Which is why I specified cultural part? I don’t think they murder them or anything like that, I think they are trying to integrate them in their economy, which, depending on your view of china, can be construed as capitalist integration for exploitation or elevation to modern living standards
If you read a report of residential (sorry was wrong word) schools in usa or australia or canada for native Americans from liberal source, what would be the markers of difference with re-education camps in china? The only thing I see is the age of students
If there was evidence of China separating families, forbidding native languages, erasing all references to Uighur cultural identity, and sterilizing women - I would reconsider my position.
The only thing I see is the age of students
You are either whitewashing American crimes against indigenous people, or pushing unverified genocide allegations against China. Which is it?
Like, I actually cannot believe you wrote that. What the fuck.
I’m strictly referring to the practice of carrying of young Native American children to schools circa start of 20th century I think, not wider american genocide. The alleged goal was to integrate native americans by force into “civilized” society.
If my post reads like I’m dismissing other crimes, I apologize, maybe I should be more precise in wording.
Separation of families is precisely the allegation against china, no? main difference is that kids are not ripped from family at non-speaking age, and their language forgotten, so that’s a plus.
Yeah boarding schools aren't re-education camps. How they relate is that supposedly children with both parents detained get put into orphanages or boarding schools (according to research from Zenz). In this case I'm inclined to believe the claim as it makes sense that children in these circumstances can't just be left alone. It also doesn't seem to be that big of deal since at least from the sources I've seen, people in the re-education camps maintain regular contact with family members remotely.
What is the evidence for this? Even the BBC's coverage of the vocational school highlighted the fact that attendants at the schools went home at night. Are you saying Uighurs can't bring their children to class?
Many of those reeducation camps have dorms where inmates live. Meanwhile, their children are put in boarding schools. Uighurs who move abroad have their children placed in orphaniches.
If you're not familiar with these practices, you clearly have not been paying attention. I'm not discussing this with you further. Educate yourself first.
I mean, Zenz being the author in and of itself doesn't prove this isn't happening to be fair.
The guardian article I found on the matter does indeed cite this Zenz article though lol: https://adrianzenz.medium.com/story-45d07b25bcad
Zenz cites spreadsheets from a "cache of over 25000 files from different government departments" which contain numbers on children in "difficult circumstances".
Honestly I'm inclined to believe him in this case considering how relatively common boarding schools seem to be in China and CGTN even made a video about them. That being said, I was under the impression they could still keep in touch with each over remotely based on the CGTN video and also on some supposedly leaked documents I saw a while ago: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6558510-China-Cables-Telegram-English.html
Family education. Through letter writing, phone calls, video chats, visits, meetings,
meals, etc., establish a mechanism for students and relatives to interact with each other, to
ensure that the students will have a phone conversation with their relatives at least once a
week, and meet via video at least once a month, to make their family feel at ease and the
students feel safe.
Tl;dw the erasure and othering of a culture was an integral part of the original definition of genocide, but when counties were voting on language (I think in the UN) to determine what could be punished as a genocide, many member countries refused to sign a law that included cultural erasure, forced assimilation, and the like because they were afraid that they could be prosecuted under such a law.
So our narrow definition of genocide comes from a process where the criminals got to write the rulebook.
Oh shit cultural genocide isn't real? Thank god that means the the irish weren't kept from speaking you know irish or that occitan is still a thriving and alive language, hey all those kids that got ripped from their families because they were roma and had to be 'civilized' it's ok it's a relatively peaceful integration program.
I'm Roma, tbh I wouldn't call what people did/do to us "cultural genocide" it is just straight up genocide. I don't know if there is a specific difference (ESL speaker)? But I don't see why it should be separated from a regular genocide and can feel like a downplay of the absolute horrendous extremes countries have gone to in trying to get rid of us completely. But again if there is a specific difference between genocide and cultural genocide, let me know. Maybe I am misinterpreting.
The original author who coined the term genocide would agree with your definition. The UN definition is narrower in scope, primarily because if it kept the original scope then many UN countries would refuse to sign the law out of fear they could be prosecuted for their own treatment of ethnic groups.
I'm sorry should we stop using the word cultural genocide because it could be used against leftist countries? Seriously fuck off if a government has systemically kept a people from speaking their language or passing on their culture or stop the teaching of said language and culture or tries to "educate" children in order to get rid of the 'unwanted' cultural elements I'm going to call it cultural genocide. If your honest line of thinking is "We shouldn't use words like cultural genocide because it could be used against countries like China" let me both put your mind at ease and tell you what I think. People already use that language and will continue to use that language whether all leftists stop using it or not, and second I don't fucking care about China, I'm not talking about China, I'm talking about cultural genocide being a real thing that has been used successfully and unsuccessfully to exterminate certain cultures, and I use exterminate quite deliberately here, I could give you other examples of cultural genocide where you can then go "Ok mass graves in Catalonia, enforced Castilian in schools as well as myriad of other things done under Franco were bad, but can we please not call it cultural genocide let's just call it Castillianization." like can we only call something a cultural genocide when it's accompanied by smokestacks burning people, like it needs more violence because you imagine the whole thing as a completly non-violent affair.
Can you suggest a name for it then? It’s ethnoculturecide? I agree the word is hyper charged tbh with images of death camps, which are not related to this.
Genocide is the word for this. The author who coined the term genocide considered the cultural erasure and othering of an ethnic group to be an integral part of the definition of genocide, and that these things by themselves were sufficient to label something as a genocide without needing mass murder in addition to these things.
The UN definition narrowed the scope of genocide because many member nations would refuse to sign a law that included cultural erasure, forced assimilation, and the like out of fear that they could be prosecuted under such a law. The idea that these things aren't as serious and don't count as "real" genocide is the result of the criminals getting to write the rulebook.
Which is why I specified cultural part? I don’t think they murder them or anything like that, I think they are trying to integrate them in their economy, which, depending on your view of china, can be construed as capitalist integration for exploitation or elevation to modern living standards
And I quoted the "cultural" part. Cultural genocide is the intentional destruction of cultural artifacts and the eradication of a cultural identity.
Neither of these are cultural genocide.
If you read a report of residential (sorry was wrong word) schools in usa or australia or canada for native Americans from liberal source, what would be the markers of difference with re-education camps in china? The only thing I see is the age of students
If there was evidence of China separating families, forbidding native languages, erasing all references to Uighur cultural identity, and sterilizing women - I would reconsider my position.
You are either whitewashing American crimes against indigenous people, or pushing unverified genocide allegations against China. Which is it?
Like, I actually cannot believe you wrote that. What the fuck.
I’m strictly referring to the practice of carrying of young Native American children to schools circa start of 20th century I think, not wider american genocide. The alleged goal was to integrate native americans by force into “civilized” society.
If my post reads like I’m dismissing other crimes, I apologize, maybe I should be more precise in wording.
Separation of families is precisely the allegation against china, no? main difference is that kids are not ripped from family at non-speaking age, and their language forgotten, so that’s a plus.
What is your evidence of this? Even the BBC's coverage of the camp covered the fact that students are only at the schools during the day.
CGTN made a couple videos providing more context for the boarding schools: https://youtu.be/fQuBCf_vWZY https://youtu.be/x99g4kua5s0
Basically education is mandatory and boarding schools make logistical sense due to how spread out people are in rural areas like those in Xinjiang.
I'll watch, this seems different than the schools that the BBC & CGTN were covering back in 2018.
Yeah boarding schools aren't re-education camps. How they relate is that supposedly children with both parents detained get put into orphanages or boarding schools (according to research from Zenz). In this case I'm inclined to believe the claim as it makes sense that children in these circumstances can't just be left alone. It also doesn't seem to be that big of deal since at least from the sources I've seen, people in the re-education camps maintain regular contact with family members remotely.
China is literally separating families though. They don't get to keep their children in the internment camps.
What is the evidence for this? Even the BBC's coverage of the vocational school highlighted the fact that attendants at the schools went home at night. Are you saying Uighurs can't bring their children to class?
Many of those reeducation camps have dorms where inmates live. Meanwhile, their children are put in boarding schools. Uighurs who move abroad have their children placed in orphaniches.
If you're not familiar with these practices, you clearly have not been paying attention. I'm not discussing this with you further. Educate yourself first.
Post a source that doesn't trace back to Zenz.
I mean, Zenz being the author in and of itself doesn't prove this isn't happening to be fair.
The guardian article I found on the matter does indeed cite this Zenz article though lol: https://adrianzenz.medium.com/story-45d07b25bcad
Zenz cites spreadsheets from a "cache of over 25000 files from different government departments" which contain numbers on children in "difficult circumstances".
Honestly I'm inclined to believe him in this case considering how relatively common boarding schools seem to be in China and CGTN even made a video about them. That being said, I was under the impression they could still keep in touch with each over remotely based on the CGTN video and also on some supposedly leaked documents I saw a while ago: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6558510-China-Cables-Telegram-English.html
It's not my job to dig through the internet for years old articles on your behalf.
As I said, if you haven't at least seen these allegations before, you're not paying attention and you're not worth talking to.
deleted by creator
With the Xinjiang camps, I haven't seen evidence of and/or have seen evidence suggesting the lack of:
You can never show evidence that proves something isn't happening.
Show me evidence that you don't beat your wife.
Yeah hence why I said 'suggesting' instead of 'proving'
Okay.
Where's the evidence 'suggesting' that you don't beat your wife?
deleted by creator
Here's a really good video that talks about the problem you bring up.
Tl;dw the erasure and othering of a culture was an integral part of the original definition of genocide, but when counties were voting on language (I think in the UN) to determine what could be punished as a genocide, many member countries refused to sign a law that included cultural erasure, forced assimilation, and the like because they were afraid that they could be prosecuted under such a law.
So our narrow definition of genocide comes from a process where the criminals got to write the rulebook.
Good thing there are no liberals amongus :dun-dun-dun: :ancom-heart:
Edit: emphasis on real bugs me, maybe change it to physical?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Oh shit cultural genocide isn't real? Thank god that means the the irish weren't kept from speaking you know irish or that occitan is still a thriving and alive language, hey all those kids that got ripped from their families because they were roma and had to be 'civilized' it's ok it's a relatively peaceful integration program.
I'm Roma, tbh I wouldn't call what people did/do to us "cultural genocide" it is just straight up genocide. I don't know if there is a specific difference (ESL speaker)? But I don't see why it should be separated from a regular genocide and can feel like a downplay of the absolute horrendous extremes countries have gone to in trying to get rid of us completely. But again if there is a specific difference between genocide and cultural genocide, let me know. Maybe I am misinterpreting.
The original author who coined the term genocide would agree with your definition. The UN definition is narrower in scope, primarily because if it kept the original scope then many UN countries would refuse to sign the law out of fear they could be prosecuted for their own treatment of ethnic groups.
https://youtu.be/m316DcYhb8w
deleted by creator
I'm sorry should we stop using the word cultural genocide because it could be used against leftist countries? Seriously fuck off if a government has systemically kept a people from speaking their language or passing on their culture or stop the teaching of said language and culture or tries to "educate" children in order to get rid of the 'unwanted' cultural elements I'm going to call it cultural genocide. If your honest line of thinking is "We shouldn't use words like cultural genocide because it could be used against countries like China" let me both put your mind at ease and tell you what I think. People already use that language and will continue to use that language whether all leftists stop using it or not, and second I don't fucking care about China, I'm not talking about China, I'm talking about cultural genocide being a real thing that has been used successfully and unsuccessfully to exterminate certain cultures, and I use exterminate quite deliberately here, I could give you other examples of cultural genocide where you can then go "Ok mass graves in Catalonia, enforced Castilian in schools as well as myriad of other things done under Franco were bad, but can we please not call it cultural genocide let's just call it Castillianization." like can we only call something a cultural genocide when it's accompanied by smokestacks burning people, like it needs more violence because you imagine the whole thing as a completly non-violent affair.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Can you suggest a name for it then? It’s ethnoculturecide? I agree the word is hyper charged tbh with images of death camps, which are not related to this.
deleted by creator
Eh, that’s fair enough :100-com:
Genocide is the word for this. The author who coined the term genocide considered the cultural erasure and othering of an ethnic group to be an integral part of the definition of genocide, and that these things by themselves were sufficient to label something as a genocide without needing mass murder in addition to these things.
The UN definition narrowed the scope of genocide because many member nations would refuse to sign a law that included cultural erasure, forced assimilation, and the like out of fear that they could be prosecuted under such a law. The idea that these things aren't as serious and don't count as "real" genocide is the result of the criminals getting to write the rulebook.
Here's a great video on the topic:
https://youtu.be/m316DcYhb8w