Under the formal international law definition of genocide no, this sort of thing doesn’t quite fit. A lot of people have taken to identifying something that seeks to destroy a culture, without actually mass killing its people, to be a form of genocide. Sometimes called “cultural genocide.” But the international treaties on genocide, at least the ones that have sign off from all the "big powers’ were mostly written in response to atrocities of WW2, and were more concerned with mass extermination of people. But the UN doesn’t necessarily have sole right to define terminology. I would say that the situation described fits a definition of genocide that isn’t particularly unusual, but isn’t 100% as accepted as a genocide as say, the Holocaust or Japanese atrocities in Manchuria. I would say much beyond that would be better in a full dedicated thread.
I saw this coming back in March.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Canadian Indian residential school system is all about number 5 on that list and is unquestionably genocide, and the residential schools are only one aspect of the genocide that occurred.
Here’s a pretty good summary from Canadian law professor Fannie Lafontaine…
FWIW it isn’t that straight forward legally but I don’t desire to delve into it further here. I don’t care enough about this topic to create a thread for it, but would probably post in such a thread if one were created.
It’s exactly that straightforward. Peace. See you later.
You aren’t educated on the matter if you believe that.
You suck at not delving further.
Well, this is why you are a lying, bigoted asshole. Calling me a Holocaust denier. Fuckhead.
You know or should know* that my Euro relatives were rounded up in 1939 by the Arrow Cross Nazi part, and sent to the Dachau concentration camp. (Dachau concentration camp - Wikipedia)
It takes some true asshole racist behavior to call me a Holocaust denier.
And this is why I think you are totally wrong for comparing the Canada situation with the real Holocaust. The two are truly, totally not comparable.
Does that mean that what happened in Canada isn’t horrible? No, of course it is horrible. Perhaps the Canadian government meant well (or perhaps not) but the end result was truly horrific. But it does not in any way shape or form compare to the real Holocaust, and trying to make that comparison is a form of Holocaust denial. It minimizes the real Holocaust.
Because of my close relation to the Holocaust itself, yes, I am not fond of throwing around the term “genocide” to include a whole range of horrible behavior. Radical Vegans have called killing animals for food = “genocide”. Do we have to agree with them, too?
So, yeah, the Canadian debacle was a horrible, really bad thing, but I do not want to include in the same same league as the Holocaust. You blithely calling anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest a “denier” is really fucked up, especially calling me that with my family history . Save it for the fucking Nazis who actually deny the real Holocaust happened. Not people who (while they totally agree it was bad) just happen to have a reasonable disagreement over whether or not the Canada situation really was or was not a “genocide”. We can all agree it was horrible without having to all agree it was technically a genocide. The Holocaust was a genocide. This? Maybe, maybe not.
*(you gave me a very hard time twice for not knowing you lived in South Africa, pointing out it was my responsibility for knowing that)
I’m not delving, I’m calling you uneducated.
Oh fuck off, mate. He didn’t say capital ‘H’ Holocaust denier; he said genocide denier, with the context clearly understood. I’m actually starting to think that you are a skillful concern troll.
Debatable, I reckon lol
You’ve demonstrated an inability to understand straightforward definitions so I’ll take your opinion on my level of education with a grain of salt.
I created a new thread in the Pit here.
He also used that term in the ATMB thread. “They almost all died from disease” kind of Holocaust denial."
He clearly compared the issue with Canada with the Holocaust and called anyone who disagreed with him "deniers’.
No one uses the term “denier” to talk about what happened to the North American Indians, that term is used in this context pretty much explicitly with Holocaust denier.
And there is a reason for that- reasonable people can debate whether or not what happened to the Indians in the USA is “genocide” or not without being a 'denier". We all know it happened, but “organized”? Damn, it was anything but organized. Was it genocide? Good debate question, but one where the “con” side are not “deniers”. So yeah, he used the term “denier” over and over to associate it with Holocaust denier, and you have to be really clueless to not realize that, especially as he specifically did use that term a few times.
Not to mention, no one is “denying” that the incident in Canada happened. He is just using that term to tar everyone who disagrees with him.
Why not Great Debates? Now, instead of a reasoned debate, you are gonna get name calling.
My original intention was to put it in Great Debates, and they can still move it if anyone wants. But the chance of the thread not going off the rails was so incredibly low because it’s a hot button issue, and the bulk of it would end up in this thread, I thought I’d start it where it would likely end up.
I have maintained for some time that he is an intentional asshole. That’s why he is one of only two people on my ignore list. He participates on the SDMB to shitpost and go after people and rile them up. I’d call him a straight-up troll, except he’s not consistent enough for that to be accurate.
I had a whole long post written in reply to the rest of your post and was about to hit “post” when I saw the link to the new thread Heffalump_and_Roo started. So I put it there instead.
You wanna trade credentials? My father’s side of the family lost 40 people in those camps. (My mother’s side was in Russia, and we just never found out what happened to most of them.)
And neither your family history nor mine has anything to do with what’s legitimate to say about other genocides.
Nobody’s calling you a Holocaust denier. We’re calling you a genocide denier. Which you are.
It does not.
If you chop it into that little bit and ignore the rest of what’s happened to the pre-Columbian population of the Americas over 400 years, of course it isn’t. If you consider it as part of the whole, then the whole is arguably worse. We have no idea how many people were deliberately killed; we know that entire cultures disappeared. Some of it was disease not intentionally spread; but a hell of a lot of it wasn’t.
Look: denying that anything else was a genocide does not make Jews safer. It endangers us even worse. Because yet again the problem is the overall attitude that there’s only One Right Way to be human and anybody who can’t or won’t get with the program must be gotten out of the way of it, by any means whatsoever. Allowing that behavior to be committed against anybody without calling it by its name increases our chances of having it used against us again. This isn’t a contest of who’s-had-it-worst. It’s a desparate defense effort that needs to be fought on all fronts, not just one.
Well past time that we started, then.
Yeah the natives fail your paper bag test.