|
On November 28 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:10 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 02:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2018 02:05 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain. That's not what any of this is about. Making sure you don't follow the same mistakes in the past is a good thing we should encourage. Making words to simplify the explanation of things is something we should encourage. Simplicities are anathema to learning from and understanding history. Arguing that genocide is just an aspect of human nature fundamentally miss the point of why the term was coined. It overlooks years of effort put in by the Nazi government to dehumanize the Jews and other minorities, by slowly preying on existing prejudices to make the general population accepting. The years of study by Raphael Lemkin to document exactly how the Nazi govement built in on previous attempt to wipe out populations to show the careful planning involved. And to assure the same tactics could be noted when used in the future. If you want to avoid the mistakes of the past, don’t take the works of people trying to do that very thing and water them down because it is easier. This shit was never meant to be easy. I didn't claim it was unique nor did I claim we were above it, I simply claimed that the west created a word for it and decided it was bad. That it still happens doesn't disqualify that people think its a bad thing. Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada. Simplicities are the basis for any agreement on anything at all. just look at this conversation. we can't agree on the specifics of something and most of our exchange is basically disagreeing on the basic meaning of words. I doubt my conversation with kwark will avoid becoming petty semantics for much longer. People still disagree about the civil war being about slavery. The answer isn't "lets talk about the economic motivations behind the two sides that went back to the start of the colonies with the north being more capital based around industrial concerns and the souths capital being based on agricultural resources being backed up with slave labor." the answer is to tell people it was because of slavery. Peoples work isn't supposed to be watered down but academics have never changed the course of history by trying to explain things to everyone.
Am I understanding you correctly that you're disagreeing on the definition of genocide? Because it is very well defined as "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This does not have to be straight up murder, but can be any road to wholly or partly destroy a group of people. It's not really up for debate whether western civilisations still does this: we do.
edit: Well one can debate it I guess. But with the overwhelming evidence, it's not much different from attempting to debate whether the earth is flat.
|
Plansix the language police coming in to shame and blame
|
The "west" didn't create a word for genocide. It was actually a Jewish guy. Anyways western cultures consist of many other cultures; by inference thay they aren't this singular Jewish guy, "the west" didn't create a word for genocide, using the same logic that you are using that other cultures didn't create a word for genocide.
|
United States43934 Posts
We’re not disagreeing on semantics, I am trying to educate you regarding the insufficiently understood reality of the continued sterilization of indigenous peoples in the “civilized” West. The genocide of indigenous peoples isn’t history, it’s policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/canada-indigenous-women-coerced-sterlilization-class-action-lawsuit
There aren’t two sides to this. There are those that understand that western civilization is not only built on genocide but is still engaging in it, and those that don’t know that yet. It’s particularly egregious in Canada but still goes on in the US, Australia and so forth.
An argument that starts with the premise that the West is a bastion against such things is an argument built on a myth.
Genocide is a multi step process. The West did the first few steps a while ago and now look at China doing step 1 to Tibet in horror while still doing step 6 themselves. You can’t insist that you’ve learned the lesson and would never do that while you’re still doing it.
|
On November 28 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:10 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 02:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2018 02:05 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain. That's not what any of this is about. Making sure you don't follow the same mistakes in the past is a good thing we should encourage. Making words to simplify the explanation of things is something we should encourage. Simplicities are anathema to learning from and understanding history. Arguing that genocide is just an aspect of human nature fundamentally miss the point of why the term was coined. It overlooks years of effort put in by the Nazi government to dehumanize the Jews and other minorities, by slowly preying on existing prejudices to make the general population accepting. The years of study by Raphael Lemkin to document exactly how the Nazi govement built in on previous attempt to wipe out populations to show the careful planning involved. And to assure the same tactics could be noted when used in the future. If you want to avoid the mistakes of the past, don’t take the works of people trying to do that very thing and water them down because it is easier. This shit was never meant to be easy. I didn't claim it was unique nor did I claim we were above it, I simply claimed that the west created a word for it and decided it was bad. That it still happens doesn't disqualify that people think its a bad thing. Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada. Simplicities are the basis for any agreement on anything at all. just look at this conversation. we can't agree on the specifics of something and most of our exchange is basically disagreeing on the basic meaning of words. I doubt my conversation with kwark will avoid becoming petty semantics for much longer. People still disagree about the civil war being about slavery. The answer isn't "lets talk about the economic motivations behind the two sides that went back to the start of the colonies with the north being more capital based around industrial concerns and the souths capital being based on agricultural resources being backed up with slave labor." the answer is to tell people it was because of slavery. Peoples work isn't supposed to be watered down but academics have never changed the course of history by trying to explain things to everyone.
Lol. Yes, Socrates and Plato had no influence on the course of history.
|
On November 28 2018 04:41 IgnE wrote:
Plansix the language police coming in to shame and blame
Lazy posting by role playing a low rent Socrates was taken.
|
Depends if you adhere to the "great man theory" of history or not.
|
I prefer the mediocre man theory myself 
|
Socrates most likely an extreamly irritating person, so that checks out.
|
On November 28 2018 05:12 farvacola wrote:I prefer the mediocre man theory myself
Tolstoy says Kutuzov was a great man. And a decrepit man. Napoleon was a genius. And mediocre.
But he had more of a “great nation” theory didn’t he?
|
On November 28 2018 04:40 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2018 03:10 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 02:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2018 02:05 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain. That's not what any of this is about. Making sure you don't follow the same mistakes in the past is a good thing we should encourage. Making words to simplify the explanation of things is something we should encourage. Simplicities are anathema to learning from and understanding history. Arguing that genocide is just an aspect of human nature fundamentally miss the point of why the term was coined. It overlooks years of effort put in by the Nazi government to dehumanize the Jews and other minorities, by slowly preying on existing prejudices to make the general population accepting. The years of study by Raphael Lemkin to document exactly how the Nazi govement built in on previous attempt to wipe out populations to show the careful planning involved. And to assure the same tactics could be noted when used in the future. If you want to avoid the mistakes of the past, don’t take the works of people trying to do that very thing and water them down because it is easier. This shit was never meant to be easy. I didn't claim it was unique nor did I claim we were above it, I simply claimed that the west created a word for it and decided it was bad. That it still happens doesn't disqualify that people think its a bad thing. On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada. Simplicities are the basis for any agreement on anything at all. just look at this conversation. we can't agree on the specifics of something and most of our exchange is basically disagreeing on the basic meaning of words. I doubt my conversation with kwark will avoid becoming petty semantics for much longer. People still disagree about the civil war being about slavery. The answer isn't "lets talk about the economic motivations behind the two sides that went back to the start of the colonies with the north being more capital based around industrial concerns and the souths capital being based on agricultural resources being backed up with slave labor." the answer is to tell people it was because of slavery. Peoples work isn't supposed to be watered down but academics have never changed the course of history by trying to explain things to everyone. Am I understanding you correctly that you're disagreeing on the definition of genocide? Because it is very well defined as "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This does not have to be straight up murder, but can be any road to wholly or partly destroy a group of people. It's not really up for debate whether western civilisations still does this: we do. edit: Well one can debate it I guess. But with the overwhelming evidence, it's not much different from attempting to debate whether the earth is flat.
I think its a misnomer to disagree on the specific definition of something that by listed definitions is a broad sweeping term intended or not to include swaths of actions. I agree it doesn't have to be murder and I didn't say it did.
I'm not and have never said that the west doesn't commit genocides. This conversation has never been about that. It has been started because one guy said that the west created a word for it and deemed it a bad thing.
I also didn't say that academics haven't had an impact on history. I said they never changed history by trying to explain things to people. The scientific theory is based around this by making the hypothesis and theory parts as simple as possible with the explination as support and backup.
|
The west did not create the term. A man created it and explained how the act of genocide was different that previous acts of mass violence.
This isn’t lord of the rings. There are no mythical men of the west unified against anything. The west does not have agency. Just like the east doesn’t act as one.
|
|
|
|
|
United States43934 Posts
On November 28 2018 09:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada. Can you source this please?
I mean I could google it for you but you could google it for you as well. It’s pretty widespread. They go in for another service and later discover they can’t have kids.
The extent of it is hard to tell because the victims are generally socially and politically disenfranchised and because it’s often done under the guise of performing another service. It was actual policy until a generation ago though, and is still unofficially practiced by individuals deciding its for the best if they sterilize natives they seem to be unfit. Many victims did not know they were victims.
As much as I love Canada, as all Brits do, the treatment of indigenous peoples is a real and ongoing issue.
|
|
|
On November 28 2018 09:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 09:09 JimmiC wrote:On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada. Can you source this please? I mean I could google it for you but you could google it for you as well. It’s pretty widespread. They go in for another service and later discover they can’t have kids. The extent of it is hard to tell because the victims are generally socially and politically disenfranchised and because it’s often done under the guise of performing another service. It was actual policy until a generation ago though, and is still unofficially practiced by individuals deciding its for the best if they sterilize natives they seem to be unfit. Many victims did not know they were victims. As much as I love Canada, as all Brits do, the treatment of indigenous peoples is a real and ongoing issue.
If we're on the subject of involuntay sterilization in the US and Canada, I'm gonna need a little more than a condescending "go Google it yourself" when you claim that this sort of thing is "widespread"
Are you aware of how this statement sounds?
|
"Pretty widespread" means a handful of cases in the last 18 years.
|
Canada11497 Posts
Also, I think limited to Saskatchewan. If I remember correctly from some reports from earlier (a year ago?) it sounded like it was some over-zealous healthcare workers that were concerned about FASD and other substance abuse issues while pregnant and were pressuring women immediately post-birth to get sterilized. An obvious example of why the ends don't justify the means, and it's good that it is getting investigated, but I don't know that we have a systematic program for sterilization. I could be wrong though.
|
Given the content of the post in question that still isn't going to do it for me. Going to need to see some articles, research studies, anything really, to justify the idea that this is widespread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
