Jesus, you’re saying your dad committed multiple crimes? What a swell guy.
More than you know.
Dude, why do you need to know every single thing about this person to “validate” their story? You want their social security number and birth certificate along with that?
You should know that everything you write makes you sound like an moron. Which I guess is appropriate.
Dude, this is pathetic. “Well it could have happened” is now your defense. You got caught in a lie you can’t weasel your way out of.
You’re like that British maid on Maude who kept telling tall tales about her late husband. She said her husband died in a fox hunt. Maude replied “I thought you said he died on the Titanic!” “Oh, well you see…” “Don’t tell me, the fox hunt was on the Titanic.”
I don’t know why I bothered, but I cannot find any records in the National Archives (archives.gov) of U.S. citizens being inducted in the Philippines in the early days of our involvement in the war.
Forward bases such as those did not seem to have the clerical staff nor the facilities to train new recruits.
As I said:
Dude, it’s not that people don’t believe you met Gygax . Nobody thinks that’s an unusual claim. Nobody thinks you’re even lying about it. What people called you out about was acting like meeting Gygax once at a con gives you any insight into who he was as a person.
Kind of the way you claimed that your dad’s job clerking for MacArthur gave your dad (and, by extension, you) any special insight into what MacArthur was thinking, actually.
Yeah, I got an invite into one of the last games Gygax ever ran at a convention, and skipped out only because I couldn’t make GenCon that year (he died the following spring). It’s not especially remarkable to have had correspondence with him or to have met him. If folks want to doubt that I was invited to that game, that’s spiffy, too, because nothing I’ve said about his work depends on personal anecdote.
That said, I think you brought up meeting Gygax because I made some crack about how you were clearly unfamiliar with old-school gaming. The crack was incorrect, but the truth–that you’re very familiar with it and still unable to see the racism that pervades so much of it–is much worse.
For clarity, the “you” here refers to DrDeth, and not me.
Yes, sorry!
And now he starts in on genocide denial.
Not bothering linking, I’m sure you know how to find it.
He was better for a while there (not a lot better, but noticeable), and has backslid.
Oh shit. I was just coming here to link this. And I will fucking link it, because if it weren’t so gross, the irony would be hilarious.
Dude. You are being a colossal asshole. Stop.
Ditto. I was laughing too hard to cry, though it deserves both.
‘This very thing that I am explicitly doing right now does not exist!’
Wasn’t going to reply to that idiocy even before it was mod-noted. Obvious shit-posting is obvious.
I have heard from a mod that explicitly genocide denial is not going to get modded, even when they agree it is genocide denial, because it is “not against the rules”. So there’s that.
This is probably not the best place to put this. I’m not sure DrDeth was wrong, just where he brought it up was. I’m no expert on either Genocide or what has happened to the Native populations in Canada.
I know overall genocide was committed to natives of North America by the Europeans. But is the kidnapping and shameful horrific schools a part of that overall genocide or an additional one?
If so do the number come up to what is general regarded as genocide? Should genocide have numbers?
I consider the Trail of Tears to be genocidal. That resulted in 2500-6000 deaths. Was the Canadian atrocity what we generally consider a Genocide?
The California Genocide wasn’t systematic and affected dozens of tribes but added up to well over 100,000 and maybe as high as 300,000. That to me is a Genocide, seperate from the earlier genocide of North American Natives.
I don’t know if the question of what is and isn’t a genocide is all that clear.
So what is the straight dope on what qualifies as a genocide.
It does look like the UN definition fits what happened in Canada, but I wasn’t aware of that until a few minutes ago.
The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such” including the killing of its members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to “bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. Victims have to be deliberately, not randomly, targeted because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups outlined in the above definition.
Oddly this seems to leave The Trail of Tears as a genocide but the far larger in numbers California Genocide might not fit that definition. Though I would have thought it clearly was one.
Should I split this off to its own thread?
Under the formal international law definition of genocide no, this sort of thing doesn’t quite fit. A lot of people have taken to identifying something that seeks to destroy a culture, without actually mass killing its people, to be a form of genocide. Sometimes called “cultural genocide.” But the international treaties on genocide, at least the ones that have sign off from all the "big powers’ were mostly written in response to atrocities of WW2, and were more concerned with mass extermination of people. But the UN doesn’t necessarily have sole right to define terminology. I would say that the situation described fits a definition of genocide that isn’t particularly unusual, but isn’t 100% as accepted as a genocide as say, the Holocaust or Japanese atrocities in Manchuria. I would say much beyond that would be better in a full dedicated thread.
I saw this coming back in March.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Canadian Indian residential school system is all about number 5 on that list and is unquestionably genocide, and the residential schools are only one aspect of the genocide that occurred.
Here’s a pretty good summary from Canadian law professor Fannie Lafontaine…