5 ms·

This is why liberals are sometimes using the term genocide more broadly in a way conservatives don’t like. They reference things like “black genocide” and conse

This is why liberals are sometimes using the term genocide more broadly in a way conservatives don’t like. They reference things like “black genocide” and conservatives get mad because the actual slayings are too few to be considered “genocide”. Yet in terms of lost culture, putting a high enough percentage of individuals in prison, and confining enough of the others to ghettos, while driving them out of historical cultural centers, has an equivalent result to genocide in some ways. Essentially, a percentage of the people can be alive while also having “the culture” be as dead as dead can be. Of course the culture is born again in a different form, as Native American culture endures today, despite “genocide”. And rendering that invisible is just a continuation of that genocide so I certainly don’t want to intimate that such culture is truly gone.

vanderZwan 9y ago
> Of course the culture is born again in a different form, as Native American culture endures today Well, a culture is born again; culture just tends to happen if you put people together, it's in our blood. The question is whether it flourishes. I am from Europe so cannot say this for certain, but I get the impression that all over both American continents, Native Americans are still very much an ethnic minority whose rights are being trampled over.
- Banthum 9y ago
  Which rights specifically?
- empath75 9y ago
  In Guatemala, they’re an ethnic majority whose rights are still being trampled over.
Banthum 9y ago
It should be noted - this definition as genocide as destruction of a culture (instead of physical murder of a people) also supports the idea of "white genocide": A targeted effort by people with power to liquidate white peoples' group identity ("abolish whiteness") and to marginalize and obscure their traditional cultural touchstones ("don't teach books by dead white men" and related efforts to avoid teaching Shakespeare, the Bible, old white philosophers, etc), efforts to bring in many immigrants to make whites minorities in areas where they were previously a majority (and gleeful anticipation of this outcome), etc. This definition does seem to mean something. E.g. I'd say Uighurs and Tibetans are undergoing genocide by China, even though China isn't running death camps. China has the intent of erasing these groups as groups and is systematically working towards that goal. And it has been used this way extensively. People talk about "genocide" of trans people in America. Or the "genocide" of Native Americans, who, although they were almost wiped out by disease, and were then abused in horrid ways, were never the target of a campaign of physical total murder. Reservations are terrible, but they're not Treblinka. On the other hand, the definition seems incoherent. Is it possible for blacks and whites to both be undergoing genocide right now? I suppose so; maybe it's a war with each tribe trying to dissolve the other. I suppose you could look at intent as the difference as well: Are people trying to abolish blacks as a group? Is this the goal, or a side-effect? Are people trying to abolish whites as a group? Does it require a chance of success? Is the intent to liquidate white culture enough to call it genocidal, or does it actually need to be actualized with a strong chance of success? How much chance? Or does it only require an effect? Is the effect of liquidating black culture enough to call it genocidal, even if it's just an incidental side-effect, or does it need to be an intent? When we bring modern music and food to an isolated tribe, thus displacing their traditional music and cuisine, is that genocide? Because we just destroyed their culture forever. Things get fuzzier because the academics in power at the moment - all leftists - want to be able to use this word to describe actions against people they like, but not against those they dislike. Hence the bobbing and weaving between definitions: When it's against whites, genocide means gas chambers only. When it's against blacks, it means a lot of young criminals spending time in prison. I think it would be better to narrow the usage of this word. If people are trying to liquidate another culture, let's figure out another word for that (and please not "cultural genocide").
- ahakki 9y ago
  I just wanted to say that this is a pretty bad comment.
  - anonnyj 9y ago
    Where is your argument? Perhaps you should rethink your beliefs if you can't actually counter the post.
  - zo1 9y ago
    How about you instead engage with that individual if you disagree? I don't find his comment unwelcoming to discussion. Now, whether he is correct or wrong is entirely separate, but from my point of view all I'm seeing is discussion being shutdown in the name of feelings and prevailing opinion.
    - Audible_logic 9y ago
      "It should be noted - this definition as genocide as destruction of a culture (instead of physical murder of a people) also supports the idea of "white genocide": A targeted effort by people with power to liquidate white peoples' group identity ("abolish whiteness") and to marginalize and obscure their traditional cultural touchstones ("don't teach books by dead white men" and related efforts to avoid teaching Shakespeare, the Bible, old white philosophers, etc), efforts to bring in many immigrants to make whites minorities in areas where they were previously a majority (and gleeful anticipation of this outcome), etc." In his defense, it's difficult to want to waste time debating with this line of reasoning. There are some huge unfounded assumptions being made right here in a well thought out way. A nugget of possible truth, mixed with a lot of personal opinion. With that said, doesnt seem like it would lead to a productive conversation. I'm not sure why the need to insert white males into the equation. That argument is based on you believing there is a secret organized attack against white men going on. I think thats open to interpretation depending on who you are. If anything, I, as a minority, see a balancing of power. Im also aware that whitw males still dominate the economical and political spectrum, so its even harder to agree with this logic. Is thus attack being perpetuated by other white males? To what gain? It seems to me that it appears as an attack on white males, when white males are no longer allowed to dominate culturally, economically, or in numbers in certain areas. They arent being excluded, others are being allowed to the table. That means more chairs need to be pulled up and you cant have the entire meal to yourself. I can't call that "cultural genocide". The role of white male in society remains much the same. This argument makes me think of the people who complain about AA hires, while ignoring the fact that the company is comprised of 85% white hires.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

vanderZwan 9y ago

> Of course the culture is born again in a different form, as Native American culture endures today Well, a culture is born again; culture just tends to happen if you put people together, it's in our blood. The question is whether it flourishes. I am from Europe so cannot say this for certain, but I get the impression that all over both American continents, Native Americans are still very much an ethnic minority whose rights are being trampled over.

Banthum 9y ago
Which rights specifically?
empath75 9y ago
In Guatemala, they’re an ethnic majority whose rights are still being trampled over.

Banthum 9y ago

It should be noted - this definition as genocide as destruction of a culture (instead of physical murder of a people) also supports the idea of "white genocide": A targeted effort by people with power to liquidate white peoples' group identity ("abolish whiteness") and to marginalize and obscure their traditional cultural touchstones ("don't teach books by dead white men" and related efforts to avoid teaching Shakespeare, the Bible, old white philosophers, etc), efforts to bring in many immigrants to make whites minorities in areas where they were previously a majority (and gleeful anticipation of this outcome), etc. This definition does seem to mean something. E.g. I'd say Uighurs and Tibetans are undergoing genocide by China, even though China isn't running death camps. China has the intent of erasing these groups as groups and is systematically working towards that goal. And it has been used this way extensively. People talk about "genocide" of trans people in America. Or the "genocide" of Native Americans, who, although they were almost wiped out by disease, and were then abused in horrid ways, were never the target of a campaign of physical total murder. Reservations are terrible, but they're not Treblinka. On the other hand, the definition seems incoherent. Is it possible for blacks and whites to both be undergoing genocide right now? I suppose so; maybe it's a war with each tribe trying to dissolve the other. I suppose you could look at intent as the difference as well: Are people trying to abolish blacks as a group? Is this the goal, or a side-effect? Are people trying to abolish whites as a group? Does it require a chance of success? Is the intent to liquidate white culture enough to call it genocidal, or does it actually need to be actualized with a strong chance of success? How much chance? Or does it only require an effect? Is the effect of liquidating black culture enough to call it genocidal, even if it's just an incidental side-effect, or does it need to be an intent? When we bring modern music and food to an isolated tribe, thus displacing their traditional music and cuisine, is that genocide? Because we just destroyed their culture forever. Things get fuzzier because the academics in power at the moment - all leftists - want to be able to use this word to describe actions against people they like, but not against those they dislike. Hence the bobbing and weaving between definitions: When it's against whites, genocide means gas chambers only. When it's against blacks, it means a lot of young criminals spending time in prison. I think it would be better to narrow the usage of this word. If people are trying to liquidate another culture, let's figure out another word for that (and please not "cultural genocide").

ahakki 9y ago
I just wanted to say that this is a pretty bad comment.
- anonnyj 9y ago
  Where is your argument? Perhaps you should rethink your beliefs if you can't actually counter the post.
- zo1 9y ago
  How about you instead engage with that individual if you disagree? I don't find his comment unwelcoming to discussion. Now, whether he is correct or wrong is entirely separate, but from my point of view all I'm seeing is discussion being shutdown in the name of feelings and prevailing opinion.
  - Audible_logic 9y ago
    "It should be noted - this definition as genocide as destruction of a culture (instead of physical murder of a people) also supports the idea of "white genocide": A targeted effort by people with power to liquidate white peoples' group identity ("abolish whiteness") and to marginalize and obscure their traditional cultural touchstones ("don't teach books by dead white men" and related efforts to avoid teaching Shakespeare, the Bible, old white philosophers, etc), efforts to bring in many immigrants to make whites minorities in areas where they were previously a majority (and gleeful anticipation of this outcome), etc." In his defense, it's difficult to want to waste time debating with this line of reasoning. There are some huge unfounded assumptions being made right here in a well thought out way. A nugget of possible truth, mixed with a lot of personal opinion. With that said, doesnt seem like it would lead to a productive conversation. I'm not sure why the need to insert white males into the equation. That argument is based on you believing there is a secret organized attack against white men going on. I think thats open to interpretation depending on who you are. If anything, I, as a minority, see a balancing of power. Im also aware that whitw males still dominate the economical and political spectrum, so its even harder to agree with this logic. Is thus attack being perpetuated by other white males? To what gain? It seems to me that it appears as an attack on white males, when white males are no longer allowed to dominate culturally, economically, or in numbers in certain areas. They arent being excluded, others are being allowed to the table. That means more chairs need to be pulled up and you cant have the entire meal to yourself. I can't call that "cultural genocide". The role of white male in society remains much the same. This argument makes me think of the people who complain about AA hires, while ignoring the fact that the company is comprised of 85% white hires.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]