PC Gone Too Far

Write to the dictionaries and tell them, as I suggested before. No. I'm saying that, while slavery could conceivably involve the complete death of a culture, that's certainly not part of its definition.Do you know of any examples of cultures being actually destroyed by slavery?If it has happened, and the intent was profiteering rather than cultural death, it still wouldn't be a culturecide. He certainly saw freedom and death as two possible alternatives to his actual state at the time. He wasn't saying all three or any two were the same or similar. Would you like to give us some examples of a known groups of slaves who were all identity-less?Could you also describe the process by which all slaves predictably lose identity?Why is it that you seem to want to view the Afro-American slaves as culture-less zombies?

That's because of the perceived intent to destroy them behind certain attacks on the aboriginals. Which examples of chattel slavery do all your newspapers describe as genocide? I'm not. Your original claim that slavery is similar to genocide because it's similar to death has become a claim that slavery is the same as culturecide (or "cultural genocide") because it invariably kills off cultures. If it doesn't invariably do this , then it can't be the same. Which slaves? When? How?As I know that you won't be able to support your claim that slavery is "cultural genocide" for all known examples of chattel slavery (it doesn't even have to be cross cultural), I want you to get on to the specific claim that you're going make: that African slavery into the Americas was "cultural genocide".Then we can actually discuss history that might be relevant to the O.P., rather than dealing with absurd statements like "slavery is genocide".So, are you arguing that the motivation of the transatlantic slave traders, like that of some of the attackers of Canadian Aboriginals according to your newspapers, was cultural destruction? If you agree that it wasn't, then that might help you to understand one reason why your newspapers probably don't uniformly regard the traders as committing a "cultural genocide".If you agree, then we can get onto your claim about the slaves having their culture beaten out of them, and discuss America's most influential subculture, which you seem to think died somewhere, sometime.

The "cide" bit is about killing, and a concept of culturecide or "cultural genocide" involves intent to "kill" off a culture, whether paternalistic in character or not. The Canadian government currently recognizes five historical genocides. They have yet to include this local suggestion, although there are campaigns to change that. You, presumably, having given up on adding general slavery, would like to add Africa to America slavery to the list. The intent behind the actual slave trade was purely to make money. The actual traders didn't give a damn about culture. It would be wise to stop making general statements like "slavery is genocide" then, wouldn't it? The action of transporting large numbers of Africans to the Americas resulted in considerable cultural change as a by-product. It would have had a considerable effect on the areas of Africa from which the slaves were drawn, and it also resulted in the evolution of Afro-European cultures amongst the descendants of those transported which had a very significant influence on the cultures developing in the Americas.But the traders had no interest in things like transferring African culture to America. The very interesting cultural effects that the process had were inadvertent.Incidentally, would the intentional and forceful behaviour of the Union in killing off the southern slave culture constitute an act of "cuturecide" or "cultural genocide" in your view?Edited by bluegenes, : missing word

Intent is central to the concept of genocide. That's why the enormous amount of Amerindian smallpox deaths aren't regarded as genocide.You've been using the word genocide without knowing its meaning. It has to be deliberate.

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

genocide

​

noun:
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

---

All groups arriving in the Americas underwent cultural change. The slaves retained as much or more than some others. The fact of segregation may have helped to retain aspects that related to western Africa. Would the intentional and forceful behaviour of the Union in killing off the southern slave culture or the Mafia culture constitute an act of "cuturecide" or "cultural genocide" in your view?Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

I agree that it's not an easy question. I don't think there was much germ warfare, though, and that most of the disease damage probably happened in the 16th and 17th centuries.That doesn't exempt later actions on the remaining population from being genocidal in nature, of course. It certainly isn't very illuminating.

An odd comment. All slave systems probably had their critics, but they certainly wouldn't have had unless or until they did.Like the rest of your comments, it does nothing to support your view that the confederate soldiers were fighting to defend genocide. Surely, in relation to cultural death, the South was fighting for preservation and the North for change. Why, having failed to support the idea that the southern soldiers were genocidal, do you want to see them as supporting culturecide?

In fourteen-hundred and ninety-two
A colonial ruler he became
And much to his eternal shame
He could not with principle behave
And must murder, torture and enslave....https://www.change.org/...columbus-day-as-a-national-holidayI think that supporters of the removal of the Louisville statue should also be supporting the removal of Columbus Day, and the changing of all names in the Americas that commemorate Columbus (Columbia, D. of Columbia, British Columbia etc.).(I don't support the removal of the statue or the application of modern ideology to any remains of the past).

Like the rest of your comments, that does nothing to support your view that the confederate soldiers were fighting to defend genocide (what ever they thought they were fighting for). Saying things over and over again doesn't make them true.The slave system was not genocidal.

quote:

---

Oxford Dictionary.

​

Genocide.

​

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.

​

---

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/...nition/english/genocideThe "deliberate" in that definition doesn't imply that they do.You seem to be claiming that a rapidly expanding population group of slaves were the victims of a genocide. Instead of saying that over and over again, try to support it with data from history.

Has anyone suggested otherwise? How generous of you. You're presumably "welcome" to whine about evil without applying your whining consistently as well.

You seem to be claiming that a rapidly expanding population group of slaves [the 19th century African Americans] were the victims of a genocide. Instead of saying that over and over again, try to support it with data from history.I'm well ahead, not catching up. The discussion in Canada about whether or not treatment of the Aboriginals should be described as genocide is based around a discussion of how they were treated and why. It isn't based on anyone claiming that slavery is genocide. If it was, the slave owning Aboriginal cultures would be being accused of genocidal behaviour.Do you think that the Aboriginal slave cultures were guilty of genocide?

Actually, you do have people denying it, and it hasn't yet made your government's list of genocides. Well, you're the one who believes in justifiable "genocide". Because, for you, a culturecide is a genocide, and slavery is genocide, we come up with the "genocidal" Northerners destroying the slave owning "genocidal" Southern culture being a justifiable action because, as you put it, it isn't a crime to stop a crime. Therefore, we could see how culturecide (genocide to you) against enslaving aboriginal groups could be justified.Back more on topic. In Islam, Muslims are permitted to take non-Muslims as slaves. Some non-Muslims might, perfectly reasonably, claim to be offended and/or insulted by this ideology. However, that's no reason to destroy historic Mosques around the world.BTW, do you think that modern scientific education is part of a culturecide (therefore genocide to you) of Young Earth Christians?

It's not on your government's list, and there's plenty of discussion about it, and you certainly do have people "vociferously denying that it was genocide" and people denying that there was a "cultural genocide", and debating what, if anything, "cultural genocide" is. http://news.nationalpost.com/...r-war-crimes-prosecutor-saysSlot138 Daftar 10 Situs Slot Resmi Slot Online Pragmatic Play menawarkan game slot populer dengan RTP Live Slot Gacor Terpercaya Gampang Menang.You'll find plenty of vociferous denial in the comments on the articles, and your museum of human rights, like your government, has yet to acknowledge this "genocide".Yet the case for genocide of at least some Amerindian groups in North America is far better than any case that could be made for its rapidly expanding historical African population. The North would hardly be practising culturecide on any aspects of culture shared by the two, and it was certainly an important aspect.The transatlantic slave traders weren't deliberately destroying any aspects of any western and central African cultures. You seem to be in two minds on the subject. For example: It's difficult to see how that could be achieved without destroying memorials.

Why not?