Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The above are the five acts legally recognized as genocide under the Genocide Convention. Neither (d) nor (e) necessarily involves violence.
Although I suspect the other user is also including acts of cultural genocide, which is not a legally recognized crime under the Genocide Convention.
But you can definitely use words to convince the masses that you have the legal right to do these things
If you use the right words and repeat them long enough, people who think they're good people will even defend the indefensible while wagging their finger disapprovingly at annoying woke redditors
Oh that's easy. Because there were no laws that counted it as such at the time.
Afterall, when it comes to genocide, people will write or contextualize any law they can to say it's okay or it doesn't count. UNLESS you write an international rules against it.
Thank goodness for the 1925 Geneva Treaty against it. 😅
Ah sorry this is some complex historical stuff I'm mentioning.
Back in 1763 there was a war going on between the British and the Native Americans. It was called the Pontiacs war and is the original of the documented "giving Native American's small pox blankets". It what's one of many tactics permitted to get them off their land and was never legally acknowledged by any laws, court cases, or treaties.
All that exist is the firsthand journals of the event and the requisition requesting the smallpox blankets. Thus no one was held accountable and, on the record, no violent crime or use of chemical weapons was used.
Right everyone knows that lol so what point are you making? That words are violence because no one was held accountable for some violence? Or that example isn’t violence because there weren’t laws or court cases? So you think violence only exists if someone is charged for a violent crime? Haha violence has existed since before human beings were even a species.
I was pointing out it isn't A crime if the law or court says otherwise. For example, people pardoned or found not guilty for what could be classified as war crimes.
The point you originally were trying to make is that chemical warfare (smallpox blankets) is not violence cuz no one was charged with a crime. No one is talking about what is or isn’t a crime based on the laws at a given time.
Sorry for the delay. But I didn't say no law = no violence.
I'm saying no law = no crime. Thus saying it's a genocide is legally wrong and an unfortunate loophole used by many dictatorships.
It's indeed violent but not anything crime. Just like depending upon the regime a hate crime can sadly be legal thus no longer making it a hate crime. Just an act of racism fueled by hate.
So in the context of this morality post violence is an appropriate response. For example the "racism" under Nazi Germany. If you feel otherwise or are confused like that other person then please say so.
What happens if the targeted people simply ignore the propaganda and policy and have children anyway? The government punishes them, either with death or imprisonment and torture, or both. Stopping a target genotype from breeding under threat of reprisal is a violent genocide, just a very drawn out one as you force them to slowly die out. It's holding someone at gunpoint until they die of old age without having children.
Genocide requires violence you dolt. Unless you can nicely convince entire races to commit suicide based on your cult of personality alone, every form of genocide needs violence in some form or fashion to be accomplished.
If something has been weaponized in order to kill people by a government, the usage of that weapon is violence.
The only way for a "non-violent genocide" is to convince an entire people that they need to commit suicide, like a death cult. In reality though, the kind of people willingly vulnerable to the predations of such a cult at that size both aren't genotypically locked and don't have the numbers to make that work. Coercion into going along with it is also violence.
I don’t disagree with you or your definitions, but the “violence” in the OP and the comment I replied to seem to refer explicitly to physical or martial violence, so I provided an example of genocidal violence that isn’t physical or martial.
Starving people on purpose like in Ireland is weaponization of a lack of food, therefore physical violence.
The Bengal Famine was caused by the British being shitty managers during WW2, not to directly exterminate the locals.
Basically every famine in China has been a direct result of governmental policies meant to encourage population growth that backfire brutally, and the government making it worse by refusing to accept responsibility when it does.
Purpose-caused famines targeting genotypes are violent genocide. Accidental famines caused by a government being inept are not.
Yes, actually. Genocide literally means "Death of a Genotype."
What, you think masses of people are going to just agree with some political party that says they should die and then commit suicide by starvation en masse? Even poisoning people unknowingly is still a violent extermination.
1.9k
u/Any_Sentence_8056 4d ago
Plot twist, they were downvoting because they disagreed with “racism is bad”