Honestly, if we’re going to use such standards and definitions that a “nonviolent genocide” is possible, then I’m not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide?
Come on, you can do better than that.
People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.
How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) “nonviolent genocide” of Imperial Japanese culture?
That’s a slightly better point. The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture. The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing, even if it is struggling like many other religions are.
People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.
Is it? Genocide doesn’t necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.
The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture.
“Forced,” but not through killing.
There’s often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn’t it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?
It’s absurd. What a coincidence that the first “nonviolent genocide” in history happens to come from the US’s chief geopolitical rival. It’s a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.
The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing
No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.
If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.
I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, …? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.
Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn’t genocide. Which should answer the other “questions” you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.
The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing
No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?
But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.
Are there explicit actions/sanctions against Uighurs practicing Islam, or other aspects of their culture?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it?
I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.
And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?
What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.
I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.
So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything? Great, then thats not genocide.
What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.
The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say “I am not divine”. Let’s say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words. Yes that would shatter the faith of a lot of people and how they deal with that is pretty much no-ones business. And it wouldn’t be genocide if they all turned away from their faith after that.
Come on, you can do better than that.
People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.
That’s a slightly better point. The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture. The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing, even if it is struggling like many other religions are.
Is it? Genocide doesn’t necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.
“Forced,” but not through killing.
There’s often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn’t it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?
It’s absurd. What a coincidence that the first “nonviolent genocide” in history happens to come from the US’s chief geopolitical rival. It’s a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.
No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.
I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, …? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.
Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn’t genocide. Which should answer the other “questions” you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?
Are there explicit actions/sanctions against Uighurs practicing Islam, or other aspects of their culture?
I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.
What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.
So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything? Great, then thats not genocide.
The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say “I am not divine”. Let’s say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words. Yes that would shatter the faith of a lot of people and how they deal with that is pretty much no-ones business. And it wouldn’t be genocide if they all turned away from their faith after that.