To find an answer that makes any real sense, ma’am, we first need to look closely at a critical part of the question you’ve already identified.
In a world ruled by words, a world of magical True Names where language bound things into reality, “Human” would be something clear, and important. The word would define it, and make it real. “What is Human?” would be an easily-answered question: you could point to categories and characteristics and hard lines and say with great certainty, “THIS is Human; THAT is not.” The world, adequately examined, would give you clear answers, because the world was shaped and defined by the word.
In a world merely described by words, though, “Human” means what we choose, or, especially, agree for it to mean. It’s less convenient and comforting to understand the world this way, but, it’s more true: the world doesn’t speak a language aside from cause and effect. It’s we poor scuttling lumps of matter that use words, to try to describe the world around us. Naturally those words-- forced as they are to cram complex reality into simple concepts-- fall far short of describing reality fully, but they’re still useful and important.
Ultimately, that which is “Human” is in some way implicitly “of us, like unto ourselves.” This is a mobile line. We tend to expand it when we feel safe, draw it tight when we feel threatened. Right now, we’re facing a terrible threat. So, should we say those threatening us are not human?
But what we tend to do and what we should do are perhaps not always the same. We de-humanize threats because it makes it easier to defend against them-- specifically, to harm them. But it’s not necessary to de-humanize someone in order to harm them.
To me, it’s a coward’s approach to say, “My enemy is not a person.” One should see one’s foe clearly, understand the kinship that exists there, and that it is only circumstance that makes you enemies.
And then, in full awareness of the act, kill them without hesitation if that is the appropriate thing to do.
Acknowledging kinship of this kind makes war somewhat more similar to murder. It can be a little hard on me: I get a little depressed sometimes when there’s been a lot of it. But I think killing corrodes the soul whether we acknowledge what we’re doing or not.
“People” are who we choose them to be. It’s at our peril that we draw the line close around our own feet. It’s tempting for sure to kill with comfort and ease and peace of mind, but unless we are content to see war destroy everything we love and everything we are, down to our souls, it will be necessary to stop at some point. And, of course, if we draw the circle narrowly or widely, we by that choice encourage others to make the same decision. Some of them may be wondering which side of the line we ourselves belong on.
I look forward to learning more about the Triglavians, perhaps even to meeting them. In the meantime, it’s my role and duty to kill them. That doesn’t change, if they’re human or not.
To me, of course they’re human. But still, we can’t just let them do whatever they want.