Genocide in Afghanistan?

[sophie]

Well OP here mentions women's rights in Afghanistan.

They're not an ethnic group and even if they were the Taliban aren't trying to exterminate them en masse.

What is the qualitative difference between a group-in-power seeking to destroy as-such a marginalized ethnic group and a group-in-power seeking to destroy as-such a marginalized gender group?

Yes I understand that gender and ethnicity exist socially as "different categories," but clearly they don't in the mind of those who would seek to exercise power to destroy one, the other, or both simultaneously. After all, the Nazis sought out and ruthlessly destroyed ethnic groups like Jews and Roma, religious groups like the Jehovah's Witness, and GSM groups like gay and trans people alike with no compunction about whether these represented different sorts of violence. It was all one cleansing. So the question is: what benefit is gained by creating such a hard distinction between one or the other form of systematic extermination? What insights do we gain in our understanding of genocide as a historic process? What utility does it grant us in recognizing the utilization of power to exterminate an identifiable marginalized group as the phenomenon arises so as to hinder or prevent it in its early phases?

 

[innonimatu]

The utility is the use of "genocide" as a political argument, of course. While obscuring what is really going on in each instance.

The alternative is to discuss each and every one of these things in their specificities. Seriously.

 

[Zardnaar]

What is the qualitative difference between a group-in-power seeking to destroy as-such a marginalized ethnic group and a group-in-power seeking to destroy as-such a marginalized gender group?

Yes I understand that gender and ethnicity exist socially as "different categories," but clearly they don't in the mind of those who would seek to exercise power to destroy one, the other, or both simultaneously. After all, the Nazis sought out and ruthlessly destroyed ethnic groups like Jews and Roma, religious groups like the Jehovah's Witness, and GSM groups like gay and trans people alike with no compunction about whether these represented different sorts of violence. It was all one cleansing. So the question is: what benefit is gained by creating such a hard distinction between one or the other form of systematic extermination? What insights do we gain in our understanding of genocide as a historic process? What utility does it grant us in recognizing the utilization of power to exterminate an identifiable marginalized group as the phenomenon arises so as to hinder or prevent it in its early phases?

Well they're not rounding people up and killing them so it's disingenuous imho.

Not saying it's right it's not genocide. Hell it's not even illegal.

 

[sophie]

Well they're not rounding people up and killing them so it's disingenuous imho.

This wasn't my question.

You said it's not genocide because women and trans people aren't ethnic groups. My question is why that distinction would matter.

 

[Zardnaar]

This wasn't my question.

You said it's not genocide because women and trans people aren't ethnic groups. My question is why that distinction would matter.

Because it does matter. And they're not rounding women up en masse and killing them.

 

[Wastl]

Because it does matter. And they're not rounding women up en masse and killing them.

Killing people is not a requirement to count as a genocide, see page one for the actual definition.
Pointing out that "women" aren't a group that fit to what is listed in the definition would be a somewhat coherent stance. Constantly pointing at the Taliban not killing women en masse however, is not, as all you do is ignore the actual definition. If you want to make a proper argument, use the former, not the latter, as the latter is just nonsensical.

One could make a case, that the Taliban shaping the entire society to their liking through whatever means necessary would in itself constitute genocide, as it tries to destroy what exists and forces everyone to adhere what they believe in. If you do count it as genocide though, you'd end up with lots and lits of similar instances which so far have not been considered to be genocides.

 

[Farm Boy]

Isn't that sort of what spawned the thread though? We use this definition and then just hand waive away many of the things we have done and those that we have failed to do, because politics.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess throwing on another word is reasonable, "cultural genocide" distinguishes it nicely.

There is a large part of me that thinks the fundamental word of genocide should be about the targeted and systemic killing of a cohort based on heritable trait.

It's also referring to a specific type of horror that I don't think that should be diluted. I mean, you need a word for it. It happens.

Obviously things can be genocidal without resulting in genocide. So qualifying words in front of the root word really help clarify where along in the process the event is.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Why focus on Afghanistan? I think at this point be reductive enough just to discuss the defemination of Genocide.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There's several things going in for my objections.

1. It's not actually genocide.

This is begging the question.

I'm talking about genocide for average mook not UN definition. Think holocaust or deliberate attempt to exterminate an ethnic group.

So, the UN definition.

So @schlaufuchs, first of all, thanks for that recap of the beginning of the discussion. This particular above exchange gives me the impression that what folks are really talking about, and what is apparently, and admittedly somewhat understandably difficult for some folks to wrap their minds around, is the question of whether the common understanding/perceptions of "genocide", indeed the dictionary, UN, etc., definitions of "genocide", should be expanded to include the current treatment of trans people, due to all the substantive similarities between how trans people are being treated, and the characteristics of treatment historically deemed as genocidal. Is that on the right track?

This isn't a statement BTW, its a question. I'm not trying to explain what is going on to you, rather, I'm conveying what my perception of the conversation is, and asking whether I am on track or not, and why/how, so I have a proper frame of reference to keep reading the thread.

 

[sophie]

So @schlaufuchs, first of all, thanks for that recap of the beginning of the discussion. This particular above exchange gives me the impression that what folks are really talking about, and what is apparently, and admittedly somewhat understandably difficult for some folks to wrap their minds around, is the question of whether the common understanding/perceptions of "genocide", indeed the dictionary, UN, etc., definitions of "genocide", should be expanded to include the current treatment of trans people, due to all the substantive similarities between how trans people are being treated, and the characteristics of treatment historically deemed as genocidal. Is that on the right track?

This isn't a statement BTW, its a question. I'm not trying to explain what is going on to you, rather, I'm conveying what my perception of the conversation is, and asking whether I am on track or not, and why/how, so I have a proper frame of reference to keep reading the thread.

I was just being flippant because the whole exchange went like this: is this genocide? -> no -> why not -> because it's not genocide

But to the wider point, yes I think when thinking about genocide, people should be approaching it as a historical process, and so begin from an understanding of how and why it arises and what its phenomenological effects and historical outcomes are, rather than treating it as a taxonomical exercise whereby the label is applied through some sort of contemplation of "genocide" as an ideal form. In the first because I think the latter leads to a very limited understanding of history and power (whereby genocide is reduced to a Bad Thing done by ontologically Bad People as an emanation of their brute Badness), and also because it severely limits the utility of studying or thinking about genocide as a phenomenon. It is to reduce it to mere esoteria, a trivial label which can only be applied post-facto, and which makes no account for why or how it happened, still less how it might relate to other similar phenomena. I mean you can see it in this and the previous thread: an understanding of genocide that functions like a taxonomic classification turns its labelling into a thought-terminating cliché: this doesn't look exactly like the Holocaust (understood as "the camps") and therefore I no longer have to spend any time thinking about this thing that is happening today, nor about what actually happened during the Holocaust, for that matter. It almost becomes like a taboo (in the literal sense): the mere invocation of the term inspires such fear and disgust that all further discussion or inquiry must be immediately halted and how dare you insult the victims by using that term, as if the dignity of their deaths is somehow tarnished by remembering them.

I feel precisely the same way about "fascism," for the record.

 

[Angst]

I was just being flippant because the whole exchange went like this: is this genocide? -> no -> why not -> because it's not genocide

But to the wider point, yes I think when thinking about genocide, people should be approaching it as a historical process, and so begin from an understanding of how and why it arises and what its phenomenological effects and historical outcomes are, rather than treating it as a taxonomical exercise whereby the label is applied through some sort of contemplation of "genocide" as an ideal form. In the first because I think the latter leads to a very limited understanding of history and power (whereby genocide is reduced to a Bad Thing done by ontologically Bad People as an emanation of their brute Badness), and also because it severely limits the utility of studying or thinking about genocide as a phenomenon. It is to reduce it to mere esoteria, a trivial label which can only be applied post-facto, and which makes no account for why or how it happened, still less how it might relate to other similar phenomena. I mean you can see it in this and the previous thread: an understanding of genocide that functions like a taxonomic classification turns its labelling into a thought-terminating cliché: this doesn't look exactly like the Holocaust (understood as "the camps") and therefore I no longer have to spend any time thinking about this thing that is happening today, nor about what actually happened during the Holocaust, for that matter. It almost becomes like a taboo (in the literal sense): the mere invocation of the term inspires such fear and disgust that all further discussion or inquiry must be immediately halted and how dare you insult the victims by using that term, as if the dignity of their deaths is somehow tarnished by remembering them.

I feel precisely the same way about "fascism," for the record.

i really echo the part about genocide as an ideal form; something platonic.

when you note something is genocide, people (understandably) default to the holocaust. it is arguably its purest, most ideal form (not as in ideal/pure=best, but as in ideal=essential, most correctly recognized). this is partly because of the trauma of civilization it has done to all of the west. we saw the endgame of racial purity, and (to most people), we were horrified. it's a shock that we can't really move past.

edit like ok i realize after writing this post that i haven't talked about the plight of the jews and the other groups killed in this post; the germans did not suffer like they did. we did not suffer like they did. they have a trauma much more pronounced than us. but we still have collective trauma in our nationbuilding following the reveal of the camps' nature. it's why we call us japanese internment camps "unfortunate" more often than not, instead of, like, an actual terrifying practice. trauma is something one naturally avoids dealing with to save oneself the stress.

the problem then comes when other degrees of genocide happens, people immediately jump to "but you can't compare this to the holocaust!". a big reason the holocaust was such a trauma was that up to that point, the world was arranged around male, european, white supremacy; antisemitism was not unpopular among the allied countries. nationbuilding up & through the 19th century was all about some form of national purity. then we were faced with what that actually meant when taken to its consequences. people intuitively get that when you fight over blood and nation, you are removing groups for the sake of your own, because of your own's intrinsic better-ness. it also means that today, because of civic identity, one gets incredibly defensive when problems with racial purity are pointed out, because people naturally don't want to be associated with the holocaust.

but the case is, rather, that genocide is not one thing, and there are degrees of horror in what it is, from less to more (don't get me wrong, it's always bad; but, to put it in layman's terms, and sorry for that, some genocide is worse than other forms; it's all something that shouldn't be done in the absolute, but it's not all the holocaust). people miss the point that transgressions can be less gruesome than the holocaust, and therefore they can't mediate their response of denial to less than that.

so we get into situations where the actual arguments provided, willing are not, are "well it's not the holocaust, so i'm not evil, and it should be fine", instead of reflecting over the fact that the holocaust is the worst thing ever to happen, without reflecting that that's why the response is as it is, without understanding that you can be doing something wrong even if you're not using gas chambers for it.

i mean, it's hard to phrase. people feel how the holocaust is connected to ideas of national purity, but at the same time, they're not really aware of it. people feel disgusted not just because of the horrors of it, but because at some level, they feel the association with their own nationbuilding, even if this was an extreme form of the darkest parts of that.

 

[Zardnaar]

i really echo the part about genocide as an ideal form; something platonic.

when you note something is genocide, people (understandably) default to the holocaust. it is arguably its purest, most ideal form (not as in ideal/pure=best, but as in ideal=essential, most correctly recognized). this is partly because of the trauma of civilization it has done to all of the west. we saw the endgame of racial purity, and (to most people), we were horrified. it's a shock that we can't really move past.

edit like ok i realize after writing this post that i haven't talked about the plight of the jews and the other groups killed in this post; the germans did not suffer like they did. we did not suffer like they did. they have a trauma much more pronounced than us. but we still have collective trauma in our nationbuilding following the reveal of the camps' nature. it's why we call us japanese internment camps "unfortunate" more often than not, instead of, like, an actual terrifying practice. trauma is something one naturally avoids dealing with to save oneself the stress.

the problem then comes when other degrees of genocide happens, people immediately jump to "but you can't compare this to the holocaust!". a big reason the holocaust was such a trauma was that up to that point, the world was arranged around male, european, white supremacy; antisemitism was not unpopular among the allied countries. nationbuilding up & through the 19th century was all about some form of national purity. then we were faced with what that actually meant when taken to its consequences. people intuitively get that when you fight over blood and nation, you are removing groups for the sake of your own, because of your own's intrinsic better-ness. it also means that today, because of civic identity, one gets incredibly defensive when problems with racial purity are pointed out, because people naturally don't want to be associated with the holocaust.

but the case is, rather, that genocide is not one thing, and there are degrees of horror in what it is, from less to more (don't get me wrong, it's always bad; but, to put it in layman's terms, and sorry for that, some genocide is worse than other forms; it's all something that shouldn't be done in the absolute, but it's not all the holocaust). people miss the point that transgressions can be less gruesome than the holocaust, and therefore they can't mediate their response of denial to less than that.

so we get into situations where the actual arguments provided, willing are not, are "well it's not the holocaust, so i'm not evil, and it should be fine", instead of reflecting over the fact that the holocaust is the worst thing ever to happen, without reflecting that that's why the response is as it is, without understanding that you can be doing something wrong even if you're not using gas chambers for it.

i mean, it's hard to phrase. people feel how the holocaust is connected to ideas of national purity, but at the same time, they're not really aware of it. people feel disgusted not just because of the horrors of it, but because at some level, they feel the association with their own nationbuilding, even if this was an extreme form of the darkest parts of that.

Genocide isn't restricted to the holocausr but it's probably the default go to for the populace at large.

I look at things on a scale. From a state PoV.

1. Low level harassment (propaganda)
2. Severe harassment (nasty propaganda)
3. Low level restrictions ( we won't fund this is Florida)
4. Severe restrictions (no you cant)
5. Low level persecution (fines etc)
6. Active persecution (jail time)
7. Severe persecution (camps, long term prison, assault, death in some cases)
8. Death penalty liberally applied
9. Mass death (death camps, ethnic cleansing,

Doesn't just apply to genocide. I don't generally regard a state not funding something as level 3 unless they go out of there way. Eg pharmac here doesn't fund every drug in the world espicially the expensive ones but it's not ideological based more funding.

 

[uppi]

I was just being flippant because the whole exchange went like this: is this genocide? -> no -> why not -> because it's not genocide

But to the wider point, yes I think when thinking about genocide, people should be approaching it as a historical process, and so begin from an understanding of how and why it arises and what its phenomenological effects and historical outcomes are, rather than treating it as a taxonomical exercise whereby the label is applied through some sort of contemplation of "genocide" as an ideal form. In the first because I think the latter leads to a very limited understanding of history and power (whereby genocide is reduced to a Bad Thing done by ontologically Bad People as an emanation of their brute Badness), and also because it severely limits the utility of studying or thinking about genocide as a phenomenon. It is to reduce it to mere esoteria, a trivial label which can only be applied post-facto, and which makes no account for why or how it happened, still less how it might relate to other similar phenomena. I mean you can see it in this and the previous thread: an understanding of genocide that functions like a taxonomic classification turns its labelling into a thought-terminating cliché: this doesn't look exactly like the Holocaust (understood as "the camps") and therefore I no longer have to spend any time thinking about this thing that is happening today, nor about what actually happened during the Holocaust, for that matter. It almost becomes like a taboo (in the literal sense): the mere invocation of the term inspires such fear and disgust that all further discussion or inquiry must be immediately halted and how dare you insult the victims by using that term, as if the dignity of their deaths is somehow tarnished by remembering them.

I feel precisely the same way about "fascism," for the record.

The reduction to genocide as a Bad Thing Bad People do to a any group is also a result of trying to apply the label to horrendous acts done to a group which are not a people. Not because the acts are not on par with genocide, but because genocide is about the forced eradication of culture and social traditions. Sometimes, it feels like genocide is the worst term we know, so it is thrown at everything bad at a large scale.

i really echo the part about genocide as an ideal form; something platonic.

when you note something is genocide, people (understandably) default to the holocaust. it is arguably its purest, most ideal form (not as in ideal/pure=best, but as in ideal=essential, most correctly recognized). this is partly because of the trauma of civilization it has done to all of the west. we saw the endgame of racial purity, and (to most people), we were horrified. it's a shock that we can't really move past.

I disagree that the Holocaust is the purest form of genocide (although it certainly was the worst), because it had a strong component of racism. Jews were not only persecuted because of their ethnic or religious identity, but because of them being part of the Jewish race (as defined by the Nazis).

 

[amadeus]

Are racial quotas on college entrance genocide?

 

[Lexicus]

I disagree that the Holocaust is the purest form of genocide (although it certainly was the worst), because it had a strong component of racism. Jews were not only persecuted because of their ethnic or religious identity, but because of them being part of the Jewish race (as defined by the Nazis).

I am mystified by this attitude toward race as a criterion given that we have the following from the guy who coined the term:

New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc.

Like, race is literally in the name.

 

[Angst]

i think uppi's qualm is that if the platonic ideal genocide is racial, it kind of infers that genociding on non-racial grounds is not "as genocidal". it could infer that on the scale of bad to worst, racial genocide always outranks other kinds.

if so, i can see the point. that said i think the holocaust is the platonic ideal of it for its reasons of method, and it also ofc genocided groups on nonracial grounds (political alignment and sexuality)

 

[EnglishEdward]

I wouldn't refer to the Holocaust as any form of ideal.

A strange concept for the translation of the Platonic Theory of Forms.

 

[Angst]

I wouldn't refer to the Holocaust as any form of ideal.

A strange concept for the translation of the Platonic Theory of Forms.

for the record, i understand and tried to cover this. english is very horrifying here.

furthermore, may not even be platonic anything (specifically because i don't believe in platonic ontology, so i'm by default using a grapefruit as a ruler), but whatever it is, common experience of the holocaust sees it as the essence of genocide, in its most cruel, pure form. use whatever ontology or epistemology you want for this, phenomenon, concept, universal, whatever. of genocide, westerners consider the holocaust the utmost. and i don't think this experience of the holocaust as genocide in its totality is completely unfair.

 

[amadeus]

@Angst I understand your frustration; other words include “epitome” and “archetype” all carrying with them not immediately obvious positive connotations. I understood what you meant regardless since I don’t think anyone would be dense enough to accuse you of supporting the slaughter of European Jewry.