The former involves eradicating the entire ethnic population of a region. The latter involves eradicating a continuously regenerating population of victims, bred for slaughter.
In fact, animal slaughter might be worse than genocide if you think that humans control certain domesticated animals species to be bred to die. With genocide, the idea isn’t to regenerate the ethnic population: it’s to get rid of them for good.
The tactics used to accomplish the two are exactly the same, if only in tone of force used. We don’t use bombs to slaughter animals, but we do cut their throats, shoot them, make them feel fear, kick them, gas them. With genocides, it’s the bombs, bullets, and gas chambers that have historically and contemporarily executed genocide. Between both cases, however, is violence done to helpless populations with no capacity for self defense.
Nah, I’m pro Palestine. I just think comparing the genocide to animal slaughter is a little tone deaf.
How is genocide different than animal slaughter?
The former involves eradicating the entire ethnic population of a region. The latter involves eradicating a continuously regenerating population of victims, bred for slaughter.
In fact, animal slaughter might be worse than genocide if you think that humans control certain domesticated animals species to be bred to die. With genocide, the idea isn’t to regenerate the ethnic population: it’s to get rid of them for good.
The tactics used to accomplish the two are exactly the same, if only in tone of force used. We don’t use bombs to slaughter animals, but we do cut their throats, shoot them, make them feel fear, kick them, gas them. With genocides, it’s the bombs, bullets, and gas chambers that have historically and contemporarily executed genocide. Between both cases, however, is violence done to helpless populations with no capacity for self defense.