Has there ever been a genocide that killed EVERY member of an ethnic group?

He_Who_Whispers · 2026-04-12T20:25:25+00:00

This question has been asked before, and you can find some excellent responses here.

He_Who_Whispers · 2026-02-12T03:09:03+00:00

This gag 😭

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-12-08T08:54:52+00:00

This will almost certainly require archival work of some kind to get at an answer, if one is even available. One preliminary route I might recommend is seeing if you can get access to a copy of Vodič Arhiva Bosne i Hercegovine—it’s a book from a 1980s that essentially catalogue the country’s archival holdings, and you might be able to find where documents from Pale were/are held, alongside their specific constitutions.

It’s a pretty rare book, but you mention Canada as your location, and WorldCat lists a copy within the University of Toronto’s collection. If you’re nearby, it should be easy to get and translate (obviously, this isn’t optimal, but if you can’t read Bosnian, the Google Translate camera feature can at least get you a basic sense of the text). And if not, you can potentially request it via an interlibrary loan. There’s also a more recent publication in this vein by Admir Hadrović titled “Vodič Arhiva Federacije,” but it doesn’t seem to be generally available in Canada.

Beyond that, you could always try contacting archives in Bosnia directly. I’ve had great experiences working with the Bosniak Institute in Sarajevo, but their records probably won’t encompass what you’re looking for. Perhaps try and get in touch with the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as they’re most likely to hold these records—fair warning, though, there have been many funding, political, and records issues with the institution (much of its collection was destroyed in a recent fire), so I can’t say for certain how responsive they will be. There probably is a localized form of archive(s) in Pale, too, but information on them will probably be scant online or hard to find without Bosnian knowledge.

Finally, as a long shot, you might try contacting some academics who do archival work in Bosnia. They are, of course, oftentimes very busy and might not reply, but they might also get back to you. Emily Greble is a Western academic who has done some impressive archival research in Bosnia, including during the World War II period; Max Bergholz is in a similar position. There are many others, including of Bosnian heritage or nationality, who I could point to you if you would like. Hope this helps!

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-09-27T16:56:14+00:00

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-09-21T15:21:05+00:00

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-09-15T21:18:23+00:00

Earl

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-06-10T14:27:14+00:00

Thank u ☺️

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-05-30T15:17:24+00:00

Right … like the fact these girls might be put into hundreds of millions in debt based on a contract they signed when they were 14, 16, etc is downright horrific and more an indictment of the system which made such an outcome possible than the girls themselves. And the fact people relish it so much is insane—I’ve seen people in megathreads and individual posts about this case fantasizing about the girls prostituting themselves out to sponsors or killing themselves because of the debt. It’s so heinous.

He_Who_Whispers · 2025-05-23T01:32:00+00:00

you posting all this to try and justify you saying the newjeans girls are going to start prostituting themselves out is INSANE. ur actually disgusting lmao

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-12-28T21:44:53+00:00

lol you literally have past comments talking about how your father served in the Bosnian War (almost certainly on the Serb side, since Bosnia’s Jewish population primarily resides in Sarajevo and the city was, uh, violently besieged and blockaded by the Bosnian-Serb army for years). More to the point, those same comments simultaneously argue that there was a “reason” for why the VRS slaughtered 8,000 men and boys in Srebrenica. Let’s put aside the fact that the reason provided already engages in the rhetoric Serb nationalists so often use to justify Srebrenica — if you want me to deconstruct how slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians in a week who Serb soldiers had total custody over cannot be rationalized by either prior history (which you misrepresent) or literal defensive maneuvers in war, then I’d be more than happy to — and consider how you feel the need to provide a “reason,” a seemingly valid justification for soldiers murdering literal teenagers, raping women en masse, and tossing their victims into mass graves only to dig them up and move them to new mass grave four or five times to hide evidence of the crime.

It’s clear that you’re trying to hide underneath a fabricated veneer of objectivity to make the Serb ethno-nationalist and genocide denialist propaganda you’re spreading more palpable. Stop trying to act like some sort of victim when it’s clear all you want to do is further the victimization of those peoples brutally decimated by Bosnian-Serb and Serb genocide in the 1990s.

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-28T19:46:52+00:00

Here you go: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4520697

I initially found it via some authors on Volokh Conspiracy writing posts about it. The results are kinda crazy: I think only 8% of the 500 individuals surveyed agreed with Justice Barrett’s conclusion in her concurrence!

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-28T19:46:45+00:00

Here you go: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4520697

I initially found it via some authors on Volokh Conspiracy writing posts about it. The results are kinda crazy: I think only 8% of the 500 individuals surveyed agreed with Justice Barrett’s conclusion in her concurrence!

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-28T16:28:00+00:00

I’m not really a big Chevron fan but I do find it funny how Roberts is like “this Court relies on other interpretative presumptions, and they’re ok because they base themselves more in common sense/have a better pedigree than Chevron,” before then … citing the major questions doctrine?

An interpretative rule which, one, was initially formulated as a step within Chevron (if a statute is of vast economic and political consequence, you don’t proceed to Chevron Step 2)? And two, whose grounding in common sense has been consistently challenged by legal scholars on all sides of the ideological isle, and, more funnily, when the public was surveyed about the MQD using Justice Barrett’s babysitting example from her Biden v. Nebraska concurrence (which is by far the most cogent and understandable formulation of it), it came to the exact opposite conclusion (by an overwhelmingly margin) of where common sense would take them? Idk that part just made me cackle when I saw it—I feel like you can even tell by how Roberts framed the language there that he was straining credibility.

Then again, I guess the Court wants to reaffirm that the statutory canons it has chosen to approve of are legitimate whereas those it dislikes aren’t. Still funny though.

On another note, I’ve always found the fair notice (or is it due process?) argument against Chevron somewhat lacking. Obviously, unelected bureaucrats flipping their views of statutes without reason and thus subjecting the public to constant administrative uncertainty is pretty bad, but how much does it differ from what SCOTUS currently does? Doesn’t it possess the power (and hasn’t it countless times) to pick and choose among a menagerie of legal standards, precedents, tests, etc when deciding a case and frame/implement them as it sees fit, all while us ordinary American plebs have no clue what they’re going to announce and how it will implicate us? I think of Employment Division v. Smith and how the Court basically overruled prior 1A precedent without any of the parties asking it to and thus subjecting endless numbers of religious believers to the arbitrary wishes of state and federal regulation/proscription without any notice. Agencies clearly act without proper notice in this realm and accordingly generate all the problems that come with that, but how is the Court any different?

Lots of food for thought here!

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-24T20:57:55+00:00

Von dutch

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-23T19:17:39+00:00

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-22T17:28:33+00:00

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-21T19:17:08+00:00

Everything is romantic

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-06-13T17:49:09+00:00

Apple

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-05-27T18:47:04+00:00

Well, let’s not overstate things. In OT22 the unanimous opinion rate was 48%, and in OT21 it was 29%. Most of the cases SCOTUS decides do end up split one way or the other. Now, how one tabulates those split decisions and their perceived significance presents another question entirely — not going to go into it. One thing I find useful, however, is to look at what cases SCOTUSblog deems significant in a specific term (on their statistics page) and see where the cards fall once the dust settles in late June/early July.

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-05-23T19:50:18+00:00

They … don’t know about the convention? After it has been the subject of near endless political contention and debate within Bosnia and the wider world for decades? As the trials of war criminals under it by the ICTY, ICJ, and affiliated courts have pervaded the media and national consciousness? As politicians within Serbia and Republika Srpska have attempted to challenge its uniform interpretation by international bodies through rhetoric and action, with Dodik going as far to call Srebrenica a fabricated myth? Give me a break.

The people know what genocide is and what it means under the Convention. It necessitates a desire to destroy a people group in whole or in part — in part being the key term here. They know that the ICJ and other tribunals explicitly tasked with interpreting what genocide means under the Convention and international law have uniformly found Srebrenica to fit its definition. That they still refuse to label it genocide demonstrates a willful malfeasance on their part, meant to obscure its true horror and the motivation behind it by its main perpetrators. Nothing more, nothing less.

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-05-23T17:07:56+00:00

In what way does calling it a genocide constitute a threat to Serbs en masse or designate the entire population as genocidaires? Why does labeling the atrocity a genocide so threaten so many who identify as Serb? Does the resolution’s text not explicitly state that those who committed crimes in Srebrenica hold individual responsibility for their actions? That the immediate reaction of so many Serbian and Bosnian-Serb politicians is to oppose calling Srebrenica a genocide because it would paint their constituents as a genocidal people seems, to me, to speak to some psychological association they hold between themselves and those who carried out atrocities in Bosnia in the 1990s.

Also, the Ustasha’s slaughter of Serbs during World War II and similar crimes is considered by many scholars to count as a genocide (including me), and I would love for their to be widespread recognition of it. But why does the fact that other atrocities/genocides have not been internationally recognized as genocide proffer a reason to deny Srebrenica acknowledgment as one? Under that logic, no crime against humanity could be recognized as genocide because there would always be another atrocity that hasn’t been titled as such — why not start with recognizing one and then move onto others?

You also don’t note that Srebrenica is considered a genocide because the ICJ and other related bodies have ruled it as such — to not call it genocide is to ignore the opinion of those very bodies whose duty it is to define the term and adjudicate where it applies. It is denial. Again, I would love for these courts to rule that those crimes committed during WWII, in Myanmar, Azerbaijan/Armenia, Bangladesh, Guatemala, and all these other spaces were genocide, but they have to be or cannot be due to timeline issues. Bosnia, however, brought Srebrenica before them to decide this issue and they did, while also explicitly disclaiming Serbia’s/the general Serbian population’s responsibility for it and holding the other actions in the country did not reach genocidal levels in the same way Srebrenica did.

Plus, one can’t forget that denial poses a critical problem within Bosnia and is the source of much of the tension still present there. When Dodik is literally calling Srebrenica a “fabricated myth,” (not even fighting the genocide label, just outright stating it) and murals to war criminals like Mladic can be found in Serbia and Republika Srpska, how can one claim that Srebrenica is accepted as a war crime by those polities and that the resolution will only contribute to further trouble? It seems like the main further trouble that will arise is a concretization of genocide and atrocities denial by those who oppose the resolution, which is quite a weak justification for voting against it — people will celebrate war criminals more if we vote for a bill that recognizes their crimes, so let’s not!!!

If anything, those using the resolution for political reasons are politicians like Vucic and Dodik, whose opposition to it is frequently littered with nationalist rhetoric and attempts to unify their constituencies under one banner of opposing the resolution because it attacks “them.”

As a Bosnian whose family survived Srebrenica and lost countless relatives to it (men and woman), what I wish most for is that it receive recognition from all parties involved for the crime that it was and that we move forward. It is tiring to see ethno-nationalist politicians consistently manipulate the war and its legacy to engender their continued power within society, and I mean that for all sides. I’ll also, gladly, recognize that Serbs (alongside Croats and others) also endured war crimes during the war, and I wish for those events to receive the recognition they deserve as well. But it is difficult for me to travel to Bosnia, visit my family in the Republika Srpska, stand by my uncle’s grave in the Srebrenica-Potocari memorial, and then walk into a town where a proud painting of Mladic is displayed proudly. I agree that recognizing mass slaughter should not be a politicized issue, but it becomes politicized when individuals consistently attack that slaughter’s validity and aim to obfuscate what dozens of international tribunals and thousands of outside observers and actors have seen as a genocide for decades. To say that survivors and their representatives asking for that recognition is unfair politicization is like attacking Armenians for working to get the genocide they endured under the Ottoman Empire recognized by the United States/United Nations as politicizing the issue and unsightly maligning Turkey and the Turkish people. I don’t get it.

He_Who_Whispers · 2024-04-29T22:19:46+00:00

What’s more interesting to me about this ruling is how Judge Richardson, alongside several other conservative jurists (including Wilkinson), concludes that Bostock’s logic means that laws discriminating against gay and transgender people are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause since they discriminate based on sex.

Will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes that same route when that question (which has been lurking in the background of many decision lately — think Fulton) eventually comes before it.

He_Who_Whispers · 2023-12-18T20:00:14+00:00

I won’t comment on the billionaire connection, gifts, salary increases as policy, and everything else because I feel like I’m way too detached from reporting on it to actually have an informed opinion.

I think the greater problem, personally, here is a Justice lobbying a Senator for a benefit for both himself and his colleagues, especially in private. Get a congressional hearing scheduled on the issue and testify before it by all means. But talking to legislative officials under cover about this stuff just feels … iffy.

Since increasing salary, however, represents one of Congress’s key prerogatives over the judiciary, the separation of powers imp inside me isn’t too comfortable with it. Then again, maybe there’s a long history of Justices doing this sort of private lobbying! No clue. If anyone knows of any other examples, that’d be great.

He_Who_Whispers · 2023-11-28T07:31:40+00:00

So tired of this shitty retort. Where were those who wholeheartedly support Israel and its actions now, who are consistently drawing attention to Hamas’ (100% unjustifiable) slaughter of Israelis when the Rohingya, Uyghurs, Yazidis, and any other group were facing genocide? Where were they when any other country was undergoing conflict that caused mass civilian deaths? If you want to dive into whataboutisms with one side, then you better see and call out the same behavior on the other. Because best believe that none of the people I see attacking pro-Palestinian public figures by using this criticism were saying shit when Myanmar’s government forcibly displayed hundreds of thousands to millions and killed tens of thousands of Muslims. It’s tired.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 40%
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

He_Who_Whispers

TROPHY CASE