Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by neom | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

neom

Cultural Genocide is certainly a thing:

The concept of cultural genocide : an international law perspective https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/43864

https://www.getty.edu/publications/occasional-papers-2/2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide

View on HN

Okay, then I would claim referring to "cultural genocide" as "genocide" is genocide trivialization. In the Holocaust, they killed 11 million people.

I wouldn't compare that to an attempt to end child marriage in India, for instance.

Some cultural practices should be ended. By contrast, people from a certain culture should not have their lives ended simply for being from that culture.

Equating the two is nonsense.

I'd encourage you to study up more on the literature and definitions around cultural genocide. You're conflating nuances in subjects. Anyone discussing the subject seriously is typically focusing on one group, usually non-native to an area forcing cultural change on another group for the purposes of, compliance, curbing, minimizing or destroying, the group. See events such as Uyghurs in China, Natives in Canada, Darfur etc. You may value the destruction of a culture such to kill a peoples as lesser than say, the holocaust, and I doubt anyone would slight you on that value judgement, never the less, these are distinct things and need to be discussed equally, even if you're unhappy with the context around phrasing.

> need to be discussed equally,

No, they absolutely should not be discussed equally.

Darfur was an actual genocide, ie. a killing fields genocide. Native Americans were also killed at high rates, the "cultural genocide" came later.

Equating the killing of millions of people from a certain ethnic group with prohibiting certain practices (like France prohibiting the burqa or public expression of religion, like attempts to outlaw child marriage, etc.) is wrong.

You're seeking to launder the distaste people have for mass killings of an ethnic group into prohibitions of certain cultural practices which are not viewed nearly as negatively. There is no other reason to simply call it "genocide" without the (very important) "cultural" modifier.

Well it's wrong in your book, but it's not in mine, so where does that leave us? Reasonable people cannot disagree? I'm a dimwitted plebeian? Shall we reach for the white gloves?

Last I checked, folks were welcomed to their perspectives around here, we don't typically just go around telling people their opinions are "wrong".

Your point is self-contradictory.

It is my opinion that your opinion is wrong. You are telling me to not express that opinion.

But sure, we can agree to disagree about whether the killing of 6 million people of a specific ethnic group should be "discussed equally" with cultural genocide practices like Burqa bans in France, child marriage bans, or limits on having more than 3 children.

Sorry, I should have used the word "can" instead of "should" - As simply as possible what I was trying to convey is that cultural genocide can be discussed next to the holocaust in the context of genocide, the way an orange can be discussed next to an apple in the context of fruit. What I was trying to say is some people would say an apple is equally an orange in the context of fruit, not that some people might like orange more than apple, if that makes sense.

Equating Burqa bans in France and what China is doing to Uighurs is maybe not as extreme as what you're disagreeing with but is also very distasteful.

Fair enough. My intention was not to equate them, but merely to disagree that cultural prohibitions of any kind should be "compared equally" to genocides which kill people.

I think what's going on in Xinjiang is broader and much worse than merely trying to restrict certain "cultural" practices, but I also don't think it is a genocide with the intent to exterminate the Uyghur people.

> we don't typically just go around telling people their opinions are "wrong".

But sometimes we should, because some are.

Comparing everything to the Jewish Holocaust is also genocide trivialization.

"Cultural genocide" should be called "memocide".

At the point that you are only using the word "gene" metaphorically, it's time to switch to the word that already exists for that purpose: the "meme".

But meme already means something culturally, and we don't want people saying that genocide is a "meme"

That's just because the purveyors of stupid pictures-with-text have hijacked the term: The GP's usage is the original meaning of the word "meme".

Ignorance like you're displaying here just helps further this trivialization of the word. Please educate yourself and join the resistance in stead.

There’s no ignorance here. The parent is 100% that the word colloquially has a completely different meaning than originally intended.

You can try to “resist” cultural shifts in language, but I promise you’ll lose.

True dat. And yet, he persisted... Now onwards, my gallant Rocinante!

Outmaneuver them. Let meme mean "jpeg screenshot from facebook" and choose a new, cooler word for meme. I'll even call it a "onrad" if you want.

Thanks, but no thanks: sounds a bit too close to Onan for my tastes.

Why is gene metaphorical here? Are people not a result of external stimuli? My understanding is that gene variants are involved in evolution often caused by extrinsic factors?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com