house because he liked the number "27" outside my door and starts shooting my family this is massacre. If I go to protest and the police starts killing people yeah that's massacre too.

Btw your fb friend must be a complete idiot...

LuÃs Henrique

14th April 2013, 13:18

A definition of massacre?

An armed confrontation where one side is unarmed, or so poorly armed it cannot offer any meaningful resistance.

And no, I don't think the Holocaust qualifies as a massacre. It was something even worse.

Beeth, you really need new friends.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

14th April 2013, 13:32

Wounded Knee was a massacre.
Carandiru was a massacre.
Katyn was a massacre.
St. Bartholomew's Night was a massacre.
Long Knives Night was a massacre.
Waco was a massacre.
Acosta Ñu was a massacre.
The quelling of the Paris Commune by the Versaillese was a massacre.
Peterloo was a massacre.
Lattimer was a massacre.
Amritsar was a massacre.

Luís Henrique