kaylasdad99 adds another data point to the chart labeled “Evidence That kaylasdad99 is Sharing the Planet With People Who Are Wrong”
Note, I said here that there is reasonable debate to be had.
Here’s the definition of genocide in the dictionary:
“The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”
Which is literally what the Holocaust was. You’re basically saying that the genocide of millions of Jews isn’t genocide.
No, no, he’s explicitly saying as long as you don’t kill all the Jews, eliminating Jewishness* from the planet isn’t genocide . . . for, reasons.
Hitler’s intent wasn’t genocide, his means were.
*By, say, kidnapping every Jewish child and stripping away everything that makes them ‘Jewish’, IE forcing them to no longer be Jewish.
Fuck, no. If someone went and killed all, what, 200, Sentinelese, that would be still be genocide.
If they just rounded them all up, took them to the mainland and made them wear Indian clothes and speak only Hindi, that would also still be genocide.
Did not do that. Now who’s the lying asshole?
The question is, do I care? The suffering of a previous generation of your ancestry doesn’t excuse your current genocide denial.
And I’m just shocked, SHOCKED that it wasn’t your Dad who was in a camp… 
No, it does not.
I give this many fucks for what you’re fond of :
…
Genocide is genocide. Trying to use a bunch of kooks with an idiosyncratic usage doesn’t change that.
And this?
Fuck off, you absolute WASTE of a human being.
No, I compared one kind of Holocaust denial with the kind of genocide denial being perpetrated on this Board. Not that I expect a fuckwit like you to comprehend the difference.
Generally, people aren’t stupid enough to deny what happened to them is genocide, so it doesn’t come up… But you certainly rose to the challenge.
No, they can’t. It was genocide, and only a fuckwit would say different.
Bullshit. There’s a whole school of Holocaust denial that admits death happened.
That article doesn’t say a thing about Canada. It’s completely dishonest to imply that it do.
It does, however, include the five things explicitly spelled out as genocide by the UN which include, “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” This is exactly what Canada did with its residential school system.
The article does point out that there is some argument as to which events are genocide and which aren’t. But there is nothing to debate when it come to Canada’s residential schools. That is as clear cut an example of genocide as there is.
The death wasn’t organized, but the attempted destruction of their culture was organized. Because cultures aren’t people, I agree that we shouldn’t lump them into one term: that just gives people leeway to jump between the two whenever it suits them in the middle of a conversation.
Then there’s this from 2018 discussing why “cultural genocide” isn’t in the Genocide Convention.
The discussion held by the Sixth Committee on 25 October 1948 reveals the chasm between supporters and objectors to the inclusion of cultural genocide in the Convention.[89] The former believed that a group can be destroyed by destroying its cultural foundations,[90] or that cultural genocide is always a part of physical genocide and at times its precursor, and that, therefore, excluding cultural genocide can thwart efforts to prevent physical genocide.[91] The Pakistani delegate also expressed an even more fundamental view; not only were physical and cultural genocide intrinsically linked, but cultural genocide was the aim, whereas physical genocide was the means.[92] The objectors, on the other hand, thought that the right place for cultural genocide was in instruments that protected minorities, such as the protection of freedom of expression in national constitutions and civil codes or by the protection afforded to language, religion and culture under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[93]
Although the arguments in the debate revolved around legal considerations, the subtext of the discussion reveals that the real fear was expressed by states with minorities or by colonial powers that feared international interference in what they saw as internal matters.[94] They were worried that the Genocide Convention would bring in the backdoor the discarded minorities’ protection regime and that it would create an international review power on the manner in which states treat their minorities.[95] This is apparent in the concerns expressed by states with national minorities or indigenous peoples that their assimilationist policies would be regarded as ‘cultural genocide’.[96] Ultimately, the emphasis on the group’s protection at the centre of cultural genocide ran against the current of protecting the rights of the individual in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the IMT’s judgment, which prioritized crimes against humanity over genocide.[97]
The final definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention abandoned the division into techniques or types of genocide and opted instead for a list of five prohibitions, including the one of ‘[f]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group’ (Article 2, paragraph e), which is regarded by experts as the only remnant of cultural genocide.[98] This concession, Ana Vrdoljak argues, undermines the insight that the destruction of collective identity is the fundamental driving force of genocidal activities aimed at destroying the group as such.[99]
I would include the numbered references but at least one is quite long and could result in this quote failing fair use.
Not relevant.
What Canada did to the first nations people is straight up genocide.
Hey, I’m on your side. The above quote is from the reference for “Cultural genocide or cultural cleansing is a concept which was distinguished by lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 as a component of genocide.”
Thank you so much for your opinion that the topic is not worth your opinion.
It has made everyone aware that your opinion is not worth the effort of sharing it.
Much like this post of yours made me aware that you were exposed to lots of lead paint as a child.
This seems like a well researched post, so well done, @Martin_Hyde .
I choose to believe this is true, because it’s too awesome not to be.
Believe that I was told this? 100%, by some scruffy dude who sat down next to me during my 20 minute break at the bakery I worked at in 1993. She left him on the railroad tracks, and if Bruce Springsteen had not come along right then, he would have died. He owed his life to Bruce.
Believe that it actually happened? Your guess is as good as mine.
I want to live in a universe where Debbie Gibson sometimes beats the absolute shit out of people over some trivial slight, or perhaps $200 in gambling debts. In my universe, she prefers to stomp the bejeezus out of any number of luckless mooks behind really seedy bars, once with names like “The Brass Horse” where you can’t really tell if it’s a country bar, rock bar, or a weird mix of both. And she’s wearing one of those Debbie Gibson hats, except when you’re close enough to her, as she’s putting one bone-crunching right cross after another into your blood-pulped face, just before your eyes are too swollen shut to see, you notice she’s got little “:I killed a guy” teardrops sewn into the brim.
After she gives the mark one last kick in the kidneys before walking away, she spits out “you took a… FOOLISH BEAT, bitch!” and walks away whistling. Foolish Beat, of course.
Just as the darkness behinds to take hold, you hear another voice. Whistling “Born to Run.”
This is the reality I choose to exist in.
No, just the opposite. Read again. I am saying that IS Genocide, while CULTURAL Genocide is a controversial term. “Cultural genocide” means e.g trying to stop a people from speaking their native Language and insisting they use the common language only. Not otherwise killing, harming, imprisoning, or taking any physical steps agains them. Cultural not Physical.
Oh-Is that all that happened?