Most muslim majority countries do not accuse China of genocide. The states that do make this claim are the same ones that are actively supporting an ongoing genocide against Palestinians. Who should we choose to believe?
Comment on [deleted]
DeckPacker@piefed.social 1 month agoWell, China also is actively committing a genocide against their Muslim minority and invaded Tibet
cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Of course Western governments had no hesitation in denouncing genocide in China before a single body was documented. Yet, when people protested against an actual live streamed genocide, supported by these same governments, they were met with beatdowns by police and criminalization.
Even today, they will still seriously tell you that this is a genocide:
And this isn’t:
Vandalismo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
There are 10 chinese ethnicites who are mostly sunni, and they’re alright. And so are tibetans after they ended serfdom.
merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Haven’t you heard? It was silently downgraded to a cultural genocide, because there was no actual proof of genocide. Cultural genocide is not recognized by the UN, because Western colonial powers started sweating profusely when Lemkin proposed it.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Cultural genocide is not recognized by the UN
Article II
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; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. (…) The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
Bold by me.
merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
You need to improve your reading skill, because nowhere in the link or your quoted text does it talk about cultural genocide because it has been rejected from the start
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
From your first link:
Among many other potential reasons, cultural genocide may be committed for religious motives (e.g., iconoclasm which is based on aniconism); as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing
This is covered by “intent to destroy (…) ethnical (…) group”.
From your second link:
The final prohibited act is the only prohibited act that does not lead to physical or biological destruction, but rather to the destruction of the group as a cultural and social unit
There will always be political legalese in play, when imperialist powers want to commit genocide, and so they’ll cling to the fact that “cultural genocide” is not specifically mentioned. But, in the case of Uyghurs, it’s a very clear-cut case of both ethnic cleansing and physical genocide (through forced sterilisation and displacement of children).
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This article would therefore define ANY war as genocide. (in whole or in part, killing members of the group, and it may even be a “peaceful situation”).
This would mean the Nazis were genocided by the Allies.
This would mean Japan’s treatment of Aum Shinrikyo was also a genocide
and on and on and on
In other words, it’s shit.
This is why no one takes them seriously.
I don’t even like China, but look at this tripe, come on
antisoumerde@quokk.au 1 month ago
tbf dresden was a totally unnecessary bloodbath as so were hiroshima and nagasaki
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
This article would therefore define ANY war as genocide. (in whole or in part, killing members of the group), and it may even be a “peaceful situation”!
People always focus on the wrong part of the definition.
The important one is the intent.
Wars are waged for various reasons - you need “lebensraum”, you need oil, you intervene on behalf of the UN, you counterattack after being attacked yourself, etc.
The goals in these cases are: expansion of borders, hoarding of wealth, arguably humanitarian intervention, or military defence.
If your goal is to eliminate a people, that’s genocide.
And yes, that’s also the reason why it’s so difficult to actually define a military action as “genocide” - because it’s often almost impossible to unequivocally determine what was the intent behind an attack.
And with that, let’s look at your examples:
This would mean the Nazis were genocided by the Allies.
No, because the goal was the stopping of the genocide of Jews, and defeating an aggressor that terrorised Europe and North Africa for four years.
This would mean Japan’s treatment of Aum Shinrikyo was also a genocide
No, because the death sentences were carried out not because of their religious beliefs, but because they committed acts of terror.
This is why no one takes them seriously
No. No one takes them seriously because most people, like you, don’t understand the definition.
antisoumerde@quokk.au 1 month ago
According to the pedophiles who invaded Iran, China is really evil 🤣
anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Source?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
If you don’t trust Wiki, you can check any of the ~400 sources linked in the article
merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
The wiki you linked redirects “Uyghur genocide” (which all the people search for due to heavy propaganda) to “Persercution of Uyghurs”. The name of the article was changed, because there is not enough scholarly consensus to define it a genocide. It’s literally in the summary section
anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Damn, your own source(s) conflict and never come to consensus on the matter of genocide. Rough.
Even further, the ICC managed to come to a consensus on the Gaza genocide despite accusations of antisemitism and enormous pushback and sanctions from the US and Israel, but even with the influence peddling from racist and colonialist nations like the US and UK, and testimonies from Uyghurs who left Xinjiang, there’s still never been a consensus that Uyghurs in China were victims of genocide. Extra rough.