Comment on Lemmy.jpeg
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 days agoCultural 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.
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
tbf dresden was a totally unnecessary bloodbath as so were hiroshima and nagasaki
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.
merdaverse@lemmy.zip 2 days 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 2 days ago
From your first link:
This is covered by “intent to destroy (…) ethnical (…) group”.
From your second link:
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).
merdaverse@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Here is the human rights report from the United Nations on Xinjiang. It talks of human rights abuses (which there are), but it doesn’t use the word genocide, because it doesn’t meet any definition of genocide, especially not the ones recognized by the UN.
The Western move to label it genocide before any actual proof is just atrocity propaganda to divert people’s attention towards China, rather than the West’s own crimes against humanity.
starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Funny that you say that, since the report literally uses those exact words to describe what China is doing to the uyghurs, but yes you are correct it doesn’t say it’s a genocide.
antisoumerde@quokk.au 2 days ago
Well nobody heard you when the nordics did it to the samis do we?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I’m sorry, could you re-write that? I’m having trouble understanding what you meant.