462
Forest of trees
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
462 points (93.1% liked)
Memes
45915 readers
1126 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, you are aware that genocide doesn't have to involve mass-killing of a population, right? Causing them serious bodily or mental harm with the goal of destroying that separate culture, i.e. in reeducation camps can still fulfill that definition.
Has there ever been a genocide in history where no one was killed?
Honestly, if we're going to use such standards and definitions that a "nonviolent genocide" is possible, then I'm not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide? How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) "nonviolent genocide" of Imperial Japanese culture?
Or perhaps a better example: After 9/11, there was a wave of hate crimes against Muslims, the US extrajudicially detained people (primarily Muslim) without trial and subjected them to numerous human rights abuses, and there were many people talking about how, "Islam is a religion of violence," and about "Turning the desert to glass," and the country started two wars with Muslim countries in which about a million people were killed. Did that constitute a genocide? Why or why not?
Come on, you can do better than that.
People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.
That's a slightly better point. The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture. The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing, even if it is struggling like many other religions are.
Is it? Genocide doesn't necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we're allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I'm not sure it's obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don't meet your definition.
"Forced," but not through killing.
There's often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn't it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?
It's absurd. What a coincidence that the first "nonviolent genocide" in history happens to come from the US's chief geopolitical rival. It's a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.
No, they did not. The emperor's divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.
I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, ...? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.
Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn't genocide. Which should answer the other "questions" you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren't any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn't a problem there.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. They didn't have the option? They didn't do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn't the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?
Are there explicit actions/sanctions against Uighurs practicing Islam, or other aspects of their culture?
I'm saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don't consider the emperor divine.
What an interesting perspective. So what you're saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn't be genocide.
So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything? Great, then thats not genocide.
The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say "I am not divine". Let's say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words. Yes that would shatter the faith of a lot of people and how they deal with that is pretty much no-ones business. And it wouldn't be genocide if they all turned away from their faith after that.
Well, that depends on your interpretation. If you were a Shintoist who did consider the emperor's divinity to be a central tenant, then no, from that perspective, your culture has been eradicated and the current form is a deviation. You're playing fast and loose here with your standards, in any religion, there are various sects which consider themselves to be the true, correct interpretation, and certain others to be false. You yourself thought Shintoists would have to ignore the emperor's renunciation to continue practicing their beliefs. There were Japanese people who saw it that way. And I'm not sure about this but I'm pretty sure you couldn't go around postwar Japan proclaiming the imperialist interpretation of Shinto with the implication of returning to the imperialistic ways, in the same way you couldn't go around waving swastikas in postwar Germany.
Well, that's interesting, because surely the intent in that case would be to get people to stop practicing Islam. I thought intent was the crucial defining aspect that made mass incarceration not genocide when the US does it but be genocide when China does it.
These standards seem completely incoherent to me. It seems like you're just adopting whatever stance allows you to thread the needle to include the things you want to include and exclude the things you want to exclude.
(Btw, small correction here, but I don't think Muslims consider Mohammad to be personally divine.)
Oh, you mean like what the Ukrainian coup government was doing to the people in the east (Donbas) for years before Russia even entered the conflict? Yes, there is a strong argument to be made that genocide is the term we should use with regard to what Ukraine was attempting to do to the Russian-speaking population in their country.
You know what, I'm going to refer you to your fellow .ml comrade and you can discuss whether this is or is not genocide. If what happenend in Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide. But if what is happening to the Uygurs can't be genocide, then what has been happening in Ukraine also can't be genocide. Please keep me updated on any results you two produce :)
https://lemmy.ml/comment/15069887
Except in Ukraine people did die and their heritage and language were being actively suppressed, etc. We know this because it is documented all over, even in pictures on the net. These specific things are readily confirmable. It was even a large impetus for a broader war, as hopefully you're aware. There is zero question that Ukrainian nazis were shelling Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas and that Ukraine as a state was passing laws detrimental to Russian speakers.
In Xinjiang, no such evidence exists because nothing of the sort happened. It's based on a lie dreamed up by one Christian fundamentalist Adrian Zenz. Every source on this "genocide" traces back to him, and none of the claims are confirmable. Even to the UN! In fact you, yes, even you if you have the means to travel, can go there today and see for yourself that the Uyghur population is thriving and they will laugh if you tell them they're being genocided. I'll leave the academic discussion for exactly where to draw the line for the definition of the term genocide to others for now. But based on how you were defining it, Ukraine was committing genocide, but no, China was doing quite the opposite by encouraging ethnic diversity. Again, go see for yourself like this person did: Oh yeah, just look at all that genociding going on!
You may call me crazy but this doesnt sound like it all traces back to just one guy
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
Also, yes I am aware of the reasons putin brought forward to start an attack on ukraine with the goal of erasing that country from the landmap. Go ahead and tell me he wouldn't pass laws "detrimental" to the people of Ukraine if he succeeds with his invasion.
That's because you didn't click the links on the article to see where the claims come from. That article cites Adrian Zenz, they just wized up enough to leave his name buried in the links. But you're right that not every claim traces back to him, to be fair, we also have, uh, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, the UK parliament, and some random Australian think tank.
The UN doesn't claim China is committing genocide, even in a report that in no way paints China in a good light. The delegation from 14 Muslim-majority countries that visited Xinjiang didn't think there was a genocide, either.
The only countries claiming there's a genocide, and that they're so concerned about the treatment of Muslims in China, are the ones who spent the last 20 years slaughtering millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What the hell are you talking about? Ukraine was launching artillery shells at civilian targers in Eastern Ukraine. How is that nonviolent?
How is incarcerating a significant portion of an ethnic group non-violent?
Good question! Do you consider the disproportionate mass incarceration of African Americans a genocide?
While there are many systemic issues that result in the disproportionate mass incarceration of African Americans, one needs to recognize this isn't done to eradicate them. The US needs and uses them to make the poor fight each other rather than unite and fight the rich.
One also needs to recognize that the US does not incarerate them just for being black. They have created a system that forces poor people into criminality and that also makes african americans disproportionally poor. It's deeply racist but there are still differences.
But I'm glad you agree it's a violent thing to do.
Ah, but we know that the incarceration of Uighurs is done to eradicate them, because, uhh... how exactly?
Because thats what reeducation camps are for. To erase the original culture. Doesn't work as well with skin color.
On what basis have you concluded that? Is it not possible that the intent of the camps is to give people education so that they can become more productive members of society and thereby be less prone towards violent extremism? You're just asserting their purpose with nothing to back it up.
If you get a DUI and the state orders you to take an alcohol class, is that re-education meant to eradicate your culture?
If you do a bunch of petty thefts and the state orders you to participate in a re-entry plan that includes job training, is that re-education meant to eradicate your culture?
Historically, this is completely untrue. The post-Reconstruction U.S. famously had all sorts of laws designed to lock up black people for being black, as well as officially tolerated (with public officials often taking part) terror killings of black people just for being black. Even after Jim Crow, the War on Drugs was was explicitly designed to disproportionately lock up black people:
Even if you argue that today this intent has been largely wrung out of the system (which is not a given, and does not address the remaining disproportionate effects of the War on Drugs), there's still the question of when exactly the U.S. stopped doing what you're calling genocide and started doing non-genocidal mass incarceration.