When do you think it's right....

[BeBMan]

....to apply modern concepts of warcrimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing (and others) to historic events?

This is somewhat inspired from the thread we had a while ago. The problem is of course that by our modern standards many actions in the ancient or medieval world or even later could be described as the things mentioned above.

However, IMO it also seems that these modern ideas/concepts/whatever becomes less appropriate the more you go back in time.

Do you agree with that? And if so, do you think there's a point from which these modern standards can be applied safely? However, probably there's a huge grey zone in between where the use of those terms in a historic context is always debatable - how do we deal with the problem here? Do you have a good help/indicator/rule when to use those terms for historical events and when not?

Enlighten me

[VetLegion]

I think we should separate technical validity of using a term/definiton from appropriateness of emotion.

Meaning, Ghenghis Khan was certainly genocidal as his actions completely fill the modern definition of the term. However, it's not appropriate or normal to have the same emotional reaction to his crimes as to those of more recent times.

I think that one own's reaction to a "bad event" from the past should be a function of his distance to the event. Both time distance and other distances (spatial, cultural, ethnic...).

In other words, I couldn't care less about Ghenghis Khan's victims. I care more about things happening close to me than technically the same things happening at other (spatial, cultural, etc.) coordinates.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I think we should separate technical validity of using a term/definiton from appropriateness of emotion.

I agree with that, although I hadn't the emotional factor in mind....the problem with applying modern terms to historic things is IMO that it seems unfitting to use eg. "warcrimes" when there's no definition or agreement about the rules and limits of warfare, at least not in the modern sense. Same for other terms.

Otoh this would mean that we go strictly after the "no definition = no crime" rule which seems quite absurd in many cases.

[VetLegion]

Well if technical definition is fitting, you can use it. Some more than the others. "Ethnic cleansing" is pretty context free, you can use it with Ghenghis Khan. "Breaking Geneva conventions" is more loaded.

If there is no fitting short term, then you can simply be verbose. "They did that that and that".

[Blaupanzer]

Cultural context is important, as noted. I was personally amazed at how loaded the charges were in the Bosnian war relating to events that had occurred 500 (or more) years before. Individuals referred to these events in the personal, as though they knew people personally that had been killed in a battle from the fifteenth century and blamed the ethnic people alive today for those crimes. Otoh, I suspect that very few people in Kiev feel personal animosity to the Mongols, who left a pyramid of skulls there in the fourteenth century.

Calling massacres and enslavements of the past "war crimes," is probably a twentieth century affectation. The "Laws of War' were encoded in the Geneva Conventions in the 1930's. These were based on the moral judgements of the time on events that had transpired in the previous hundred years, most especially the horrors of WW I. So, applying the term "war crimes to events before the middle of the eighteenth century is probably stretching the term very hard.

This is not to say that earlier events were not "atrocities," or "genocidal," but simply to say that the people doing these things did not expect to be punished for these things other than on the battlefield. Terminology such as this does have connotations (emotional content included) that are felt by us, but would have sounded like nonsense to the actors in their own times. "They deserved it" or "what did they expect" were common responses by the actors in their own times. You hear some of this noise even today. For example, killing civilians is an acknowledged war crime today, yet bombers who blow up such people (as well as themselves) are called "martyrs," as though that could somehow excuse their crimes. It is all a question of cultural context, if you let it be. But these kind of actions were always evil and they still are.

[Proteus_MST]

I agree, its mostly the culture that matters.

But in this context I always found it hard to determine how one should judge the events taking place in europe during the medieval times.
Religion is an important part in culture, and the western world was christianized which means that they adhered to a religions whose founder (according to the bible) preached things like "Love your enemy" and the like.
Nevertheless the actions commited by the christian kingdoms where not better than the actions of realms elsewhere on the world and many things we would now call atrocities were commited by christian rulers or even directly in the name of the christian religion.

SO it´s hard, should one judge the western world by the standards set by their religion, or should one just judge it by the copmmon environment of these days, where a life wasn´t worth much.

[Blaupanzer]

Proteus_MST, your question stands, even in modern times. Do evaluate them by what they, as a people say they believe? Or what they permit their leaders to do in their name? Not just the US and Israel but the Jihadists, China, Russia, France, and so forth.

[Heresson]

The general rule is:
when done by Germans = wrong
when done to Germans =

[Flip McWho]

I think you'd be detracting somewhat from history by retrospectively applying modern terms to times long gone.

You're also not understanding those historical periods by their own values and worldview which, I believe, is essential in understanding (as much as we can given our values and worldviews) how events transpired.

[GePap]

I think it is never really "appropriate" to judge historical events by any yardstick other than ones that existed during the time the events occured. For example, using 20th century morals to judge 13th century events is wrong in my view, at least because it is utterly irrelevant.

I think people ignore the fact that human eings do not simply accept barbarity, and there were ethical standards even all the way back then that denouced inhumanity and cruelty. One does not need to inject foreign notions like 20th century ethics into discussions of the past if one feels indignation at historical actions. Take the Conquistador's behavior in the new world- it was roundly denounced not only by foreign powers, whjo sometimes exagerated the inhumanity, but by Spain's own churchmen, who were utterly appaled at what was going on in Spain's empire and denounced it thoroughly.

It is fair then to judge men by the rules, ethics, and standards of their own time. We modern folk simply seem unwilling to accept that those rules and ethics were never just simply utterly backwards.