It may not have been a total 100% genocide, but have you ever met a Carib indian?
Ever heard of the Mazoomboos?
That’s why.
Thank you. (Also, darn. Why does this kind of crap have to be so damn universal. “Human nature” is so often some of the ugliest stuff ever.)
You hate what you know , THAT is universal.
I assume, when you say “universal” you mean that it has happened everywhere in the world.
But as of how often it happens, genocides are the exception.
In most cultures, for example, killing women and children is considered inhumane, or at least extreme.
Until recently, in most wars, the majority of deaths where soldiers.
It was after the industrialization of war that civilians started being killed in masses.
Nowadays, in wars, the majority of deaths are civilians.
It seems to me that genocide is, actually, against human nature.
Tell that to the buffalo.
Except that’s not true, as this listof wars by death toll shows. The Mongols, for instance, killed 30 million people across Eurasia - the vast majority of them civilians. I wouldn’t call the Horde industrialized (although they were technologically advanced for their time)
The Mongols, the most successful conquerors in world history, didn’t play by those rules, which was probably one of the (many) reasons they were so damned good at their warring ways.
They got so efficient at genociding towns that it was almost factory-like. They’d bring everyone outside, give each of their soldiers a quota (~# citizens to kill / # of soldiers they had), and let them loose with the skullcleavings and be done before supper. Anyone who didn’t meet the quota was punished (and sometimes executed).
Of course they never really genocided completely, because they accepted surrenders (usually), and they conscripted useful people and enslaved women as it suited them. But sometimes they did go for every man, woman, and child (and dog, and cat, etc.) when they were really pissed off. Their treatment of the middle east was probably the harshest, and while no culture was really genocided, they did set the arab world back from being the pinnacle of human civilization to a state that some argue they still hadn’t fully recovered from many centuries later.
edited: Alessan!
The Manichaeans did not disappear due to a “successful genocide.” I do not believe that the Zurvanists did, either - I believe it was more of a gradual decline whilst getting supplanted by Islam.
Any other examples of “dualist/gnostic faiths” getting physically wiped out, apart from Mazdakism and Catharism?
There were survivors and intermarriage and the like, but yeah, as a people they were basically wiped out, and even today we know next to nothing about their language, culture, origin, religion and so on.
Cite? I’ve never heard of such a thing anywhere in the Indus civilization.
Unless they do it By The Book, as it were.
I think it counts as genocide if you then distribute and continually rape the only survivors to fill them with you Chosen babies, right?
“The Mongols are always the exception.” 
TV Tropes is your cite? That is not to say there isn’t some truth there, but that’s your best cite???
TV Tropes is always the best cite. 
The idea that Baghdad was an “Indo-European” city made me go 
Among Native Indian tribes of Eastern Canada - the Dorsets (who repelled the Vikings from Newfoundland!) and the Beothuks. Both eventually succumbed to sustained pressure from other native tribes.
Yup! On the Caribbean island of Dominica, there are still Carib Indians.
Don’t sell it short; every Doper should read the page on Political Ideologies – best general summary I’ve ever read.
They’re probably mixed, just like they are in Trinidad, and grude should know that. In the Lesser Antilles, pure Caribs may not remain, but mixed Caribs, with their customs and/or identity, may still remain.
There are no Taíno left, though. Sure, the majority of people living in Puerto Rico (and likely Dominican Republic and Haiti, perhaps Cuba) have Taíno ancestors, but none are left today that claim it as an identity.