2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

[Lord Brutus]

I asked this question before and no one was bold enough to answer. " I wonder if we search the entire world, and I'm not justifying or glorifying it, if we could find even one instance where when two cultures collided that the technologically superior culture did not commit genocide?" We're basically talking about North America, Mexico and Central America, South America, Africa, India and South-East Asia.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

I'm right and you know it. Words like genocide have meanings, so use them properly and try to be intellectually honest.
Fence-sitting for neither taking anti-Chinese propaganda as fact nor spewing Chinese propaganda? That's just a stupid comment, this is not a football game.

Cool. Please describe for what purpose we need a word like genocide.

The fence-sitter post was salty. Sorry.

I asked this question before and no one was bold enough to answer. " I wonder if we search the entire world, and I'm not justifying or glorifying it, if we could find even one instance where when two cultures collided that the technologically superior culture did not commit genocide?" We're basically talking about North America, Mexico and Central America, South America, Africa, India and South-East Asia.

I don't think anyone denies that committing genocides is very human-like behaviour. The point in strongly disapproving of it is exactly because we don't want them to happen again given that human-like behaviour.

 

[Mad Vader]

Cool. Please describe for what purpose we need a word like genocide.

The dictionary is your friend because meanings are shared: "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."
Otherwise you could argue that the Chinese committed self-genocide with their one-child policy and whatnot.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

Your capacity to understand things doesn't hinge on a dictionary. Papers that deals with novel ideas for example often have to refine and redefine terms ''for the purposes of this paper x will mean y and include z, etc.'', right?

So then what would you, personally, call "the deliberate harming of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group (in whole or in part)."

Don't you think it's equally disgusting as the technical definition, and that we should normatively just call it genocide?

 

[Captured Joe]

I wonder if we search the entire world, and I'm not justifying or glorifying it, if we could find even one instance where when two cultures collided that the technologically superior culture did not commit genocide?

The aftermath of WW2

Unfortunately

They STOLE OUR ****ING BIKES!

 

[kurczak]

the Chinese committed self-genocide

Can you imagine...

 

[Sundeki]

Unfortunately, the term "genocide" can mean several different things. The assimilation of a people through semi-forceful means, even with very little death, is genocide. But so is mass extermination. What is currently going on in East Turkestan with the Uighur people is most certainly a genocide, but it is the former definition most of the time, rather than the latter. Uighur women are being forcibly married to Han Chinese men, millions are rounded up and put into camps for the purpose of "reeducation", where they are forced to partake in all manner of things than the Uighur people deem repugnant. There is a concerted effort by the state to destroy their culture and way of life. This is, by the definition, a genocide. The state is, at the barrel of a gun, culturally and genetically assimilating the Uighur people, and anyone who opposes this is thrown in a concentration camp and subject to torture. If this process continues, the Uighur people will be wiped from the Earth.

If the destruction of a people through any means isn't genocide, then the word doesn't have any meaning except to be used as a loaded rhetorical term to bludgeon people you disagree with politically.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

The dictionary is your friend because meanings are shared: "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."

that is a terrible definition of genocide. it doesn't reflect the concept well at all and doesn't even match with the international law's definition.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

Unfortunately, the term "genocide" can mean several different things. The assimilation of a people through semi-forceful means, even with very little death, is genocide. But so is mass extermination. What is currently going on in East Turkestan with the Uighur people is most certainly a genocide, but it is the former definition most of the time, rather than the latter. Uighur women are being forcibly married to Han Chinese men, millions are rounded up and put into camps for the purpose of "reeducation", where they are forced to partake in all manner of things than the Uighur people deem repugnant. There is a concerted effort by the state to destroy their culture and way of life. This is, by the definition, a genocide. The state is, at the barrel of a gun, culturally and genetically assimilating the Uighur people, and anyone who opposes this is thrown in a concentration camp and subject to torture. If this process continues, the Uighur people will be wiped from the Earth.

If the destruction of a people through any means isn't genocide, then the word doesn't have any meaning except to be used as a loaded rhetorical term to bludgeon people you disagree with politically.

Favorite Sundeki post.

 

[Mad Vader]

that is a terrible definition of genocide. it doesn't reflect the concept well at all and doesn't even match with the international law's definition.

You are right, and here's a helpful copy-paste from international law statute:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. 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.

I'd argue that this is a very broad definition (especially c+d) and many kinds of minority suppression in the world and in history can be construed as "genocide", so it may be too broad. When regular people (as opposed to lawyers and liberals) are talking about genocide, they mean a., therefore the dictionary definition.
According to this definition, the Chinese may be doing just d., although I'd like to see a comparison of Han Chinese and Uyghur birth rates to be convinced. If the Uyghur rate is significantly lower than the Chinese rate now after forced sterilizations and other measures, it's clear the Chinese are giving the d. to the Uyghurs.

But spare me (Sundeki) that "cultural genocide is genocide", or you are just using hyperbole for dramatic effect, practically genociding me (see how I can broaden it even further? it's silly).
The Chinese are definitely trying to assimilate their minorities and destroy their cultural identity, and they are doing the same in Tibet for decades. This on its own is not genocide, so please use precise words like minority suppression and such.

Edit: the text editor is now too smart and relabeled the a.-e. lines to 1.-5.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

According to this definition, the Chinese may be doing just d., although I'd like to see a comparison of Han Chinese and Uyghur birth rates to be convinced. If the Uyghur rate is significantly lower than the Chinese rate now after forced sterilizations and other measures, it's clear the Chinese are giving the d. to the Uyghurs

I gave you those in the other thread.

The result of the birth control campaign is a climate of terror around having children, as seen in interview after interview. Birth rates in the mostly Uighur regions of Hotan and Kashgar plunged by more than 60% from 2015 to 2018, the latest year available in government statistics. Across the Xinjiang region, birth rates continue to plummet, falling nearly 24% last year alone — compared to just 4.2% nationwide, statistics show.

China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization

The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

apnews.com

Lmao, what statute are you using out of curiosity?

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

"cultural genocide is genocide"

this is not a fringe opinion, there are many both in research and in law who fully support that statement.

Lmao, what statute are you using?

that's the second article of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

 

[Nega-Brutus]

Cheers!

When regular people (as opposed to lawyers and liberals)

Smh I'm being dehumanized

 

[Mad Vader]

I gave you those in the other thread.

China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization

The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

apnews.com

Lmao, what statute are you using out of curiosity?

You gave relative changes of birth rates, not absolute values. Obviously if the starting Uyghur birth rates were very high, a sharp drop would not necessarily mean they reproduce less than the Chinese now.
Your new article says the rates now are about the same, so maybe the Chinese are just bringing the Uyghur birth rate under control, just like they did with theirs. It's still unthinkable in a democratic society, but I'd measure Chinese actions against Chinese standards.

 

[Sundeki]

But spare me (Sundeki) that "cultural genocide is genocide", or you are just using hyperbole for dramatic effect, practically genociding me (see how I can broaden it even further? it's silly).
The Chinese are definitely trying to assimilate their minorities and destroy their cultural identity, and they are doing the same in Tibet for decades. This on its own is not genocide, so please use precise words like minority suppression and such.

It's not just a matter of culture, even though culture and religion do play a part within the framework of an ethnicity or nationality. The Communist Party of China is taking punitive and forced measures to destroy the cultural and religious life of the Uighur people, but forcibly marrying it's women to Han men, sterilizing many of the remainder, and locking particularly their men in concentration camps by the millions. If there was a population problem in East Turkestan, and the government was otherwise taking less severe measures to discourage population growth, your other points may make some sense. But East Turkestan is ~1,600,000 square kilometers and has a population of merely 24 million, almost 40% of which are Han Chinese first or second generation settlers/migrants. Individually, many of these actions might not be considered genocide, but combined they paint a very clear picture:

Break down the culture and religion of the native inhabitants so they are less cohesive and able to resist Han cultural domination, forcibly marry their women and sterilize a significant portion of the population to prevent population growth, encourage mass migration/settlement of Han Chinese, particularly men(as a result of one child nonsense policy previously, as there is tens of millions more men), and throw in prison/execute the people most likely to talk out and resist this policy. It's not just "cultural genocide", the Uighur people are being forced into extinction.

You're trying to go with a semantic argument in all of this, but the question of genocide is quite simple in principle: do the intentional and forcible actions of one group lead to the total destruction of another? It's quite clear in this case where all of this is going, and the five preconditions you list in this post, 4 of them are confirmed, and the fifth I have no evidence for, but I'd be willing to be it's happening (child transfer).

 

[Nega-Brutus]

@MadVader

Even within Xinjiang, policies vary widely, being harsher in the heavily Uighur south than the Han-majority north. In Shihezi, a Han-dominated city where Uighurs make up less than 2% of the population, the government subsidizes baby formula and hospital birth services to encourage more children, state media reported.

But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law.

In other efforts to change the population balance of Xinjiang, China is dangling land, jobs and economic subsidies to lure Han migrants there. It is also aggressively promoting intermarriage between Han Chinese and Uighurs, with one couple telling the AP they were given money for housing and amenities like a washing machine, refrigerator and TV.

“It links back to China’s long history of dabbling in eugenics….you don’t want people who are poorly educated, marginal minorities breeding quickly,” said James Leibold, a specialist in Chinese ethnic policy at La Trobe in Melbourne. “What you want is your educated Han to increase their birth rate.”

The success of China’s push to control births among Muslim minorities shows up in the numbers for IUDs and sterilization.

In 2014, just over 200,000 IUDs were inserted in Xinjiang. By 2018, that jumped more than 60 percent to nearly 330,000 IUDs. At the same time, IUD use tumbled elsewhere in China, as many women began getting the devices removed.

You should hopefully understand that we have to work with the evidence available to us. No one is going to document their ****ing genocide. Meaning we may not have perfect data on the exact absolute birthrates. Given the insurmountable body of evidence still, I'm ****ing flabbergasted that you want to be charitable to the Chinese (but I don't think you're dishonest per se).

You understand and agree that China pursues policies of Hanfication. You understand that in the past, previously ethnic cities have been transformed into Chinese ones. You understand the whole reeducation thing. You understand that Uyghurs, like the Tibetans, are very disliked minorities. Also, you should understand that the point of minority rights is that they have to be protected from the majority. You should understand that the Uyghurs aren't Chinese. You should understand that their standards, however propagandized as neutral, are inapplicable. You should hopefully agree that genocides, cultural suppressions, or whatever you want to call it should be universally and unequivocally condemned, whatever our differences in ''standards'' may be.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

More than five hundred years later, the echoes of anti-Spanish propaganda are still resounding, and to this day still constitute the Spanish black legend.

In the foundations of modern Western history, from 1500 onwards, there is a vision of Spain as a monster that came out of Europe and was about to devour all that was good in that civilisation, but which, fortunately, was defeated by the Protestant North, the embodiment of all civilised values.

It is clear to no one that the conquistadores committed acts that are reprehensible and miserable in our eyes ( common to all conquests) and that there were many deaths, both in the direct struggle and as a result of subjugation and work in the assignements. Even so, according to some historigraphy and Hispanist scholars, most of the deaths of the natives were due to the spread of diseases (influenza, smallpox, measles...) of which the newcomers were ignorant carriers and for which the natives lacked natural defences.

This phenomenon represents an excellent and dramatic example of what today is called traveller's pathology (sound familiar? Covid-19).

Infectious diseases were one more aspect, undoubtedly very important, of the exchange of people, goods and microbes between two areas of the planet separated for millennia by a great sea and by the ocean of mutual ignorance.

Also "that part of historiography" which Mr. Censor discriminates against, argues that it is materially impossible that weapons killed more than diseases and other associated factors. To think that more than a hundred men and a few horses led by Hernán Cortés swept away a huge, highly organised and highly civilised empire, such as the Aztec empire of Montezuma (Mexico), is to ignore the reality of history. Something similar happened in Pizarro's adventure in the Inca empire of Huayna Capac (Peru). Smallpox and measles were perfect unwitting, unintentional allies in the success of the Spanish conquest.

Throughout my intervention I have been providing data, which undeniably do not seem to interest Mr. Censor. Data from "that other part" of historiography that exists in environments of high academic prestige, which through his act of censorship he has vilely condemned. But of course, my opinion here is that of a demonised Spanish nationalist; totally out of place. Again, you may not share my opinion, you may even think I am an ******* for thinking what I think. You can refute me with facts, you can ignore me, but the baseless censorship that has been carried out here, I repeat, is an arbitrary act and an abuse of power by means a motto "This i don't like-> censorship scisor".

There are countless hispanists, historians and other scholars to be consulted alternatively for a thorough documentation of "the other sources". Figures such as Philip Powell, Joseph Pérez, William Maltby, Sverker Arnoldsson, among others...

But unfortunately all this veil of hatred towards the Hispanic nature is what we find nowadays, the new revisionism is doing its good work. Despite this, and no matter who it bothers, it is Spain that is responsible for having brought to America urban planning, law, structured economies, agriculture, universities, cathedrals, architectural techniques, the influence of the Renaissance, the printing press, the wheel, writing, music and faith, among countless other things.

 

[Mad Vader]

It's nice that we agree that what the Chinese are doing to their minorities is wrong. High fives all around!
I'm making an effort here to agree on an indisputable proof that what they are doing is "genocide" by some universally accepted norms, and we are not just talking **** about China but it doesn't matter if it's really true because they are evil and we hate China. That's not good enough at all, especially if it's based on feelings, because **** your feelings, as Trump supporters concerned about objectivity like to say.
I still have to see trustworthy evidence that any of the five genocide points are satisfied. I know that reporting from the region is very difficult and what anecdotal reports we get are hard to verify to a journalistic standard beyond "allegedly", and therefore we can't take them at face value.
Unless a responsible actor makes an effort to present together some real evidence of genocidal actions, we can only really say "it may be genocide".

Why all this hair-splitting, am I a CCP shill paid by the word or some weird contrarian?
Two reasons:
- When countries like the US or Australia accuse China of genocide, I'd like to know how much of this is just political propaganda and how much of it is real.
- If what China is doing is genocide, then who else may be genocidal by the same criteria? It's a whole new can of worms.
Are Palestinians in Gaza genocided by the Israeli blockade? Were Russian colonization efforts and Russification of ethnic provinces genocidal? Was the British naval blockade of Germany in WW1 genocidal since it caused mortality at birth of 50% due to malnutrition? Where do we stop saying something is genocide?

@Terco_Viejo If you are a Spanish Real Madrid fan, you are clearly a nationalist or worse. Search your feelings, you know it's true.
Seriously what hurts your arguments is the perceived pro-Spanish activism at the expense of a more balanced and objective view. Also, it's hard to believe that there is an anti-Spanish bias that is really a Protestant conspiracy.
You can argue that certain nations have an anti-Spanish bias in their history books, but you need specifics to demonstrate it. A broad attack on Protestant nations looks far less credible.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

Damn you got that strawman good.

There's a whole plethora of terms like war crimes, ethnic cleansing, etc. All with difficult application sometimes. But also all important to recognize. I personally didn't really want to do lawyer **** and just wanted to ask you about your ethics. Was hoping we'd agree that it doesn't matter that it's not technically genocide if its as equally as bad as genocide. In the end, the word genocide is just to signal some real dark **** happening wrt ethnic people, and our response to it shouldn't be lessened because it doesn't accord to the 1952 geneva convention on the rights of war prisoners definition. Dunno.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

[...]

@Terco_Viejo If you are a Spanish Real Madrid fan, you are clearly a nationalist or worse. Search your feelings, you know it's true.
Seriously what hurts your arguments is the perceived pro-Spanish activism at the expense of a more balanced and objective view. Also, it's hard to believe that there is an anti-Spanish bias that is really a Protestant conspiracy.
You can argue that certain nations have an anti-Spanish bias in their history books, but you need specifics to demonstrate it. A broad attack on Protestant nations looks far less credible.

I was a fan of F.C. Barcelona for many years but I got bored of football as it became a circus.
The irony is, I actively switched to the NBA .

Excuse me mate for disagreeing with your comment, I am giving my opinion about a subject, not imparting lectures at the university; I have already provided enough data (which have been thrown directly into the trash by Mr. Censor because they are not valid for him). Whoever wants specific data should look for them, be interested and follow the path of learning, my job is not to instruct/demonstrate.

---Edit:
Free data "conspiracy":

The presence of the black legend in the textbooks of the educational systems of various countries has been pointed out by several historians. Powell mentions the 1944 report of the American Council on Education, which already pointed out gross errors in US educational textbooks, including university textbooks. According to the study, the books tended not only to include aspects of the black legend, but to generalise them to all of Spanish America and all Spanish Americans. Another common feature was the reduction of Hispanic American history to two specific periods: the conquest and the independence of Hispanic countries, as if nothing had happened in the 300 years between and since then; or the simplification of Hispanic American society as a white elite oppressing an Indian majority, completely ignoring the existence of a middle class.Powell studied some educational texts in 1971 and came to the same conclusion. The English case is similar; in 1992 John L. Robinson stated:

"Students entering British universities share an exposure to a pernicious anti-Hispanic prejudice, perhaps shared by their culture in general but certainly more specific to the historical literature that is recommended to them during the preparatory years for university education.
John L. Robinson, "The anti-Hispanic bias in British historiography" (1992)"