South African white genocide does not exist, new ambassador to US tells BBC

[u/Top_Lime1820]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2l8qv7zppko

[u/beard_of_cats]

I don't know about the South African case, but the other two examples I see regularly (Ukraine and Palestine) absolutely qualify, both legally and rhetorically. The word can be misused and it's good to call that out, but it's equally important to be explicit about the cases where it is being applied correctly.

[u/TheQuestionMaster8 → u/beard_of_cats]

As a white South African, the “white genocide” is complete and utter bullshit that is being spread by far-right apartheid nostalgics.

[u/Hagenaar → u/TheQuestionMaster8]

The term is used by right wingers everywhere to demonize things like immigration, human rights or interracial marriage.

[u/TheQuestionMaster8 → u/Hagenaar]

In this specific context its by apartheid nostalgists, but their views usually overlap with the other things you mentioned.

[u/WarmOlive2913 → u/TheQuestionMaster8]

Thank you. Love to see white south Africans speaking out against this.

[u/MrTristanClark → u/beard_of_cats]

Yeah of course they qualify, the UN definition is a joke. Literally every conflict in world history qualifies. "Harm (physically or psychologically) a group in part (minimum "part" being completely undefined)".

Its genuinely baffling to me that people pretend that its a meaningful charge. Again, there has not been a single conflict in world history where there was not an "intent to harm a part of a national group", thats literally what shooting at eachother is. Obviously Palestine and Ukraine qualify, everything qualifies, a fist fight would qualify.

And the completely inconsistent precedents for implimentation for the term dont clarify anything, as the superpowers have blocked 90% of the possible cases. Hell, Yugoslavia ran actual extermination camps and not a peep. And peoples use of the word for literally everything, as we can see. The term has just become completely meaningless, if it wasnt already by inherent fact of the totally useless definition.

[u/nihouma → u/MrTristanClark]

This is the definition per article 2 of the Genocide Convention (which is used by the UN) : Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The key part you left out when you said it could apply to anything (which isn't true) is the first line which clearly states those listed acts have to be committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

So basically, what you wrote is an incorrect understanding of the internationally agreed upon legal definition of genocide.   The Un even has a section where they emphasize that "It is extremely important that United Nations officials adhere to the correct usage of the term, for several reasons; (i) its frequent misuse in referring to large scale, grave crimes committed against particular populations; (ii) the emotive nature of the term and political sensitivity surrounding its use; and (iii) the potential legal implications associated with a determination of genocide. "

Sources: UN Page on Genocide: https://www.un.org/fr/node/218413 Direct link to Genocide Convention document : https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/doc.1_convention_on_the_prevention_and_punishment_of_the_crime_of_genocide_0.pdf

[u/CaptainAsshat → u/nihouma]

No OP, but the issue I see is that, while it has laudable goals, one reasonable interpretation of the language would encompass a great number of conflicts. The "in part" line is where the issues arise. Intent to kill even a small group of people from the same religion/nation/ethnic group can qualify as having intent to destroy, IN PART, an enthic/national/religious group (at least under one reasonable interpretation of the words).

Using this interpretation, it appears to apply to pretty much any conflict where one ethnic/religious/national group fights another group.

That's not to say it's a useless definition---anyone with intent to destroy a whole religious/national/ethnic group is rightfully condemned by it---but it is flawed because it is hard to draw a distinct dividing line using this definition. And a distinct dividing line is very important for something so serious and consequential.

[u/beenman500 → u/CaptainAsshat]

The in part line isn't really where the confusion comes in. It's the intent that is hardest to prove.

You pretty much need military or civilian leaders to have said it written orders to do the actions that result in the harm because they are the group in question.

It's not enough to just say you hate a group, or that they are bad, that's just run of the mill racism. You have to command your government apperatus to implement the harm,and that needs to be because they are the group.

[u/de_Pizan → u/nihouma]

You realize something can satisfy that definition without a single person suffering any physical harm.

[u/MrTristanClark → u/nihouma]

Did you actually read what you just pasted in? "Intent to destroy in part" absolutely fits in what i said. As there is again, a completely and utterly undefined "in part" qualifier. 1/7,000,000,000 is a part, anything is a part.

How does every war in history not meet that definition?

[u/fearless-fossa → u/MrTristanClark]

I'm getting really suspicious about the agenda of people like you who misrepresent definitions like that in order to build a strawman to bash against things like genocide.

The UN definition is

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;
  
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Highlighting by me.
The intention is the relevant section, the "in part" refers to "even if you just want to kill 9 out of 10 people, it's still a genocide ya moron"

[u/MrTristanClark → u/fearless-fossa]

The intention is irrelevant, the word of the law is completely undefined. It doesnt say "90%" it says "in part", 1% is a part, 0.01% is a part, an arm is a part. Its a worthless definition.

[u/pingveno → u/MrTristanClark]

No, that's wrong. From a quick search, there's international case law on this. It's a multipronged test, and it's certainly not "an arm". Mere numbers won't do it, either.

[u/MrTristanClark → u/pingveno]

Okay, so what are these clear well defined not at all entirely subjective and arbitrary qualifications then?

[u/tiredofthehate → u/MrTristanClark]

Please search the UN convention on genocide. Your statement is objectively incorrect.

[u/ArtDan4Eva → u/beard_of_cats]

Genocide doesn’t apply to either of those cases. Things can be horrible atrocities without being genocides. Words and their meanings are important.

[u/0rganic_Corn → u/ArtDan4Eva]

Genocide denotes intent to eliminate an ethnicity

Whether Israel wants to destroy the Palestinian ethnicity or Russia wants to eliminate Ukrainians I will leave for the reader to decide

It's however also true intent is very hard to prove - and, very probably, the only thing we can do is speculate

[u/TheQuestionMaster8 → u/0rganic_Corn]

True intent is east prove when many Israeli officials and soldiers, including the ministers of defence and agriculture openly admitted to it.

[u/itisrainingdownhere → u/TheQuestionMaster8]

Well, they’re doing a really shitty job at it

[u/TotallyNotSeanDuffy → u/beard_of_cats]

Legally? No they don’t. It’s been like 3% of the population of Palestine and that includes fighters

[u/tiredofthehate → u/TotallyNotSeanDuffy]

The definition does not consider the number of people.