How is genocide defined, with an emphasis on cultural genocide?

More posts, no evidence = lies.

Here’s the thing:

I’m sure you don’t think of yourself as a genocide enabler. Nobody thinks that they are “the baddies”.

Your ideas that you’ve expressed here though are pretty much indistinguishable from the government officials from the late 19th/early 20th centuries who also thought they were doing the right thing by taking kids away from their parents and sending them away for some tough discipline that they so obviously needed.

They also refused to listen to what the indigenous culture wanted. People with actual first hand experience have posted here, but their posts just wash on by you.

Your paternalistic, superior suggestion of “incentivising” indigenous people to leave their lands is so fucking tone-deaf to the subject matter at hand, it’s mind boggling. But you just go on, because you KNOW you’re right, and the indigenous people just need to listen to their superiors, get with the program and assimilate already. You know nothing of indigenous culture, and really don’t want to find out; you just KNOW that yours is superior, so you will be kind, and make everyone follow your path.

To reiterate: You’d fit right in with the government of the 19th century who took children from their parents “for their own good.”

Pretty sure you wont’ even read this, so I look forward to your next argle-bargle insult.

And here we go again. You claiming my views are X, where I’ve never said anything like that. I guess I’ll engage in an exercise of futility: Where have I said that taking kids away from their parents was “obviously needed”?

Again, cite this.

I mean at least here you aren’t blatantly lying. But your assumptions about my position simply still aren’t correct. You choose to view it that way, that isn’t how I put it forth. You can choose to believe that I think these things, but I don’t. There’s only one arbiter on what “I know” and “what I think”, and it’s kind of silly to believe you know better than another person what thoughts they have.

But I will say at the very least in this passage you aren’t blatantly lying about things I’ve done (such as your many, repeated, unsubstantiated lies that I deny genocide, or your earlier lie in this post that I viewed it as a necessity to remove native children from their home when I never said anything like that.)

That’s your opinion. I think you’d fit in right with the Government of Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, or even Adolf Hitler–all of these figures lied nearly constantly, and demagogued and caricatured their enemies, you are no different.

I did read it. I like that your stupid ass is acting like I started using short insults out of the blue, when it was in direct response to you being asked for proof that I denied a genocide, and continuing even up til now, to refuse to post any evidence I ever denied genocide.

All you’ve made clear with this post is you don’t like my posts, don’t like the tone of them, and have some disagreements with them. All of that is perfectly fine. But not liking something isn’t the same as that thing being a denial of genocide.

[Moderating]
Back off on the “third world hell hole” stuff. You’re getting close to the hate speech line with that.

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]

No, you resorted to using insults over a simple misunderstanding, where I thought that you were attributing to me something that a different poster said, since you responded to what that other poster said while addressing me. I’m still not sure why you chose to do that, or if it was a mistake on your part.

That caused a bit of confusion that caused you to go off on an insult laden tirade, which is what outed you as not being here for a meaningful discussion, but rather because you were looking for a fight.

But you are correct, we thought better of you, and thought that you were just minimizing the harm done, and therefore were acting to deny genocide. You have now given us information that indicates that you do not deny that there was genocide at all, you just don’t think that it went far enough.

Sorry but this is a very ignorant and insulting thing to say, minorities were targeted and a lot of the excuses included also the reasoning that the minorities had mental issues too. Suffice to say, white people had a lot of doctors looking the other way if they had to apply the same mental issue reasoning to unwilling white patients.

I’m going to make my specific point clear: 1970s era sterilization programs were not genocidal in nature. This is for a number of reasons:

  • Genocide has to be systemic and targeted with specific desire to destroy a specific group, which these were not
  • Dating back to the early 20th century and eugenicists, a lot of people (predominantly women) were sterilized in the United States for a number of reasons. These reasons include doctors determining that the woman already had too many children, or was too poor to support additional children, or the doctor determining that the woman was not a fit mother or that her children would be intellectually deficient. Until the late 1970s we didn’t crack down on this hard at all, and far too much leeway was given to individual doctors.
  • The rates of sterilization of whites has been estimated at as high as 15% at times, and for Native Americans I’ve seen estimates range from 25% to 40%. There was obvious racial disparity in how some of these decisions was made, but this is akin to racial disparities in general (for example racial disparities in policing.) Ex. the murder of George Floyd is directly attributable to racial disparities in policing, it is not genocide.

So to be clear: my only point in my post in question was to point out that sterilization programs as used were not genocidal in nature. If you agree then we have nothing to dispute, if you disagree we do. You did not say if you viewed them as genocide or not, so I am ascribing no viewpoint to you on this topic. I’m simply saying, in a thread about the definition of genocide, my post was intended to dissuade anyone from using the poster’s sterilization anecdote as evidence of genocide when that would not be accurate. Now that it has been raised in more depth I wanted to make myself very clear.

Disclaimers: Racial disparities in how doctors chose to use sterilization are monstrous and terrible. Sterilization to “shape” a population, either for economic reasons, cultural, etc are monstrous and wrong. The view of many of the doctors involved, that sterilization was a form of birth control, is monstrous and wrong. The known and documented practices of many of these doctors in denying their patients informed consent (sometimes even lying to them that the process was temporary) is monstrous and wrong.

However the term genocide has an important, specific meaning. If it is muddied to simply mean “anything bad that every happened to a non-white person” then it will be reduced absurdly and lose its meaning. This makes it much more difficult to label and confront actual genocide. Overly using a label almost always weakens the labels power, with genocide that is not an acceptable outcome.

How stupid do you think anyone here… well, no, you’ve already told us that one at frothing length repeatedly, I guess.

How deluded are you, that you think anyone buys this crap?

Even in America, only a disingenuous liar would say “career in government” when they meant “military career”. “In a government job” is not “a career in government”, dumbass. By your dumb definition, postman is a “career in government”.

Yes, the civil service is different from the military. And “a career in government” means the former, or else elected office.

Not a genocide denialist. Sure.

MrDibble’s world: Genocide is anything bad that has happened to a racial minority.

Since this would include the Obama birther conspiracy theory this means Barack Obama was the victim of genocide.

What a world we live in.

No. Just the genocidal stuff - like the things you’d rather deny as “it was the fashion at the time, everyone was doing it!”.

I guess we can mark down MrD’s answer to the thread title “How is genocide defined” with a resounding:

anything bad that has ever been done to a racial minority

I wonder his opinions on the dispossession and hate crimes committed in his own country against white landowners? Or similar in neighboring Zimbabwe.

That’s nice (not), but I was replying to your ignorance there that allows you to once again minimize what even a minority is telling you.

I’m not interested in that discussion. This thread is about the definition of genocide. I don’t really care about your worthless and incorrect opinions on whatever else it is you’re trying to talk about.

I was not involved until I noticed how dismally wrong you were there. You tried to minimize the targeting of minorities by just implying that whites with mental problems were also targeted. In reality if one was white then one was more likely to have their organs alone. You were wrong.

You’re welcome to your opinion. It is not correct.

:roll_eyes:

You need to have a cite that shows that minorities were not targeted, I have the impression that that a lack of good information did not prevent you from telling a member of a tribe that he should ignore the targeting.

Hence the point about being insulting.

“Targeted” is far too vague a term. The police target minorities in 2021 more than they do whites, but that is not genocide.

Are you completely incapable of rational thought?!

I already pointed out that that is not the reason why I pointed how insulting you where there. If someone had said that the police targeting was a genocide I would had complained about it, but as bad faith is your forte, you had to just ignore why I complained about your ignorance there. I was indeed talking about how prevalent (and I cited it too) it was to sterilize minorities back in the 70s.

Your reply to the other poster was ignorant besides being insulting.

Genocide has a specific, articulable definition. This thread is about what scenarios that definition covers and what it does not. Grounded with specificity, a rational conversation can be had.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to discuss, but it has nothing to do with the definition of genocide, but appears to be about arguing minutiae about “bad things that have happened in the past to some ethnic minorities, and the degree to which we agree or disagree on how bad they were.” To me that feels like a pretty mushy, useless fucking discussion with no merit whatsoever, which is why I very specifically said I wasn’t interested in it.