this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
957 points (93.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5698 readers
1445 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i mean, up to 10% is quite a bit. That's still 90% of the population existing though, so i'm not sure that's to the levels of genocide, as defined by uh, genocide. Which would be ethnic cleansing.
If we're going by existing figures, that's like what, 2.5% of the population. I feel like famines have probably killed more people, and that war has most definitely contributed more deaths to this as well.
I think you misunderstand something. You don't need to kill everyone for it to be genocide. That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is. The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.
i'm not saying that it has to be either, i just don't think that calling it a genocide, when you could call it literally hundreds of other things that would be so vastly more accurate than this specific statement, would be a lot more responsible.
But even past that, i'm not convinced that this is going to count as genocide, since genocide would traditionally be an ethnic cleansing, and i feel im not being uncharitable here using that as a definition, considering how many times i've seen people call it ethnic cleansing. I have not seen sufficient evidence that demonstrates that as anything more than significant war crimes. Many war crimes even, but not genocide.
and to be clear, you aren't wrong here, you're correct, but again, they literally haven't fucking ruled it on it yet (to my knowledge, maybe im dumb and stupid lol) i can't begin to state how concerning it is that you're calling it a genocide before this ruling has even been made, it's SO incredibly presumptuous.
is this the legal ruling on the cases here? Or are we just making statements here.
Also wiping out the native americans from north america was not a "side effect" that was most definitely a secondary if not primary intention. We literally fought with them over this. That wasn't just an accidental woopsie daisy.