PDA

View Full Version : Rape, racism, censorship & injustice?



Rising Sun*
08-14-2010, 09:45 AM
Disturbing article which, although in places it might seem a little like a slanted or conspiracy view, is supported by references.

I haven't checked, and generally can't check, the references, but the view that MacArthur imposed censorship to conceal these issues is entirely consistent with the rest of his arrogant reign in Japan.


U.S. Courts-Martial in Occupation Japan: Rape, Race, and Censorship


Terese Svoboda



“We too are an army of rapists,” anonymous soldier, letter to the editor, Time Magazine, November 12, 1945.

What explains the lack of records regarding the number of rapes in occupation Japan by American servicemen? I briefly review the situation of rape during World War II in the European theater for which there is reasonable documentationto better understand why the names and numbers are concealed or lost. I then examine the situation postwar, focusing particularly on conditions in Japan at the beginning of the American occupation. I conclude by analyzing what little documentation I discovered about an execution for rape while writing Black Glasses Like Clark Kent, my memoir about my uncle who committed suicide after leaving me tapes about his experiences as an MP in Tokyo’s 8th Army stockade.

Our civilian justice system aims primarily to safeguard the rights of property, community, and the individual, perhaps in that order. Short of murder, rape is the most egregious violation to the individual. In civilian life, rape may go underreported for a number of reasons including protection of reputations, confusions about what constitutes rape, or the psychological difficulties of coping with a rape trial.

Before the Uniform Code of Military Justice was instituted in 1950, civilians inducted as soldiers were stripped of most of their individual rights, including due process and trained legal representation. Regardless of the UCMJ, however, for the military, discipline and obedience take precedence over these rights. Rape in the military may be underreported both for the usual civilian reasons but also to prevent the loss of manpower, to avoid housing criminals, and to maintain an appearance of order. These military reasons are invoked most often during a war when manpower is crucial, bivouac at a minimum and order paramount. But they also apply, if with less urgency, during military occupations and in the basing of troops overseas.

The decision of whether to report a rape, and whether the offense will come to trial, is made by military commanders who retain enormous discretion, particularly in an investigation’s early stages, such as the preliminary inquiry. If an officer decides that reporting a rape would be detrimental to military objectives, he may not report it. A recent example is a case in which the military discharged a US soldier accused of raping and murdering a 12-year-old Iraqi girl rather than trying him.1

Colliers magazine cover depicting US-GIs in the thrall of Japan

Yet military law, specifically extensive resort to court martial, has long been an important part of US military discipline. During WWII, as many as one in eight US soldiers were court-martialed for crimes committed while in the service.2 Records regarding these cases are hard to obtain. According to Robert J. Lilly, the author of Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during WWII, rape handled by lesser courts [other than the Judge Advocate’s Court] and cases investigated by agencies other than the US Army’s Criminal Investigation Division do not even appear in the JAG Branch Office records, the only records of offenses kept by the military.3 Immediately after WWII even Congressional House members of the 1946 Military Affairs Committee complained that “The general Army practice is to let out as little information about courts-martial trials as possible.”4 This was particularly true of cases regarding rape. Discussing “Excessive and Disparate Sentences,” the Committee stated:

The most tragic [of these excessive sentences], of course,
are the death sentences not commuted, about which it is so
difficult to obtain information.5

Robert Lilly estimates some 17,000 rapes occurred in the European theater during WWII; however, the Judge Advocate General reports a total of 854 cases.6 Lilly’s explanations for the discrepancy include: the length of time it took for the European branch of the JAG to open—7 months--with the office being immediately and permanently overwhelmed, the large number of rapes handled by lesser courts with little documentation, many complaints going unprocessed in order to prevent embarrassing the soldiers or tainting the careers of officers, Army prejudice regarding the rape victim, and a military culture that placed little symbolic value in disciplining soldiers for rape. During a period of high incidence of rape, there might simply be too many cases to process.

R.A.A. women waiting for GI patrons

Postwar, the laws governing rape by the military during WWII remained in effect. Factors specific to occupation may have made rape more common. Soldiers, fresh from battle may have lusted for revenge, and in the absence of military action, rape was one easy outlet. “Lust, liquor and loot are the soldiers’ pay” according to a “red-faced major” quoted by John Dos Passos in an article written for Life magazine, January 7, 1946 about the GIs occupying postwar Germany. Some soldiers may have blurred the distinction between prostitution and rape. The Christian Century for December 5, 1945 quoted the American provost marshal, Lieutenant Colonel Gerald F. Bean, as saying “that rape presents no problem for the military police because a bit of food, a bar of chocolate, or a bar of soap seem to make the rape unnecessary.”

Immediately after the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the Japanese Ministry of the Interior made plans to protect Japanese women in its middle and upper classes from American troops. Fear of an American army out of control led them to quickly establish the first “comfort women” stations for use by US troops.7 By the end of 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs had organized the Recreation Amusement Association (R.A.A.), a chain of houses of prostitution with 20,000 women who serviced occupation forces throughout Japan.8 (Many more women known as panpan turned to prostitution in the struggle to survive in the midst of the postwar devastation.) Burritt Sabin of the Japan Times reported in 2002 that just days before the R.A.A. was to open, hundreds of American soldiers broke into two of their facilities and raped all the women.9 The situation prompted MacArthur and Eichelberger, the two top military men of the U.S. occupation forces, to make “rape by Marines” their very first topic of discussion.10 Yuki Tanaka notes that 1300 rapes were reported in Kanagawa prefecture alone between August 30 and September 10, 1945, indicative of the pervasiveness of the phenomenon in the early occupation.11

Historian Takemae Eiji reports that

. . . US troops comported themselves like conquerors, especially in the early weeks and months of occupation. Misbehavior ranged from black-marketeering, petty theft, reckless driving and disorderly conduct to vandalism, assault arson, murder and rape. . . . In Yokohama, Chiba and elsewhere, soldiers and sailors broke the law with impunity, and incidents of robbery, rape and occasionally murder were widely reported in the press. 12

GIs photographing women

Two weeks into the occupation, the Japanese press began to report on rapes and looting.13 MacArthur responded by promptly censoring all media. Monica Braw, whose research revealed that even mention of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and particularly the effects of the bomb on civilians, were censored, maintains that pervasive censorship continued throughout the occupation years. "It [censorship] covered all means of communications and set up rules that were so general as to cover everything. It did not specify subjects prohibited, did not state punishment for violations, although it was clear that there were such punishments, and prohibited all discussion even about the existence of the censorship itself."14

Censorship was not limited to the Japanese press. MacArthur threw prominent American journalists such as Gordon Walker, editor of the Christian Science Monitor, and Frank Hawley of the New York Times out of Japan for disobeying his orders. Even internal military reports were censored.15

Five months after the occupation began, one in four American soldiers had contracted VD.16 The supply of penicillin back in the U.S. was low.17 When MacArthur responded by making both prostitution and fraternization illegal,18 the number of reported rapes soared, showing that prostitution and the easy availability of women had suppressed incidents of rape. John Dower writes in his Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II that while the U.S./Japanese-sponsored brothels were open “the number of rapes and assaults on Japanese women were around 40 a day,” but after they were closed, the number rose to 330 a day.19 Yuki Tanaka records two major incidents of mass rape around the same time.20 On April 4, fifty GIs broke into a hospital in Omori and raped 77 women, one a woman who had just given birth, killing the two-day-old baby by tossing it onto the floor. On April 11, forty U.S. soldiers cut off the phone lines of one of Nagoya’s city blocks and entered a number of houses simultaneously, “raping many girls and woman between the ages of 10 and 55 years.”

continued

Rising Sun*
08-14-2010, 09:47 AM
If these incidents are in any sense indicative, how are we to understand the fact that reports in U.S. archives about rape in postwar Japan are sparse: General Eichelberger issued three documents during the first year of the Japanese occupation admonishing the troops about their behavior, citing looting, rape and robbery.21 General Eisenhower ordered a report about troop behavior on Japan and the Philippines in 1946. (The National Archives has the report’s cover sheet, but not the report.)22 Albert Hussey, one of the framers of the Japanese constitution, mentions the rise of “institutional rape.” Under the cover of screening for venereal diseases, young women getting home from work were arrested in the subway or in the streets, pressed to have relations and/or examined by Japanese doctors in the presence of soldiers.23 Rape continued during the occupation as indicated by the plea reported in the NY Times April 21, 1952, from a prominent woman leader, Ms. T. Uyemura, to Mrs. Ridgway, wife of MacArthur's replacement, General Ridgway, asking her husband to isolate the immoral US troops.24

Recorded courts-martial for rape during the occupation are few. The Judge Advocate General’s Board of Review for the year 1946, when the R.A.A. closed, shows only 6 courts-martial.25 The Return of General Prisoners from the 8th Army stockade in Tokyo, where all GI prisoners were incarcerated prior to being returned to the U.S., lists 6 soldiers sentenced for rape during spring 1946.26 The Index to the Board of Review Opinions of the Branch Office of the JAG (1942-1949) shows only two courts-martial listed during the same period.27

French researcher Bertrand Roehner has made available the texts of hundreds of directives from the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers to the Japanese government (called SCAPs, SCAPINS or SCAPINs) that reveal much more sexual violence occurred than has ever been acknowledged, a small window onto what went on behind MacArthur’s wall of censorship.28

For example, the SCAPIN of August 31, 1949 is illustrative of another tactic MacArthur used to suppress reports of rape and other crimes by occupying forces. It shows that five Japanese were sentenced to hard labor “for spreading rumors derogatory to occupation forces” when American soldiers were accused of raping Japanese women.29 Another instance of this policy is noted by Takamae Eiji:

When US paratroopers landed in Sapporo, an orgy of looting, sexual violence and drunken brawling ensued. Gang rapes and other sexual atrocities were not infrequent. Victims of such attacks, shunned as outcasts, sometimes turned in desperation to prostitution; others took their life rather than bring shame to their families. Military courts arrested relatively few soldiers for these offenses and convicted even fewer, and restitution for the victims were rare. Japanese attempts at self-defense were punished severely. In the sole instance of self-help that General Eichelberger records in his memoirs, when local residents formed a vigilante group and retaliated against off-duty GIs, Eighth Army ordered armoured vehicles in battle array into the streets and arrested the ringleaders, who received lengthy prison terms.30

My uncle, Don Svoboda, unwittingly introduced me to this subject. He committed suicide in 2004, leaving behind audiotapes that spoke of the building of a gallows in Tokyo’s 8th Army stockade where he served as an M.P. in 1946. In trying to discover whether an execution he had witnessed decades earlier had anything to do with his suicide, I interviewed many veterans who had served in the stockade. Five of them remembered “a colored boy” being executed for rape in May; none of them remembered his name; two thought there was more than one execution.31 No records from the 8th Army stockade report any executions, and neither Truman nor MacArthur signed any military execution papers during 1946, the year that the soldiers remember the hanging.32 In addition, no records speak of the use, or even the building of the very large gallows that all the vets remembered, including soldiers who were just passing through on their way to Korea in 1952, just before it was dismantled.33

If courts-martial for rape went underreported, perhaps so too did trials, prison sentences and executions for rape. In particular, keeping executions secret would be a logical extension of MacArthur’s use of censorship. Did MacArthur order executions to send a message to the troops in order to bring rape under control but conceal it from the public and the press? The MPs assumed the execution(s) were approved. Did MacArthur sign the execution papers and then have them destroyed? Were the executions handled extra-judicially by one of MacArthur’s subordinates? James Zobel, the MacArthur Memorial archivist, referred to MacArthur’s righthand man, General Willoughby, who was head of Intelligence in Japan, as a “burner.”34 An index at the National Archives contains a letter from a Mr. Leon Guess “concerning the number of Negro soldiers executed as a result of courts-martial” dated July 7, 1946, about the time it would take for news of a May execution to get back to the States, but there’s only the index notation, no letter, the only one missing in the file.35

J. Robert Lilly, who has written extensively on executions of black soldiers during WWII, discovered that questioning the families of dead soldiers did not necessarily determine whether a soldier had been executed because sometimes the military reported deaths due to other causes.36 In trying to trace the executed men, I found that pursuing the records of soldiers who died in occupied Japan was also fruitless. No soldiers were buried in Japan, and those executed are not distinguished from those who died accidentally or from natural causes.37 In addition, many of the 202 Americans cremated in Japan are among those listed as unknown.38 An examination of chaplains’ and physicians’ records regarding executions also reveals no relevant material.39 Emailing and writing to the historian at the 8th Army Public Affairs office in Yongsan, Korea was met with silence.40 Files around the subject of executions during the occupation consulted at the National Archives sometimes contain lists of the contents but no contents, a situation confirmed by Roehner’s experiences at the Archives in the US and in Japan.41

Although Roehner maintains that a kind of “omerta” surrounds occupation records worldwide, there are other possible explanations for some of the omissions.42 The 1973 National Archives fire offers one possible explanation for the lack of documentation regarding soldiers’ records--at least it is most often cited.43 The Bush Administration’s funding cuts to the National Archives make it very difficult for archivists to process or even become familiar with the huge holdings. Many of the occupation files in the National Archives are filed either with WWII or Korean War papers—but sometimes at the beginning of administrative files marked 1950, which makes them difficult to locate.

According to my uncle, most of the serious offenders in the 8th Army stockade were black. Alice Kaplan writes in The Interpreter, a book that discusses the discrepancies in sentencing between black and white servicemen convicted of rape in the European theater, that black troops who made up 8.5 percent of the armed forces during WWII were accused of committing 79 percent of all capital crimes.44 Lilly reports that while 57% of the soldiers accused of sexual offenses in Europe were white, most of the convicted were black, some 66%.45 “It is quite possible that the complaints against black soldiers were those the army selected to record, thus indirectly creating an incomplete and inaccurate account,” he writes.46 They were also more likely to be tried because of commander prejudice, many commanders being Southerners.47 Although white and black soldiers were convicted of rape in both theaters during the war, only black servicemen were executed for this crime. Racial prejudice at a time when lynching was frequent in civilian life in the south and the military remained segregated is censorship’s “elephant in the room.”

Official figures about rape and executions for rape should be made available to scholars. The U.S. is embroiled in two wars in which issues of justice are hotly contested. American citizens need to know the real costs of that earlier “peaceful” occupation that is so often presented as a model for the future of Iraq and Afghanistan.

John Dower (among others) has stated that "In the case of Japan, there was not a single incident of terrorism against U.S. forces there after World War II."48 This conclusion must be reviewed in light of the evidence of rape, execution, and suppression of evidence of violence in the early occupation. Not even the occupation’s U.S. fatalities are available.49 Roehner found no information about these fatalities from the Unit Historical Summary reports in the Quartermaster’s Grave Registration Platoon History—the appropriate pages were missing.50 He did discover that the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces’ (BCOF) official figure for fatalities in Japan during 1945-1961 was three to four times higher than those for British Forces elsewhere during peacetime.51 Given the fact that BCOF troops strength was roughly 40,000 and U.S. troops 200,000, Roehner extrapolates that approximately 4,100 Americans may have died during the occupation, adjusting for the different lengths of service between the BCOF and US troops, and other variables.52

continued

Rising Sun*
08-14-2010, 09:51 AM
The US government, with Japanese collaboration, has suppressed important information about crime and punishment during the occupation: it has concealed the numbers of rapes and the identity of the perpetrators; it has concealed the prosecutions, arrests and executions for rape and other crimes. There is reason to believe that the information is not only politically charged in terms of the US-Japan relationship, but that it is racially charged. Specifically, the extreme punishment of blacks charged with rape—in several cases including execution—is a reminder of the Jim Crow justice of an earlier era.

This is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at The American Society for Legal History, Ottawa, November 2008.



Terese Svoboda is the author of ten books of prose and poetry, most recently the memoir Black Glasses Like Clark Kent: A GIs Secret from Postwar Japan, winner of the 2007 Graywolf Nonfiction Prize. Its website can be found here. Her second novel, A Drink Called Paradise, concerns the effects of US atomic tests in the Pacific islands.

Terese Svoboda is the author of Race and American Military Justice: Rape, Murder, and Execution in Occupied Japan.



Recommended Citation: Terese Svoboda, "U.S. Courts-Martial in Occupation Japan: Rape, Race, and Censorship," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 21-1-09, May 23, 2009.

Notes

1 Barrouquere, Brett. “Judge Upholds Iraq rape charges” Cleveland Plain Dealer. August 26, 2008 Retrieved 2008-11-11. “Green had been honorably discharged from the military with psychiatric problems when allegations surfaced of U.S. military involvement in the slayings. He was arrested as a civilian.”

2 Turner, Lisa L. “The Articles of War and the UCMJ – widespread court martial cases in World War II led to the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Aerospace Power Journal, Fall, September 6, 2000.

3 Lilly, Robert. Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during WWII. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2007. p. 34. . The lack of documentation from any of the lesser courts was noted by Frederick L. Borch of the JAG Legal Center and School Library in Charlottesville, VA by telephone on April 3, 2009.

4 United States. House of Representatives Committee on Military Affairs. Investigations of the National War Effort, Report of the Committee of Military Affairs, House of Representatives, 79th Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to H. Res. 20: A Resolution Authorizing the Committee on Military Affairs to Study the Progress of the National War Effort, June 1946, GPO, 1946. p. 40.

5 Ibid. p. 43.

6 Lilly, Robert. Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during WWII. p. 11.

7 Yoshimi, Yoshiaki. Comfort Women. Columbia University Press, 2002. p. 49.

8 Talmadge, Eric. “GIs Frequented Japan’s ‘Comfort Women’”, Washington Post, April 25, 2007. Takamae Ejii. Inside GHQ. The Allied Occupation of Japan and Its Legacy, London: Continuum, 2002, p. 68-69. By the end of 1945, 90 percent of the RAA comfort women had reportedly contracted venereal disease.

9 Sabin, Burritt. “They Came, They Saw, They Democratized.” Japan Times 28 April 2002. Also Manchester, William. American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1965. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978. pp. 468-469.

10 Tanaka, Yuki. Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II and the US Occupation. Routledge, 2001. p.123

11 Tanaka, Yuki. Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in WWII. Boulder, Colorado: Westerview Press, p. 103. There are 47 prefectures in Japan.

12 Takamae Ejii. Inside GHQ, p. 67.

13 Roehner, Bertrand M. Relations Between Allied Forces and the Population of Japan 15 August 1945-31 December 1960. Paris: University of Paris, 2007. Revised 2 September 2008. p. 54.

14 Braw, Monica. The Atomic Bomb Suppressed, American Censorship in Japan 1945-1949. Lund Studies in International History 23 1986. p. 47. See also Takamae Ejii. Inside GHQ, p. 67.

15 Roehner, p. 88.

16 Tanaka, Yuki, Japan's Comfort Women, p. 161.

17 Tanaka, Yuki, Japan's Comfort Women, p. 158.

18 Tanaka, Yuki. Japan's Comfort Women, p. 162.

19 Dower, John. Embracing Defeat, p. 579, fn 16.

20 Tanaka, Yuki. pp. 163-164.

21 Eichelberger, Lt. General. Letter to Commanding Officer, Eighth Army Stockade. 20 Sep 1946. General Correspondence Files ca. 1947; Adjutant General Section, IX Corps; Far East Command, Department of Defense; Record Group 338; National Archives at College Park, MD. Also see Roehner. p. 108. See also MacArthur, Douglas. Letter to All Unit Commanders. 22 June 1946. Entry A-1 135; File 250.1; Occupation Files 1945-1950; General Correspondence; Department of Defense. Far East Command. Eighth Army. Provost Marshal Section. Record Group 338; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD. It begins “Since publishing my letter to you of 10 June regarding the behavior of our troops, I have received an increasing number of reports of crimes committed by Americans.” See also Letter to Commanding General, Eighth Army. 8 Nov 1946. Entry A-1 135; File 250.1; Occupation Files 1945-1950; General Correspondence; Department of Defense. Far East Command. Eighth Army. Provost Marshal Section; Record Group 338; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD. MacArthur complains in the letter that less than 50% of the reported rapes, assaults and robberies were investigated and only one-third of the burglaries. This is after receiving another letter from the Commanding General reporting misconduct of occupation troops against Japanese Nationals for the month of September, 1946.

22 Roehner. p. 72. See also p. 236 where Roehner writes: “The report has probably been removed in the period of strict censorship and has not been replaced afterward.”

23 Hussey Papers, National Diet Library. Tokyo, Japan. Reel 9. 1946. I am indebted to Roehner for this information.

24 Roehner. p. 176.

25 United States. Office of the JAG. Holdings, Opinions, and Reviews: v.1-81 + 2 index volumes. GPO, 1924 – 1949 and 1944 – 1949. See also Holdings, opinions, and reviews. Branch Office of the JAG, SW Pacific Area. Washington: Office of JAG, 1946.

26 “Return of General Prisoners” A1-149; 8th Army Stockade 1946; General Correspondence, 1946-1951; Provost Marshal Section, Far East Command, Department of Defense, Record Group 554; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD. The 8th Army Historical Report from JAG shows 5 rapes tried in 1946. Monthly Occupation Historical Reports; File 108-DE (4)-.0.2; Central Records Depot; March 1946-June 1946. Record Group 407; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD.

27 United States. Office of the JAG. JAG’s Corps Board of Review and Judicial Council Holdings, Opinions, and Reviews. Washington, D.C. : Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1949-1951.

28 Roehner to author, e-mail April 3, 2009. See also his Relations Between Allied Forces and the Occupation of Japan, pp. 10-258.

29 Roehner. p. 167.

30 Takamae, Eiji, Inside GHQ. p. 67.

31 M., Vincent, Jack W., Leroy S., and John J. Telephone interviews. 13 Apr 2007. Also M., William. “Re: Names. Email to author. 21 July 2007. See also McMillen, Joanne. “Interview with Billy Fyffe.” Eastern Oklahoma History Collection, Midwest City Rotary Club. 24 June 2004.


continued

Rising Sun*
08-14-2010, 09:52 AM
32 Zobel, James. “Re: May.” Email to author. 21 June 2007.

33 Corey, A.G. Telephone Interview. 10 July 2005.

34 Zobel, James. Telephone interview. 31 Mar 2006.

35 Racial Incident; File 291.2; Cross Reference Index to the Series Central Decimal Correspondence Files, 1940-1945,' 1940-1945 and Central Decimal Correspondence Files, 1940 – 1945; War Department. The Adjutant General's Office. Record Group 407; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD.

36 Lilly, J. Robert and Thomson, J. Michael. “Executing U.S. Soldiers in England, WWII: The Power of Command Influence and Sexual Racism” Northern Kentucky University, Salmon P. Chase College of Law. 1995. p. 16. See also Kaplan, Alice. The Interpreter. New York: Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 2005. pp. 168-170.

37 Heilhecker, Larry. “Re: Clark Cemetery.” Email to author. 24 May 2007. Also List of Decedents PHILCOM Determined to be in “Dishonorable” Status, whose Cases are Being Processed and on when Disinterment Directives will be Issued at a Later Date; File 314.6; Correspondence Misc. File 1939-1954; Office of the Quartermaster General; Record Group 92; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD.

38 “Graves Registration WWII.” Japan and Philippine Plots. USAF Mausoleum Yokohama No. 2; Office of the Quartermaster General; Record Group 92; National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD.

39 Buehner, Andrew J. “Chaplain Oscar W. Schoech Missionary to War Criminals.” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly. Vol 57, No.1 (1984). Also Mahar, William. “Re: Search.” Email to author. 24 July 2007.

40 Author’s inquiries October 2004, December 2005.

41 Roehner, p. 235. A full discussion of missing documents can be found in my memoir, Black Glasses Like Clark Kent.

42 Roehner, “Re: Congratulations.” Email to author. 9 Aug 2007.

43 National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis. “The 1973 Fire at the National Personnel Records Center". Accessed 2008-11-11.

44 Kaplan, Alice. The Interpreter. New York: Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 2005. 156.

45 1% are Mexican/American. Lilly, J. Robert. “Death Penalty Cases in WWII Military Courts: Lessons Learned from North Africa and Italy. Northern Kentucky University. Salmon P. Chase College of Law. 1995. p. 16, and Kaplan 2004.” p. 16.

46 Lilly, Robert. p. 24.

47 MacGregor, Jr., Morris J. “Segregation’s Consequences.” Defense Studies Series: Integration of the Armed Forces 1940 – 1965. 1979. Chapter 5. 2 May 2001. 15 Oct 2007. Accessed 2008-11-11.

48 Wallis, David. “Questions for John W. Dower: Occupation Preoccupation.” The New York Times. 30 Mar 2003. 9. See also Roehner, p. 25.

49 Even inquiries about this lack to the Statistical Abstract of the United States were met with silence. Author’s email 3-29-09.

50 Roehner, p. 231.

51 Roehner, p. 25.

52 Roehner, p. 34
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Terese-Svoboda/3148

Uyraell
08-14-2010, 11:30 AM
This is one hell of a vast posting, RS* my friend.
For decades it has been "en mode" to point out the various infamies of the enemy, as you have mentioned elsewhere.

So saying, this post of yours, if the data in it is valid, simply supports a point you and I both agreed elsewhere:

No-one has clean hands.

What should be done about the injustices it represents though, is another thing entirely.

While emotionally I might well feel both sides have to admit and redress their respective wrongs before a full and true reconciliation can take place, intellectually I don't view it with the same stark simplicity.

And therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare puts it.
I suspect more than a few other folk (from either side, truth told) might well view these matters in a similar manner to myself.

Japan should apologise to those it wronged, long before any such apologies as regards wrongs done to Japan be made by any of the victor nations.

Similarly though: certain elements among the Japanese would insist the victor nations proffer apology to Japan first.

My reaction to that, for all that I admire much about Japan, is: "We won, tis Our Right to make the decision on whom Apologises to who first."
Such is, after all, the privilege of the victor.

Kind and Respectful Regards RS* my friend, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
08-14-2010, 11:49 AM
What should be done about the injustices it represents though, is another thing entirely.

If there was any justice in the world, which there isn't and not least because the world is run by politicians whose grasp of fairness and morality rarely goes beyond doing whatever is required to get them elected, in an ideal world anyone reasonably accused of rape should have been tried and, if found guilty, sentenced accordingly.

But occupations aren't ideal worlds and people cowed under an occupation force aren't likely to complain to the occupying force which commits crimes against them.

And NCOs / junior officers to low field rank officers in occupying forces might not be all that sympathetic to complainants, if only because they have a range of other duties to perform primarily concerning their own troops and only incidentally concerning people they have been indoctrinated for some years to view as sub-human and worthy of extermination and with whom they may have at best cursory contact as they move through areas.

That applies equally to Allied and Axis forces.

Uyraell
08-14-2010, 01:19 PM
Noni contendere'. Agreed, my friend.
Nor am I at all certain that in essence any occupying army in history has behaved any differently.

However: there is one objective criticism of the article in your post.
While indeed it may have been that vastly more black soldiers were executed than were whites for rape, I sense in that statement a certain slanting which itself can only serve to stir up in the reader race-division rather than race rapprochement.
This tendency to sensationalise the otherwise legitmate examples of prejudice and victimisation against/upon blacks bodes no good at all, in an era where memory still recalls the racial divisions which to this day have yet to truly heal for either race.
In short, it is in generational terms still too soon to be raising once again the spectre of racial disharmony and strife, which recent generational memory still holds with appalling clarity, and is all to ready to use as excuse to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem.

A significant sociological risk the author of the article has overlooked.

Kind and Respectful Regards RS* my friend, Uyraell.

Chevan
08-16-2010, 01:07 AM
Thatnks a much RS for that thread.Very interesting endeed

.. while the U.S./Japanese-sponsored brothels were open “the number of rapes and assaults on Japanese women were around 40 a day,” but after they were closed, the number rose to 330 a day.19 Yuki Tanaka records two major incidents of mass rape around the same time.20 On April 4, fifty GIs broke into a hospital in Omori and raped 77 women, one a woman who had just given birth, killing the two-day-old baby by tossing it onto the floor. On April 11, forty U.S. soldiers cut off the phone lines of one of Nagoya’s city blocks and entered a number of houses simultaneously, “raping many girls and woman between the ages of 10 and 55 years.”
That makes the known western propogand point about RA as army of rapist is a.... bit incorrect.
As it turns out to be, all allied sides raped much and with pleasure.

Chevan
08-16-2010, 01:22 AM
However: there is one objective criticism of the article in your post.
While indeed it may have been that vastly more black soldiers were executed than were whites for rape, I sense in that statement a certain slanting which itself can only serve to stir up in the reader race-division rather than race rapprochement.

I don't think we shall close the eyes for the statistic , informed us that afro-americans commits the crimes becouse of fear of "race prejudices", my friend.
It's well know fact , see the any areal police report- the up to 80-90% crimes commits the blacks. It has no deal to race theories endeed, but more likely the to bad social condition and lack of education of long-surffering black people.
It noway does imply the balcks has the "genetic racial thirst" for crimes as rasist tend to think.It's just facts ans statistic.

Deaf Smith
08-16-2010, 08:14 PM
If there was any justice in the world,

Christ would have not been crucified. So approximations of justice is the best that can be had in this world, and the ‘best’ rarely happens.

Deaf

Uyraell
08-16-2010, 08:36 PM
I don't think we shall close the eyes for the statistic , informed us that afro-americans commits the crimes becouse of fear of "race prejudices", my friend.
It's well know fact , see the any areal police report- the up to 80-90% crimes commits the blacks. It has no deal to race theories endeed, but more likely the to bad social condition and lack of education of long-surffering black people.
It noway does imply the balcks has the "genetic racial thirst" for crimes as rasist tend to think.It's just facts ans statistic.

Very, Very, Well said, Chevan my friend.

I agree the "racial theories" don't hold anything of truth to them in sociological terms.

Anthropologically, in terms of migration of various racial groups throughout history, the racial theories tend, in the main, to be supported by the archaeological and paleontological data and artefacts. This anthropological context is however, to all intents and purposes unique. And should be viewed as exactly that, in my humble opinion.

Chevan, you made a point earlier about rape being a factor present to varying degrees among all Allied armies.
I tend to agree.
What I note though, is that the effective suppression of the relevant information on the part of the US, UK, and various lesser command structures was every atom as rigourous as that same suppression of information the red Army has for generations been accused of.
Which points up something our friend RS* has said many times now in various threads: "No-one has clean hands."

In all Truth, I do NOT think that any of the combatant nations, victors or vanquished, can claim any moral superiority.
Nor do I think there is ANY justification for the victor nations to have done so since 1945.

Kind and Respectful regards Chevan my friend, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
08-16-2010, 10:21 PM
Which points up something our friend RS* has said many times now in various threads: "No-one has clean hands."

But some nations' hands are much dirtier than others.

Nickdfresh
08-17-2010, 01:05 AM
Thatnks a much RS for that thread.Very interesting endeed

That makes the known western propogand point about RA as army of rapist is a.... bit incorrect.
As it turns out to be, all allied sides raped much and with pleasure.

I don't know what you mean by "western propaganda." I don't think anyone contending that the Red Army was an "army of rapists" is seriously taken in actual learned circles just as I don't believe that anyone seriously who has an IQ above 60 actually believes that U.S. and Allied troops didn't commit abuses of their own. I was actually under the impression that most rapes were conducted by the rear echelon ****heads in almost any army...

Nickdfresh
08-17-2010, 01:06 AM
I don't think we shall close the eyes for the statistic , informed us that afro-americans commits the crimes becouse of fear of "race prejudices", my friend.
It's well know fact , see the any areal police report- the up to 80-90% crimes commits the blacks. It has no deal to race theories endeed, but more likely the to bad social condition and lack of education of long-surffering black people.
It noway does imply the balcks has the "genetic racial thirst" for crimes as rasist tend to think.It's just facts ans statistic.


So the rapes committed against Germans by slavs say what exactly?

Chevan
08-19-2010, 01:19 AM
So the rapes committed against Germans by slavs say what exactly?
it does say ....the same.
The crime tendency of person is depend of its cultural and educational level.
As you should knowin the RA served not only educated slavs. The greap part of Middle Asia soldiers who often can't write\read the Russian language were essential part of rapist. Plus as it was mentioned the most of crimes were conducted by rare echelon.Where usially served the second-sort soldiers.

Chevan
08-19-2010, 01:33 AM
I don't know what you mean by "western propaganda." I don't think anyone contending that the Red Army was an "army of rapists" is seriously taken in actual learned circles
That what exactly the werstern propoganda imposed , the RA is army of rapist #1, however at the same time persistently ignored the fact more civils died becouse of allied bombs then from all sort of rapists. I'ts calls the propogand - to state the events on profitable light. For sake of true ,the RA did the same .

Nickdfresh
08-19-2010, 07:37 AM
Well, firstly, I think the association of black U.S. soldiers in WWII had more to do with Europe. Secondly, only limited numbers of then "negro" soldiers were allowed to be assigned to combat units and the majority were rear echelon support. I think one of the themes that emerges here is that the majority of rapists in WWII armies were follow-on rear echelon soldiers and not the front line infantry--who tended to be more disciplined and had less time on their hands. The problem in Japan seems to have been marine and army infantry who had little to do, and some of the units mentioned probably would have been all white such as the paratroopers. There may have been in fact a double standard in Gen. MacArthur's "justice" system where "negros" were singled out and tended to be executed more often. But since most of this was hidden under Mac's censorship, we'll never know for sure what took place...

Svoboda states:


According to my uncle, most of the serious offenders in the 8th Army stockade were black. Alice Kaplan writes in The Interpreter, a book that discusses the discrepancies in sentencing between black and white servicemen convicted of rape in the European theater, that black troops who made up 8.5 percent of the armed forces during WWII were accused of committing 79 percent of all capital crimes.44 Lilly reports that while 57% of the soldiers accused of sexual offenses in Europe were white, most of the convicted were black, some 66%.45 “It is quite possible that the complaints against black soldiers were those the army selected to record, thus indirectly creating an incomplete and inaccurate account,” he writes.46 They were also more likely to be tried because of commander prejudice, many commanders being Southerners.47 Although white and black soldiers were convicted of rape in both theaters during the war, only black servicemen were executed for this crime. Racial prejudice at a time when lynching was frequent in civilian life in the south and the military remained segregated is censorship’s “elephant in the room.”

Gen. Sandworm
08-19-2010, 07:46 AM
....The crime tendency of person is depend of its cultural and educational level.


I would place more emphasis on the cultural part here than educational. There were many well-educated Nazi's that lacked any sense of humanity. In my opinion, education does very little, if anything, to fix problems concerning crimes. A very popular case in 1920s Chicago ..... two high society .... well-educated ..... extremely smart young men killed a young boy just cause they were sure they could get away with it (Leopold & Loeb). This is 1 of (too many) examples I could discuss about education and crime. As far as the Russian Army in WW2 is concerned ...... I would suggest a lack of skilled leaders is a good place to start.

Chevan
08-20-2010, 02:02 AM
I would place more emphasis on the cultural part here than educational.
There were many well-educated Nazi's that lacked any sense of humanity. In my opinion, education does very little, if anything, to fix problems concerning crimes.

That is just proves the contr-point, Gen.
The lack of humanity of some hight-cultural nazis or japanese military bosses were determined by exactly their .. evil education ( namely race-hate theories which were the essential part of their education).But the another cases , such as endless ethnic genocide among non-educated African tribes is explained pure by their culture. Just like the hate of Muslim Radicals which usially has read nothing in life except Koran - this is their culture.
Culture ,in case if education absent, plays a major role in Crime tendency of man.
But this is all is just peronal speculation:)
The scince Anthropological criminology is studying this matter pretty effective.
Ever heard about Cesare Lombroso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Lombroso)?
This is the italian criminologists who has introduced the term Degeneracy ,a nd proved how the degeneracy affectes to man's crime tendency. Degeneracy , he advocated, depend on external physical defects and man's insanity.
This is a complex theory and you may to read more about it in net.


A very popular case in 1920s Chicago ..... two high society .... well-educated ..... extremely smart young men killed a young boy just cause they were sure they could get away with it (Leopold & Loeb). This is 1 of (too many) examples I could discuss about education and crime.

Well i suggest this exaclty dr Lombroso's case:)
When absolutly externaly normal man suddenly commits the terrible crime- seacrh for his insane soul and degenerative genes.


As far as the Russian Army in WW2 is concerned ...... I would suggest a lack of skilled leaders is a good place to start.
The assumed skilled MakArthur , as pointed above, can't totally prevent crimes against civils.
The Beast lives in every of us.We only do have the different cut-off level of the moral controll.
the more educated mans usially has it higher.But no one will get the guaranty it never came out.

Chevan
08-20-2010, 02:18 AM
.... There may have been in fact a double standard in Gen. MacArthur's "justice" system where "negros" were singled out and tended to be executed more often. But since most of this was hidden under Mac's censorship, we'll never know for sure what took place...
:
If we never know for sure, how can we to judge?
I just curious, how many of blacks who were conscripted to US army had even finished the primary school?

Although white and black soldiers were convicted of rape in both theaters during the war, only black servicemen were executed for this crime.
i think befor to drop the race accusatuins we shall to discover all the fact of crimes - was it just rape or it was murder or robbing ( or group murder, or it was a Crime of Hate against the another race). The punishment obviously should depend on that fact.

Nickdfresh
08-20-2010, 08:57 AM
That is just proves the contr-point, Gen.
The lack of humanity of some hight-cultural nazis or japanese military bosses were determined by exactly their .. evil education ( namely race-hate theories which were the essential part of their education).But the another cases , such as endless ethnic genocide among non-educated African tribes is explained pure by their culture....

That is an interesting statement, as the first major genocide in Africa recorded was conducted by educated white Europeans during the Age of Imperialism. Specifically, Belgian King Leopold's "rape of the Congo" in which his "protectorate" was savagely ruled and guarded by his Military Police as they murdered, raped, and maimed the local populace for decades. No one is sure of the numbers, but I think something between 600,000 and well over one million Congolese died. But then, some would argue that calling the victims "Congolese" would be an added insult since no nation known as "the Congo" existed there prior to European colonialism and its habitation as a colonial space, which is actually the greatest problem in Africa--the arbitrary creation of (multi) nation-states where competing tribes and ethnicities were paired together within borders with no natural barriers setting them up for decades of instability and infighting.

And as for your statement, I'm pretty sure white Western Europeans, North Americans, and Eastern European slavs were much more effective and killing millions of people than black Africans ever were...

Rising Sun*
08-20-2010, 09:16 AM
Secondly, only limited numbers of then "negro" soldiers were allowed to be assigned to combat units and the majority were rear echelon support. I think one of the themes that emerges here is that the majority of rapists in WWII armies were follow-on rear echelon soldiers and not the front line infantry--who tended to be more disciplined and had less time on their hands. The problem in Japan seems to have been marine and army infantry who had little to do, and some of the units mentioned probably would have been all white such as the paratroopers.

Perhaps it might be more a case of some of the rear echelon troops during the active phase of a war, as with the rear echelon in France in 1944 while the relatively distant front was still hot and at times fluid, having the time and opportunity to engage in rape, looting etc, and then some of the fighting troops used as occupation troops after the war having the time and opportunity to do the same.

Then again, the nominal fighting troops in an occupation might not always have been those who had a great deal of combat experience but might be Johnny Come Lately reinforcements lacking the discipline of combat soldiers.

Or maybe they were combat soldiers who were more ruthless and efficient than rear echelon troops in acts of violence.

I suspect it was probably a combination of all of the above, for the small proportion who offended.

Chevan
08-25-2010, 01:27 AM
That is an interesting statement, as the first major genocide in Africa recorded was conducted by educated white Europeans during the Age of Imperialism.
Noway. it was first RECORDED and documented genocide in Africa. But it's pretty naive to think it was FIRST majore genocide in Africa or in America.Seen the Mal Gibbson's "Apocalipto"? The ethnic and religious genocide was a regular for the all the ancient tribes ( including our european prehistoric ancestors).


And as for your statement, I'm pretty sure white Western Europeans, North Americans, and Eastern European slavs were much more effective and killing millions of people than black Africans ever were...
All those speculations don't justify the extremally low level of culture and education ( and hence strong mutual ethnic hate) of different African tribes today.
Actualty whites are superior in mass killing of peoples, however, we don't kill each other ALL the time..

Nickdfresh
08-25-2010, 10:44 AM
Noway. it was first RECORDED and documented genocide in Africa. But it's pretty naive to think it was FIRST majore genocide in Africa or in America.Seen the Mal Gibbson's "Apocalipto"? The ethnic and religious genocide was a regular for the all the ancient tribes ( including our european prehistoric ancestors).

Of course. But genocide without some form or organized, systemic structure is very difficult to carry out. Certainly mass killing of populations for various goals (democide might be a better term for this?) has been done pre-history; most cultures have engaged in what they may later perceived and record to be a defensive operation that may have been more of an aggressive war of annihilation of their weaker enemies.

I think there's a theory that the modern man may have decimated the neanderthals in what amounted to a democide for control of Europe...


All those speculations don't justify the extremally low level of culture and education ( and hence strong mutual ethnic hate) of different African tribes today.
Actualty whites are superior in mass killing of peoples, however, we don't kill each other ALL the time..

The low level of culture is a bastardized mix of local and Euro traditions and most of the educated Africans flee to the West making it easier for the tin-pot *****s like Mugabe to take over or retain control. And if you're speaking of Rwanda, that is a classic example of a patchwork country arbitrarily created where none existed, and forcing two competing tribes into a coexistence resulting in decades of instability...

Rising Sun*
08-25-2010, 10:55 AM
A feature common to all racially exterminating and racially brutal cultures is a dominant group which demonises the victim group and or renders it sub-human or otherwise unworthy of consideration (e.g. nowadays infidels by some extremist Muslim groups being everyone, including other Muslims, who don't toe their extremist line, and some of their opponents who respond with a similarly atttitude).

With the possible exceptions of a few groups such as Buddhists and Quakers, the rest have to a greater or lesser degree probably participated in some form of extermination of or racial brutality towards what they see as lesser people and peoples at some point in their history, and probably not all that far in the past.

Rising Sun*
08-26-2010, 08:53 AM
Of course there have always been rivalries between competing ethnicities in Africa. So, why wouldn't arbitrary groupings of them into nation states in itself result in violence, chaos, and fundamental instability? You only have to look at the nation states of Rwanda, Burundi, and the current long war in the Congo to see that. Or perhaps what too place in the former Yugoslavia...

But to what extent is recent history a consequence of things beyond arbitrary borders imposed upon those places and peoples by invading imperial and or colonial powers?

For example, Yugoslavia, and Greece and Cyprus, reflect the consequences of Ottoman Islamic rule, in much the same way that Northern Ireland reflects the consequences of English Protestant rule.

Once the external ruler leaves the locals tend to resent and perhaps revolt against (a) the locals who are seen as collaborators or beneficiaries of the invaders and (b) the remnants of the invader population, as both (a) and (b) usually retain power and privilege until dispossessed by the much more numerous but less powerful and less privileged local masses.

Nickdfresh
08-26-2010, 10:53 PM
But to what extent is recent history a consequence of things beyond arbitrary borders imposed upon those places and peoples by invading imperial and or colonial powers?

For example, Yugoslavia, and Greece and Cyprus, reflect the consequences of Ottoman Islamic rule, in much the same way that Northern Ireland reflects the consequences of English Protestant rule.

But Yugoslavia, or the recent conflict in, is not directly the result of Ottoman rule as I believe the opening salvos of that conflict were between the Catholic Croats and Orthodox (but ostensibly pseudo-Socialist) Serbian dominated" Yugoslav federal state. Northern Ireland is a bit more complex as there is English protestantism--and then there is Scottish Presbyterianism. And one could argue that the Irish Republic still reflects some of the legacy of English rule as the UK reflects some of the legacy of Saxon rule...


Once the external ruler leaves the locals tend to resent and perhaps revolt against (a) the locals who are seen as collaborators or beneficiaries of the invaders and (b) the remnants of the invader population, as both (a) and (b) usually retain power and privilege until dispossessed by the much more numerous but less powerful and less privileged local masses.

I concur. But one can argue that (Northern) Ireland is more similar to many of the former Soviet republics in that an external ethnic populace that posed problem for the ruling classes was essentially "planted" as a form of counterinsurgency and "pacification" (i.e. the Scots-Irish). But I think one can also take the opposite view that in some cases the minority left behind by the colonizers can often maintain an ascendant status economically and remain influential. Ireland is sort of the ideal example as the "Anglo-Irish (protestants) have tended to do very well and typically have had a higher standard of living until very recent times of the "Irish Tiger" economy....

Nickdfresh
08-26-2010, 11:08 PM
The statement "but from there either warfare or competition for resources must have been key...." is hardly evidence that anyone holds a theory that modern humans practiced genocide on their more primitive cousins. The article is sensationalist and suggests a "genocide" theory where none exists. To suggest there was competition between Neanderthals and modern humans, and even to suggest, by using the term "warfare", it may have turned violent at times, does not mean anyone believes such competition constituted an attempt by modern humans to deliberately exterminate Neanderthals. The author is clearly using the suggestion of "genocide" to sell his article.

That's your opinion. But nevertheless, it is in fact a theory--and one certainly not based on a single NY Times article. You can disagree with it all you want, but there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction. But yes, it is a controversial theory and there isn't any consensus...


Because the cultures involved were already in serious conflict, and engaged in trying to eliminate each other long before Europeans superimposed their ideas of national structure on tribal society. It wasn't that the colonial boundaries changed anything for the tribal conflicts, made them more intense, or more frequent. In fact, an argument could be made that, in some cases, the imposition of colonial government actually dampened the conflicts by imposing the same laws, more or less impartially applied by the Europeans, on tribal societies. Of course, this wasn't the case in every situation. The current war in the Congo was not caused by colonial boundaries being imposed on geographic tribal structure, but by conflict over finite natural resources by small political elites within the tribes. These political elites use the long history of tribal animosity to promote their own selfish interests without regard for the larger implications.

Actually, one can argue that European Imperialism exacerbated tribal and ethnic conflicts that existed prior. For instance, in King Leopold's Congo, Hutus and Tutsis were forced to carry ID cards stating their ethnicity even though the terms had largely lost much of their meaning in reference to cultural identity. And the laws "imposed" were hardly for the beneficiary of the colonized. And the current War in the Congo very much involves the Tutsi and Hutu identity, as various militias and state armies of both are among the belligerents. And some would say that the Congo War represents a modernist form of "Neocolonialism," in which local warlords have taken the place of Europeans and the demand for the metal coltan, for use in cell phones and computers, has become the precious resource for export the belligerents are all fighting over...

Rising Sun*
08-27-2010, 09:35 AM
But Yugoslavia, or the recent conflict in, is not directly the result of Ottoman rule as I believe the opening salvos of that conflict were between the Catholic Croats and Orthodox (but ostensibly pseudo-Socialist) Serbian dominated" Yugoslav federal state.

Why do you have to make a complicated situation even more complicated, when I was trying to keep it simple? ;) :D

I'd suggest that Ottoman rule, and its eventual decay after WWI, was crucial in developing many areas of recent and current conflict, from Yugoslavia to Greece to Cyprus to Israel, and that the collapse of the Ottomans allowed more local conflicts to rise up.

You are certainly correct in identifying the Croat / Serb division along religious lines, which allowed some of the most appalling episodes during WWII and which are conveniently ignored in the West which beats its breast about the Nazis, but it had little influence on the wider world, beyond disgust to the few who knew or cared about it, then or now.

However, the Ottoman loss of Palestine and the subsequent Jewish filling of that vacuum without any legitimacy recognised by local nations has been the focus of an enduring problem, but this is just another example of a more powerful group gaining ascendancy over a less powerful group, by whatever means, as did the various colonial powers before WWII. Except that after WWII the colonial powers generally lost their possessions while the invaders in Palestine consolidated their power.


Northern Ireland is a bit more complex as there is English protestantism--and then there is Scottish Presbyterianism. And one could argue that the Irish Republic still reflects some of the legacy of English rule as the UK reflects some of the legacy of Saxon rule...

Well, personally, I blame Boadicea.

And the Danes, because if they'd got all the Danegeld there was to get out of Britain it would have been broke and just a Danish paddock.


I concur. But one can argue that (Northern) Ireland is more similar to many of the former Soviet republics in that an external ethnic populace that posed problem for the ruling classes was essentially "planted" as a form of counterinsurgency and "pacification" (i.e. the Scots-Irish). But I think one can also take the opposite view that in some cases the minority left behind by the colonizers can often maintain an ascendant status economically and remain influential. Ireland is sort of the ideal example as the "Anglo-Irish (protestants) have tended to do very well and typically have had a higher standard of living until very recent times of the "Irish Tiger" economy....

The difference in comparing Northern Ireland plants with Soviet plants is about three centuries.

The USSR came and went within about seventy years during the 20th century, but the British control of Northern, and for that matter most of, Ireland began in the 17th century and was not displaced until late in the 20th century.

The difference in times allowed much greater entrenchment in the social, political and economic fabric in Ireland than it did in the USSR.

boyne_water
08-27-2010, 12:16 PM
With regard to the Planters in Ireland the majority came from the west coast of Scotland.This area had been settled by tribes from Northern Ireland several centuries beforehand,so it may be argued(perhaps feebly)that they were irishmen returning home.

Wizard
08-28-2010, 05:18 PM
That's your opinion. But nevertheless, it is in fact a theory--and one certainly not based on a single NY Times article. You can disagree with it all you want, but there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction. But yes, it is a controversial theory and there isn't any consensus...

Yes, but an informed and rational opinion.

If your theory is not based on a single NY Times article, where is your documentation? The only data you have posted is the NY Times article and it is pretty feeble.

In any case, you are now trying to retreat from the idea that modern humans committed "genocide" against the Neanderthals; the statement that, "...there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction..." is a long, long way from the statement that modern man committed an act of genocide against the Neanderthals. I claim that no responsible anthropologist or archeologist today would be willing to flat out assert that he or she has evidence that modern humans deliberately attempted to exterminate Neanderthals, nor will they state that it is their theory that modern humans actually committed genocide against the Neanderthals.

If you can reference an authority (as opposed to some halfwit journalist trying to sensationalize his or her article) to the contrary, please do so.


Actually, one can argue that European Imperialism exacerbated tribal and ethnic conflicts that existed prior. For instance, in King Leopold's Congo, Hutus and Tutsis were forced to carry ID cards stating their ethnicity even though the terms had largely lost much of their meaning in reference to cultural identity....

Which would have been meaningless without generations of pre-existing tribal conflict. There is no evidence that such a requirement "exacerbated" anything except the bureaucratic burden imposed on tribal society.


...And the laws "imposed" were hardly for the beneficiary of the colonized....

No one ever said they were for the benefit of the colonial subjects. That they were imposed on everyone alike, in some colonies, tended to dampen tribal conflict, and in some cases even united tribes through their opposition to the colonial occupiers.


... And the current War in the Congo very much involves the Tutsi and Hutu identity, as various militias and state armies of both are among the belligerents. And some would say that the Congo War represents a modernist form of "Neocolonialism," in which local warlords have taken the place of Europeans and the demand for the metal coltan, for use in cell phones and computers, has become the precious resource for export the belligerents are all fighting over...

Yes, the identities of the tribes are involved and the underlying tensions are exploited by the political elites within the tribal structures, but they aren't the cause of the conflicts, nor does the fact that the Congo was once the Belgian Congo have anything to do with the current warfare there. The tribes are simply continuing their conflicts with updated rationales; where once they fought over resources like game, water, and women, they now fight over the modern equivalents like exotic metals, diamonds, and oil.

It's become fashionable to blame every problem in the third world on the prior existence of colonialism, without ever examining the real roots of conflict. Colonialism may not have been good in every case for the colonized, but it wasn't always the progenitor of present day conflict and backwardness.

Nickdfresh
08-28-2010, 07:17 PM
Yes, but an informed and rational opinion.

As are mine. However, what you post later on here is anything but informed or rational as you seem to believe that this is somehow my personal theory all based on a NY Times article I have actually never read prior to doing a simple Google search. The Genocide theory actually is hotly debated and has been for the better part of the decade. Nobody asked you to agree with the theory. Nobody stated that THEY (i.e. ME) actually agreed with the theory nor did we actually discuss the merits and criticisms of said theory. Only that it is in fact a theory. Stating that it isn't is silly nonsense (as if there is any sort of serious nonsense :) )...

I'm debating the merits of the theory, merely its existence forwarded as one of the explanations for the sudden disappearance of the neanderthals...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


If your theory is not based on a single NY Times article, where is your documentation? The only data you have posted is the NY Times article and it is pretty feeble.

No. Actually it is based on research and conjecture. I'm unaware of anytime in history of a scientific theory being based on a newspaper article. And if you're going to hold me to a standard much higher than the one you hold yourself to, at least point out specifically where the article is "feeble." I mean, he/she's a journalist and perhaps a science beat-writer, probably not an actual scientist. But I'm pretty sure the article was written in response to a hotly debated new theory, not the origin of it. Secondly, the article presented was actually reposted from a scientific blog, not the Times proper(website) IIRC. Thirdly, if your going to flame me for posting silly articles as the basis of my argument (even though they never were the basis of my argument) perhaps you should post some silly articles of your own for "documentation?"


In any case, you are now trying to retreat from the idea that modern humans committed "genocide" against the Neanderthals; the statement that, "...there are a number of proponents to the theory that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction..." is a long, long way from the statement that modern man committed an act of genocide against the Neanderthals.

Well, here's where you're getting a bit sketchy and strawmanish. I can't "retreat" from anything since I never, ever stated conclusively one opinion or another. Firstly, I NEVER STATED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER regarding my personal beliefs of how neanderthals went the way of the Dodo. Secondly, I corrected the extraneous use of "genocide" with a term I would consider more accurate in "democide," a semantic nuance which differs in that democide is less about premeditated mass extermination, and more about inflicting terror on one's opponents as a means of more rational, tangible gains such as land, wealth, resources, etc. mainly by way of "ethnic-cleansing"...


I claim that no responsible anthropologist or archeologist today would be willing to flat out assert that he or she has evidence that modern humans deliberately attempted to exterminate Neanderthals, nor will they state that it is their theory that modern humans actually committed genocide against the Neanderthals.

Okay. And your basis of this claim is? You don't agree with them and don't like it, so it must be false?

Incidentally, Dr. Jared Diamond mentions the possibility of conflict between modern humans and the neanderthals not dissimilar to modern wars of extinction in his book The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses#cite_note-thirdchimp-7




If you can reference an authority (as opposed to some halfwit journalist trying to sensationalize his or her article) to the contrary, please do so.

Well, I had dozens of hits on Google and merely chose the article because it was a brief overview of the topic. But, I've seen a PBS (NOVA?) show on the topic IIRC. I'm also aware that this is actually a science genre novel on the subject in which a married couple of scientist have a rift as one believes in the genocide theory and the other believes that neanderthals died out due to indirect competition.


Which would have been meaningless without generations of pre-existing tribal conflict. There is no evidence that such a requirement "exacerbated" anything except the bureaucratic burden imposed on tribal society.

Actually many sources I've read stated that specially Belgian pass laws resurrected tribal conflicts by favoring the Tutsis over the Hutus (rural) classes and by reinforcing ancient class distinctions. That's only one instance...


No one ever said they were for the benefit of the colonial subjects. That they were imposed on everyone alike, in some colonies, tended to dampen tribal conflict, and in some cases even united tribes through their opposition to the colonial occupiers.

Actually, there was a 'moral dimension' to imperialism that is reflected in "The White Man's Burden" of "Christianizing" the orient as well as providing infrastructure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden


Yes, the identities of the tribes are involved and the underlying tensions are exploited by the political elites within the tribal structures, but they aren't the cause of the conflicts, nor does the fact that the Congo was once the Belgian Congo have anything to do with the current warfare there. The tribes are simply continuing their conflicts with updated rationales; where once they fought over resources like game, water, and women, they now fight over the modern equivalents like exotic metals, diamonds, and oil.

The point is that the nation-states are all haphazard constructions of colonialism that follow no pattern of the previous kingdoms and hierarchical power-structures that existed prior fundamentally rewriting the continental boundaries with an incoherent mishmash and a constructed social order that was untenable. These arrived the way of carving up the map wherever said Euro nation happened to claim at the time. All Western nations have geographic boundaries such as rivers and mountain ranges, at least most do. The ones that do not tend to have histories of constant, or periodic, warfare such as Germany and France. I think this is generally accepted that nations constructed with some intent of patching different, often hostile, cultures together tend not to fare well in the end...


It's become fashionable to blame every problem in the third world on the prior existence of colonialism, without ever examining the real roots of conflict. Colonialism may not have been good in every case for the colonized, but it wasn't always the progenitor of present day conflict and backwardness.

Nobody is blaming anything on anyone except for the current douchebags that continue the cycle of repression (i.e. corrupt African gov'ts). Postcolonial theory is more expository and literary than judicial. It is only here to explain and record what was largely annihilated and the attitudes of the adherents and victims of colonization. But if it exposes prikks like King Leopold ala King Leopold's Ghost, so be it...

Wizard
08-28-2010, 10:05 PM
As are mine. However, what you post later on here is anything but informed or rational as you seem to believe that this is somehow my personal theory all based on a NY Times article I have actually never read prior to doing a simple Google search. The Genocide theory actually is hotly debated and has been for the better part of the decade. Nobody asked you to agree with the theory. Nobody stated that THEY (i.e. ME) actually agreed with the theory nor did we actually discuss the merits and criticisms of said theory. Only that it is in fact a theory. Stating that it isn't is silly nonsense (as if there is any sort of serious nonsense :) )...

I'm debating the merits of the theory, merely its existence forwarded as one of the explanations for the sudden disappearance of the neanderthals...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

And your supporting evidence for the existence of a genocide theory to explain the demise of the Neanderthals is....a Monty Python YouTube clip?????


No. Actually it is based on research and conjecture. I'm unaware of anytime in history of a scientific theory being based on a newspaper article. And if you're going to hold me to a standard much higher than the one you hold yourself to, at least point out specifically where the article is "feeble." I mean, he/she's a journalist and perhaps a science beat-writer, probably not an actual scientist. But I'm pretty sure the article was written in response to a hotly debated new theory, not the origin of it. Secondly, the article presented was actually reposted from a scientific blog, not the Times proper(website) IIRC. Thirdly, if your going to flame me for posting silly articles as the basis of my argument (even though they never were the basis of my argument) perhaps you should post some silly articles of your own for "documentation?"

I am NOT "flaming" you, so please don't make false accusations.

What I am doing is claiming that the theory you claim exists does not, in fact, exist in serious scientific circles. If, as you claim, much research and conjecture exists on this topic, then certainly some reputable scientist has published a paper or two on the matter; it should be simple for you to reference such a paper to prove that the theory you have invoked does indeed exist.

All I'm asking is that you cite some responsible and reputable archeologist or anthropologist who has written about such a theory.


Well, here's where you're getting a bit sketchy and strawmanish. I can't "retreat" from anything since I never, ever stated conclusively one opinion or another. Firstly, I NEVER STATED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER regarding my personal beliefs of how neanderthals went the way of the Dodo. Secondly, I corrected the extraneous use of "genocide" with a term I would consider more accurate in "democide," a semantic nuance which differs in that democide is less about premeditated mass extermination, and more about inflicting terror on one's opponents as a means of more rational, tangible gains such as land, wealth, resources, etc. mainly by way of "ethnic-cleansing"...

What you stated was that there exists a scientific theory to the effect that the demise of the Neanderthals was due to an act of genocide on the part of modern humans. Now, you are retreating from that statement by modifying the terms of reference to state that the theory is "that Modern Man largely actively and through competition, drove Neanderthals to an early extinction." This does NOT describe an act of genocide, as merely "competing" with another species or race does not, by any measure, constitute "genocide".

Either the theory exists and has been publicly expressed or it doesn't. If it does exist please document it, or admit that you are mistaken.


Okay. And your basis of this claim is? You don't agree with them and don't like it, so it must be false?

No, the basis of my claim is that I have read extensively of man's pre-history and have never heard or read of any reputable scientist expounding the theory that modern humans exterminated Neanderthals in an act of genocide.


Incidentally, Dr. Jared Diamond mentions the possibility of conflict between modern humans and the neanderthals not dissimilar to modern wars of extinction in his book The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal.

Then perhaps you would be good enough to quote the passage in which the good doctor uses the term "genocide" to describe such conflict?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses#cite_note-thirdchimp-7

Ok, I can see that you haven't read Dr. Diamond's tome, but merely picked it out of a list of references listed on the Wiki article. The article itself mentions "genocide" but is not willing to say any scientist believes that genocide may have actually occurred; using such qualifiers as "comparable to" and "competitive exclusion". The more you post, the more convinced I am that no reputable scientist entertains any genocide theory to explain the disappearance of the Neanderthals from the pre-historical record.


Well, I had dozens of hits on Google and merely chose the article because it was a brief overview of the topic. But, I've seen a PBS (NOVA?) show on the topic IIRC. I'm also aware that this is actually a science genre novel on the subject in which a married couple of scientist have a rift as one believes in the genocide theory and the other believes that neanderthals died out due to indirect competition.

In other words a TV "dramatization" of science?????

Hardly a convincing bit of "data". Especially when scientists in real life actually do frequently publish papers on their theories; it shouldn't be too difficult, if such a theory does indeed exist, to cite such papers with specific and clear allusions to the term "genocide".


Actually many sources I've read stated that specially Belgian pass laws resurrected tribal conflicts by favoring the Tutsis over the Hutus (rural) classes and by reinforcing ancient class distinctions. That's only one instance...

But that would have been very unlikely unless the tribal animosities still had currency.


Actually, there was a 'moral dimension' to imperialism that is reflected in "The White Man's Burden" of "Christianizing" the orient as well as providing infrastructure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

A point not in dispute.


The point is that the nation-states are all haphazard constructions of colonialism that follow no pattern of the previous kingdoms and hierarchical power-structures that existed prior fundamentally rewriting the continental boundaries with an incoherent mishmash and a constructed social order that was untenable. These arrived the way of carving up the map wherever said Euro nation happened to claim at the time. All Western nations have geographic boundaries such as rivers and mountain ranges, at least most do. The ones that do not tend to have histories of constant, or periodic, warfare such as Germany and France. I think this is generally accepted that nations constructed with some intent of patching different, often hostile, cultures together tend not to fare well in the end...

I would tend to agree with that, except that does not seem to have been the intent of colonial demarcation of boundaries. In Africa, in any case, Colonial boundaries were often very vague and indistinct, often being disputed by the neighboring colonial authorities. If the native tribes were even aware of such boundaries they seldom honored them unless forced to do so by border controls. Certainly, they seldom considered themselves part of an artificial construct imposed by Europeans; they continued to maintain their traditional tribal contacts and cultures, as well as their loyalties and conflicts.


Nobody is blaming anything on anyone except for the current douchebags that continue the cycle of repression (i.e. corrupt African gov'ts). Postcolonial theory is more expository and literary than judicial. It is only here to explain and record what was largely annihilated and the attitudes of the adherents and victims of colonization. But if it exposes prikks like King Leopold ala King Leopold's Ghost, so be it...

Well, originally, you seemed to be stating that current tribal conflicts were largely attributable to the imposition on native cultures of European-style national structures, which, from a native perspective were purely artificial.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Nickdfresh
08-28-2010, 11:48 PM
And your supporting evidence for the existence of a genocide theory to explain the demise of the Neanderthals is....a Monty Python YouTube clip?????

No. Actually I posted the Monty Python skit because it's funny and that some people revel in arguments by exaggerating their opponents views to the contrary when not that far apart. And I also get annoyed having to take the internet this seriously...


I am NOT "flaming" you, so please don't make false accusations.

But you make false proclamations that you attribute to me that I never actually made. I think you're also falling into the trap of false 'binary-oppositions' in implying that there could be only one cause for the disappearance of neanderthal man. There are several theories, and 'genocide' via a war of annihilation is one of them...


What I am doing is claiming that the theory you claim exists does not...it should be simple for you to reference such a paper to prove that the theory you have invoked does indeed exist.

Perhaps you can give us a "paper" in that states the neanderthals disappeared that doesn't mention genocide as a possible culprit? As I stated, it is hotly debated to what extent warfare and skirmishes perhaps became total warfare as far as any could be organized by Stonehenge herders/nomads in prehistory.


All I'm asking is that you cite some responsible and reputable archeologist or anthropologist who has written about such a theory.

I did. I'm waiting for you to post a reputable archeologist or anthropologist that would state that genocide (or democide more accurately) never could have happened and the fascinatingly rapid disappearance of neanderthals was somehow only through "competition" as you've previously stated. Since in no way could merely "competition" explain their rapid demise...


What you stated was that there exists a scientific theory to the effect that the demise of the Neanderthals was due to an act of genocide on the part of modern humans. Now, you are retreating from that statement...

Okay. Can you quote where I retreat from a statement? Um, "competition" can take many forms, Dr. Semantics. Firstly, I never conclusively stated my agreement semantically--including warfare and ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you can tell us the nature and definition of "genocide?" Actually, I corrected it as "democide." A term I'm pretty sure you've never heard prior to this debate and a term coined to be broader than "genocide" in a distinction that scientists may fail to make. Secondly, I in no way implied that genocide was the only theory, nor did I state that all neanderthals succumbed to one sole factor. But personally, I do believe that competition for resources is pretty much what all war is about. Is it not? And genocides (or democide) tends to take place in a broader armed conflict as tactic. Does it not? So, where really is my contradiction and backpedaling? I simply believe that such events are inherently complex and there can be no single easy answer. I'm also well aware of the theory (or hypotheses a better term for all this I think?) that you put forward that neanderthals were in a sense trapped into a rigid, myopic way of life resulting from their lack of imagination and inability to operate on the same intellectual level as modern man.

But if the neanderthals had a diminished mental capacity when compared to modern humans even while they were vastly physically more robust--wouldn't that be precisely the thing that could make them vulnerable to some sort of semi-organized armed pogrom against them by a physically much weaker specimen, yet a much faster thinking, adversary?


Either the theory exists and has been publicly expressed or it doesn't. If it does exist please document it, or admit that you are mistaken.

So you're saying no scientist has ever expressed that modern man may have slaughtered the neanderthals? That we lived side-by-side in blissful coexistence? I don't think you have much historical precedence for that!


No, the basis of my claim is that I have read extensively of man's pre-history and have never heard or read of any reputable scientist expounding the theory that modern humans exterminated Neanderthals in an act of genocide.

Fine. Who dismisses such a notion that is a 'reputable scientist?' There are certainly scientists who disagree with this particular hypothesis, or who believe warfare may have been a less dominant factor in the demise of the neanderthals. There is no smoking gun (unless you count bones with evidence of a violent demise, but even here there are too few examples)...


Then perhaps you would be good enough to quote the passage in which the good doctor uses the term "genocide" to describe such conflict?

I don't have the book. Perhaps you could read it and enlighten us? I'm kind of busy with a military reading list leading me away from where I started and some other stuff I'd almost rather read...


Ok, I can see that you haven't read Dr. Diamond's tome, but merely picked it out of a list of references listed on the Wiki article.

Oh dear! How horrible! Well, apparently, you've missed it as well in your "extensive readings" of pre-history? But I did notice your explanation in a previous post is largely discredited because it doesn't explain the rapid decimation of the neanderthals when coupled with the fact that they were well equipped to survive their environment.


The article itself mentions "genocide" but is not willing to say any scientist believes that genocide may have actually occurred; using such qualifiers as "comparable to" and "competitive exclusion"....

Here's what it says. If you want to quibble of semantics, fine:

Coexistence prior to extinction

Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted in Europe for several thousand years, but the duration of this period is uncertain.[2] Modern humans may have first migrated to Europe 40–43,000 years ago,[3] and Neanderthals may have lived as recently as 24,000 years ago in refugia...

[edit] Rapid extinction

Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[8] Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]

[edit] Competitive replacement

Even a slight competitive advantage on the part of modern humans could account for Neanderthals' replacement by anatomically modern humans on a timescale of 10,000-20,000 years.[3]

The theory that early humans violently replaced Neanderthals was first proposed by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (the first person to publish an analysis of a Neanderthal) in 1912.[9]

Another supporter of competitive replacement is Jared Diamond who points out in his book The Third Chimpanzee that the genocidal replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans is similar to modern human patterns of behavior that occur whenever people with advanced technology invade the territory of less advanced people.[10]

If we want to get picky and state that genocide is only when people are put in camps with gas chambers. Fine, you win. But then, what could one call the slaughtering of buffalo on the Great Plains in order to starve the Native tribes in the 1800s? Was that 'genocide,' 'democide,' or a legitimate tactic of 'total war?'


In other words a TV "dramatization" of science?????

Oh, by all means enlighten us with your learned background and post some of your sources. But NOVA is a TV 'dramatization of science?' Really? One of the best things on TV that's well researched and near universally acclaimed and you can't just dismiss it as if it were and episode of Three-and-a-Half-Men...


Hardly a convincing bit of "data". Especially when scientists in real life actually do frequently publish papers on their theories...specific and clear allusions to the term "genocide".

Firstly, having read numerous examples of them in the military, primary papers written by scientists are not always readily available on the open internet and would take weeks to decipher the gist to support contentions, which would bore all of us to death. So, why would I bother when you clearly haven't?

Or perhaps you could refute my infantile notion of scientists, including one of the first to seriously study neanderthals, have stated that there is a possibility that humans may have engaged in a war of extinction (genocide or democide). Examples of which have often repeated by technologically superior cultures against less 'evolved' ones...

Nickdfresh
08-28-2010, 11:48 PM
But that would have been very unlikely unless the tribal animosities still had currency.

...I would tend to agree with that, except that does not seem to have been the intent of colonial demarcation of boundaries. In Africa, in any case, Colonial boundaries were often very vague and indistinct, often being disputed by the neighboring colonial authorities. If the native tribes were even aware of such boundaries they seldom honored them unless forced to do so by border controls. Certainly, they seldom considered themselves part of an artificial construct imposed by Europeans; they continued to maintain their traditional tribal contacts and cultures, as well as their loyalties and conflicts.

Of course they did. But the tribes were no longer hegemonic groupings in the Euro notion of a nation-state, they now had to live next door to each other wherein some cases they probably separated off into various kingdoms prior. Incidentally, no one is implying that African was some utopia usurped by the distopian arrival of colonialism. But the fundamental marginalization of various African cultures, the mainstay of easily corrupted industries of oil/mineral wealth were a relative few can steal from the impoverished many has contributed to a fundamental perpetuation of instability and a breakdown in the social fabric that Africa is only now beginning to recover from--not the intrinsic racial inferiority of blacks that another poster was sort of hinting at--rather odd givin' his nationality (Russian) and some of his previous posts decrying the notion of the 'superior Aryan' over the 'racially inferior Slav.' Cyclical poverty and rigid class distinctions have far more to do with societal retardation than do genetics. So do corrupt, shit gov'ts, factions, and warlords stealing easily controlled mineral resources funneled to the unconscionable...


Well, originally, you seemed to be stating that current tribal conflicts were largely attributable to the imposition on native cultures of European-style national structures, which, from a native perspective were purely artificial.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I think post-colonial theory as begun by thinkers like Edward Said are largely misunderstood as some sort of left-wing apologia of African tinpot fascist/stalinist bastards when in fact much of it is an indictment of the current ones as "neo-colonialists."

Wizard
08-29-2010, 03:15 AM
....But you make false proclamations that you attribute to me that I never actually made. I think you're also falling into the trap of false 'binary-oppositions' in implying that there could be only one cause for the disappearance of neanderthal man. There are several theories, and 'genocide' via a war of annihilation is one of them...

I haven't made any false attributions to you. You'd just like to get out of a situation where you made a rash statement that you now find you can't document, without actually admitting you were wrong.

If "genocide" or a "war of annihilation" (which requires a far more sophisticated social organization than existed anywhere at the time) are actually theories held by scientists, it seems to me you should have been able to find a scientist who makes a specific statement to that effect. You obviously haven't, despite searching the internet, so I conclude that such a theory does not, in fact, exist.


Perhaps you can give us a "paper" in that states the neanderthals disappeared that doesn't mention genocide as a possible culprit? As I stated, it is hotly debated to what extent warfare and skirmishes perhaps became total warfare as far as any could be organized by Stonehenge herders/nomads in prehistory.

Well, that would only be duplicating your efforts; none of the articles, books or other documents you have found directly and specifically state that "genocide" is suspected as a cause. Violent competition, yes, even protracted warfare maybe, but neither of those terms rise to the level of genocide. Yes, violent conflict with modern humans is one theory for what caused the disappearance of the Neanderthals, but that is a far cry from the definition of "genocide". Actually, most researchers now think that hybridization was a more likely reason for the gradual disappearance of the Neanderthals, but there are other theories, although genocide is not one of them.


...I'm waiting for you to post a reputable archeologist or anthropologist that would state that genocide (or democide more accurately) never could have happened and the fascinatingly rapid disappearance of neanderthals was somehow only through "competition" as you've previously stated. Since in no way could merely "competition" explain their rapid demise...

Why should I? You were the one who rashly stated that genocide was one theory for the disappearance of Neanderthals, so the burden of proof that such a theory exists rests with you. I'm still waiting for you to produce a reference or citation proving it.


Okay. Can you quote where I retreat from a statement? Um, "competition" can take many forms, Dr. Semantics...

In case you didn't notice, I did quote you. You were clearly trying to soften the term "genocide" to include mere competition for natural resources when that is definitely not part of the definition of genocide. It's not I who is trying to hide behind a semantic smokescreen.


So you're saying no scientist has ever expressed that modern man may have slaughtered the neanderthals? That we lived side-by-side in blissful coexistence? I don't think you have much historical precedence for that!

No, I'm saying that, in all my reading on the subject, I have never seen or heard of any reputable scientist suggesting that modern humans had the sophisticated social organization required to organize and carry out any program of genocide on the scale that would have successfully eliminated the entire Neanderthal race (or species, or whatever you want to call it).


I don't have the book. Perhaps you could read it and enlighten us? I'm kind of busy with a military reading list leading me away from where I started and some other stuff I'd almost rather read...

Then you shouldn't suggest that the author makes statements that support your claim.


Oh dear! How horrible! Well, apparently, you've missed it as well in your "extensive readings" of pre-history? But I did notice your explanation in a previous post is largely discredited because it doesn't explain the rapid decimation of the neanderthals when coupled with the fact that they were well equipped to survive their environment.

Oh? Just how rapid was the disappearance of the Neanderthals? You seem to be setting yourself up as an expert on the subject, so when does the Neanderthal disappear in pre-history? You should note that there is no consensus on this, but the evidence seems to be that it took at least a thousand years, and more likely, tens of thousands of years for the Neanderthals to disappear. Pretty slow for a successful act of genocide. Just maintaining a goal of extinction in any primitive society over that period of time would be more or less impossible.


Here's what it says. If you want to quibble of semantics, fine:

Coexistence prior to extinction

Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted in Europe for several thousand years, but the duration of this period is uncertain.[2] Modern humans may have first migrated to Europe 40–43,000 years ago,[3] and Neanderthals may have lived as recently as 24,000 years ago in refugia...

[edit] Rapid extinction

Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[8] Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]

[edit] Competitive replacement

Even a slight competitive advantage on the part of modern humans could account for Neanderthals' replacement by anatomically modern humans on a timescale of 10,000-20,000 years.[3]

The theory that early humans violently replaced Neanderthals was first proposed by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (the first person to publish an analysis of a Neanderthal) in 1912.[9]

Another supporter of competitive replacement is Jared Diamond who points out in his book The Third Chimpanzee that the genocidal replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans is similar to modern human patterns of behavior that occur whenever people with advanced technology invade the territory of less advanced people.[10]

Yeah, I read that. But mere competition, even if it sometimes takes the form of violence does not constitute "genocide". Even the learned Doctor Diamond does not say that modern humans practiced genocide on the Neanderthals. He qualifies his statements with terms like "comparable".


If we want to get picky and state that genocide is only when people are put in camps with gas chambers. Fine, you win. But then, what could one call the slaughtering of buffalo on the Great Plains in order to starve the Native tribes in the 1800s? Was that 'genocide,' 'democide,' or a legitimate tactic of 'total war?'

No, I do not believe real genocide requires gas chambers and concentration camps, but it does require more than mere competition, even if that competition is sometimes accompanied by violent encounters. Real genocide is an attempt to exterminate all the members of a race or species through a deliberate program of extermination. Warfare is not genocide unless the purpose of the war is to eliminate permanently the entire opposition.


Oh, by all means enlighten us with your learned background and post some of your sources. But NOVA is a TV 'dramatization of science?' Really? One of the best things on TV that's well researched and near universally acclaimed and you can't just dismiss it as if it were and episode of Three-and-a-Half-Men...

Sarcasm does not become you, but if it's the only argument you have, give it your best shot....

Yes, I suppose NOVA is the best of the lot, but it's still entertainment. I notice that you didn't give the scientists names, nor explain which one held the theory that you claim exists. So no, I don't entirely dismiss the program, but you need to reference more information than just some TV program you once watched.

[QUOTE=Nickdfresh;171148]Firstly, having read numerous examples of them in the military, primary papers written by scientists are not always readily available on the open internet and would take weeks to decipher the gist to support contentions, which would bore all of us to death. So, why would I bother when you clearly haven't?

Well, because the burden of proof is yours rather than mine; you were the first to proclaim the theory exists, I claim it does not, not in serious scientific circles.


Or perhaps you could refute my infantile notion of scientists, including one of the first to seriously study neanderthals, have stated that there is a possibility that humans may have engaged in a war of extinction (genocide or democide). Examples of which have often repeated by technologically superior cultures against less 'evolved' ones...

If you wish to use a scientist as proof of your claim, please cite a quotation by that person, specifically stating that modern humans may have engaged in genocide or a "war of extinction". I don't believe any scientist has ever made such a specific statement because there is little or no evidence for it.

Tthere is very little evidence that modern humans were all that technologically advanced over Neanderthals. They may have had slightly more sophisticated stone-working methods and may have used a wider variety of materials, but that's about it. When it came to violent conflict, the Neanderthals would have held a huge edge in physical strength and agility.

Nickdfresh
08-29-2010, 12:18 PM
Note: I've deleted some of my response here because this seems to becoming a tit-for-tat, redundant pissing match and I want to keep things civil. I'm confining my response to the following: :)


...Yeah, I read that. But mere competition, even if it sometimes takes the form of violence does not constitute "genocide". Even the learned Doctor Diamond does not say that modern humans practiced genocide on the Neanderthals. He qualifies his statements with terms like "comparable".
...
No, I do not believe real genocide requires gas chambers and concentration camps, but it does require more than mere competition, even if that competition is sometimes accompanied by violent encounters. Real genocide is an attempt to exterminate all the members of a race or species through a deliberate program of extermination. Warfare is not genocide unless the purpose of the war is to eliminate permanently the entire opposition.

If you wish to use a scientist as proof of your claim, please cite a quotation by that person, specifically stating that modern humans may have engaged in genocide or a "war of extinction". I don't believe any scientist has ever made such a specific statement because there is little or no evidence for it.
...
Tthere is very little evidence that modern humans were all that technologically advanced over Neanderthals. They may have had slightly more sophisticated stone-working methods and may have used a wider variety of materials, but that's about it. When it came to violent conflict, the Neanderthals would have held a huge edge in physical strength and agility.

Super! Now we're getting somewhere, I think there is some common ground here. It wouldn't be one hundred percent accurate for a scientist on Diamond's level to make absolute and categorical statements regarding theories/hypotheses, but he like us has a dilemma as again, we're quibbling over a lack of definition of genocide. Something that is in itself hotly debated as terms for what goes on in places like the Sudan and Rwanda. Apparently, the Janjuweed militias' Sudanese gov't's mass murderous "ethnic-cleansing" of darker skinned, non-Arabic Africans was not technically a genocide according to some, but a democide involving the use of terror and ethnic cleansing. Yet, the spasm of violence and mass murder of Tutsis that took place in Rwanda, that started on a national level--but very quickly became locally coordinated--is considered genocide based largely on numbers I suppose. Yet, "War of extinction?" I believe a solitary instance in the Bosnia Herzegovina city of Srebrenica was considered "genocide" by the ICJ even though the death toll was less than ten thousand, and not millions, and even though that wasn't necessarily a "war of extinction" nor was it an attempt to completely massacre and entire Bosnian Muslim race as the Serb paramilitaries (mostly) allowed women and children out. Genocide is a politicized definition that is in itself hotly debated...

Semantics and qualifiers indeed, my friend...

This is why I stated that democide is a better term. Would it not be plausible that when modern men went into vast swaths of European river valleys and began a pogrom of massacring every neanderthal in sight in order to terrorize them out of said areas? After all, there are no black-and-white footage or documents pertaining too what took place, but it would seem that modern humans have done pretty much the same thing. As for genocide, it can start out as a form of ethnic-cleansing by killing large numbers of the supposed enemy, using terror to force them out of a given area. The question is the scale of said events and the numbers of dead. It could well have taken place over decades, even centuries and plausibly would have been more than just the odd tribes engaged in a pitched battle over cattle or hunting grounds. As far as there being "little evidence" for a "war of extinction," that's a bit of a false choice, because there is little evidence for the hypothesis that you advanced earlier. Or for any other. But the very lack of neanderthals currently would be one indication that even local wars would have contributed to their extinction.

You are correct that a Neanderthal would have been much stronger and that they had comparable brain capacity, which would in some ways make them even more of a threat. But I believe I read long ago that Cro-Magnons and modern humans had probably a better imagination and were more creatively inclined allowing for them to perhaps out-plan our cousins IIRC. Also:


Anatomical differences and running ability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses#Anatomical_diffe rences_and_running_ability)

Researchers including Karen L. Steudel of the University of Wisconsin have proposed that because Neanderthals had limbs that were shorter and stockier than those of modern humans, and because of other anatomical differences in their limbs, the primary reason the Neanderthals were not able to survive is related to the fact that they could not run as fast as modern humans, and they would require 30% more energy than modern humans would for running or walking.[13]

This would have given modern humans a huge advantage in battle. Other researchers, like Yoel Rak, from Tel-Aviv University in Israel have noted that the fossil records show that Neanderthal pelvises in comparison to modern human pelvises would have made it much harder for Neanderthals to absorb shock and to bounce off from one step to the next, giving modern humans another advantage over Neanderthals in running and walking ability.[14]


Sarcasm does not become you, but if it's the only argument you have, give it your best shot....

Sarcasm is not an argument, it's more of a tone and style, one meant to be humorous more than anything else. :)


Yes, I suppose NOVA is the best of the lot, but it's still entertainment. I notice that you didn't give the scientists names, nor explain which one held the theory that you claim exists. So no, I don't entirely dismiss the program, but you need to reference more information than just some TV program you once watched.

It's not a single program I once watched, it's a multitude of examples not unlike your comprehensive "reading" on the subject that has taken place over the years from TV documentaries to National Geographic articles. However, I did produce exactly what you asked for, Dr. Jared Diamond is one of the main proponents for human activity that was "comparable to genocide" and that violent confrontation and displacement may have been one of the primary causes for their demise. But who knows? We might have up to 4% of their DNA in our blood...


Regards...

Wizard
08-29-2010, 03:30 PM
....This is why I stated that democide is a better term. Would it not be plausible that when modern men went into vast swaths of European river valleys and began a pogrom of massacring every neanderthal in sight in order to terrorize them out of said areas? After all, there are no black-and-white footage or documents pertaining too what took place, but it would seem that modern humans have done pretty much the same thing. As for genocide, it can start out as a form of ethnic-cleansing by killing large numbers of the supposed enemy, using terror to force them out of a given area. The question is the scale of said events and the numbers of dead. It could well have taken place over decades, even centuries and plausibly would have been more than just the odd tribes engaged in a pitched battle over cattle or hunting grounds. As far as there being "little evidence" for a "war of extinction," that's a bit of a false choice, because there is little evidence for the hypothesis that you advanced earlier. Or for any other. But the very lack of neanderthals currently would be one indication that even local wars would have contributed to their extinction...

Now you have actually started to understand the problem.

Journalists and politicians trend to throw terms like "genocide", "war of extinction", and "ethnic cleansing" around without ever stating a precise definition. That is deliberate because they want maximum emotional impact without people starting to ask just what the hell they mean by these terms. The terms themselves were coined to produce outrage and anger, not sober reflection and careful thought.

Fortunately, most scientists value rational and calm reflection, and search for essential truths which are usually NOT to be found in the use of such imprecise language. That is why I do not believe any reputable scientist would use a term like "genocide" to describe what might have happened thousands of years ago. Even the good Doctor Diamond qualifies his use of the term by inserting the qualifier "comparable to". That is because he knows his colleagues would not tolerate an emotional word like "genocide" in a dispassionate scientific work, and rightly so.

And no, it would not be plausible for modern humans to migrate into Europe and attempt to systematically annihilate every Neanderthal they found there. That would imply a level of social organization far above the rudimentary tribal system that was common to both modern humans and Neanderthals at the time. At most, a tribe of modern humans might plausibly decide to attempt to discourage a competing tribe from using certain hunting grounds, and failing that, might decide to make war on that tribe. It's just as reasonable to assume the opposing tribe could be Neanderthals or, just as plausibly, modern humans. This competition, even when it might turn violent, in no way rises to the level of "genocide" or a "war of extinction". It was most likely simply a desire to make their own survival easier, and was probably directed at any tribe of any race or species with which they came in contact.

All the evidence indicates that neither modern humans, nor Neanderthals, had the social organization, the time, nor the inclination to engage in anything more than tasks and projects directly related to their own survival; to put it another way, they didn't have time for "wars of extinction" which imply massive social efforts, or "genocide", which implies considerable effort to accomplish the systematic destruction of an entire gene pool.

Just for the record, I have advanced no hypotheses. I have simply stated, and maintained, that no reputable scientist has suggested that "genocide" or a "war of extinction" might have taken place in Europe in pre-historical times and might account for the disappearance of the Neanderthals.

muscogeemike
10-05-2010, 09:49 PM
If, as Mr. Svoboda claims, “…one in eight soldier’s “ (I assume he includes US Army and Marines) in WWII were subject to courts martial nearly 6,600 soldiers each day of the US involvement would have received this high level action. It would be reasonable to assume an even greater number would have been subject to lower level disciplinary actions each day. When could they have found time to win the war?
I can accept that there is some basis for his claims and it would be easy, as a career soldier, to attribute this problem to poor low/mid level leadership. But the fact that there are few records available seem to support his claim that there was some high level apathy and cover up.
While stationed in Germany in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s I experienced similar high level command apathy to some (not all) Black GI’s reactions to the racial turmoil in the US. Leader’s at all levels seemed to be afraid of confronting Black’s, I guess from fear of accusations of racism.
I am not defending racism nor am I saying Black GI’s were not justified in their support of the civil rights movement, but some of them took advantage and Officers and NCO’s allowed it.
And before somebody gets their panties in a bunch I am not equating US racial discrimination and the civil rights movement with the rape of Japanese women.