• WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Genocide should be reserved for actual attempts to remove certain genetic lines from the gene pool, which includes going after the diaspora, the way the Nazis did with Jews in WW2.

    So what was the real death toll for the Nazi Jewish genocide? Because while some Jewish groups have distinct genetic lines, many don’t. And Jewish people who were simply ethnic Germans also got sent to the camps. Do they not get counted as part of the Holocaust, as they were only targeted for their religion, not their genetics?

    In practice, because human beings tend to marry and have kids at much higher rates within their religious and cultural groups than without, a genocide against a religious group is indistinguishable from a genocide against a genetic lineage. Also, your definition allows for a lot of genocide apologia. Those who want to downplay a genocide can simply say that an ethnic group was merely targeted for some action among that ethnic group. “They weren’t killed for their race. We just made it a capital offense to listen to the music most commonly listened to by members of that race. They were killed for their musical taste, not their race. So it’s not a genocide.”

    • starik@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      The original comment we are threaded under is claiming that the Trump administration, by committing the clear war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, would also be committing genocide. Do you agree with this assessment? Do we need to lump all evil acts under the definition of genocide or risk being guilty of “apologia”?