Nakba doesn’t convey the severity of this. At least in English. An ethnic cleansing, a genocide, a destruction of the people. More descriptive terms for the English audience
Nakba is a term I’ve never heard of until 2 weeks ago.
I’m not the most well-read person on the planet, but I have a decent amount of world history knowledge. I imagine most people don’t know what nakba means if they’re not already involved with Palestine history.
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.
Average person says it’s a genocide: “It’s not a genocide! What do you know?”
Literal expert in genocide, who’s also Jewish, says it’s a genocide and gives details why: “Of course it looks like a genocide to them! They’re always looking for genocides!”
An expert in the field has spent a lifetime studying, writing, debating, and thinking about the field. We can survey the course catalog at Stockton on Genocide studies to get a first taste in what a expert would be able to contribute.
These specifically stand out as focuses relevant to our conversation today ‘Witness to Genocide, Genocide War Crimes and Law, War Nationalism and Genocide, Ordinary Evil’… tell me what is your philosophy on Ordinary Evil?
You gave such a thoughtful well crafted response to a person who is clearly being a troll. But thank you for that, at least you provide good reading materials.
I try not to think of them as trolls, more like explain it like I’m five users. Imagine most of the internet is basically sugar hyped toddlers with the attention span of goldfish, and a rough grasp of the English language.
Explain it like I’m 5, is probably still too high a bar. :)
Are you a literalist where all the people fitting the demographic must be killed to the last person in order for it to be literal genocide? Because right now your argument is “Nuh uh! No it isn’t!” with zero backup in the face of historical evidence and the words of an expert. Even in America we committed a genocide of our natives, yet some of them live, some of them were made to move elsewhere, and not all of them were killed off.
It’s abundantly clear you willfully refuse to understand what “genocide” is.
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.
On the contrary, I believe trying to expand a definition to the point of absurdity isn’t helpful.
The idea behind the term genocide is clear and simple: the intent to destroy an ethnicity.
People are trying to call Israels intent to disperse the ethnic Arabs from Palestine a genocide (to add more weight to the crime), when even the UN definition is clear this is not included.
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.
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.
Nakba doesn’t convey the severity of this. At least in English. An ethnic cleansing, a genocide, a destruction of the people. More descriptive terms for the English audience
The Palestinian Holocaust
Nakba conveys it just fine if you have read history.
Nakba is a term I’ve never heard of until 2 weeks ago.
I’m not the most well-read person on the planet, but I have a decent amount of world history knowledge. I imagine most people don’t know what nakba means if they’re not already involved with Palestine history.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Nakba&hl=en-US
For me it’s like when Jewish people say something is a pogrom. The historical context behind it has some bearing.
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
Average person says it’s a genocide: “It’s not a genocide! What do you know?”
Literal expert in genocide, who’s also Jewish, says it’s a genocide and gives details why: “Of course it looks like a genocide to them! They’re always looking for genocides!”
What do you imagine an ‘expert in genocide’ knows more about genocide than you do?
An expert in the field has spent a lifetime studying, writing, debating, and thinking about the field. We can survey the course catalog at Stockton on Genocide studies to get a first taste in what a expert would be able to contribute.
These specifically stand out as focuses relevant to our conversation today ‘Witness to Genocide, Genocide War Crimes and Law, War Nationalism and Genocide, Ordinary Evil’… tell me what is your philosophy on Ordinary Evil?
https://www.stockton.edu/general-studies/holocaust-and-genocide-studies.html
Raz Segal appears to have done lots of research of the societal bystander effect, where a genocide can happen without anyone getting involved…
One of his lectures, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJH4NDfINE8
he is well spoken, his lecture took more then 2 minutes…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=EJH4NDfINE8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You gave such a thoughtful well crafted response to a person who is clearly being a troll. But thank you for that, at least you provide good reading materials.
I try not to think of them as trolls, more like explain it like I’m five users. Imagine most of the internet is basically sugar hyped toddlers with the attention span of goldfish, and a rough grasp of the English language.
Explain it like I’m 5, is probably still too high a bar. :)
That’s a long list, but is there anything in there on genocide you couldn’t figure out yourself?
All of it, the context, the implications, the patterns…
I am not as intelligent and intuitive as you, I have to do research practice, and communicate before I can compete with an expert in a field.
That’s a long list, but is there anything in there you didn’t figure out yourself?
I’m clearly not as gifted and as well read as you, I have to do research before I know a subject.
Are you a literalist where all the people fitting the demographic must be killed to the last person in order for it to be literal genocide? Because right now your argument is “Nuh uh! No it isn’t!” with zero backup in the face of historical evidence and the words of an expert. Even in America we committed a genocide of our natives, yet some of them live, some of them were made to move elsewhere, and not all of them were killed off.
It’s abundantly clear you willfully refuse to understand what “genocide” is.
Well the ‘cide’ part refers to ‘killing’
How would you differentiate between ‘forcefully made to move’ and ‘killed’ if you can’t imagine using different words for them?
They have different phrases
Ethnic Cleansing - Clearing a ethnicity from a area
Genocide - The pogrom being persecuted in Gaza now.
Ethnic Cleansing is part of a overall Genocide.
You really should read the article, it clarifies things greatly. https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide.
Stubborn one, aren’t ya.
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.
On the contrary, I believe trying to expand a definition to the point of absurdity isn’t helpful.
The idea behind the term genocide is clear and simple: the intent to destroy an ethnicity.
People are trying to call Israels intent to disperse the ethnic Arabs from Palestine a genocide (to add more weight to the crime), when even the UN definition is clear this is not included.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
…
Displacement is part of genocide.
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.
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.