Raz Segal (Hebrew: רז סגל) is an Israeli historian residing in the United States who directs the Master of Arts in Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Stockton University
In the linked above article, he walks through the definition of genocide, and the actions taken. It fits the definition.
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.
So tomorrow if I come armed and evict you from your home, along with your family that would be okay, because there are other places where you can go and live? Is this what you are trying to tell us?
Let’s be charitable. That’s not what they’re saying.
They’re saying it doesn’t fit the murder everybody definition of genocide, which is a fair position. However, Genocide is more broadly defined by the UN, and ethnically cleansing a region, is a part of an overall genocide.
is forcing people to go anywhere else actually “ethnically cleansing” though? to me, that terminology is best described as rounding everyone of a certain ethnic background up, shooting them all, burying the bodies, and then moving on to the next group.
If you want an area of land with a single ethnicity, to clean the area so it is pure for that ethnicity, that is a form of ethnic cleansing.
If you take a city and say all people who are not genetically x, or believe in religion y, must leave. That is a form of ethnic cleansing, you are cleaning the area for a specific ethnicity.
The cleansing doesn’t have to involve death, could just involve displacement, or even The ability to have children.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
eh… using a definition that broad would mean that most asian countries are guilty of ethnic cleansing. a lot of african countries would qualify too, as would many european nations (other than, you know, germany).
The word has a very clear meaning. I’m sorry you don’t like that definition, but the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can agree on definitions.
How would you describe ethnically purifying an area?
Yes, ethnic cleansing is very common in human history… You’re right. Lots of countries are guilty of it. Doesn’t make it any less bad just common
if it’s so common that literally every country in recorded history is guilty of it (and they are if the accepted definition is so broad) then it’s just another part of governance - unworthy of discussion even.
Ethnic cleansing is unworthy of discussion, because every country has participated in it in some point in their history?
So from that standpoint, you’re happy to get ethnically cleansed, right? It shouldn’t be worth discussion, if a government agent wants to hand over your area to a different ethnicity. You wouldn’t have anything to say about that right? Your family would be cool with it too right?
And if the people who have been ethnically cleansed, try to ethnically cleanse their oppressors, that’s not newsworthy either right? So there shouldn’t have been any news reporting of hamas’s ethnic cleansing attempts? Right? It’s not newsworthy, why are we even talking about it…
Countries also execute people, we still talk about murder.
most asian countries are guilty of ethnic cleansing
Yes, they are/have been. Almost all countries have committed horrible atrocities in the past or present. That doesn’t make this not ethnic cleansing or not atrocious.
per they article they’re being forced to leave & go anywhere else. that’s not genocide.
a textbook case of genocide - Raz Segal - JewishCurrents
I’m no genocideoligist, but Raz Segal is.
Raz Segal (Hebrew: רז סגל) is an Israeli historian residing in the United States who directs the Master of Arts in Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Stockton University
In the linked above article, he walks through the definition of genocide, and the actions taken. It fits the definition.
When you’re a genocideologist everything looks like genocide.
It’s inherent to his genocideology
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.
So tomorrow if I come armed and evict you from your home, along with your family that would be okay, because there are other places where you can go and live? Is this what you are trying to tell us?
Let’s be charitable. That’s not what they’re saying.
They’re saying it doesn’t fit the murder everybody definition of genocide, which is a fair position. However, Genocide is more broadly defined by the UN, and ethnically cleansing a region, is a part of an overall genocide.
Update: I should not have been charitable…
is forcing people to go anywhere else actually “ethnically cleansing” though? to me, that terminology is best described as rounding everyone of a certain ethnic background up, shooting them all, burying the bodies, and then moving on to the next group.
this isnt that.
If you want an area of land with a single ethnicity, to clean the area so it is pure for that ethnicity, that is a form of ethnic cleansing.
If you take a city and say all people who are not genetically x, or believe in religion y, must leave. That is a form of ethnic cleansing, you are cleaning the area for a specific ethnicity.
The cleansing doesn’t have to involve death, could just involve displacement, or even The ability to have children.
Ethnic cleansing wikipedia
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
eh… using a definition that broad would mean that most asian countries are guilty of ethnic cleansing. a lot of african countries would qualify too, as would many european nations (other than, you know, germany).
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnic_cleansing
The word has a very clear meaning. I’m sorry you don’t like that definition, but the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can agree on definitions.
How would you describe ethnically purifying an area?
Yes, ethnic cleansing is very common in human history… You’re right. Lots of countries are guilty of it. Doesn’t make it any less bad just common
if it’s so common that literally every country in recorded history is guilty of it (and they are if the accepted definition is so broad) then it’s just another part of governance - unworthy of discussion even.
Ethnic cleansing is unworthy of discussion, because every country has participated in it in some point in their history?
So from that standpoint, you’re happy to get ethnically cleansed, right? It shouldn’t be worth discussion, if a government agent wants to hand over your area to a different ethnicity. You wouldn’t have anything to say about that right? Your family would be cool with it too right?
And if the people who have been ethnically cleansed, try to ethnically cleanse their oppressors, that’s not newsworthy either right? So there shouldn’t have been any news reporting of hamas’s ethnic cleansing attempts? Right? It’s not newsworthy, why are we even talking about it…
Countries also execute people, we still talk about murder.
Yes, they are/have been. Almost all countries have committed horrible atrocities in the past or present. That doesn’t make this not ethnic cleansing or not atrocious.