Split Historical Genocide - Derail From Sudan Massacre

[NoHolyCows]

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.

But if the story stops at ‘this is just the latest stage of a Europe-invented logic,’ it still relies on a big abstraction that downplays Sudan’s own history and the concrete choices of Sudanese actors in favor of a neat intellectual timeline.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

aaiight look. I’m aint out here trying to cram Sudan’s whole history into some fucking Europe-made blueprint.

What I said was simple: modern ethnic cleansing ain’t the same thing as old-school conquest, even if the body count looks similar. Sudanese folks are acting inside their own politics, land, resources, old beefs, but they’re also operating under a modern mindset where identity is treated like it’s locked in stone and the only ‘solution’ is wiping the other group out, not absorbing them.

You got Sunni Muslims killing other Sunni Muslims strictly because those Sunni Muslims are black bruh. How you explain that? If that ain’t modern racial logic, I don’t know what the fuck is. And me pointing out where that ideology came from don’t erase Sudanese agency, it just shows how today’s nation-state thinking changed the way people define territory, identity, and who gets to live. Both things can be true at once.

Anyway, my original point was hella straightforward: what’s happening in Sudan right now ain’t medieval conquest, it’s modern ethnic cleansing, the kind where your skin tone becomes the target. That distinction matters because it explains the violence, not because I’m blaming any civilization for the violence.

But instead of clocking that and moving on to Sudan itself, folks turned this thread into a side quest because some people heard ‘Europeans’ and started defending their racial in-group like I was talking about them personally.

 

[Gospel]

Tribal warfare is as old as humankind. Even the Chimps do it.

So you're seeing chimps running around the jungle checking each other’s fur color like, ‘Nah, you too dark for this side of the canopy,’ setting up little vine-cut checkpoints, making birth registries out of mud, and dragging whole families out the trees because they came from the ‘wrong’ troop three generations back?

Whatever you're smoking. don't share it with anyone else.

 

[NoHolyCows]

aaiight look. I’m aint out here trying to cram Sudan’s whole history into some fucking Europe-made blueprint.

What I said was simple: modern ethnic cleansing ain’t the same thing as old-school conquest, even if the body count looks similar. Sudanese folks are acting inside their own politics, land, resources, old beefs, but they’re also operating under a modern mindset where identity is treated like it’s locked in stone and the only ‘solution’ is wiping the other group out, not absorbing them.

You got Sunni Muslims killing other Sunni Muslims strictly because those Sunni Muslims are black bruh. How you explain that? If that ain’t modern racial logic, I don’t know what the fuck is. And me pointing out where that ideology came from don’t erase Sudanese agency, it just shows how today’s nation-state thinking changed the way people define territory, identity, and who gets to live. Both things can be true at once.

Anyway, my original point was hella straightforward: what’s happening in Sudan right now ain’t medieval conquest, it’s modern ethnic cleansing, the kind where your skin tone becomes the target. That distinction matters because it explains the violence, not because I’m blaming any civilization for the violence.

But instead of clocking that and moving on to Sudan itself, folks turned this thread into a side quest because some people heard ‘Europeans’ and started defending their racial in-group like I was talking about them personally.

Nobody here is denying this is ethnic cleansing or that racialized anti-Black hatred is central. “Sunni killing Sunni because they’re Black” is exactly the kind of thing that shows how deep the racial hierarchy runs in Sudan and the Sahel. You don’t need to convince me that skin tone and perceived “Arabness” matter; that part is obvious.

Where I’m not buying your frame is when you slide from “this is modern ethnic cleansing, not old-school conquest” (which is fair as a rough distinction) to “and we know where that ideology came from,” as if the key explanatory layer is a Europe-invented racial logic that Sudanese actors are now “operating under.” Anti-Black hierarchies in Sudan and the wider region come out of a long tangle of trans-Saharan slavery, Arabization, Ottoman categories, British border-drawing, local caste systems, and post-independence state politics. Europe’s race science and nation-state norms absolutely fed into that, but they didn’t arrive as a clean software update that suddenly turned conquest into “ethnic purification.” What’s happening now is over-determined: local history, militia economies, Gulf money, gold, state collapse, and racial ideology are all fused together. Saying “this is modern ethnic cleansing, not medieval conquest” adds something; claiming the crucial lens is a Europe-origin story about identity being “locked in stone” is a lot more speculative than you’re treating it.

And on the “people heard ‘Europeans’ and got defensive” bit: disagreeing with that part of your story isn’t the same as protecting a racial in-group. It’s just noticing that once you center “where the ideology came from,” you risk flattening Sudanese history into a chapter in your world-systems morality play. I can agree with you that the violence is modern, racialized ethnic cleansing and still say: you don’t actually need the “this ultimately comes from Europe” move to explain it, and when you insist on that extra step, that’s where the argument stops being tight and starts leaning on a just-so origin story.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

Geez Louise. Where did I ever explicitly say Sudan has no internal history or that Europe did everything? Quote it. You can’t, because I never said it. That claim isn’t coming from my words, it’s coming from how you felt reading my words. Your reply basically agrees with what I said, then invents some wild interpretation just so you can disagree with something I never said. Impressive.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Geez Louise. Where did I ever explicitly say Sudan has no internal history or that Europe did everything? Quote it. You can’t, because I never said it. That claim isn’t coming from my words, it’s coming from how you felt reading my words. Your reply basically agrees with what I said, then invents some wild interpretation just so you can disagree with something I never said. Impressive.

I never claimed you literally wrote “Sudan has no internal history.” I’m saying that when you call it “the same colonial logic in Arab uniforms” and focus on “where the ideology came from” without naming any Sudan-specific dynamics, you effectively make the Europe-origin story do most of the explanatory work. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

Geez Louise. Where did I ever explicitly say Sudan has no internal history or that Europe did everything? Quote it. You can’t, because I never said it. That claim isn’t coming from my words, it’s coming from how you felt reading my words. Your reply basically agrees with what I said, then invents some wild interpretation just so you can disagree with something I never said. Impressive.

I never claimed you literally wrote “Sudan has no internal history.” I’m saying that when you call it “the same colonial logic in Arab uniforms” and focus on “where the ideology came from” without naming any Sudan-specific dynamics, you effectively make the Europe-origin story do most of the explanatory work. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.

NHC

The bold and underlined part is mine. If anyone had actually asked me about that instead of arguing against a claim I never made, my responses would’ve covered it.

 

[pood]

I just wonder why a certain someone started this thread. Horrible shit goes on in Sudan. Horrible shit goes on all over the world. There is something new here?

Maybe — let me hazard a haphazard guess — maybe the OP is intended to excuse the atrocities of the West, and specifically the history of slavery and genocicde in the U.S., because, hey, everone does it.

And of course excuse the genocide in Gaza.

Just a guess.

 

[pood]

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

AmeriKKKa!

 

[NoHolyCows]

Geez Louise. Where did I ever explicitly say Sudan has no internal history or that Europe did everything? Quote it. You can’t, because I never said it. That claim isn’t coming from my words, it’s coming from how you felt reading my words. Your reply basically agrees with what I said, then invents some wild interpretation just so you can disagree with something I never said. Impressive.

I never claimed you literally wrote “Sudan has no internal history.” I’m saying that when you call it “the same colonial logic in Arab uniforms” and focus on “where the ideology came from” without naming any Sudan-specific dynamics, you effectively make the Europe-origin story do most of the explanatory work. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.

NHC

The bold and underlined part is mine. If anyone had actually asked me about that instead of arguing against a claim I never made, my responses would’ve covered it.

I don’t need to ask you about thoughts you would have added in a different universe, I’m responding to the words you actually put on the page. You framed it as “the same colonial logic in Arab uniforms” and then built your follow-ups around “where that ideology came from.” If the Sudan-specific nuance only exists in a bolded sentence in your head and not in what you wrote, that’s not me inventing a claim, that’s you not saying what you now insist you meant. Readers are allowed to critique the framing you actually gave them, not the invisible footnotes you say you would’ve supplied if only someone had asked the right question.

NHC

 

[TSwizzle]

Just a bunch of Arabs doing what they learned from the “civilized world.” And don’t come at me with “violence is just part of human history”, this isn’t simply that. What’s happening here is the same colonial logic, in Arab uniforms.

Geez Louise. Where did I ever explicitly say Sudan has no internal history or that Europe did everything? Quote it. You can’t, because I never said it. That claim isn’t coming from my words, it’s coming from how you felt reading my words. Your reply basically agrees with what I said, then invents some wild interpretation just so you can disagree with something I never said. Impressive.

When you aren't clear on what part of the "civilized world" these Arabs learned their "ethnic cleansing" from, don't get prissy when you get pressed on it.

 

[pood]

---

To comprehend the history of the American West and all that went on I recommend the late great Cormac McCarthy’s novel Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West.

Based on a true story.

 

[Gospel]

When you aren't clear on what part of the "civilized world" these Arabs learned their "ethnic cleansing" from, don't get prissy when you get pressed on it.

Bruh, learn to read. I’m not getting pressed over which ‘civilized world’ they learned it from, I’m getting pressed over a claim I never even made. I never said Sudanese got no agency or that everything’s Europe’s fault. Y’all arguing with ghosts.

Anyway, to answer the question you didn’t ask, but that I have to pull out of your completely disconnected comment…

I’m not saying Europe invented Sudanese racism. I’m saying modern ethnic cleansing needs modern identity, fixed groups, censuses, borders, population management, eliminationist logic, and those systems didn’t exist anywhere before European modernity made them global. That’s why we don’t see ethnic cleansing before the modern era: the structure literally didn’t exist yet.

Look, I respect the strengths of the European model, but we can’t pretend it didn’t come with serious side effects, including modern identity systems that other groups, like Arab elites in Sudan, now use to justify ethnic cleansing. I mean, get real, Great Britain used this same framework for colonial genocide, and so did Spain, Portugal, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Russia. The modern identity system Sudan is using didn’t pop out of nowhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[TSwizzle]

When you aren't clear on what part of the "civilized world" these Arabs learned their "ethnic cleansing" from, don't get prissy when you get pressed on it.

Bruh, learn to read. I’m not getting pressed over which ‘civilized world’ they learned it from, I’m getting pressed over a claim I never even made. I never said Sudanese got no agency or that everything’s Europe’s fault. Y’all arguing with ghosts.

Anyway, to answer the question you didn’t ask, but that I have to pull out of your completely disconnected comment…

I’m not saying Europe invented Sudanese racism. I’m saying modern ethnic cleansing needs modern identity, fixed groups, censuses, borders, population management, eliminationist logic, and those systems didn’t exist anywhere before European modernity made them global. That’s why we don’t see ethnic cleansing before the modern era: the structure literally didn’t exist yet.

Look, I respect the strengths of the European model, but we can’t pretend it didn’t come with serious side effects, including modern identity systems that other groups, like Arab elites in Sudan, now use to justify ethnic cleansing. I mean, get real, Great Britain used this same framework for colonial genocide, and so did Spain, Portugal, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Russia. The modern identity system Sudan is using didn’t pop out of nowhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So they learned ethnic cleansing from Europeans.

 

[Gospel]

So they learned ethnic cleansing from Europeans.

Still not reading, I see. They’re carrying out ethnic cleansing within the modern framework Europeans left behind, the same framework that makes this kind of thing possible in the first place. Jesus Christ. And if you disagree with my argument, just say that. Don’t pull a turd out of your ass and pretend it's mine.

 

[TSwizzle]

So they learned ethnic cleansing from Europeans.

Still not reading, I see. They’re carrying out ethnic cleansing within the modern framework Europeans left behind, the same framework that makes this kind of thing possible in the first place. Jesus Christ. And if you disagree with my argument, just say that. Don’t pull a turd out of your ass and pretend it's mine.

Who did they learn ethnic cleansing from is what I'm asking.

 

[Gospel]

You framed it as “the same colonial logic in Arab uniforms” and then built your follow-ups around “where that ideology came from.” If the Sudan-specific nuance only exists in a bolded sentence in your head and not in what you wrote, that’s not me inventing a claim,

Let me make this real clear. All I said was the bolded part. So any statement claiming to know ‘what I really meant’ is not mine. Capisce? You could’ve just asked instead of assuming, and when I offer corrections, actually read them and understand the context. I honestly didn’t expect people to twist it the way they did, in my circle, nobody is clueless enough to think that’s what I meant. When I post I don't consider the level of idiocy on this forum prior to posting.

 

[Gospel]

So they learned ethnic cleansing from Europeans.

Still not reading, I see. They’re carrying out ethnic cleansing within the modern framework Europeans left behind, the same framework that makes this kind of thing possible in the first place. Jesus Christ. And if you disagree with my argument, just say that. Don’t pull a turd out of your ass and pretend it's mine.

Who did they learn ethnic cleansing from is what I'm asking.

Go ask your mama, ’cause my statement sure doesn’t warrant that question, but maybe she’ll entertain it.

 

[TSwizzle]

So they learned ethnic cleansing from Europeans.

Still not reading, I see. They’re carrying out ethnic cleansing within the modern framework Europeans left behind, the same framework that makes this kind of thing possible in the first place. Jesus Christ. And if you disagree with my argument, just say that. Don’t pull a turd out of your ass and pretend it's mine.

Who did they learn ethnic cleansing from is what I'm asking.

Go ask your mama, ’cause my statement sure doesn’t warrant that question, but maybe she’ll entertain it.

Mama passed away ten years ago so I am asking you. Who did the Sudanese learn ethnic cleansing from?

 

[Elixir]

Go ask your mama, ’cause my statement sure doesn’t warrant that question, but maybe she’ll entertain it.

Anything will suffice if it’s exculpatory to folk who look like Swiz.

My own $0.02 is that there has never been a population group of more than a thousand that didn’t behave exactly the same under the same pressures. Probably extends to invertebrates and right on down to archae.