Now it is a crime in France to deny the armenian genocide, and a Turkish writer.....

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

No.
However, the black community pushes for an enshrinement of the evils of slavery in French official history. And parts of the black community consider themselves in competition with the Jews for having the spotlight on collective memory and guilt.

This is one of the reasons (and the most public, as it is championed by a famous humorist) that explains the recent souring between the French black and Jewish communities btw.

I doubt very many blacks in France ever had a family member involved in the international slave trade. More likely they had loads of family members who happily enslaved fellow blacks so they could sell them. Most of these black activists conviently forget that when whites arrived slavery was already practiced in much of Afica and that the locals were very willing to capture other tribes/groups and sell them to whites for a profit.

That the people who kept slavery going are now trying to pretend they're the victims is amusing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Whats in the water over there?

An identity crisis both among the white French and the immigrants, coupled with an increasing gap in the quality of life, coupled with race-based divisions.

Also, since we have sizeable Muslim and Jewish communities (and most of our blacks come from Muslim Africa), the conflict between Israel and Palestine promotes antisemitism among our Muslims, and Islamophobia mong our Jews

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


In other words: circumcision = genocide

Of course Sava's quote left completely out the little aspect that the "serious harm" they speak of has to be with "the intent to destroy" a group (if it's partly or not) - the UN convention makes that very clear.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I doubt very many blacks in France ever had a family member involved in the international slave trade. More likely they had loads of family members who happily enslaved fellow blacks so they could sell them. Most of these black activists conviently forget that when whites arrived slavery was already practiced in much of Afica and that the locals were very willing to capture other tribes/groups and sell them to whites for a profit.

That the people who kept slavery going are now trying to pretend they're the victims is amusing.

We have two main parts in our black community. The blacks we had for longest are the descendants of slaves, who lived in the Winward Islands and in the other overseas colonies we still have. Pretty much all of them descend from slaves. OTOH, we have immigrants from Western Africa, who now seem to be more numerous (at least on continental France).

While these two could be at odds, because the formers are much more Frenchized, they're not, because anti-black racism hits both parts identically. Black identitarianism is a new phenomenon over here, and it is strongly related to the racist stereotypes that are about all blacks, instead of the affirmation of a genuine history (which is unsurprising, considering that the blacks have no more common history than the whites).

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro
Arguing against reality is not exactly wise either

Who is arguing against reality?

In the post above yours I just said their definition of "genocide" was legitimate. But it's still incorrect.

Just because a bunch of people get together and make a law defining a concept for their own purposes, that does not change the meaning of a word. It's a butchery of language.

"Mental harm" is genocide?

Are you really going to defend that?



On a side note... I find it strange that most of Europe feels that "the state" doesn't have the right to take the life of a human being as the form of punishment (death penalty), but yet apparantly the state has the right to take away the right of free expression because it causes "mental harm" to people.

I guess putting a murderous dictator to death is wrong, but censoring people for expressing their views (however offensive they may be) is okay.



I know America may have some pretty messed up inconsistencies in its political system, but at least they are motivated by greed and such. This is just a purely ideological inconsistency of the highest order and makes absolutely no sense. I guess a history of war has just traumatized most Europe to the point where people reach such illogical conclusions about the perceived abuse of state power and the limits of freedom. I can't think of any other explanation.

America just needs to get rid of a corporatist (for lack of a better word) element/culture that has bonded with government. But I see Europe as having much bigger ideological demons to deal with in the coming years.

USA

[Dinner]

Genicide means lots of people have to die. Mental harm is not genicide.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Genicide means lots of people have to die. Mental harm is not genicide.

Not according to international law.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Sava
Who is arguing against reality?

You, and it's still amusing how you try to make it sound as if your personal opinion is somehow relevant here. It isn't. The UN genocide def has found it's way in often exactly the same or similar wording into numerous national laws.

USA

AFAik, the US has signed this UN convention like any respectable country

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro


You

Care to explain how?

I gave a proper definition of the word and proved my point. So far, you just seem to be saying I'm "arguing against reality". I'm not arguing anything. I made a point and that was it. You seem to be the one arguing against reality (whatever that means).

The definition of the word "genocide" is a fact. You can't change that no matter how much you claim I'm arguing against reality.

And it won't change no matter how many kangaroo courts or conventions get together and vote a new definition for the word.

butchery of language

reality

Sava > you

[Barnabas]

Turkey should give up

they will never NEVER join the European Union

Bwa ha ha ha ha Bwa ha ha ha ha

(evil laughter continues)

[BeBMan]

The UN definition of the word "genocide" is a fact.

Fixed.

And not even your own gov agrees with you - that's why you're arguing against reality.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/1.htm

Sava = PWNED

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava


"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." -Dictionary.com

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." -American Heritage

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" -Merriam Webster

"systematic killing of a racial or cultural group" -WordNet

link

One definition specifically states "entire" extremination.

3 of the 4 do not. I wonder what usage cites Am Her based their definitions on.


Dictionaries, as Im sure youre aware, dont give the "real" defintion of a word, but are merely indicators of (usually current) usage. They are supposed to be based on usage cites, and sometimes are wrong. I would suggest that in this case Am Her is wrong.

The genocidaires in Rwanda apparently werent interesting in killing Tutsi in Burundi.

I would suggerst that the word is almost always used to include partial extermination - in fact its more often stretched BEYOND the international law definition in common use (occasionally far beyond), than given a narrower use.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

and Islamophobia mong our Jews

French Jews go around vandalizing mosques, etc?

[Dinner]

Turkey should be in the UN but the Kurdish question needs to be solved first. If that means Kurdish independence to stop the fighting then that's what should occur. The actual Turkish areas should be welcomed.

[Sava]

so BeBro, LotM...

"Mental harm" is genocide in your opinions?

I just want to be clear on this.

You know... to get a feel for who is really on the wrong side of reality here.