4 ms·

Genocide as defined in international law is very broad, it also includes cases where 0 people are killed: - displacing a group in a wider region to try and dil

by afiori 2y ago

Genocide as defined in international law is very broad, it also includes cases where 0 people are killed: - displacing a group in a wider region to try and dilute the ethnicity/culture is genocide - trying to increase infertility in a group can be genocide - forcing children from a group to attend schooling of another culture can be genocide Any action or set of actions that causes going from condition "this cultural/ethnic/national group exists in some state" to condition "the same group is has suffered irreparable damage" can be genocide if done with that objective. For example when Canada was sending Native American children to boarding school it was clearly a genocidal act, the only uncertainty would be around the intentions: 1) if the Canadian government was trying to improve the standard of education and literacy then it wasn't a genocide 2) if they were trying to bring some good old Christianity to new continent pagans then it was genocide. In general forced boarding school of a minority definitely would sound like genocide. You can guess how starving a country while bombing it to scraps scores on this scale

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Jensson 2y ago
So we watered down the term, gotcha, now we know declaring things a genocide doesn't mean anything any longer. The boy who cried wolf and all that.
- tdeck 2y ago
  Raphael Lemkin, the person who invented the term Genocide, also helped craft its definition in international law. The Rome Convention was based on his proposals, so the idea that his own definition of the term that he created "waters it down" is simply ignorant.
- afiori 2y ago
  We correctly expected future governments to occasionally want to get rid of undesirable ethic groups and created a definition that would leave them a few loopholes as possible. If genocide was "kill more than half of a population" or "kill more than 100k people" it would be easy to erase minorities simply by forced sterilization. The Genocide convention was not created to stop people from dying it was created to stop entire populations from dying out.

by afiori 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Jensson 2y ago

So we watered down the term, gotcha, now we know declaring things a genocide doesn't mean anything any longer. The boy who cried wolf and all that.

tdeck 2y ago
Raphael Lemkin, the person who invented the term Genocide, also helped craft its definition in international law. The Rome Convention was based on his proposals, so the idea that his own definition of the term that he created "waters it down" is simply ignorant.
afiori 2y ago
We correctly expected future governments to occasionally want to get rid of undesirable ethic groups and created a definition that would leave them a few loopholes as possible. If genocide was "kill more than half of a population" or "kill more than 100k people" it would be easy to erase minorities simply by forced sterilization. The Genocide convention was not created to stop people from dying it was created to stop entire populations from dying out.