Shatterface wrote: ↑
I'd rather read Kirbmarc's 'walls of texs' than Brive's endless retweets of Neo Nazi cunts.
Why not allow us to put mods on ignore? White genocide belongs with the Big Foot shit.
You really have a learning block of some sort. I’m saying ‘white genocide’ is crap because the term ‘genocide’ is inherently elastic. And I say this despite not supporting killing people.
I know. Complex concept. Subtly and all that.
The term “genocide” was literally invented in 1943 - not to describe the holocaust - but to describe the destruction with intent (in whole or part) of a people and their identity. The holocaust was an extreme example of this. However, all recognised that restriction of the word to this popular usage would limit its utility to describe (and protect against) other, potentially less virulent, forms of erasure.
Genocide was also not invented to be a popular meme or buzz word. Lemkin was a lawyer, he wanted to lock a concept down so measures could be enacted.
Ok. Can you fucking understand these basic concepts?
Now anyone is free to come up with their own understanding of what this newly invented concept means. Lemkin wasn’t doing physics, it’s not a testable formula. He was trying to describe a social/political/historical dynamic with a new form of *-ism. His own ideas around pinning this dynamic down underwent constant revision.
By
my definition there is no white genocide.
You are also free to adopt the (narrow) common feelz approach (ie genocide = holocaust) but this will limit usage to the point of singularity. Set against this, clearly there are no Canadian Death Camps.
Oh wait. I think I’ve already made that point at least two fucking times.
Or you can run with the International communities concept. God forbid.
These are your options. You do understand that don’t you?
Let’s consider for a moment the whole UN bullshit - as you so informatively characterise it.
The UNCPPCG was developed in 1948 to “liberate mankind” from
all future instances of genocide. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do eh? If you know what you are looking for.
The Convention provided a scaffold backed by international cooperation under the remit of the United Nations. Contracting nations were charged with proactively preventing incidents through a call to collective action, transgressions would be punished locally under bespoke law or where necessary by (then unestablished) international panels.
To make this work, Lemkin’s brain fart needed to be defined so that common local law could be developed.
But this applied and meaningful approach to “genocide” has failed – despite the convention being one of the most widely accepted treaties in international relations.
The first International Tribunal only formed in 1993, the first conviction for genocide occurred in 1998 and the International Criminal Court was only instituted in 2002. Failures in local justice in Rwanda and Cambodia undermined the credibility of the Convention and the subset of Nations bound by the ICC is steadily declining as signatories withdraw due to its post colonial racist application against darkies.
This is due to realpolitik as well as the fact the RL applicability of the base concept of ‘genocide’ is about as useful as “patriarchy”.
What did the US say about Rwanda?
REPORTER 2: Just out of curiosity, given that so many people say that there is
genocide underway, or something that strongly resembles it, why wouldn’t this
convention be invoked?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think, as you know, this becomes a legal definitional
thing, unfortunately, in terms of—as horrendous as all these things are, there
becomes a definitional question.
:bjarte:
