3 ms·
Yes, obviously. It's obvious in the first paragraph. Why isn't the article called, the "The Rohingya Genocide". Didn't we learn anything from Rwanda?
by throwaway5752 9y ago
Yes, obviously. It's obvious in the first paragraph.
Why isn't the article called, the "The Rohingya Genocide". Didn't we learn anything from Rwanda?
- warent 9y agoMy guess is that if you say "The Rohingya Genocide" then readers will assume it's a history lesson and skip the article. Whereas "Is This Genocide?" encourages readers to investigate on their own, hopefully educating more people in general
- l8again 9y agoHmmm.. Thanks for this perspective. It was quite lost on me, but maybe if it worked for you, it did for others too.
- l8again 9y agoExactly what I was thinking. By putting a question mark in the title is taking away from the urgency of the situation. You really have to wonder?
- Someone 9y agoThe USA ratified the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention. That makes Washington loath in using the word. So, the New York Times isn’t doubting this is genocide; it is asking Washington to acknowledge it and take action (http://www.economist.com/node/18772664 http://www.economist.com/node/18772664: As Samantha Power, an author who works for President Barack Obama, has disclosed, a paper by a Pentagon official urged caution in using the G-word: “Be careful …Genocide finding could commit [the government] to actually do something.”) I can’t find a reference, but I think there is a more recent, stronger statement by the USA that requires them to take action as soon as politics declares something as genocide anywhere in the world.