Liberals and the admission of a potential genocide in Ukraine

Liberals have that self perception that when elements are brought to them, they comply with them. They are somewhat factist or something.

During their short history, liberals have been involved in genocides, ethnocides, mass slaughterings etc more than anyone else in human history. Which provides many cases to allow to measure liberals' capability to characterize a genocide they are related to.

The Phillipines' case that happened at the hands of the US:

-no order of total extermination of the population was ever issued

-orders to exterminate populations over the age of 13 were issued

From this, it can not be a genocide as it is only a partial extermination of a population (liberals'point of view)

The situation:

A population capped at 13 years old still is able to reproduce. Nubility set at the age of 10. Meaning that children turn orphans at the age of 2 or something. Children at age of 2 are unable to provide for themselves.

The rest of the population might organize though in such a way they provide for them.

All of this is correct.

Indeed, killing all people over 13 does not guarantee a genocide. The remaining society may still be painted as able to support itself and perpetuate itself.

Even better, the remaining society is fragile, it may disappear from starvation, diseases etc

Which allows to paint the elimination as  by natural causes. So no genocide.

Liberals do not characterize the event as a genocide.

Whatever happens in Ukraine does not come close to what happened in the Phillipines.

It leaves a lot of room to engineer a genocide (especially as a successful genocide does not rely on issuing orders of extermination)

In a liberal world, dumb genocides and smart genocides.

Dumb genocides: genocides carried over in a way that liberals characterize them as genocides.

Smart genocides: genocides carried over in a way that liberals do not characterize them as genocides.

And from the previous example, it is not so much about being smart but more about not being utterly dumb.

  Fifty years ago, the liberal Christian faith was changed to fit with Marxism and/or the sexual revolution and/or Rogerian therapy and/or philosophical naturalism. Today it might be postmodernism and/or feminism and/or queer theory and /or transgenderism

Fifty years ago, the liberal Christian faith was changed to fit with Marxism and/or the sexual revolution and/or Rogerian therapy and/or philosophical naturalism. Today it might be postmodernism and/or feminism and/or queer theory and /or transgenderism

The events happened at the start of the XXth century, 120 years ago.

No matter the transformation the liberal creed has been going through, it is admitted that it did nothing for them to characterize the events as a genocide.

"During their short history, liberals have been involved in genocides, ethnocides, mass slaughterings etc more than anyone else in human history. Which provides many cases to allow to measure liberals' capability to characterize a genocide they are related to.

The Phillipines' case that happened at the hands of the US:

-no order of total extermination of the population was ever issued

-orders to exterminate populations over the age of 13 were issued..."

Absolutely horrendous!!!

...and yet the indigenous population in the EVIL South Africa thrived and exploded under the Apartheid regime and their predecessors...in USA, Aus and even NZ, there were drastic decline in the local populations at the height of colonialism...I wonder why....under ANC rule, the small 8% white minority population has been in steady decline for the last almost 30 years...again I wonder why.

Tradhole, you're on the wrong side of the fence...consistently...always.

It's easily explained  draad because all of them buggers are over here.

Them buggers had to flee their own country...as they did to many other destinations...and it's not only my EVIL 8% fleeing...skilled people of all races are abandoning this rudderless sinking ship.

.and yet the indigenous population in the EVIL South Africa thrived and exploded under the Apartheid regime and their predecessors...in USA, Aus and even NZ, there were drastic decline in the local populations at the height of colonialism...I wonder why....under ANC rule, the small 8% white minority population has been in steady decline for the last almost 30 years...again I wonder why.

The indigenous population did not thrive under the apartheid. The current situation would be very different if they did.

Populations had various characteristics they were hit differently by colonialism.

This thread tells about the Phillipines, better to check the evolution of the population during the last 60 years.

Whatever happened to the thriving populations in SA, it happened despite the Apartheid.

Them buggers had to flee their own country...as they did to many other destinations...and it's not only my EVIL 8% fleeing...skilled people of all races are abandoning this rudderless sinking ship.

As they must. The question is about the rest of the population that has yet to flee.

SA as a geographical area has been set a long time ago, SA population was set to trend toward zero.

Kolmanskop incoming. And when a place is run like Kolmanskop, the most important decision relies on the admittance the project is not meant to support a population in the long run.

"Whatever happened to the thriving populations in SA, it happened despite the Apartheid"

Agreed, I wasn't trying to imply Apartheid was conducive to other populations thriving,  merely that the unfair system wasn't designed to harm the locals. It was neglect rather than purposely trying to eradicate indigenous folk, as seen in other parts of the world...shameful all the same.