Talk:Autogenocide

message: How about the Russian Purge in the 1930's by Stalin, can it also be considered as autogenocide? Meursault2004 15:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia?

message: I really don't like this word "autogenocide". The "auto" portion greatly diminishes the abhorent connotation of the "genocide" portion of the word and makes it sound about as objectionable as "auroeroticism". I don't see where this word is justified unless there is a democratically elected government and the victims all agree that it is a good idea. Then it becomes mass suicide, so there is really no use for the word except for purposes of revisionist history. It seems that "autogenocide" would apply to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews, a positon I would not like to try to defend. I noticed that "genocide" is used in the case or Rwanda and "autogenocide" is used in the case of Cambodia in Wikipedia. Can anyone explain the difference between these two cases?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tobyw (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 November 2005   (UTC) 
- the Cambodian Case
I can't really comment on Rwanda, except to say that the Hutus and Tutsis are seperate ethnic groups; claims of a rwandan 'autogenocide' are thus baseless.  The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia carried out a 'politicide' reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution when they emptied the cities and used the inhabitants as slave labor.  They furthermore carried out a genocide against the native Cham Muslims.  The Khmer Rouge did not intend to systematically destroy the Khmer race; it was not an autogenocide.  (Though it was really bad.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.18.184  (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 June 2006   (UTC)
In the case of Rwanda, as mentioned above, 'twas separate ethnic groups.  In Cambodia, both were Cambodian.  The Khmer Rouge were of no different heritage, and were the same people as those they were killing.
Though I would add that autogenocide also strikes me as nitpicking.  It is genocide through and through, no need to make it different to kill one's owns peoples as opposed to another's.
17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the word genosuicide be used instead? GCarty 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxymoron? 

message: :(I started the text below in User talk:Philip Baird Shearer, but decided it belongs to articles' talk page. Mukadderat 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reasonable amount of scholarly discussion on this topic, although generally only used for the case of Cambodia.  It might be useful to rewrite this article to a) provide a definition, and differentiation from democide, b) a "genealogy" of the term and c) provide a summary of the scholarly argument for and against.  I would argue against deleting this article, as the term is used in the literature and IMHO it would be very useful to have this reference generally available.  Fmark 05:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cases

message: OK, what about Armenian Genocide? Turks and Armenians were citizens of the same empire; the ottomans. 88.230.104.251 13:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: armenian genocide

message: This article describes autogenocide as 'the extermination of a country's citizens by its own people or government.', and goes on to describe the killings under the Khmer Rouge as an example, as opposed to the Nazi Holocaust. I'm not sure that's really a good counterexample; many of the victims of the Holocaust were, in fact, German citizens. I don't mind its inclusion here if that's what the source says, but otherwise it probably shouldn't be mentioned. Robofish (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust not a counterexample?