3 ms·

I can't be the only one disturbed by the fact we are using the word "genocide" for something that does not include Mass killings. I know that legally it is val

by Iv 6y ago

I can't be the only one disturbed by the fact we are using the word "genocide" for something that does not include Mass killings. I know that legally it is valid and that the actions it describes are still despicable, but there is an important distinction between mass internment and mass killing.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
s5300 6y ago
While there may be some slight semantics if you're simply googling "definition of genocide" It's very much been hashed out already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions As far as the most civil nations/governments of our world are concerned, what China is doing to Uyghers very much falls under the established conditions for being denoted as genocide.
- bingbong70 6y ago
  >As far as the most civil nations/governments of our world are concerned. Most of the world doesn't agree with these so called "civil nations" that have murdered more innocent Muslim civilians than anyone else over the last 2 decades. Also notice what's going on in Palestine isn't called genocide because its not convenient for these "civil nations", even though what Israel is doing is more genocidal and violent than anything that has happened in Western China to Uighurs. Reeks of double standards being set by western nations to suppress China's economy. At this point, any manufactured excuse will get adopted and mainstreamed.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I can't be the only one disturbed by the fact we are using the word "genocide" for something that does not include Mass killings. Mass killings is mass homicide. Genocide is destruction of an ethnic/racial/cultural group by any means; the thing being killed isn't people, it's the a people as an entity (gens, from which the first part of genocide is derived, is the latin for “tribe”.) They are essentially orthogonal concepts, though genocide historically frequently includes mass homicide. > I know that legally it is valid and that the actions it describes are still despicable, but there is an important distinction between mass internment and mass killing Yes, murder and extermination are crimes against humanity distinct from, frequently accompanying, and in addition to genocide. So the distinction you are looking for exists and is made quite clearly; there is no need to narrow the concept of genocide to make it. See, e.g., https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml And: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-huma...
- Iv 6y ago
  Problem is, we have put genocide on such a high level of seriousness that denying it or even calling for it can get you banned in several places, because for most people it means "ethnic cleansing with mass killings" There are some cultural group I want to see disappear. Like white supremacism or US southern slaver culture. I will even support governmental efforts to press on them as long as it does not involve violence. My problem if that this definition of genocide is so broad that it includes a lot of process I see as natural evolution of a culture. Hell, under that definition, Algerian independence could be presented as a genocide against Pied-Noir! [1] I know very well the legal definitions of genocide, but using that word to frame a moral debate is a dishonest manipulation in my opinion. What China is doing is akin to the Cultural Revolution and I suspect that the reason we use "genocide" for something so remote from the officially recognized genocides is because we (as a society, I am sure there are political scientists who have done the work) have never taken the time to have the moral debate about what this policy actually is and means and why it is bad. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-Noir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-Noir

by Iv 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

s5300 6y ago

While there may be some slight semantics if you're simply googling "definition of genocide" It's very much been hashed out already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions As far as the most civil nations/governments of our world are concerned, what China is doing to Uyghers very much falls under the established conditions for being denoted as genocide.

bingbong70 6y ago
>As far as the most civil nations/governments of our world are concerned. Most of the world doesn't agree with these so called "civil nations" that have murdered more innocent Muslim civilians than anyone else over the last 2 decades. Also notice what's going on in Palestine isn't called genocide because its not convenient for these "civil nations", even though what Israel is doing is more genocidal and violent than anything that has happened in Western China to Uighurs. Reeks of double standards being set by western nations to suppress China's economy. At this point, any manufactured excuse will get adopted and mainstreamed.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I can't be the only one disturbed by the fact we are using the word "genocide" for something that does not include Mass killings. Mass killings is mass homicide. Genocide is destruction of an ethnic/racial/cultural group by any means; the thing being killed isn't people, it's the a people as an entity (gens, from which the first part of genocide is derived, is the latin for “tribe”.) They are essentially orthogonal concepts, though genocide historically frequently includes mass homicide. > I know that legally it is valid and that the actions it describes are still despicable, but there is an important distinction between mass internment and mass killing Yes, murder and extermination are crimes against humanity distinct from, frequently accompanying, and in addition to genocide. So the distinction you are looking for exists and is made quite clearly; there is no need to narrow the concept of genocide to make it. See, e.g., https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml And: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-huma...

Iv 6y ago
Problem is, we have put genocide on such a high level of seriousness that denying it or even calling for it can get you banned in several places, because for most people it means "ethnic cleansing with mass killings" There are some cultural group I want to see disappear. Like white supremacism or US southern slaver culture. I will even support governmental efforts to press on them as long as it does not involve violence. My problem if that this definition of genocide is so broad that it includes a lot of process I see as natural evolution of a culture. Hell, under that definition, Algerian independence could be presented as a genocide against Pied-Noir! [1] I know very well the legal definitions of genocide, but using that word to frame a moral debate is a dishonest manipulation in my opinion. What China is doing is akin to the Cultural Revolution and I suspect that the reason we use "genocide" for something so remote from the officially recognized genocides is because we (as a society, I am sure there are political scientists who have done the work) have never taken the time to have the moral debate about what this policy actually is and means and why it is bad. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-Noir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-Noir