Is it a Genocide? Lets settle this.

[McFuu]

There is nothing to discuss. The writers outright stated in the short-novel Elegy that Sylvanas Windrunner committed genocide. It was not a biased in-universe character who made that statement, it was the 3rd person omniscient narrator.

Its more likely they don't understand what a Genocide entails.

No she didn't commit Genocide.
Genocide requires that the intent must be to end the (night elves) specifically. This is done systematically, as in the Strategy of the campaign was to end all night elf life.

This is simply not the case here. The point of the campaign was to take Teldrassil and kill the Night Elves only competent leader. When Saurfang failed (foolishly) to kill Malfurion, it forced Sylvanas' hand. The whole point of the campaign, in the long run, was to force out the Alliance leadership, to make them come after her to lure them into a trap.

The only reason why this appears to be genocide is because of how unrealistic Azeroth is. All of the night elves live around their tree, if Teldrassil was just another human kingdom no one would even think the word Genocide.

[Deleted]

No she didn't commit Genocide.

But then again, whose word matters more? Yours, or the writers'?

You people were so eager to bash on Alliance fans once Ion stated that there is no difference between Blood Elves and High Elves, but now that Ion's writing team stated that Sylvanas committed genocide, you are all saying "No, Blizzard is wrong, Sylvanas didn't commit genocide". Double standards, much?

[Clone]

It's not genocide, people just want it to be because it gives them more reason to hate a character/faction they already hate.

- - - Updated - - -

But then again, whose word matters more? Yours, or the writers'?

The proper use of the word matters more.

[Snowfunk]

This really needed another thread.

[Steampunkette]

There is precedent for the ruling of innocence in accidental genocide from the Yugoslav Wars:

The Chamber finds that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide, the chamber has not received sufficient evidence to establish whether the perpetrators had genocidal intent, that is the intent to destroy, the Bosnian-Muslim or Bosnian-Croat ethnic group, as such,” says the summary.

The only reasonable conclusion that could be taken from this formulation is that genocide took place in Bosnia merely by accident.

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/bosni...ental-genocide

While I get the concept, it's still stretching the definition. A -lot-. And I doubt any member of the forums really wants to argue that Sylvanas "Accidentally Committed Genocide".

She committed a massacre. Intentionally. She set out to slaughter a tree full of civvies and she succeeded. And we should all hate her for that, rather than bending concepts of other crimes in order to try and make it fit. Hell, every war of conquest in history would be considered "Accidental Genocides" if we stretch the definition as broadly as we're talking about, here.

There is nothing to discuss. The writers outright stated in the short-novel Elegy that Sylvanas Windrunner committed genocide. It was not a biased in-universe character who made that statement, it was the 3rd person omniscient narrator.

Genocide appears twice in Elegy. Once as the thoughts of Astarii trying to comprehend Sylvanas's actions and once as the thoughts of Anduin Wrynn as he tries to come to grips with what just happened. In both cases it's the third person omniscient narrator looking in to someone's thoughts.

It appears 0 times in A Good War. Even with Saurfang screaming in Sylvanas's face he never describes it as genocide and neither does any omniscient narrator. Because the Omniscient Narrator is communicating the Horde's thoughts and they're aware it isn't genocide.

It's not genocide, people just want it to be because it gives them more reason to hate a character/faction they already hate.

Kind of? It's more about making them MORE EVIL in the eyes of other players. More antithetical to good taste/morality/etc.

It's about increasing the divide. Of othering Horde Players.

[sillag]

yes, it was a genocide. the horde did a lebensraum conquest of kalimdor. our player characters of 14 years were literally made into the stooges of an undead nazi

now in case of intent you can pretend all you like that "sylvanas only INTENDED to capture teldrassil at first!!" and while that may be true initially, when she decided to burn the tree, her intention was to wipe out all of those night elf civilians. it's debatable whether she always intended to do this secretly, since the books tell us she was already fantasizing about burning teldrassil before then. but when the time came, her intention was to commit her genocide, which she then ordered.

there is no arguing with this. the people who are still defending sylvanas honestly come across as weird neo-nazis and its really worrying that they seem to be doing so unironically.

[Khaza-R]

I don't think it was genocide. Genocide implies the systematic targeting of an ethnic group. But for Sylvanas it wouldn't have mattered if Teldrassil was dwarf settlement or a night elf settlement. It was targetted because it was Alliance outpost in Kalimdor.

Her decision to ultimately burn it and break their morale was akin to Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Two events I would not identify as genocide.

[Clone]

Genocide appears twice in Elegy. Once as the thoughts of Astarii trying to comprehend Sylvanas's actions and once as the thoughts of Anduin Wrynn as he tries to come to grips with what just happened. In both cases it's the third person omniscient narrator looking in to someone's thoughts.

It appears 0 times in A Good War. Even with Saurfang screaming in Sylvanas's face he never describes it as genocide and neither does any omniscient narrator. Because the Omniscient Narrator is communicating the Horde's thoughts and they're aware it isn't genocide.

I had a feeling this was the case, but couldn't confirm due to not having read the stories yet. The balls of some people to brazenly bend truth thinking nobody else will notice.

Kind of? It's more about making them MORE EVIL in the eyes of other players. More antithetical to good taste/morality/etc.

It's about increasing the divide. Of othering Horde Players.

That's what I was saying.

[MrSaggins]

Hell, every war of conquest in history would be considered "Accidental Genocides" if we stretch the definition as broadly as we're talking about, here.

Yeh, you really run the risk of devaluing words if you use them at the drop of a hat. If everything is genocide then nothing is genocide. The boy who cried wolf. You've gotta have parameters to strictly define things and intent is important. But I'm still not convinced the Horde isn't interested in an ethnic cleansing of Kalimdor, or that the Alliance isn't likewise aspiring for one within the Eastern Kingdoms.

It's about increasing the divide. Of othering Horde Players.

Yeah that's certainly the counter problem to denouncing a political faction. One eventually become so righteous, justified, zealous and vitriolic in their condemnation of "the oppressor" that they dehumanize them and see them as "the other" in the same fashion that "the oppressor" originally viewed their own victims; and when one can dehumanize another then violence becomes an option on the table, one thing leads to another, et voila, genocide.

The spirit of viva la revolutión hinges contingently upon the revolution never actually being successful, and the institutional monolith of "The Man" remaining in power to be rebelled against - for if they are deposed then the revolutionaries are forced to seize power and assume duties of practical management which may put them at odds with their abstract idealistic theory until they become The Man themselves.

This whole thing is a horseshoe with its roots in evolutionary biology, human tribalism, subjective/arbitrary in-groups and out-groups embedded within our (and apparently the races of Warcraft's) nature. It's only natural, but probably the most reprehensible part of human nature and any defense of it is certainly guilty of the naturalistic fallacy. This dehumanization and othering, as you said, of people for political ambition, or climbing the social dominance strata of victimhood after an atrocity (like Teldrassil) to justify further retaliation is stomach-turning. I have a twelve page thread of Alliance almost unanimously saying no war crime is too reprehensible to visit upon the Horde.

It's reprehensible, but it makes for good story in an RPG because it forces us to wrestle with who we really are but perhaps should strive not to be.

[Thage]

Were most of the casualties civilian? Yes. (Delaryn informed Sylvanas that the only people left on Teldrassil at the time of burning were civilians)
Was it intentional? Yes. (Not at the outset of the war, but after her conversation with Delaryn, Sylvanas intentionally burned a world-tree she knew was full of civilians simply to prove her wrong)
Did the third-person omniscient narrative explicitly call it genocide? Yes.

I'm honestly impressed at the straws people will grasp at so they don't have to acknowledge that their faction leader is a genocidal maniac, who was directly compared to Arthas by the narration, whose actions were directly compared to Arthas's genocide of the high elves (for similarly-petty reasons, as both were carried out in the heat of the moment after an elven commander sassed the invading undead overlord). This is not just something Blizzard's writers tossed in. Even in a story as hackneyed and pulpy as Warcraft's, narrative allusions are done for a reason; Blizzard is doing everything it can shy of putting a flashing neon sign over her head and giving you a raid warning every time she's on screen telling you she's on the same moral complexity as Snidely Whiplash.

[Feanoro]

Even with Saurfang screaming in Sylvanas's face he never describes it as genocide

Mostly because it's too big a word for an orc.

Because the Omniscient Narrator is communicating the Horde's thoughts and they're aware it isn't genocide.

Because the Horde has long been noted for having legal scholars, diplomats, and cultural attaches, with particular emphasis in international conflicts. Many are the times I've sat in the Orgrimmar library listening to calm, somber debates about foreign policy and the philosophy thereof.

[Steampunkette]

Yeh, you really run the risk of devaluing words if you use them at the drop of a hat. If everything is genocide then nothing is genocide. The boy who cried wolf. You've gotta have parameters to strictly define things and intent is important. But I'm still not convinced the Horde isn't interested in an ethnic cleansing of Kalimdor, or that the Alliance isn't likewise aspiring for one within the Eastern Kingdoms.




Yeah that's certainly the counter problem to denouncing a political faction. One eventually become so righteous, justified, zealous and vitriolic in their condemnation of "the oppressor" that they dehumanize them and see them as "the other" in the same fashion that "the oppressor" originally viewed their own victims; and when one can dehumanize another then violence becomes an option on the table, one thing leads to another, et voila, genocide.

The spirit of viva la revolutión hinges contingently upon the revolution never actually being successful, and the institutional monolith of "The Man" remaining in power to be rebelled against - for if they are deposed then the revolutionaries are forced to seize power and assume duties of practical management which may put them at odds with their abstract idealistic theory until they become The Man themselves.

This whole thing is a horseshoe with its roots in evolutionary biology, human tribalism, subjective/arbitrary in-groups and out-groups embedded within our (and apparently the races of Warcraft's) nature. It's only natural, but probably the most reprehensible part of human nature and any defense of it is certainly guilty of the naturalistic fallacy. This dehumanization and othering, as you said, of people for political ambition, or climbing the social dominance strata of victimhood after an atrocity (like Teldrassil) to justify further retaliation is stomach-turning. I have a twelve page thread of Alliance almost unanimously saying no war crime is too reprehensible to visit upon the Horde.

It's reprehensible, but it makes for good story in an RPG because it forces us to wrestle with who we really are but perhaps should strive not to be.

... Have I told you how much I like you, Mr. Saggins? Because I -REALLY- do like you. Damn it, Mr. Saggins. This is insightful, well thought out, and cuts through to the hearts of things and I adore it.

Did you ever play the Pathfinder Roleplaying game? It's got a -great- example of the viva la revolutión mindset being carried forward even after victory has been won by the revolutionaries in the nation of Galt... (The writers were not in the realm of being subtle...)

In Galt, the revolution against the bourgeoisie nobility succeeded and ended with the Ladies of the Revolution separating out the heads of state rather literally (The Ladies of the Revolution being a euphemism for Guillotine!) But within a few short years of the Revolutionary Council being unable to manage to make things better, they, too, lie with the Ladies of the Revolution while a new Revolutionary Council takes their place. And on. And on. And on.

I honestly love it to bits.

[Feanoro]

This dehumanization and othering, as you said, of people for political ambition, or climbing the social dominance strata of victimhood after an atrocity (like Teldrassil) to justify further retaliation is stomach-turning. I have a twelve page thread of Alliance almost unanimously saying no war crime is too reprehensible to visit upon the Horde.

If only you were this critical of the faction that repeatedly commits atrocities then sobs victimhood when there's even mention of retaliation. I'll wait while you fetch your dictionary and a fresh pipe.

[Florena]

You can argue semantics all you want, fact is Sylvanas ordered the burning of the Night Elven capital ending countless innocent lives.

Yeah. It frankly doesn't matter if it's technically genocide or not, the act was horrible regardless.

[Steampunkette]

Yeah. It frankly doesn't matter if it's technically genocide or not, the act was horrible regardless.

100% agreed. It was a full on massacre.

[nothingsjim]

No, it's not genocide. The writers abuse the word genocide without understanding the true horror of the word itself.

Straight from Wikipedia itself, the definition of genocide is

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Notice the bolded part.

The political and social institution of Night Elf was damaged by Teldrassil burning, but Sylvanas never specifically aimed to destroy Night Elf's culture, language, national feeling, religion. The Night Elves can rebuild, they hold onto their old value, tradition, and most importantly, their identity.

If you want a true example of Genocide in WoW, go look at Mogu and Pandaren. Pandaren didn't die out en-masse, but they lost their own language, culture, their leaders, philosophers, art and literature destroyed, and were forbidden to learn to read or write, the newer generations do not know what it means to be a Pandaren other than being slave to the Mogu. Which is why Lorewalker was such an important figure within Pandaren society, because they were the only ones who manged to preserve and spread the little bits of what made Pandaren, Pandaren.

The burning of Teldrassil is mass murder on a very grand and horrifying scale, but it's not genocide.

[Deleted]

Its more likely they don't understand what a Genocide entails.

No she didn't commit Genocide.
Genocide requires that the intent must be to end the (night elves) specifically. This is done systematically, as in the Strategy of the campaign was to end all night elf life.

This is simply not the case here. The point of the campaign was to take Teldrassil and kill the Night Elves only competent leader. When Saurfang failed (foolishly) to kill Malfurion, it forced Sylvanas' hand. The whole point of the campaign, in the long run, was to force out the Alliance leadership, to make them come after her to lure them into a trap.

The only reason why this appears to be genocide is because of how unrealistic Azeroth is. All of the night elves live around their tree, if Teldrassil was just another human kingdom no one would even think the word Genocide.

Communism says hi....

Infracted.

[Ielenia]

Very good post. However just a small correction:
Sylvanas ordered a genocide.
The horde commited a genocide.

The brain is just as guilty as the hand that pulled the trigger. Also, Sylvanas is part of the Horde, so, by that logic, yes, Sylvanas did commit genocide.

[Steampunkette]

No, it's not genocide. The writers abuse the word genocide without understanding the true horror of the word itself.

Straight from Wikipedia itself, the definition of genocide is

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Notice the bolded part.

The political and social institution of Night Elf was damaged by Teldrassil burning, but Sylvanas never specifically aimed to destroy Night Elf's culture, language, national feeling, religion. The Night Elves can rebuild, they hold onto their old value, tradition, and most importantly, their identity.

If you want a true example of Genocide in WoW, go look at Mogu and Pandaren. Pandaren didn't die out en-masse, but they lost their own language, culture, their leaders, philosophers, art and literature destroyed, and were forbidden to learn to read or write, the newer generations do not know what it means to be a Pandaren other than being slave to the Mogu. Which is why Lorewalker was such an important figure within Pandaren society, because they were the only ones who manged to preserve and spread the little bits of what made Pandaren, Pandaren.

The burning of Teldrassil is mass murder on a very grand and horrifying scale, but it's not genocide.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... slow down just a -bit-, there...

The writers were describing the actions from the perspectives of Astarii and Anduin. Neither of whom know Sylvanas's intentions and from the evidence that they have it does -appear- to be an attempt at Genocide.

The only issue is with players taking that context and discarding it in favor of using the term to actively describe the event from an externalist perspective. The writers didn't screw up by having the characters of the Alliance call it a genocide. It's entirely in line with the perspective of those characters.

The characters just happen to be wrong from the viewpoint of an omniscient third party perspective.

[Luxeley]

Killing innocents and committing genocide are two different things. It's not genocide, but she's clearly demonstrated she's capable of committing it.