4 ms·

The UN defines genocide as: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on

The UN defines genocide as: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Killing members of a group is not necessary for something to be genocide. I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word, but I don't think your objection holds up to scrutiny. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition...

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
You left out a critical part of the definition of genocide: those actions have to be carried out with the intent to physically annihilate the group. That's why, for example, birth control policies are only genocide if they're intended to completely physically annihilate the group. China's 1-child policy severely restricted the growth of the Han population, but it wasn't genocide, because there was no intent to physically annihilate the Han. The 3-child policy that the Uyghurs and the Han are now equally subject to is not genocide: there's no intent to physically annihilate the Uyghurs, and indeed the Uyghur population continues to grow. > I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word The legal definition is essentially the same to the colloquial usage of the term. The problem is that people pushing the "Uyghur genocide" narrative almost always leave out the physical annihilation requirement, which is right at the beginning of the official definition (which you linked). I have to say, though, that it's a slick rhetorical trick: 1. Allege "genocide," which everyone understands as mass murder of an ethnic group. 2. When someone points out there's no mass murder, claim (incorrectly) that the technical definition of "genocide" is completely different from how the public understands the term. Even if it were true that the technical definition of genocide were completely different from the colloquial definition (it isn't), this would still be a dishonest rhetorical move.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

You left out a critical part of the definition of genocide: those actions have to be carried out with the intent to physically annihilate the group. That's why, for example, birth control policies are only genocide if they're intended to completely physically annihilate the group. China's 1-child policy severely restricted the growth of the Han population, but it wasn't genocide, because there was no intent to physically annihilate the Han. The 3-child policy that the Uyghurs and the Han are now equally subject to is not genocide: there's no intent to physically annihilate the Uyghurs, and indeed the Uyghur population continues to grow. > I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word The legal definition is essentially the same to the colloquial usage of the term. The problem is that people pushing the "Uyghur genocide" narrative almost always leave out the physical annihilation requirement, which is right at the beginning of the official definition (which you linked). I have to say, though, that it's a slick rhetorical trick: 1. Allege "genocide," which everyone understands as mass murder of an ethnic group. 2. When someone points out there's no mass murder, claim (incorrectly) that the technical definition of "genocide" is completely different from how the public understands the term. Even if it were true that the technical definition of genocide were completely different from the colloquial definition (it isn't), this would still be a dishonest rhetorical move.