3 ms·
The distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide is very unclear. In practice, "ethnic cleansing" is used by governments to avoid the responsibility to int
by t-3 1y ago
The distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide is very unclear. In practice, "ethnic cleansing" is used by governments to avoid the responsibility to intervene (under international law) that would come with a genocide.
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> ethnic cleansing
> n : the mass expulsion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> genocide
> n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: {race murder}, {racial extermination}]
- reliabilityguy 1y ago> intervene (under international law) that would come with a genocide Perhaps. Although, at this point international law more and more seems like an optional thing, that is used only when it’s convenient, and only when there is a clear path to win the case. For example, there is a clear genocide (although not via a military campaign) of Uighurs in China: declining birth rates, re-education camps, eradication of a culture and a language. Clearly done in a systemic way. However, no one dares to take a clear action here because China is too powerful.
- t-3 1y ago> ... international law more and more seems like an optional thing, that is used only when it’s convenient, and only when there is a clear path to win the case. Yeah, international law and international bodies have always been more or less a bad joke. They were developed with good intentions, but ideals never last long in the face of reality. Game theory and basic human nature necessitate conflict and tribalism when trapped at the bottom of a gravity well with limited resources. It's depressing.