“У каличества есть качество всё его.” / “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин (Joseph Stalin), 1942.

Let’s look on the bright side of this genocide. If you care about diversity, you’ve probably found past genocides to be dreadfully disappointing.

True, the Holocaust didn’t only target Jews—it also targeted homosexuals, Communists, Slavs, Gypsies, and opponents of the German regime. The Holocaust was also inclusive towards women, who were gassed, shot, starved, mutilated, and bludgeoned to death alongside men. The Holocaust was a bit diverse, but I think we can all agree that it wasn’t nearly as diverse as it could have been.

The genocide of Armenians by Turks was even less diverse—yes, the Turks also massacred Kurds, but mainly as an afterthought; a “while we’re at it” sort of thing. The killing of Kurds in the Armenian Genocide was really just tokenism from a society where everyone seemingly woke up one day on the wrong side of the bed and declared: “You know who is causing trouble? It’s those damned Armenians…let’s dedicate ourselves to wiping them from the face of the Earth”. I think we can all agree that, if we demand diversity from our genocides, we must not settle for tokenism.

Europeans committed mass genocide in the Americas—wiping out upwards of 90% of the native population. For the connoisseur of genocide diversity, there are some bright spots here, starting with methods: Settlers employed everything from burning of crops and killing of livestock to the poisoning of water supplies to biological warfare to good old-fashioned firing squads. The genocide of American natives was geographically diverse—it stretched across two continents, from the southern tip of modern-day Argentina to the arctic tundra in the far North of modern-day Canada.  It was linguistically diverse, wiping out hundreds of unique languages, each as complex and rich as any modern language, and driving the few remaining languages to near-extinction. Still, the focus on killing only ethnic groups considered to be “natives” limited the diversity of this genocide – like the other genocides we’ve mentioned, it just isn’t as diverse as it could have been. Dreadfully disappointing, really.

The genocide of the 21st century? Now, this is a diverse genocide; truly a sign of how progressive we’ve become. Not only that: a true progressive knows that the task of achieving diversity is never fully completed, and as we speak, progressives are hard at work bringing this genocide to the Third World. In Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, rural India, and other regions where citizens are not yet participating in genocide in large numbers, progressives are toiling to bring the genocide to them: to the doorstep of every house; to the curtain of every mud hut; to the flap of every tent; to the chain-link gates of every housing project. Except for a few spoil-sports, secular governments and religious groups alike are promoting genocide and subsidizing the tools of genocide via tax revenue, so that ethnic cleansing is no longer a privilege of the upper classes. Large international organizations such as the United Nations have codified access to the weapons of genocide as a “fundamental human right”, and thousands of NGOs ranging in size from the Gates Foundation to tiny one-person operations are hard at work on the ground, serving the under-privileged, under-genocided masses.

In the Dark Ages of genocide, it was necessary to satisfy a range of criteria to be the target of ethnic cleansing: a man or woman needed to be part of a specific racial or ethnic group; or speak a certain language; or live in a particular place; or worship a designated God. With the toil of progressives, we are fast approaching the Golden Age of genocide. Someday soon, the question “am I the target of genocide?” will have the same answer as another—simpler—question:

“Am I human?”