Recent coverage of Gaza and the West Bank illustrates that, while corporate media occasionally outright call for expelling Palestinians from their land, more often the way these outlets support ethnic cleansing is by declining to call it ethnic cleansing.
Genocide also doesn’t imply killing.
I feel like in common use it does. Some formal definitions don’t require it, but then there’s contradicting formal definitions.
No, genocide is explicitly defined as:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide
-Cide is to kill or killing, and is derived from Middle French, from Latin -cida, from caedere to cut, kill
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-cide
Yes, and you can destroy a group by means other than killing its members, such as forced sterilization, systematic abuse, or the transfer of children away from the community. It’s the demo that’s being killed, not necessarily its individual members.
You’re incorrect on this one. Abducting “enemy” children and brainwashing them is genocide. Erasing local language from books and signage is genocide. Part of the definition. You can kill an ethnicity by erasing it and not have to kill a single person.
If you want to argue a dictionary then be my guest.
maybe read the actual convention on genocide instead of relying on a dictionary then?
because the case of abducted children stated above is explicitly stated in the convention…the dictionary definition you found is simply wrong and incomplete.
The definition isn’t wrong, they just didn’t read it correctly. Those things in the UN convention are methods that could be used to “cause the destruction of a people”. They’re spelled out to avoid people misinterpreting the definition just like they did.
yes, true, but not exactly why i used the phrasing “wrong AND incomplete”:
i wrote it that way, because without clarifying that “destruction” means many different things apart form the common interpretation of “to kill”, it’s difficult for a casual reader to know what the convention actually says.
if anyone wants to shorten the definition to fit into a dictionary, they should be more responsible in their phrasing, so that this exact problem is less likely to occur.
so i do fault merriam webster here for providing an incomplete, oversimplified definition.
Nobody is saying the dictionary is wrong, they’re saying that there are international groups that have specific definitions for what qualifies as genocide and those don’t necessarily line up with the dictionary. Saying the dictionary is wrong because of the organizations’ use or the organizations are wrong because of the dictionary’s use are both foolish.
I’d argue that the convention on genocide serves as a dictionary in this case. It’s the most common and accepted definition, and it includes cultural forms of genocide, not just physical ones.
Neither is wrong, they just serve different purposes. Dictionaries track usage of the general populace, not industry experts. It’s wrong to use the dictionary as evidence that the convention on genocide is using the term incorrectly though, definitely.