”Genocide” does not mean simply killing, the full definition is broader that.
The definition includes
”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:
…
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”
I.e. just eradicating a national identity from a group of people suffices. This is the main reason Ukraine can be considered a genocidal war, for example, to eradicate the Ukrainan state and identity.
Similarly it’s not implausible to view the reconstruction period as an attempt to do some culture- and state eradication in the slaver states.
Nobody is defending the horrors of slavery. But, state institutions were demolished, a specific cultural identity was attempted to be eradicated. I’ve never visited US south of Colorado but just by reading about it the feeling of genocide comes strong.
World is not black or white.
Was eradicating the institution of slavery right? Hell yes. Was it right to attempt a bit of genocide on the side? I have personally no frigging clue. I do know it took to 1960’s to complete the process of allowing full citizenship rights with civil rights movement so clearly some things had to settle for over a century.
To maintain rule based order we must be committed to view events via the same objective interpretation.
The same north-led US was pretty good in genociding the native american nations decades the civil war ended.
Just achieving one good thing (ending slavery) does not give a state free pass on all the other things.
We (as the western world) try to improve by admitting our failures and trying to do better. This requires first admitting fallibility, and naming things correctly.
The current zeitgeist tries to view the world via the infantile manichean lens of victimhood (of pure goodness) and oppression (pure evil).
This is a very narrow ethical model, and seldom applicable towars any beneficial goal.
Things are complicated. The same state that fought and bled to end slavery also committed multiple genocides during the same historical period.
Was reconstruction period an actual genocide? Probably not. Did it use the same methods one would use to implement change that can be categorized as genocide? I’m pretty sure, yes.
A point I would like to be argued: I guess it' fair to say that
From point of eradicating culture, melting Lee's statue would be comparable to melting a statue of Sitting Bull. Both are representatives of hostile nations towards US, both of which were eradicated.
But are there any arguments against this point of view?
The definition includes
”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: … (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”
I.e. just eradicating a national identity from a group of people suffices. This is the main reason Ukraine can be considered a genocidal war, for example, to eradicate the Ukrainan state and identity.
Similarly it’s not implausible to view the reconstruction period as an attempt to do some culture- and state eradication in the slaver states.
Nobody is defending the horrors of slavery. But, state institutions were demolished, a specific cultural identity was attempted to be eradicated. I’ve never visited US south of Colorado but just by reading about it the feeling of genocide comes strong.
World is not black or white.
Was eradicating the institution of slavery right? Hell yes. Was it right to attempt a bit of genocide on the side? I have personally no frigging clue. I do know it took to 1960’s to complete the process of allowing full citizenship rights with civil rights movement so clearly some things had to settle for over a century.
To maintain rule based order we must be committed to view events via the same objective interpretation.
The same north-led US was pretty good in genociding the native american nations decades the civil war ended.
Just achieving one good thing (ending slavery) does not give a state free pass on all the other things.
We (as the western world) try to improve by admitting our failures and trying to do better. This requires first admitting fallibility, and naming things correctly.
The current zeitgeist tries to view the world via the infantile manichean lens of victimhood (of pure goodness) and oppression (pure evil).
This is a very narrow ethical model, and seldom applicable towars any beneficial goal.
Things are complicated. The same state that fought and bled to end slavery also committed multiple genocides during the same historical period.
Was reconstruction period an actual genocide? Probably not. Did it use the same methods one would use to implement change that can be categorized as genocide? I’m pretty sure, yes.
A point I would like to be argued: I guess it' fair to say that
From point of eradicating culture, melting Lee's statue would be comparable to melting a statue of Sitting Bull. Both are representatives of hostile nations towards US, both of which were eradicated.
But are there any arguments against this point of view?
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull