Split Historical Genocide - Derail From Sudan Massacre

[Gospel]

You keep accusing us of twisting your words, but the exact phrases I’m quoting are yours, not invented “fragments.” You wrote that you’re “treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity,” that the Sudanese categories “operate under a colonial logic that did not exist in antiquity,” and that ethnic cleansing is “a modern and European thing.” That’s not me turning “weren’t treated the same” into “didn’t exist at all”; that’s you repeatedly saying “did not exist” and then getting upset when someone reads you literally. If you now only want to claim “fixed identities worked differently in antiquity,” we can talk about that. But you can’t blame other people for taking “did not exist” and “modern and European thing” as more than a casual aside when you leaned on those lines over and over.

Then quote the post. If you can’t produce it, you’re not arguing honestly. Your entire argument depends on a line you refuse to show so people can actually see the context.

 

[Gospel]

This isn’t about your character, it’s about your claims. You did frame it as “fixed identity did not exist before colonial modernity,” “this logic did not exist in antiquity,” and “ethnic cleansing is a modern and European thing.” Under pressure you’ve clarified to a narrower point, that modern states create racialized, bureaucratically enforced categories and use them in ethnic cleansing, including in Sudan. On that more modest claim, I don’t have much quarrel with you.

You keep repeating that line but won’t use the quote function. Why not?

 

[Gospel]

No I'm treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity. Good lord., that is not an interpretation of my argument, and it is also just wrong historically. The kind of identity that is inescapable, meaning you are born into it, legally marked by it, and permanently stuck inside it, simply did not operate the same way in the ancient world. People shifted identity through marriage, adoption, political allegiance, language, religion and absorption by a conquering state. That is not me creating a sharp break. That is how identity functioned in premodern societies.

See how context changes everything? This is exactly why I’m done debating this with , NoHolyCows.

 

[Emily Lake]

The key difference in premodern systems is that violence was usually a way to control or punish rebellion, not an expression of a racial ideology that marked a whole population as permanently inferior.

You keep asserting this, but it isn't true.

modern identity is tied to state categories that make identity rigid.

This also isn't actually true.

Really. Modern identity is rigid because modern states institutionalize it through censuses, identity cards, legal classifications, and racialized administrative categories. This form of bureaucratically enforced identity did not exist in antiquity, where identities were socially inherited but still situational and permeable.

Here’s the problem with how you and NoHolyCows keep engaging me. You’re slicing my argument into isolated fragments instead of dealing with it as a whole. When I say fixed identities weren’t treated the same in antiquity, you both twist that into “he’s saying fixed identities didn’t exist at all.” You both remind me of bible thumpers who chop up passages so that context is irrelevant and the bible says whatever they want it to say.

My point is simple: in systems like caste, or in ancient empires, fixed identities still had built-in pathways for incorporation, absorption, or assimilation. People had a place within the structure, even if it was hierarchical or oppressive. In modern ethnic cleansing, especially under a colonial identity framework, there is no place for the targeted group. Their identity is treated as inescapable, and assimilation isn’t built-in. That’s the context for Sudan, the people being targeted are marked as having no place in the system, which is precisely what makes the violence ethnic cleansing rather than ancient-style conquest or stratification.

As for as modern identity not being rigid... OMG. I can't believe Emily of all people is making that claim. The same Emily parading around this forum with tiki torch in hand over simple pronouns?

First off, I'm getting really tired of your not-so-subtle insinuation of me being a racist. Knock it off already, it's false and you know it. You're not scoring points here, Gospel, all you're doing is diluting your own reputation. Which is a shame.

Second, I don't give a fuck about pronouns. As in I don't care what someone else wants to call themselves. I do, however, care whether or not other people have the ability to FORCE me to use pronouns of their choice that contradict my own perception and reality.

I guess none of the below is rigidly enforced.

Modern identity is Encoded in:

• the nation-state

Immigration

• census categories

Optional with no enforcement. I can fill it out saying I'm a 90 year old chinese man and there's not a damned thing anyone can do with it. Census categories don't enforce identities, they merely count them as reported by the people who fill them out.

• bureaucratic registration

Of what exactly? Have you had to register as a black man, Gospel? You register ownership of items, and documentation of your children.

• ID cards and passports

These don't enforce identity, they aren't some rigid set of rules about who you are. Identity documents don't inform your psychographic identity, they only act to allow other people to verify that you are who you claim to be.

• racial classification systems

Where does this exist? I mean, aside from the couple of caste systems that you seem to think don't count, and that you keep insisting have a built in system for assimilation even though they absolutely did not.

• colonial administrative categories

What is this?

• legal definitions of ethnicity

Can you give an example of any of these in current use?

• fixed categories used by states and international institutions

Again, can you elaborate on this?

Alright then, I’ll go ahead and put ‘white man’ on my next set of legal documents and we’ll see how far I get before a government office reminds me that identity is, in fact, rigid as hell.

They won't. You know why? Because they don't care, my man.

Look, I’ve never claimed to be some master debater. I’ve said from the start that the way I framed my argument wasn’t perfect, and I’ve admitted there are flaws in how I presented it. What I won’t accept is this idea that I’m shifting my position just to save face. I don’t need to run from being wrong, and I don’t play cowardly games like that. All I’m asking is simple: if you want to disagree with my argument, then argue against what my argument actually is, not the version you’ve invented.

I've been disagreeing with one particular aspect of your argument, Gospel. Not the entirety of it. You made that ancient groups of people didn't engage in extermination on the basis of identity, and that they always included some means for integration and assimilation, and that ancient people could change their identities to fit in to a different group. That's simply not true.

 

[Emily Lake]

What I said, consistently, is that ancient identity was situational and flexible, whereas the identity logic driving modern ethnic cleansing is fixed, racialized, and structured by a modern state order.

And what I keep saying is that you are wrong.

In at least some cases, ancient identity was fixed and inescapable, and often race or ancestry based. And in the overwhelming majority of the modern world, identity is not even remotely fixed or racialized. If it were, then you'd be considered something other than an American. My doctorate-holding, NASA-retired, dad would never have been allowed to leave the plantation.

Your premise is extremely flawed, Gospel.

You’re still arguing against something I never claimed. Yes, some ancient identities were inherited. Congratulations, that has nothing to do with the point I’m making. Ancient societies didn’t have modern racial bureaucracy, census categories, ID systems, or state-enforced ethnic classifications. What's your true/false reading on that?

And your personal anecdote doesn’t change how identity works at the structural level. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. Ancient identity being harsh or hereditary doesn’t magically turn it into a modern, racialized, state-administered system. It wasn’t then, and it isn’t now.

If you’re going to disagree, at least disagree with the argument I’m actually making. If I'm tightening my argument, y’all wiggling to escape it.

Can you explain what you mean by the following?

• modern racial bureaucracy
• state-enforced ethnic classifications
• racialized, state administered system

 

[Emily Lake]

Rome had assimilation built into the imperial system. Caesar sometimes chose not to use it.

Edit: Modern ethnic cleansing forbids assimilation by design.

Dude, you keep missing the entire point here. You're drawing a bright line distinction where one doesn't actually exist. SOME ancient states did NOT allow assimilation. And MOST modern states do NOT engage in rigid ethnicity-based violence.

If you really want a bright line to hang your hat on, I can give you one: The Nazis were the *first* group of people to abuse genetics in order to justify their violence against "others" by pretending they had science on their side. That's a true statement.

It's also, by the by, not what's going on in Sudan anyway. Ethnicity isn't the basis of that cleansing, it's religion. And religion has been used as a justification for massive slaughter and violence pretty much forever.

 

[Emily Lake]

No I'm treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity. Good lord., that is not an interpretation of my argument, and it is also just wrong historically. The kind of identity that is inescapable, meaning you are born into it, legally marked by it, and permanently stuck inside it, simply did not operate the same way in the ancient world. People shifted identity through marriage, adoption, political allegiance, language, religion and absorption by a conquering state. That is not me creating a sharp break. That is how identity functioned in premodern societies.

See how context changes everything? This is exactly why I’m done debating this with , NoHolyCows.

Fixed identity DID exist before colonial modernity, Gospel. Dalits couldn't change their identity to become Brahmin. That identity was inescapable - they were born into it, legally marked by it, and permanently stuck inside it.

 

[NoHolyCows]

What substance are you referring to exactly? People misread my comment, I clarified it, and you’ve refused to accept the clarification because you prefer the mistaken version. That's substance to you? I've said we've reached an impasse, you're welcome to keep repeating yourself.

You asked what “substance” I’m talking about. I mean two very simple things.

First, the historical claim itself. You’re not just saying “modern states have censuses and race codes.” You went a lot further and tied the existence of a certain kind of identity logic to that moment fixed, inescapable identity “did not exist before colonial modernity,” Sudan’s categories “operate under a colonial logic that did not exist in antiquity,” ethnic cleansing is “a modern and European thing.” That cluster of claims is either right or wrong as history, and I’ve been arguing it’s too strong. That’s substance.

Second, what you actually wrote versus what you now say you meant. I haven’t “refused” your clarification; I’ve repeated it back to you and said I agree with the narrower version, modern, racialized, bureaucratic identity is colonial and specific, and Sudan sits inside that. Where I’m not budging is on letting the stronger “did not exist in antiquity / modern and European thing” framing vanish retroactively and then be blamed on my “preference” for a misreading. Those sentences are yours, not mine.

If you want to call it an impasse, fine. Just don’t pretend the only reason it exists is that I “prefer the mistaken version.” I’ve taken your clarified version on board and I still think the original stronger claim overreached. That disagreement is the substance.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

You keep accusing us of twisting your words, but the exact phrases I’m quoting are yours, not invented “fragments.” You wrote that you’re “treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity,” that the Sudanese categories “operate under a colonial logic that did not exist in antiquity,” and that ethnic cleansing is “a modern and European thing.” That’s not me turning “weren’t treated the same” into “didn’t exist at all”; that’s you repeatedly saying “did not exist” and then getting upset when someone reads you literally. If you now only want to claim “fixed identities worked differently in antiquity,” we can talk about that. But you can’t blame other people for taking “did not exist” and “modern and European thing” as more than a casual aside when you leaned on those lines over and over.

Then quote the post. If you can’t produce it, you’re not arguing honestly. Your entire argument depends on a line you refuse to show so people can actually see the context.

I’ve already quoted the lines, verbatim, multiple times in this thread. You haven’t once said, “I never wrote that sentence,” you’ve only said you don’t like how I’m reading it. Now you’ve switched to acting like the words themselves are in doubt.

You wrote, in this same exchange, “No I’m treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity.” You wrote that Sudan’s categories “operate under a colonial logic that did not exist in antiquity.” You did the little scoreboard about “uppity negro = 1” and “folks who… took offence to my pointing out a fact that ethic cleansing is a modern and European thing = 0.” None of that was hidden in some other context; it was you explaining your position directly.

If the problem is that you can’t get the forum search to surface those exact strings, that’s a technical issue, not proof they never appeared. Anyone who’s been following along has already seen them go by more than once. I can’t force the software to give you a link, but I can read what’s on the screen.

And honestly, this is a dodge. Even if we imagine, for the sake of argument, that every one of those exact sentences was a typo, your clarified version still rests on the same core claim, that the identity logic behind Sudan’s ethnic cleansing is modern, racialized, bureaucratic and rooted in colonial administration, and that ancient systems, by contrast, had flexible, situational identities with built-in places for everyone. That’s the distinction I’ve been arguing with. Saying “show me the permalink or you’re dishonest” doesn’t answer any of that. It just lets you argue about the filing system instead of about what you actually wrote.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

This isn’t about your character, it’s about your claims. You did frame it as “fixed identity did not exist before colonial modernity,” “this logic did not exist in antiquity,” and “ethnic cleansing is a modern and European thing.” Under pressure you’ve clarified to a narrower point, that modern states create racialized, bureaucratically enforced categories and use them in ethnic cleansing, including in Sudan. On that more modest claim, I don’t have much quarrel with you.

You keep repeating that line but won’t use the quote function. Why not?

You keep acting like the “quote function” is some magic truth spell. Whether I wrap your words in the forum’s quote markup or paste them as plain text doesn’t change what you actually wrote.

I’ve already reproduced your own lines, verbatim, more than once:

– that you’re “treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity,”

– that Sudan’s categories “operate under a colonial logic that did not exist in antiquity,”

– that ethnic cleansing is “a modern and European thing.”

If you think I’ve added or changed a word, say which word and how. If you don’t, then arguing about whether I clicked the quote button is just a way to avoid the actual issue, you did frame it that way, and now you prefer the narrower version you’ve since given. I’m fine engaging the narrower claim. I’m just not going to pretend the stronger one was never on the page because I didn’t surround it with BBCode.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

I'm not here to argue over your interpretation of my framing. I’ve explained my position, you have your own reading of it, and I disagree. That’s the end of it for me.

 

[Gospel]

You keep acting like the “quote function” is some magic truth spell.

Wrong again. I asked you for a source so we could see the full context of the quote you kept repeating, which I eventually had to track down myself. I’ve already said I’m not great at debating and that I approached my argument the wrong way at first. And yes, I’ve already acknowledged that my framing wasn’t perfect. But you’re still droning on about framing as if I never conceded that point. Here’s an example of where I conceded that.

How I went about making my argument was wrong. What I'm trying to say isn't. Ethnic cleansing isn’t unique to Europe or colonialism. Civilizations have been eliminating or relocating populations based on identity since the earliest empires, Assyrian deportations, Chinese frontier purges, Mongol massacres, and Ottoman relocations all fit the pattern. What changed with Europe wasn’t the idea but the infrastructure, modern states turned ethnic dominance into formal policy, justified by race science and nationalism rather than raw conquest.

The massacres in Sudan differ from Mongol or early Ottoman atrocities in motive and structure. The Mongols’ violence was a military strategy to enforce surrender, not ethnic purity. The Ottomans began as conquerors too, but by their decline were already showing the modern and learned logic of homogenizing populations, culminating in the Armenian Genocide.

What’s happening in Sudan today ain't a god damn conquest, it’s internal ethnic cleansing. It’s about erasing specific groups, not expanding rule. The pattern of mass killing repeats through history, but the ideology behind it has evolved, from imperial dominance to ethnic purification.

If you can’t accept that and insist on arguing against an argument I never made, that’s your prerogative. I just can’t participate in that, because it’s not a position I hold.

 

[NoHolyCows]

I'm not here to argue over your interpretation of my framing. I’ve explained my position, you have your own reading of it, and I disagree. That’s the end of it for me.

That’s your call, but let’s be real about what just happened, I engaged the position you actually wrote, you didn’t like how it looked once it was spelled out, and now you’re declaring the conversation over rather than defending it. I’m fine leaving it there. Anyone reading the thread can decide for themselves which of us is dealing with the argument and which of us is running from it.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

, I engaged the position you actually wrote

No, you didn’t engage my actual position. You grabbed onto something I phrased badly and won’t release it, since in your view any clarification equals changing my argument.

 

[Gospel]

Anyone reading the thread can decide for themselves which of us is dealing with the argument and which of us is running from it.

That’s the split between us. I don’t give a shit about manufactured opinions you or anyone else decides to assign me.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You keep acting like the “quote function” is some magic truth spell.

Wrong again. I asked you for a source so we could see the full context of the quote you kept repeating, which I eventually had to track down myself. I’ve already said I’m not great at debating and that I approached my argument the wrong way at first. And yes, I’ve already acknowledged that my framing wasn’t perfect. But you’re still droning on about framing as if I never conceded that point. Here’s an example of where I conceded that.

How I went about making my argument was wrong. What I'm trying to say isn't. Ethnic cleansing isn’t unique to Europe or colonialism. Civilizations have been eliminating or relocating populations based on identity since the earliest empires, Assyrian deportations, Chinese frontier purges, Mongol massacres, and Ottoman relocations all fit the pattern. What changed with Europe wasn’t the idea but the infrastructure, modern states turned ethnic dominance into formal policy, justified by race science and nationalism rather than raw conquest.

The massacres in Sudan differ from Mongol or early Ottoman atrocities in motive and structure. The Mongols’ violence was a military strategy to enforce surrender, not ethnic purity. The Ottomans began as conquerors too, but by their decline were already showing the modern and learned logic of homogenizing populations, culminating in the Armenian Genocide.

What’s happening in Sudan today ain't a god damn conquest, it’s internal ethnic cleansing. It’s about erasing specific groups, not expanding rule. The pattern of mass killing repeats through history, but the ideology behind it has evolved, from imperial dominance to ethnic purification.

If you can’t accept that and insist on arguing against an argument I never made, that’s your prerogative. I just can’t participate in that, because it’s not a position I hold.

What you quote as your clarification is actually much closer to what I’ve been saying all along:

“Ethnic cleansing isn’t unique to Europe or colonialism… Civilizations have been eliminating or relocating populations based on identity since the earliest empires… What changed with Europe wasn’t the idea but the infrastructure…”

If that’s the position you want to stand on, I don’t have a problem with it. I agree Europe didn’t “invent” identity-based elimination, and I agree modern states, race science, and colonial administration changed the scale, language, and machinery around it. Sudan today is obviously operating inside that modern, colonial framework.

Where this whole thing went sideways wasn’t over that clarified paragraph. It was over the earlier, much stronger lines like “I’m treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity,” “this logic did not exist in antiquity,” and “ethnic cleansing is a modern and European thing.” People responded to those words as written, and instead of just saying, “yeah, that was overstated, here’s the version I actually mean” and leaving it there, you spent most of the thread insisting the stronger version was a hallucination on our side.

So no, I’m not “refusing to accept” your clarification. I’ve accepted it, I’ve engaged it, and I’ve said plainly that on that narrower claim we mostly agree. What I’m not going to do is pretend the earlier overreach was invented by your readers. You’ve now spelled out a more careful version that doesn’t try to make the logic itself uniquely modern and European. I’m fine ending on that.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

, I engaged the position you actually wrote

No, you didn’t engage my actual position. You grabbed onto something I phrased badly and won’t release it, since in your view any clarification equals changing my argument.

You’ve got that backwards. I grabbed onto what you phrased badly because you repeated it several times and built arguments on top of it, and then I also engaged the clarified version once you finally wrote it out.

I’ve already said your later clarification “the idea isn’t unique to Europe, the infrastructure is” is a lot more reasonable, and on that we mostly agree. What I pushed back on was the earlier “did not exist in antiquity / modern and European thing” framing, which you now admit was badly put.

If you want to say, “I stated it badly at first, here’s the version I actually mean,” cool. What you don’t get to do is insist nobody was allowed to read the original words the way they were written and then blame us for not magically skipping straight to the cleaner version you only spelled out later. At that point, we’re not disagreeing on history anymore, just on whether your first formulation was fair game to challenge. I’m happy to leave it there.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

Anyone reading the thread can decide for themselves which of us is dealing with the argument and which of us is running from it.

That’s the split between us. I don’t give a shit about manufactured opinions you or anyone else decides to assign me.

That’s fine, you don’t have to care what anyone thinks of you. I wasn’t “assigning” you an opinion, I was quoting what you actually wrote and responding to that. At this point you’ve already walked your position back to something we mostly agree on, you just won’t say that out loud. I’m good leaving it there.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

Where this whole thing went sideways wasn’t over that clarified paragraph. It was over the earlier, much stronger lines like “I’m treating fixed identity as something that did not exist before colonial modernity,” “this logic did not exist in antiquity,” and “ethnic cleansing is a modern and European thing.” People responded to those words as written, and instead of just saying, “yeah, that was overstated, here’s the version I actually mean” and leaving it there, you spent most of the thread insisting the stronger version was a hallucination on our side.

It’s already stated in the context of my position. I admit one of my flaws is not restating my entire argument in every post before replying to something specific. When I respond to a particular point, that reply is anchored to the comment I’m addressing. If you take a single sentence out of that context, both the rest of my post and what I was responding to, it can easily be seen to say something entirely different.

This suggests that your point is not that germans used genetics to try to justify the same basic identity-based violence that has been around for a really long time, but rather that the entire concept of using identity itself as the basis for violence was the new"colonial" idea.

Identity-based violence existed in antiquity, but the way identity is defined, enforced, and made inescapable in modern ethnic cleansing is fundamentally different because it relies on modern, colonial-era identity structures and there is no assimilation.

What I pushed back on was the earlier “did not exist in antiquity / modern and European thing” framing, which you now admit was badly put.

That part you’re calling ‘earlier’ actually came much later. If you looked at the context of what I was responding to, and the full comment, you’d see my argument never changed.

 

[Gospel]

Even when Caesar massacred entire groups, survivors, remnants, and related tribes still ended up being absorbed into Rome over time. Some rose in rank, integrated into Roman society, and became part of the political, military, and cultural elite. The violence was catastrophic, but the imperial system still allowed incorporation.

Caesar's brutality had a strategic purpose tied to total war (bellum Romanum): crushing resistance, seizing wealth and slaves to fuel his political rise, and terrorizing other tribes into surrender and eventual Roman integration.

So ask yourself: is that what the Sudanese militias are doing? Are they using violence to force surrender and then incorporate the targeted population? Or are they using rigid racial categories to eliminate a group that has no pathway to assimilation at all?

Edit: That's Ancient Europeans I'm talking about there.