5 ms·
Ideologically there is no difference to previous uses of the term. Historically it refers to concentration camps of the second Boer War where over 150,000 peopl
by snackbugs 8y ago
Ideologically there is no difference to previous uses of the term. Historically it refers to concentration camps of the second Boer War where over 150,000 people died in camps which concentrated specific settler populations in a manner that made the thinning of their population a foregone conclusion.
If it evokes the use of the concept you dislike, rethink your moral stance on it. Not the phrasing of the concept.
- kazinator 8y agoIt doesn't evoke; it denotes. Like "rain" refers to "water falling from the sky". Not a moral stance whatsoever. The word for non-murderous concentration camps is "internment".
- snackbugs 8y agoNot only is that historically incorrect, but it's also a confession of a tolerance for detaining a specific population on ideological, non-criminal pretenses. "It's different when we do it."
- kazinator 8y agoIs that so? So by this amazing reasoning, we should refer to both types of camps using the same term. Since the correct term is evidently "extermination camps" (see surrounding thread), that's what they should be called. "Historically incorrect" is just a way of saying "presently correct". For instance "sensibility" is not a historically correct way of referring to a rational disposition. Historically, it meant what we today call "sensitivity". Fuck historically correct; I live today, not in history.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]