Thoughts on the “genocide can be committed without killing anyone” line of thinking? I think hypothetically this is possible if you magically delete the balls and wombs of a whole people in an instant but in practice it just sounds absurd.
Well yes. But this and the extermination of buffaloes as the other user pointed out were supplemental to a wide gamut atrocities one of which was straight up cold blooded murder of the indigenous people.
The reason I ask in this context is that famously there is not one confirmed dead person in this purported Uyghur genocide. All we have are extremely dubious “missing” people from the West-run Uyghur Victim Database which was found to have some AI generated pictures in it.
So yes theoretically I acknowledge that you could kill a people without killing individuals directly. But reality is different. There are certain factors like resistance effort from victims of genocide leading to deaths and often the callous barbarity of the genociders that make such a “clean” genocide with no spilt blood impossible.
Oh absolutely, any forced sterilisation comes after massacres, it never just happens in a vacuum. Nothing about genocides happen in vacuum, except in Xinjiang, where Xi just randomly woke up one morning and felt like doing a genocide for no reason or benefit, but wanted it to be an invisible genocide, undetectable to all but the whitest of white supremacists (the people well know for opposing genocide)
It’s tricky, because there are definitely ways to erase a culture/civilization without mass killing. Combinations of displacement, the sterilization and resource disruption others mentioned, cultural suppression. Although obviously there’s a lot of gray area, especially with the cultural suppression aspect.
However, there’s a difference between the sort of exacting, navel gazing definition we can come up with, and what the immediate reaction/assumption of the average person is when they hear, there’s a genocide going on over there. Which is to say, they think of the Shoah, genocide means concentration camps with gas chambers. So there’s a problem where, coming up with a broader definition on paper won’t change the reality that it will misrepresent what’s going on to the public.
I think what we’ve done around the world with depleted uranium and agent orange probably qualifies at least as an act of genocide. Literally fucking with people’s genes, geno-cide
I was actually thinking about this yesterday. The suffering that Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have gone through for trying to decide their own destinies is heartbreaking. And they continue to quietly persevere past that.
To our lemmygrad comrades for the quality dunking on this lib
Thoughts on the “genocide can be committed without killing anyone” line of thinking? I think hypothetically this is possible if you magically delete the balls and wombs of a whole people in an instant but in practice it just sounds absurd.
Forced sterilization is a form of genocide as well, and not an uncommon one, I believed it happened a lot to native Americans in residential schools.
Well yes. But this and the extermination of buffaloes as the other user pointed out were supplemental to a wide gamut atrocities one of which was straight up cold blooded murder of the indigenous people.
The reason I ask in this context is that famously there is not one confirmed dead person in this purported Uyghur genocide. All we have are extremely dubious “missing” people from the West-run Uyghur Victim Database which was found to have some AI generated pictures in it.
So yes theoretically I acknowledge that you could kill a people without killing individuals directly. But reality is different. There are certain factors like resistance effort from victims of genocide leading to deaths and often the callous barbarity of the genociders that make such a “clean” genocide with no spilt blood impossible.
Oh absolutely, any forced sterilisation comes after massacres, it never just happens in a vacuum. Nothing about genocides happen in vacuum, except in Xinjiang, where Xi just randomly woke up one morning and felt like doing a genocide for no reason or benefit, but wanted it to be an invisible genocide, undetectable to all but the whitest of white supremacists (the people well know for opposing genocide)
It’s tricky, because there are definitely ways to erase a culture/civilization without mass killing. Combinations of displacement, the sterilization and resource disruption others mentioned, cultural suppression. Although obviously there’s a lot of gray area, especially with the cultural suppression aspect.
However, there’s a difference between the sort of exacting, navel gazing definition we can come up with, and what the immediate reaction/assumption of the average person is when they hear, there’s a genocide going on over there. Which is to say, they think of the Shoah, genocide means concentration camps with gas chambers. So there’s a problem where, coming up with a broader definition on paper won’t change the reality that it will misrepresent what’s going on to the public.
https://thenewinquiry.com/blog/buffalo-skulls/
Please see https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/3896202
I think what we’ve done around the world with depleted uranium and agent orange probably qualifies at least as an act of genocide. Literally fucking with people’s genes, geno-cide
I was actually thinking about this yesterday. The suffering that Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have gone through for trying to decide their own destinies is heartbreaking. And they continue to quietly persevere past that.