As a point of reference:
The latest Wikipedia entry on genocide . . .
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic,
religious or national group. While precise definition varies among
genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United
Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of
the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children
of the group to another group."
On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Lyle E. Browning wrote:
> I would really appreciate it if before you fire off one of your
> heated polemics, if you would do us all a favor and get your facts
> right. First, check the definition of genocide. Yours as posted is
> just wrong.
>
> Your presumptions about who I am and what I believe are so far off
> the mark as to be laughable. For your information, my ancestor died
> in the Civil War so that your ancestors could be free. What, you
> ask? My great, great, great uncle Oliver Browning died at the
> Battle of Shiloh, having enlisted as part of the 25th Wisconsin.
> This 20 year old man never had the opportunity to marry, to have
> children or to do any of the things that people did in their lives,
> all because he believed in a cause greater than himself. Madame,
> you have absolutely no business making presumptions of any sort
> about me.
>
> Lyle Browning
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Anita Wills wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> Under your concept there should have been no Revolutionary, nor
>> Civil War (where many people died). I guess you would argue that
>> regardless of the inhumanity put on these people, they are always
>> supposed to be laughing happy slaves. By the way, the people who
>> decided what was wrong and right, were changing the rules and laws
>> as they saw fit. Although they put themselves up as Gods, they
>> were just human beings.
>>
>> Anita
>>> From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia
>>> history <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Gov. Kaine Pardons Gabriel Prosser
>>> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:25:58 -0400
>>>
>>> Somewhere along the line I've read that two wrongs don't make a
>>> right. Somewhere.
>>>
>>> So please let us not trot out these red herrings again.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Lyle Browning
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 3, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Anita Wills wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet,
>>>> Was it not genocide for Europeans to come into the America and
>>>> murder Indians? Was it not genocide to bring millions of
>>>> Africans (thousands of whom died), into the Americas, and strip
>>>> them of their identies as human beings? If Prosser and Turner
>>>> knew of genocide they learned it at the Masters Feet.
>>>>
>>>> Anita Wills
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia
>>>>> history <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Gov. Kaine Pardons Gabriel Prosser
>>>>> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:08:31 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>>> From the Associated Press:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Virginia governor 'pardons' slave who led 'Gabriel's Rebellion'
>>>>>> The Associated Press
>>>>>> August 31, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in all this does a comparison of nobility of purpose
>>>>> meet means and methods?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rebellion to become free will justifiably be seen as serving
>>>>> the nobility of purpose end of the argument. On that, both
>>>>> the Am Rev and Gabriel's Rebellion are equal, albeit at
>>>>> vastly different scales.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the pointy end of the stick, wherein after the Dec. of Ind.
>>>>> was read, measures of a more physical nature were taken.
>>>>> Knowing full well what would happen once it was read, one can
>>>>> argue that the Am Rev leaders only had to wait for action to
>>>>> develop as the authorities moved to put down the venture.
>>>>> Conflict/Civil War then ensued with the colonials coming out
>>>>> on top.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast, Turner's higher ideal was simply genocide.
>>>>> Indiscriminate killing of men, women and children is murder,
>>>>> however draped in the verbiage of freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>> What separates the Am Rev and possibly Gabriel, from Turner
>>>>> certainly is the means and methods by which the ideals may be
>>>>> achieved. The Haitian Revolution was at first a bloodbath
>>>>> that has been later sanctified by those at several removes
>>>>> from it into a glorious expression of freedom. That would
>>>>> appear to lessen the value of the lives lost so long as
>>>>> freedom rings. That kind of specious reasoning was also
>>>>> inherent in Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, to name but a few whose
>>>>> results justified those means. Haitians ended up switching the
>>>>> color of master, but little of substance is now discernible,
>>>>> apart from the historiography of the event.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabriel's aim, according to Edgerton, was not genocide, but
>>>>> rather a negotiated settlement ending slavery. However, what
>>>>> muddies the waters is the issue of statements made concerning
>>>>> the conduct of the rebellion. Basically, join or die seems to
>>>>> have been the directive, apart from Methodists, Quakers and
>>>>> Frenchmen. Is Edgerton generally viewed as reading the
>>>>> documents correctly or has he ventured rather far out onto
>>>>> the revisionist limb?
>>>>>
>>>>> For those of you who will undoubtedly jump into the fray, I am
>>>>> well aware that in the Am Rev, there were quasi-
>>>>> institutionalized incidents of brutal behavior on both
>>>>> Colonial and Tory sides, similar probably to the Border Wars
>>>>> in the 1850's onward.
>>>>>
>>>>> State to state relations were the ideal and the practice
>>>>> during the Am Rev, not using genocide as a means of igniting
>>>>> conflict. The questions are: Did Gabriel advocate genocide,
>>>>> was he unable to control more volatile elements in his group,
>>>>> was genocidal advocacy legitimately placed at his door?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lyle Browning
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great
>>>> prizes! http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?
>>>> icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get the device you want, with the HotmailŪ you love. http://
>> www.windowsmobile.com/hotmailmobile?ocid=MobileHMTagline_1
|
