Are you a literalist where all the people fitting the demographic must be killed to the last person in order for it to be literal genocide? Because right now your argument is “Nuh uh! No it isn’t!” with zero backup in the face of historical evidence and the words of an expert. Even in America we committed a genocide of our natives, yet some of them live, some of them were made to move elsewhere, and not all of them were killed off.
It’s abundantly clear you willfully refuse to understand what “genocide” is.
Does studying the occurrences and causes of genocide make you unable to correctly identify them? I would think it to be the opposite, them being able to better identify and understand current genocides or events and actions that might lead to one.
Genocide is a rather simple word. It’s a contraction of geno (race) with cide (murder/killing). Anyone telling you they’ve needed to study the meaning of the word for more than 2 minutes is either a moron or a liar
You have spent more then 2 minutes discussing genocide here with us today, have you not used more then 2 minutes of thought in all your posts?
Writing a book on genocide would take more then 2 minutes.
Writing a catalog of all known genocides would take more then 2 minutes.
Writing up the definition of genocide would take more then 2 minutes, getting two people to agree on a definition would take FOREVER. Getting 152 countries to agree on the definition of genocide would take years…
Taking a complex issue, and being reductive to the point of absurdity isn’t being helpful.
On the contrary, I believe trying to expand a definition to the point of absurdity isn’t helpful.
The idea behind the term genocide is clear and simple: the intent to destroy an ethnicity.
People are trying to call Israels intent to disperse the ethnic Arabs from Palestine a genocide (to add more weight to the crime), when even the UN definition is clear this is not included.
When you’re a genocideologist everything looks like genocide.
It’s inherent to his genocideology
Are you a literalist where all the people fitting the demographic must be killed to the last person in order for it to be literal genocide? Because right now your argument is “Nuh uh! No it isn’t!” with zero backup in the face of historical evidence and the words of an expert. Even in America we committed a genocide of our natives, yet some of them live, some of them were made to move elsewhere, and not all of them were killed off.
It’s abundantly clear you willfully refuse to understand what “genocide” is.
Well the ‘cide’ part refers to ‘killing’
How would you differentiate between ‘forcefully made to move’ and ‘killed’ if you can’t imagine using different words for them?
They have different phrases
Ethnic Cleansing - Clearing a ethnicity from a area
Genocide - The pogrom being persecuted in Gaza now.
Ethnic Cleansing is part of a overall Genocide.
You really should read the article, it clarifies things greatly. https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide.
Stubborn one, aren’t ya.
Does studying the occurrences and causes of genocide make you unable to correctly identify them? I would think it to be the opposite, them being able to better identify and understand current genocides or events and actions that might lead to one.
Genocide is a rather simple word. It’s a contraction of geno (race) with cide (murder/killing). Anyone telling you they’ve needed to study the meaning of the word for more than 2 minutes is either a moron or a liar
You have spent more then 2 minutes discussing genocide here with us today, have you not used more then 2 minutes of thought in all your posts?
Writing a book on genocide would take more then 2 minutes. Writing a catalog of all known genocides would take more then 2 minutes. Writing up the definition of genocide would take more then 2 minutes, getting two people to agree on a definition would take FOREVER. Getting 152 countries to agree on the definition of genocide would take years…
Taking a complex issue, and being reductive to the point of absurdity isn’t being helpful.
On the contrary, I believe trying to expand a definition to the point of absurdity isn’t helpful.
The idea behind the term genocide is clear and simple: the intent to destroy an ethnicity.
People are trying to call Israels intent to disperse the ethnic Arabs from Palestine a genocide (to add more weight to the crime), when even the UN definition is clear this is not included.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
…
Do you consider the Nakba as genocide?
I’m going to refer you to the genocide scholar article above above. I’m no longer going to debate with you