On Nov 13, 2008, at 11:02 AM, John Frederick Fausz wrote:

> So now it is "petit-genocide"?   As most historians
> use the term, genocide refers to an actual result,
> not a potential plan--i.e., the long-term, concerted,
> and massive extermination of a particular ethnic
> group.  Any effort to apply high, medium, or large
> qualifiers greatly diminishesthe chilling reality of
> human eradication on an unprecedented scale,
> which the term has always implied.  Turner may
> have acted with genocidal intent, but the selective
> murders of so few whites (he intentionally spared
> some) does not qualify as genocide.

The dictionary definition was quite explicit. Turner stated his intent  
which is in agreement with the definition. That he was stopped before  
he could further his aims merely means that his numbers were lower  
than had he succeeded.

Until the 20th century produced the industrialized monsters of  
genocide, the numbers were considerably lower. That's why I used the  
qualifiers, not in any way to diminish what they did. The problem with  
using just numbers of killed is that the 20th century totals skew the  
perception. From that perspective, and by implication, Turner and/or  
anyone else who killed a small number must not have been genocidal.  
Turner is barely a blip on the graph, admittedly. The Haitian  
Revolution apparently had 2000 whites killed before Louverture stopped  
the killings. And that is why, among a few dozen other reasons, he is  
held is such high regard, because he elevated their struggle above an  
anarchic mess, civil war, vengeance killing frenzy, or whatever phrase  
you wish to employ, and showed the world what leadership meant in  
terms it could comprehend directly. By comparison, Turner was otherwise.

Lyle Browning

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html