350
China is burning all its bridges with Israel
(asia.nikkei.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
350 points (97.3% liked)
World News
32323 readers
855 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah but cultural genocide (ethnocide) doesn't refer to just kill off parts of a culture. It's a systemic approach, usually backed by law, to destroy the entire ethnicity and cultural norms.
Take for example what the Canadian government calls the cultural genocide of indigenous people in Canada. Their intention was not to kill the parts of indigenous culture that they didn't like, but it was forced assimilation through legal action and through removing children from their culture. It was remove/ban/destroy all indigenous culture - very "kill the Indian and save the man". That is cultural genocide.
In your example, the "destruction" of racism in American culture was not led by a government and not led against any ethnic group directly. Nobody was taking Confederate kids away from their family to teach them the "right" way.
Yes cultures change and adapt, but ethnocide is the very intentional move to do everything possible to destroy that culture. Will it adapt? Sure, yes, indigenous cultures have been extremely resilient and survived in Canada. but to say that it wasn't cultural genocide is to ignore the fact that children were literally ripped from their families in order to stop them from practicing their culture, or that cultural meetings and even just any type of meeting within their own groups was outlawed.
That's a quote from our first prime minister. That is what I mean when I say cultural genocide.
Cultural genocide is intentional. And much of the time, as I mentioned before, it is a facet of violent genocide because it leads to deaths and multigenerational trauma. Even if the government wasn't going in and killing people en masse and intentionally - which is how genocide is technically defined - there's no way that this is not a type of genocide.
I mean if that's your definition, then China is not doing cultural genocide. They aren't separating children from parents and re-educating the children to assimilate. They're taking the parents, re-educating them and telling them to tell their children to be like them moving forward. That's what the whole sleeping in the beds thing is about. They're going family to family to make sure they don't break up families and make the whole family accept a new way of living.
Also, the destruction of racism was targeting white people. Heck that's what they're complaining about. They even had traditions and parties based on racism, least we forget who the KKK is So unless black people were also the target of anti-racism, then it was very much just the white people. Also, it was very much a movement from the government. It's why it lead to a civil war where the south said they could not abide by the northern government.
*Edit: In fact there's video after video of families in XInjiang asking the people who fled to come home. NOW, that said, it's entirely possible and likely they were forced to do this. But what I'm pointing out is, they're absolutely making sure that the families stay together and change as a unit, not forcing separation like what Canada did.
That was an example, but it doesn't necessarily need to be taking the children away. "Re-education" with the intent to remove someone's ethnical/cultural background is cultural genocide. The idea of "kill the Indian and save the man", in this case would be like "kill the Uighur and save the person". But I don't know enough about the specifics in China and I'm not arguing that what they're doing is specifically cultural genocide, I'm just saying that cultural genocide is real and does occur.
And I very strongly disagree that the civil war was cultural genocide. Just because the majority of the people who were on the losing side were white doesn't mean they were targeted indiscriminately JUST for being white (that's the key difference here). They were not targeted because of the way they looked or the language they spoke or where they were born. Racism and oppression are not cultural or human rights.
Equating white American culture to the racism that specifically Confederate and Neo-N*zis were and continue to advocate for is very much "I'm German so the swastika is my heritage" vibes.
Uh yea, it's very much the swatstika is my heritage. And it really shows how your just dismissing cultures you don't like.
We both agree Nazi swastikas should be banned, your just trying to argue that it wasn't cultural when it absolutely is. Just as it's literally part of Chinese and Indian culture. But suddenly when it's applied to a group you don't like you just dismiss it? That's hilariously ignorant.
Also, what's happening in China has nothing to do with Uigurs. Famously they did it to Hans Chinese first, which lead famously to Tiananmen. Then they did it to the Tibetans, and we made movies like 9 years in Tibet. Now they're just expanding it. There is no cultural target, it's just whatever group is next.
Edit. BTW that's why it was called the cultural revolution, they were trying to wipe out Hans Chinese culture.