Historically the standard response to unassimilated others was elimination via conversion, expulsion, or massacre.

Evidence

How does one deal with the recalcitrant other—the other who does not wish to be acculturated or converted—who persists, in spite of all the inducements offered to him, in retaining his otherness? Historically, three answers have been offered to this question. The first, and the most usual one, is to eliminate him in one or more of several ways—to absorb, extrude, or destroy him. These, forced conversion, expulsion, massacre, were the normal procedures in much of the world, particularly in central and western Europe during the Middle Ages and— in some regions—the modern period. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 1019

Categorization

• XREF: The three-way taxonomy of absorb/extrude/destroy echoes the reader’s sacrifice article’s treatment of violent ritual, and connects to later chapters presumably covering the other two responses. — connects to: Mass killing emerged as a practical last resort once removal schemes failed — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 1606
• ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to ‘On Sacrifice’ — the elimination of the recalcitrant other by massacre gives the sacrificial violence article a structural, community-defining frame.