Genocide in Afghanistan?

Lexicus

Deity
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
31,949
Location
Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
In the other thread @Farm Boy and @El_Machinae were exploring the idea of whether the Taliban are committing genocide against the women of Afghanistan. Corollary to this is the idea that the US/coalition forces are complicit in this genocide by withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Here's a thread to discuss these issues, to avoid derailing the other thread.

My position is that I think tentatively the Taliban could be described as carrying out a genocidal policy against women. HOWEVER, I think any suggestion that the US is complicit in this by not continuing to occupy Afghanistan indefinitely is seriously problematic, being more-or-less identical to "civilizing" arguments about the necessity of European empire from the 19th century. It also neglects the fact that most Afghan women in the countryside support the Taliban, and that the period of US occupation in Afghanistan was marked by severe and widespread violence against both women and men across the rural regions of Afghanistan.

Another point that I want to bring up (specifically to respond to the charge of inconsistency in definitions) is that by any logic under which the Taliban are committing genocide against women in Afghanistan, a number of US state governments are also committing genocide against women in the US by criminalizing reproductive healthcare.
 
My intent really is to unpack the concept of genocide and explore the idea of 'removing supports' vs 'actively suppress'. I think it's patently obvious that you can commit genocide by removing supports, especially since maintaining civil order IS a type of support. (The segue into American reproductive health is a very interesting parallel to the Taliban discussion, especially given women involvement in the Pro-Life movement)

I know that 'costly' is a factor when we're discussing supports, but I see no way to put that into the limited discussion of 'coalition forces'. But, it's different as a Canadian, because we under-invested on the civil support side as well. So, the analogy just completely breaks down, I think, into opinions. So, meh.

I think I've seen more than one person boggle at the idea that a genocide is happening "if there more of them now than there were before", which seems to be just the thought that 'murder' was the goal rather than 'suppression'.
 
Hoo-boy, you (OP) had best hope MaryKB never sees this thread...

Yes, the women were my first thought when I read that this was going to happen.

WTF did the Americans THINK would happen - that the Taliban would have a change of mind about letting women be educated, that they would be allowed to leave the home unescorted and that they wouldn't be forced back into those damn blue things that restrict their vision and compromise their safety?

I'm not sure "genocide" is exactly the right word, though, as it's only applicable to women and not the men (either in Afghanistan or toward pregnant women and girls in the U.S. and everywhere else with insanely restrictive abortion rights).
 
My intent really is to unpack the concept of genocide and explore the idea of 'removing supports' vs 'actively suppress'. I think it's patently obvious that you can commit genocide by removing supports, especially since maintaining civil order IS a type of support. (The segue into American reproductive health is a very interesting parallel to the Taliban discussion, especially given women involvement in the Pro-Life movement)

I know that 'costly' is a factor when we're discussing supports, but I see no way to put that into the limited discussion of 'coalition forces'. But, it's different as a Canadian, because we under-invested on the civil support side as well. So, the analogy just completely breaks down, I think, into opinions. So, meh.

I think I've seen more than one person boggle at the idea that a genocide is happening "if there more of them now than there were before", which seems to be just the thought that 'murder' was the goal rather than 'suppression'.

I mean, one could certainly argue that patriarchy in general is genocidal toward women insofar as it is designed to facilitate their inability to simply exist self-sufficiently as individuals and force them to be dependent on men, largely in order to allow men to experience pleasure without responsibility and to father children (ie to satisfy men's ends).

The Taliban are certainly guilty of this, and I think would own up openly to it because their vision of society is one where women are subordinate to men and they believe that is what their god has ordained for the world. There are many people in the United States, including women, who believe in a similar vision for society, but would own up to it much less readily than the Taliban. Fundamentally, though, I think that criminalizing abortion and banning women from going to school are policies that have more-or-less identical aims.
 
Hoo-boy, you (OP) had best hope MaryKB never sees this thread...

Why?

I'm not sure "genocide" is exactly the right word, though, as it's only applicable to women and not the men (either in Afghanistan or toward pregnant women and girls in the U.S. and everywhere else with insanely restrictive abortion rights).

This may be of interest to you:
 
I read the wiki article on Gendercide.

It is in my opinion a more appropriate word for this topic.

I wonder if Xenforo permits the changing of the thread title.
 
Why?



This may be of interest to you:

You should recall that Mary's mild diatribes against men are much, MUCH more emphatic and vitriolic than most of my worst ones. I agree with some of what she says, but not all of it.

Do you think that women in Afghanistan were not being killed by the Americans and by other Afghans working with the Americans?

Did I deny this?
I read the wiki article on Gendercide.

It is in my opinion a more appropriate word for this topic.

I wonder if Xenforo permits the changing of the thread title.

The OP should be able to change the thread title, assuming the thread tools menu (only visible to the OP and mods) hasn't vanished with the most recent migration.
 
Why should we want to change the title? Are you really that afraid of a word?
 
Why should we want to change the title? Are you really that afraid of a word?

Has anyone here expressed "fear" of this word? The discussion is whether it's the most applicable word (out of a small list that could be used).

If the OP wants to change it, I pointed out how it could be done.
 
Enslavement might be a better word than Genocide. Actually, Total Cultural/Social Genocide+Enslavement might be best.
 
Last edited:
I am agnostic on the term here. I don't know nearly enough to have a coherent opinion. My gut reaction is no, it's not genocide, because while women are intended to be subjugated, their survival and presence are mandatory. Being relegated to obedient incubators is an extreme evil, but I am not sure if genocide fits. Genocide ultimately seeks eradication, and that isn't the end goal of patriarchal oppression.

But I would be keen on being set straight by someone more knowledgeable.

Either way, I don't think the West can be seen as complicit by revoking their interventionalist policies. Boots on the ground and foreign meddling don't have good track records on effecting permanent positive change; if anything, it's been proven to have a negative impact. We should certainly do what we can to support progressive beliefs, but putting that on the pinhead of Western foreign policy in the Middle East seems carefully crafted to support the military-industrial complex more than any notion of morality.
 
Boots on the ground and foreign meddling don't have good track records on effecting permanent positive change; if anything, it's been proven to have a negative impact.
I don’t think we really meddled all that much, certainly letting Karzai sit on his throne and moan about big bad America while calling the Taliban his brothers, sidling up to Iran, and running the country on Fundamentalism Lite.

Would it have been worth the investment? Maybe, maybe not. But either way, I say we either impose our system on them or not, not stop halfway through.
 
"Genocide", like "human rights", are words useful for propaganda purposes. I don't think it ever was otherwise. It was conceived for that purpose.
When it gets set down in history, "genocide" is what the losers of some past war or conflict did.

You can recognize these things easily: they are deliberately vague, to be used or not used according to conveniences. They do away with detailed descriptions of what went on or is going on. Instead offer a slogan. Which should not be discussed, looked into or questioned. It's not concrete instances of good ("human rights") or evil ("genocide"), it's calls to obedience really. This is good, that is evit, and you will believe because we have placed upon it this label. Do not look into it, do not question the lord thy God... er, government. And media gatekeepers.

"Human rights" were brought to you by the same people who brought "the terror", let's not forget. Slogans.
What actually matters are concrete actions, not the slogans.

As for Afghanistan, the 10 year long special military operation by NATO there produced a number of papers on how to exploit sympathy for the plight of women to keep up support for the SMO. Does one need to say more?
The problem with the world is that there are too many countries interfering across borders and pouring fuel into already bad situations. Leave Afghanistan alone to sort itself out.
 
I am agnostic on the term here. I don't know nearly enough to have a coherent opinion. My gut reaction is no, it's not genocide, because while women are intended to be subjugated, their survival and presence are mandatory. Being relegated to obedient incubators is an extreme evil, but I am not sure if genocide fits. Genocide ultimately seeks eradication, and that isn't the end goal of patriarchal oppression.

But I would be keen on being set straight by someone more knowledgeable.

Either way, I don't think the West can be seen as complicit by revoking their interventionalist policies. Boots on the ground and foreign meddling don't have good track records on effecting permanent positive change; if anything, it's been proven to have a negative impact. We should certainly do what we can to support progressive beliefs, but putting that on the pinhead of Western foreign policy in the Middle East seems carefully crafted to support the military-industrial complex more than any notion of morality.

Huge chunks of the world have fairly crappy regimes with respect to women's rights.

So unless you want to try and change the minds of several billion people by force (which will likely fail).

Conservatives tend to join the military liberals not so much.

Basically I oppose military action in general except as a last resort.

Other countries internal policies, social views and cultural mores don't rise to level of last resort.
 
International law has a specific definition:

In the definition provided in Article II, Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed to destroy (wholly or partly) any national, ethnic, religious or racial group – the acts being (a) The killing of members of the group, (b) inflicting severe bodily or mental harm on members of the group, (c) imposing conditions of life on the members of the group with a view to bring about its destruction, (d) instituting measures to prevent births within the group and (e) forcibly transferring (or converting) children of that group into a different group

Women aren't a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. They kill women (A) but also kill men. The target is perceived enemies of the state.

They're definitely guilty of B.

They don't want to eradicate women (C), abort female babies (the only way to accomplish D), or turn women into men (E).

B is where the case could be made, but "mental harm" is so broad that you end up including any discriminatory policy as genocide.

 
when you challenge the usage of a word like genocide you usually get pushback by people accusing you of downplaying the severity of the thing or being afraid of the word or whatever. When maybe there's a good reason that the word doesn't apply in a situation, things can be really bad without it being a "genocide", and words should mean what they mean

"bUt laNguAgE cHanGes!!" yeah, it changes organically, sometimes activists force a change, sometimes it changes in a stupid direction.
 
Top Bottom