The Nineteenth House

01:14

@AviFS I'm confused at that claim, could you explain that further?

@ISupportTheBoycott See Mandatory Palestine: "Mandatory Palestine would have three official languages, namely English, Arabic and Hebrew"

I Support The Boycott

Sure, but how was Hebrew, "The" spoken language? Certainly at the time of the British mandate there was at least three.

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott I can see how that sounds weird; my bad

I meant by the Jewish immigrants that came in big waves starting in the 19th century

I don't remember when Hebrew gained became the defacto language among them, it wasn't an immediately popular movement

But yeah, obviously it was a dead language for ~2000 years, I just meant that it went back a fair bit farther than 1948

caird coinheringaahing

Given that the Arab people in the region of Palestine had had a population majority at least up until 1948 (not commenting on anything after that), I'd be surprised if it was any earlier than that

AviFS

(Someone was wondering when Adám's family learned Hebrew)

I Support The Boycott

01:23

Most Jewish immigrants did not speak Hebrew when they arrived in Palestine. And most people in 1947 in Palestine were not Jews. So it seems far from "The" language, it would be a minority language.

AviFS

@cairdcoinheringaahing True, I'm not commenting on the numbers. Just that the movement to revive Hebrew started a while before Israel gained independence

And there were Zionist groups all over Europe (the world?) in the early 20th century, where kids learned Hebrew

Secular ones, Socialist ones, religious ones, and everything in between

I Support The Boycott

While true, they were few and far between.

caird coinheringaahing

Yeah, weren't Jewish people historically persecuted for millennia, especially in Europe?

AviFS

My point was only that the revival of Hebrew predated Israel by a few decades

@cairdcoinheringaahing Certainly. I'm missing the relation, though.

caird coinheringaahing

It'd be rather difficult to establish a particularly large politically active group while being heavily persecuted

AviFS

01:27

Here's the Wikipedia article

I Support The Boycott

Yes, that's true. But it was more of a niche thing that the religious did. It was not at all a popular thing, and it wasn't a settled issue amongst the early Zionists. But that whole conversation excludes that Jews were outnumbered at the time of independence by Muslims 2:1. Few Jews spoke Hebrew at that time, and almost no Muslims.

AviFS

The Zionist youth groups weren't all that niche. And there were loads of secular, socialist and otherwise motivated groups not to do with religion, or even actively against it

Be back later to continue!

I Support The Boycott

Right, and they notoriously rejected Hebrew and held out for quite some time. Arguing that German should be spoken tongue of Israel and such.

"War of the Languages"

caird coinheringaahing

German?

AviFS

Here's the Wiki on Zionist youth groups, big particularly in the interwar period, and there's more than a dozen listed

I Support The Boycott

01:30

Yes. You think everyone fleeing German persecution under Hitler wanted to learn a new tongue. Turns out that wasn't the case. ;)

caird coinheringaahing

That seems like the last language a lot of Jewish people would want to have as their official language, especially at a specific time

Never mind then :P

AviFS

Of course, not. I said it wasn't a popular movement for a while

@cairdcoinheringaahing Haha, this was largely before WWII

The Zionist movement gained a lot more popularity and changed a fair bit after that

Gtg, but I'll be back

And Adám will, I'm sure, know a lot here

I Support The Boycott

Right, yeah. It wasn't a popular movement until after independence. As part of nation building, that's my understanding. There was 630,000 Jews prior to the declaration of the state in 47', many were German and European. By 1967 there were 2,383,600, and 900,000 Muslims were ethnically cleansed. That really sets up the framework to establish a new language; and, removes the obvious opposition.

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott Oh no! Please don't leave serious accusations while I'm gone that I can't push back on until I'm back

I Support The Boycott

I'm just citing numbers from
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-immigration-to-israel-by-year
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/population-of-israel-palestine-1553-present

AviFS

01:36

Maybe, I'll check later. But to say the Muslims were "ethnically cleansed" is not a lighthearted touch, and one which I'd want to check on

I Support The Boycott

To be fair, I'll define it: "told they could not come back or return"

AviFS

There's more to be said on this topic, I'll be back in a while!

caird coinheringaahing

Yeah, this topic is straying dangerously close to a discussion that we don't need to have here, so please think twice on what you say if you're replying to the above messages and ask whether or not it contributes positively and constructively towards discussion

I Support The Boycott

I'm Jewish and find the discussion constructive. I assume AviFS also found it constructive. However, we can drop it. I won't say anything else if we're dropping it.

caird coinheringaahing

I'm not saying it isn't, just that phrases such as "ethnically cleansed" can lead to discussions we don't want here :)

AviFS

02:05

@ISupportTheBoycott I agree, I think I can learn a lot. And so long as it's objective and without explicit value judgements, it's great

@ISupportTheBoycott So to say Muslims were ethnically cleansed, implies it was because they were Muslims. I'm not aware of Israel having had any religiously-based laws of that nature

Certainly 100s of thousands of Palestinians were expelled, but I've never heard it suggested that it was religiously motivated

@ISupportTheBoycott To be fair, the Palestinian population wouldn't have been happy with any language that European and otherwise-culturally-distinct people were wanting to adopt. Their choice would've been an Arabic dialect which I can't imagine ever having won, if nothing else because they were interested in maintaining close relations with the West. But German, English, Yiddish would've all been disliked.

@cairdcoinheringaahing Certainly true. But Zionist youth movements began in the early 20th century, largely in Eastern Europe. Things weren't idyllic, but joining youth groups wasn't a death sentence either, by then.

I Support The Boycott

02:22

@AviFS Well, we should talk about that then: just to be clear though there is no disagreement that if a race or religion is told that they can not come back to their home or community, as a matter of law, then we would agree it is "ethnic cleansing". It's only whether or not this matter of law exists that is being disputed. The definition put forward is otherwise acceptable?

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott I would say only if it were motivated by their ethnicity/religion.

This may not be a popular opinion, and I may be wrong, but, for instance I wouldn't call the near destruction of Native Americans and their culture ethnic cleansing, or genocide. As terrible as it is. So far as I understand, it requires an ideological intention.

I Support The Boycott

So you disagree that people can be ethnically cleansed on race? I'm confused. I said "if a race or religion is to told that they can not come back to their home". How could you tell a race or religion such a thing and have it not motivated by race/ethnicity/religion?

@AviFS It certainly 100% was ethnic cleansing. It's established. No one disputes it. Their lands were literally ethnically cleansed and they were moved to "reservations."

caird coinheringaahing

@AviFS I generally dislike wading into such conversations, especially at 3:30am, but it definitely was genocide

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott Perhaps you're a powerful empire that wants more land to yourself and your own people.

I Support The Boycott

Could you explain how the example of Native Americans fails to meet your criteria of ethnic cleansing?

AviFS

02:27

That's not ethnically/religiously or otherwise motivated.

I Support The Boycott

Even if so, "powerful empires" routinely ethnically cleanse land because they want it and the resources for themselves, is that not exactly what the term is supposed to describe?

AviFS

It's, as I understand, the desire for land & resources that undergirds countless historical violence.

@ISupportTheBoycott Not as I understand it. I wouldn't use the word that way, and I don't think it's mean to.

caird coinheringaahing

Quibbling over whether something "technically" is or isn't genocide misses the point, and makes it much easier for those committing such crimes to deflect accusations. Genocide should be broadly understood as a mass extermination of a specific group of people. The reasons are irrelevant, only the act

3

AviFS

> Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal or extermination of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given area, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal (deportation, population transfer), it also includes indirect methods aimed at coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.[2][3][4] Although the term ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, it constitutes a crime against humanity and may also fall under the Genocide Conventio…

Here

I don't see any of this in the kinds of imperial conquest we're discussing

caird coinheringaahing

Native Americans are ethnically different from colonial Americans tho. Therefore, it was an ethnic extermination aka cleansing

I Support The Boycott

02:30

I'm not sure where the disagreement there is. Why do you think the Native Americans were moved onto reservations. It's precisely because they weren't European and part of the American project. They were excluded from that project because of their ethnicity. They didn't have a choice in that matter to join the settlers in their migration westward.

Redwolf Programs

Under the definition of the term AviFS quoted, it wouldn't be

AviFS

@cairdcoinheringaahing Whether or not someone was "let go" accidentally by well-meaning surgeons, third-degree murder by a robber, or first-degree murder by a serial killer...

It's all equally terrible for the person killed, and is all equally tragic

To distinguish between the worst kinds of murder & manslaughter, isn't to diminish the suffering

But to distinguish between the intent of the accused

caird coinheringaahing

So if the forced extermination and resettlement of a specific ethnic group isn't ethnic cleansing, what is it?

Redwolf Programs

Not sure if there's a specific term for that

caird coinheringaahing

> Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal or extermination of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups

From Avi's own linked definition. Sounds like it fits to me

Redwolf Programs

02:34

Hm, I missed the word "often" after that

caird coinheringaahing

@AviFS But we still say "someone was killed" (or mostly we say "someone was murdered"), because that means a lot more than "Someone was killed in the third degree". Words matter, and by saying that genocide isn't genocide, you're perpetuating the problematic attitude around such acts

hyper-neutrino

@AviFS The intent of the accused here is quite clearly the removal of indigenous populations - both in the form of cleansing their identity and whitewashing them and in the literal sense of killing them. The reason is quite clearly ethnically and racially based too. I trust the USA was the same way, but at least in Canada, the purpose and motivation was very obviously to kill and destroy their people and culture, which is clearly an example of genocide.

AviFS

(Sorry guys, I'm back

@cairdcoinheringaahing If it's motivated by their ethnicity/religion/other

Eg. I wouldn't call the Norman Conquest an ethnic cleansing of the Brits

caird coinheringaahing

The Native American genocide was motivated by their ethnicity

hyper-neutrino

@AviFS That's not really a productive comparison.

caird coinheringaahing

02:38

They weren't white Europeans, so they were killed

hyper-neutrino

An example of ethnic cleansing was ethnic cleansing, and an example of a conquest that wasn't ethnically motivated wasn't ethnic cleansing. That doesn't really say anything.

Redwolf Programs

@cairdcoinheringaahing I don't know if it was that as much as "these people are in our way, and they're hurting our profits/settlements"

AviFS

@hyper-neutrino Ah, we're agreed. Just clarifying that "ethnic cleansing" without the right kind of intent isn't ethnic cleansing

Hadn't realized we were already agreed on that point; my bad

Let me catch up

caird coinheringaahing

@AviFS A more apt comparison would be the killings of the Danes by Aethelraed a few years before hand (St Brice Day) which had the sole intent of killing the Danes in England

I Support The Boycott

I too am confused and feel the argument is somewhat circular. It seems to be AviFS perspective that if a specific ethnicity is purged from their land because those committing the act wanted the land, rather than wanted the removal of the ethnicity then it's not ethnic cleansing. That makes the definition subject to the state of mind of those committing the act, not the material conditions.

AviFS

02:41

@cairdcoinheringaahing "and by saying that genocide isn't genocide" Wait wait wait, if it's genocide then it's genocide. That's precisely what we're discussing. My point is that things can be varying degrees of "evil" by our ethical standards, and yet be equally tragic

Redwolf Programs

@ISupportTheBoycott I think that's the definition I'd agree with

hyper-neutrino

@RedwolfPrograms Why would they be forced into residential schools and segregated into reserves then? In a war for resources and land, you kill those who don't join you, you don't abuse and torture them and try to cleanse their identity and culture from them.

AviFS

Still trying to catch up, just a sec!

caird coinheringaahing

@AviFS I don't see ethnic cleansing by your definition vs my definition as two different levels of evil

AviFS

@cairdcoinheringaahing The point being that I don't intend to diminish anything, by being careful of the language we use to describe it

I Support The Boycott

02:42

Well it's circular, but then we're at impasse and we needn't continue. It ultimately doesn't matter to me if the Nazis wanted to disposes Jews of their property because they wanted a Nazi state, or they wanted a Jew-less state. It's functionally the same thing. We're splitting hairs.

caird coinheringaahing

By my standards, ethnic cleansing, however you want to reasonably define it, is an evil thing, and quibbling about the technical definition misses the point of condemning it

AviFS

@cairdcoinheringaahing Precisely. Based on what you've said, that's precisely what I'd call ethnic cleansing

But not if you're killing the Danes because they had money/land/resources you wanted

caird coinheringaahing

If you genuinely believe that the extermination of the Native American peoples was because the colonisers wanted the land and nothing else, you need to read more about the history of the US

AviFS

@cairdcoinheringaahing It may have been. I'm interested to hear as it's a claim I've heard vaguely stated, but never by anyone who was willing to elaborate.

My whole point with bringing this up was just to clarify the way I was using the term ethnic cleansing

If you guys are correct, then it absolutely was

I Support The Boycott

Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers: not ethnic cleansing! Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans: ethnic cleansing! I'm not sure where that gets you. But like I said, we can't engage in a conversation with a disagreement on a term like that. I've lost any reason to engage in a conversation about it if I can't convince you that an intentional act is evil without convincing you of the justification the intent rests on.

AviFS

02:46

@cairdcoinheringaahing Well I don't know what constitutes "need." There are a lot of important things to learn about, and time is finite. But I went to US public school in California, so it does tell you something

caird coinheringaahing

I can't think of a nicer or less blunt way to put that tbh. The genocides that happened across the continent from 1492 onwards were never motivated solely by want of land, and it's a shame that the US tries to cover up its own history so much

AviFS

And a very progressive background. It's precisely because it's a claim which is so taken as gospel around here, that I've never been able to get anyone to back it up or help me understand

caird coinheringaahing

@AviFS Generally speaking, if you want to use something as an example of X, you should know about X, including the history behind it.

AviFS

To be fair, I said given what I know, I wouldn't for XYZ reasons

caird coinheringaahing

Fair enough

AviFS

02:48

My knowledge is everywhere limited

But do you guys have some sources for this?

Redwolf Programs

^

caird coinheringaahing

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples

Redwolf Programs

Thanks!

AviFS

Surely if the French were living here, and they were as easy for them to conquer as the natives of the New World were, they would have, no?

@cairdcoinheringaahing Looking at it!

caird coinheringaahing

> In light of the U.N. language—even putting aside some of its looser constructions—it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas during the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries and not conclude that it was genocide.

That's a pretty damning refutation to any claims against genocide tbh

But it is close to 4am here, so I should stop arguing and sleep o/

Redwolf Programs

02:52

o/

I Support The Boycott

Good night.

AviFS

@cairdcoinheringaahing To be honest, this is exactly the kind of argument I hear that I find unconvincing

> According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.

What I understand as genocide, I don't see in either of those two steps

Redwolf Programs

> Though the Spaniards did not set out to exterminate the indigenous peoples

AviFS

^^

Redwolf Programs

But genocide has a broader definition than just killing

AviFS

02:54

People have been trying to broaden that definition, and others, for a while

Much of it politically motivated, as I see it

But Oxford still gives:

> the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

I Support The Boycott

I don't think we need to expand the conversation to genocide, when we haven't settled "ethnic cleansing"

AviFS

To stick with one word would be ideal, but the article uses "genocide" instead

Redwolf Programs

To be honest I don't think this is a productive conversation. We've all agreed these terms have no impact on the severity of the events that have occured, and I doubt we're going to agree on a meaning for either.

I Support The Boycott

And we've isolated the disagreement. Your definition provides that both of these statements can be sound
* Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers: not ethnic cleansing
* Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans: ethnic cleansing

AviFS

Here's how the UN defines it

I Support The Boycott

02:56

Which isn't the UN's definition, or the definition provided by the wikipedia article you source.

AviFS

What do you mean?

Redwolf Programs

@ISupportTheBoycott I don't know if that's a fair summary of the definitons anyone has written here

AviFS

Empires expand by propagating their people/culture/religion outwards

And taking over the current peoples and their culture/religion, making theirs the dominant one

Countless wars have been fought to do that. To call it ethnic cleansing/genocide is to dilute the terror that it is, imo

hyper-neutrino

← 145 messages moved from The Nineteenth Byte

I Support The Boycott

Thanks for setting us up @hyper-neutrino

AviFS

03:07

Thanks @hyper-neutrino!

I honestly found the discussion about Israel interesting, though maybe we want to conclude the Native American aside first?

Or back to Israel? I'm guessing we both know more about that, and I take it you have strong (and presumably interesting) feelings on it :P

I Support The Boycott

@RedwolfPrograms I provided two statements that you said I was being unfair on. I would like to know why believe those statements are unfair.

* Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers: not ethnic cleansing
* Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans: ethnic cleansing

Do you believe both of the above cases are "ethnic-cleansing"? Is that not the distinction you're trying to establish?

Redwolf Programs

I just had an issue with the wording, but as I said I don't really want to be a part of this conversation anymore.

I Support The Boycott

Fair enough, take care.

AviFS

Well thanks for partaking earlier! I found it intereesting

Redwolf Programs

o/

I Support The Boycott

03:11

@AviFS Do you agree that those two statements highlight the distinction you're trying to establish, fairly?

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott I think it's fair enough, I guess. And I can see the apparent contradiction you're trying to highlight

But I don't think it's actually a contradiction

hyper-neutrino

room topic changed to The Nineteenth House: Opt-in general discussion room for more sensitive topics that don't belong in The Nineteenth Byte (no tags)

room parent site changed to codegolf.stackexchange.com

AviFS

I liked The 666th Byte :P

Here's what I'd say:

Europeans in America that wipe out Native Americans because of their ethnicity/religion
Europeans in America that don't

So no, I disagree

You can want a nation state with only European settlers and commit genocides to achieve it

Or you can want a nation state without Native Americans and not commit genocide to achieve it

It's a total red herring

@ISupportTheBoycott

I Support The Boycott

Yes, I do believe there is a very evident contradiction there. It's a dietary alternative regardless of whether or not you're eating it because everything inside it lacks calories and eliminates hunger, or because it only consists of things that have no calories. The effect is the same. The end goal is the same. The result is the same.

AviFS

True, I don't dispute that

But it's not what I'm trying to say

@AviFS My response starts here. It took me a sec to collect my thoughts

Also @ISupportTheBoycott, how did you find the convo? Do you get notified everytime someone mentions Israel, haha. That was pretty impressive

I Support The Boycott

03:21

Close! If I gave you another guess, you'd get it right!

AviFS

Palestine?

I Support The Boycott

What can I say, I knew if given another chance you'd get it right.

AviFS

That's way too funny!! That was actually my original guess, idk why I changed it

Actually though?

hyper-neutrino

room topic changed to The Nineteenth House: Opt-in general discussion room for more sensitive topics that don't belong in The Nineteenth Byte | General guidelines: cgcc-se.github.io/chatiquette/tnh.html (no tags)

I Support The Boycott

Let's see if I'm right about this one. Let's ignore for one second the source of this conversation -- that you realize I'm obviously an anti-Zionist. Internally, you must at some level realize these definitions aren't consistent. I too didn't particularly want to entertain the conclusion. But give yourself sometime. Propaganda abound, are you striving to fortify a conclusion we haven't even reached for. Or is this frame really helping you make sense of the world?

AviFS

03:26

@ISupportTheBoycott I stopped following here:

Propaganda abound, are you striving to fortify a conclusion we haven't even reached for. Or is this frame really helping you make sense of the world?

And no, I can't see anything inconsistent with "Europeans in America that wipe out Native Americans because of their ethnicity/religion " or the definitions I linked earlier

That's how I've understood ethnic cleansing/genocide after a lot of schooling on the terms & history. I went to Hebrew school twice a week, and it's something they cared about, haha

I Support The Boycott

Sure, you started off by introducing the United States into this conversation when it was strictly about definitions. That's where I would prefer to keep it for now. That's a defensive mechanism -- colloquially it's whataboutism. It happens almost without fail. The obvious response from an American is going to be to reject a definition where America is guilty of ethnic cleansing. But is that really a desirable goal to reason from a definition that would otherwise afford me that?

AviFS

Now, I may be wrong, but I see nothing inconsistent. And I find the current movement towards making lots of very potent words like genocide, trauma, safety, racism, sexism and often other psychiatric disorders like depression, anxiety, adhd and suicidal concerning

It's a different conversation, but there's a clear trend today towards making a lot of heavy words looser and applying them more broadly, and I find much of it counterproductive & think it dangerous

I Support The Boycott

That's not a definition of "ethnic cleansing" that's useful. That doesn't help me explain the world. It doesn't make a difference if westward expansion was meant to exclude Native Americans or if it was meant to only include settlers. What does that help you explain? It can only ever help you explain the mental state of the people committing the act. It's an exercise in mass psychology, at best.

AviFS

But I decided it wasn't about inclusion/exclusion, remember?

@AviFS That's up here

I Support The Boycott

Where? What is your definition then of "Ethnic Cleansing"? I must have missed it.

AviFS

03:34

@ISupportTheBoycott Also I don't see what was defensive, and I'm not exactly pro-America. I just feel that lots of even more anti-Americans than I take it too far

It's linked in my two "up here" replies

@ISupportTheBoycott ^

I Support The Boycott

Ok, well leave that aside for the time being. If people seek to establish a nation state that excludes a race of people and in doing so dispossess those people of land, we both agree that it's ethnic cleansing? Right?

AviFS

I'm afraid I don't

I Support The Boycott

Ok, so why is that? What element are you missing?

AviFS

If they remove the population forcibly, motivated by their race/ethnicity/religion

That's not what you're saying

I Support The Boycott

Why do you feel that's not what I said?

AviFS

03:38

> excludes a race of people and in doing so dispossess those people of land

That's different from expelling or murdering, which are the two options given in the definition linked earlier

I Support The Boycott

I'm confused, that's why I'm seeking clarification. Can you please tell me what criteria my statement is missing?

Dispossessing isn't different from expelling.

It literally means "To deprive (another) of the possession or occupancy of something, such as real property."

AviFS

Well maybe I'm not clear on dispossessing and how it fits in, but even so it's not there

You're still missing the intent, and yes that's important

I Support The Boycott

Ok so let's be clearer then, "Ok, well leave that aside for the time being. If people seek to establish a nation state that excludes a race of people and in doing so expel those people of land, we both agree that it's ethnic cleansing? Right?" Would you agree this correction is ethnic cleansing?

AviFS

As I said earlier, the Norman Conquest would be ethnic cleansing of the British by your current definition

I Support The Boycott

Again, I'm only interested in definitions. I don't actually care if the Norman Conquest is "ethnic cleansing". I'm just trying to establish definitions. I have no need to defend the Normans in any of their conquests. Lol.

AviFS

03:41

If people seek to establish a nation state that and in doing so expel or murder the people due to their ethnicity/religion, then I agree that it's ethnic cleansing.

I Support The Boycott

Ok, so am I right to assume that "If people seek to establish a nation state that excludes a race of people and in doing so expel those people of land, we both agree that it's ethnic cleansing? Right?"

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott But in order to see if your definition is useful, one should try and see what it's consequences are

If you conclude that every act of war & conquest by different peoples is ethnic cleansing, that's not very useful

And would clearly be far looser than most people use it

I Support The Boycott

I'm not concerned about the consequences. Whether or not the Norman Conquest fulfill the definition we agree on -- whenever we agree -- is a matter of historical analysis. It's a distraction until that point. And it's not intellectually honest to try to create a definition merely to excuse the Normans of a crime against humanity.

AviFS

@ISupportTheBoycott Not sure why you're changing the wording but yes, if the expulsion is motivated by ethnicity

I Support The Boycott

I don't agree every act of war & conquest includes ethnic cleansing, because not all people are disposed by their land on racial, ethnic, or religious grounds at the wars conclusion.

AviFS

03:45

As opposed to genocide, which strictly requires far more severe violence than expulsion

hyper-neutrino

Insofar as diluting the definition too much, "concluding every act of war and conquest is ethnic cleansing" is a strawman because fighting a war against a country and killing its soldiers because they fight for that country has nothing to do with race - colonizing and invading a country and killing specifically a certain race is a completely different scenario.

AviFS

@hyper-neutrino That's precisely what I'm saying, though!

I Support The Boycott

No one is saying that though. It's a strawman. That's not what I'm arguing.

AviFS

You and I are totally on the same page about this, hyper

But it's not clear to me that ISupport is

@ISupportTheBoycott Because he kept trying to define it like this

hyper-neutrino

> that excludes a race of people and in doing so expel those people

AviFS

03:47

(Whoops, assuming he/him pronouns?)

hyper-neutrino

I don't think this can reasonably be said to include "every act of war and conquest".

AviFS

@hyper-neutrino But it leaves out intention, which brings you back to the Norman Conquest and such

I Support The Boycott

Let's revisit the definition because I'm still confused as to why you reject this definition, and I only want you to accept it or tell me what modifications you want in order to accept it: "if people seek to establish a nation state that excludes a race of people and in doing so expel those people of land, we both agree that it's ethnic cleansing?" I've accepted your change request from disposes to expel. Is there anything else you would like changed?

AviFS

But I'm confused as to why you keep wanting to redefine it

hyper-neutrino

I'm not particularly interested in changing my definitions just to make the Norman Conquest not a genocide if it was, but was the Norman Conquest a project to exclude a certain race from its state and create a nation without that race and thus killing, expelling, or otherwise removing that racial or cultural identity?

AviFS

03:48

I linked several definitions earlier, and reworded yours here

hyper-neutrino

I'm not particularly familiar with it; it's actually the first I've heard of it I believe.

AviFS

@AviFS ^

@hyper-neutrino Tbh, I'm starting to get confused with all this rewording

hyper-neutrino

You've removed the part specifying "that excludes a race of people" from ISTB's (if I may abbreviate your name to that, @ISupportTheBoycott) definition which is... sort of crucial when talking about racial motivation.

AviFS

IDK, you guys keep reformulating the definition and asking me if it's equivalent

Maybe it is, but why come up with another?

We had this at the very beginning:

> the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.

So yes, if that was this then it is

And I also reworded the particular case to this:

I Support The Boycott

Because I want to understand whether or not there is a disagreement, and I put a definition to you that you rejected. So if you're going to reject that definition you must tell me why, so I can be honest and fair to you when we continue to have a discussion. I need to know why your terms are different out of respect for you.

AviFS

03:52

> If people seek to establish a nation state that and in doing so expel or murder the people due to their ethnicity/religion, then I agree that it's ethnic cleansing.

@ISupportTheBoycott But if you don't disagree, why not just go with this

I Support The Boycott

It makes this very confusing when you reject definitions without cause and then provide a different definition that you find acceptable without explaining what elements are different or unique from the definition you rejected.

AviFS

If what you said is equivalent to the above, then yes I agree

Otherwise no

@ISupportTheBoycott Only because we started a long time ago with a different definition which is much simpler and more concise, and I don't see how rewording it to be longer is helpful

I Support The Boycott

But you see why that makes communication very difficult... I'm not rejecting your definition, I also find that to be ethnic cleansing. But you're arguing for a more narrow definition, rejecting the definition that was originally supplied, and not providing a reason for that rejection.

AviFS

If you're not rejecting my definition, why provide another one? I'm not understanding here

And tbh, it's just the first definition I found when I googled it

I Support The Boycott

Ok, let's step back for a second.

I find your definition to be ethnic cleansing.

AviFS

03:56

If you have a different & concise definition to propose, I'm curious to hear it. But I'm finding the rewording difficult, because it adds other layers of nuance and meaning, and I have no idea whether it means what I mean or not

I Support The Boycott

Do you find the definition "people seeking to establish a nation state that excludes a race of people and in doing so expelling those people of land" to be ethnic cleansing too? Or do you have further disagreement, and reason to reject that definition?

AviFS

Hey @Razetime! Do you want to pipe in?!

Razetime

idk what's going on yet

i just saw a new chatroom

AviFS

Oh, haha, well you're in for a surprise!

I Support The Boycott

The problem is "you having no idea whether it means what you mean" is a much bigger problem for everyone else that isn't you, then it is for you. ;) We're trying to figure out what you mean and it makes it difficult when you just simply say "that's not what I mean" and provide no reason.

AviFS

03:59

Yeah, I just can't tell whether you're saying the same thing as the definition, or not

I'm finding it hard to tell without tone, you're the one who would know that

I Support The Boycott

I'm absolutely not relying on tone. I'm asking only for a literal interpretation and honesty.

AviFS

I'm suspicious of you rewording the definition, because it feels like you're trying to change something but I can't tell if & what

I Support The Boycott

Ok so let's go back to your definition: "If people seek to establish a nation state that and in doing so expel or murder the people due to their ethnicity/religion, then I agree that it's ethnic cleansing." We agree that's ethnic cleansing. Let's see if we can work from that...

Do you agree that murder is not a requirement for "ethnic cleansing" it's an accessory. Ethnic cleansing can exist without it?

AviFS

Yes.

Ethnic cleansing yes. Genocide, less so, but possible.

I Support The Boycott

Ok, leave genocide aside for now.

AviFS

04:02

Good.

I Support The Boycott

Can ethnic cleansing also be done on racial grounds? "If people seek to establish a nation state that and in doing so expel the people due to their ethnicity/religion/race?"

AviFS

Yes.

I'd say so

Just to clarify this is a strict subset though. Killing counts also. And it doesn't need to be in the service of a nation state. But it sounds like this is for something specific

But it might be more interesting to go to Israel/Palestine, no?

I Support The Boycott

Ok, the last thing I want to do is explain "due". In your mind if a people seek to exclude others on the above grounds -- it's obviously going to be ethnic cleansing? What if they seek to establish a homogeneous region on ethnicity/religion/race, and in doing so others are "expelled" is that ethnic cleansing?

AviFS

It could go either way, I don't think that's enough info

if they seek to establish a homogeneous region on ethnicity/religion/race, and in doing so others are "expelled" by them actively & intentionally because of their ethnicity/religion/race

I Support The Boycott

Ok, what ways can it go? How could a people establish a "homogeneous region" and expel others without it being ethnic cleansing? Could you tell me more about what element is required for it to be ethnic cleansing under the terms of establishing a "homogeneous region"?

AviFS

04:09

I can want to do that, and then other people might start leaving because they're not a part of the ruling party, or are not treated as well as they think they would be elsewhere

I don't count that as ethnic cleansing

If you think I might agree with your conclusion though, I encourage you to say it

I Support The Boycott

Ok, well people leaving isn't expulsion right? If people are expelled they can't come back. If they leave they can come back. That's literally part of the definition of "expelling", right?

AviFS

Because maybe I'm being unnecessarily nitpicky

But since I can't see where we're going, I'm being wary to not be boxed into something I don't agree with

I guess you're right, I'm starting to get dizzy. Do you mind telling me what you're leading up to?

I know it's not your intention, but it feels like we're rewording what I said until I slip and I agree to something different

Maybe I'm just tired though, I'm happy to continue the definitions another time, or to change topics to Israel, or something else less semantic

I Support The Boycott

Ok, well regrettably I must ask again then but I will clarify to provide to you some comfort that this is just a discussion and we just have to agree on a few things: "If people seek to establish a homogeneous region that and in doing so expel people (prohibiting them from returning) due to their ethnicity/religion/race?" that would be ethnic cleansing right? Your correction was that "leaving" isn't expulsion. That's fine: I agree. But prohibiting people from returning is expulsion, right?

AviFS

Do you mind if we continue this later and switch for now, please? My eyes are starting to glaze over at definitions which are only getting longer and more complicated

I Support The Boycott

I'm fine with that. Have a good night.

AviFS

04:15

But I'd love to discuss something else for now @ISupportTheBoycott

I'm just not quite as sharp on the semantics as I was earlier

@ISupportTheBoycott Wait, and I do agree!!

Phew

> If people seek to establish a homogeneous region and in doing so expel people due to their ethnicity/religion/race?

This ^

This is much like what the Nazis did for the Aryan race

Back to Israel, so far as I know, this precise thing was not done to Muslims because they were Muslims

I Support The Boycott

You are agreeing then that "due" can cover people not wanting to exclude others with intent, but wanting to establish a "homogeneous region"? That's the question. I want to be sure that if people are being expelled and are prohibited from returning by force whether or not the intent was to exclude those people or create a "homogeneous region" is not material to the definition: it's "ethnic cleansing" either way.

AviFS

By the way, I'm reading this right now, which is really interesting

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

During the 1948 Palestine War in which the State of Israel was established, around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs or 85% of the total population of the territory Israel captured fled or were expelled from their homes by Israeli forces. The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators. == Outline of the historical debate == === Initial positions and criticisms === In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis emerged; Israel claimed that the Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their...

I Support The Boycott

While the history is fascinating, I'm more interested in your definition. We can discus history meaningful if we can't define terms.

We're not past that step yet.

AviFS

I just don't understand why you keep coming back to this:

> if people are being expelled and are prohibited from returning by force whether or not the intent was to exclude those people or create a "homogeneous region" is not material to the definition

I Support The Boycott

But if you're interested in this, I would suggest Ilan Pappé or Miko Peled if you want Israeli historians on the subject.

AviFS

04:24

The intent matters. Perhaps not by your definition, but it very clearly does by mine

@ISupportTheBoycott I'll look into them; still reading the Wiki

I Support The Boycott

@AviFS Because you previously made a distinction that I want you to either walk back or justify. You're not being honest here. You say intent matters, and yet you reject these two statements as no longer representing your opinion,

* Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers: not ethnic cleansing
* Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans: ethnic cleansing

Those two statements illustrate intent.

AviFS

No they don't. They illustrate desire

lyxal

I'm not here to argue either side, I just want to know if this is a valid definition of ethical cleansing: the elimination of a race by another race

I Support The Boycott

@AviFS Can you explain how you define "desire" such that it's not merely an analog of "intent".

AviFS

Actually they do. But they illustrate intent, without the expulsion/killing part

@ISupportTheBoycott You're right. I was typing that up

This is what I said:

>
Europeans in America that wipe out Native Americans because of their ethnicity/religion
Europeans in America that don't

I Support The Boycott

04:27

Ok, so this is why you feel we're going in circles: we are.

AviFS

@lyxal No, as I understand it the intent matters

They have to eliminate the race because of their race

Rather than land/money/power/resources or anything else

I Support The Boycott

You're back to the same point you just rejected earlier.

AviFS

Which one?

@ISupportTheBoycott I'm saying this illustrates desire (or intent), but not actually doing anything

I also said this to illustrate that:

>
You can want a nation state with only European settlers and commit genocides to achieve it
Or you can want a nation state without Native Americans and not commit genocide to achieve it
It's a total red herring

Granted, neither of these responses were immediate, but they were certainly a long time ago and I linked back to both of them a couple times

(I have to have dinner, brb)

I Support The Boycott

Look it's simple, if intent matters to you then these two statements are sound,

* Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers: not ethnic cleansing
* Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans: ethnic cleansing

Are those two statements sound in your world view?

Or to be clearer -- adding _"**and expel Native Americans**"_ to both

* Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers **and expel Native Americans**: not ethnic cleansing
* Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans **and expel Native Americans**: ethnic cleansing

I don't understand how you reject that description and uphold that intent is material. As far as I can see, I'm being fair. I don't understand your aversion to the reduction of your position to those two positions to highlight it.

Anyway, I'm hitting the books. Later all. Good night. ;)

AviFS

04:58

Ah, good night! Look forward to continuing later!

This difference between "with only European settlers" & "without Native Americans" is not relevant in this context, I agree.

So:

Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers: not ethnic cleansing
Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans: not ethnic cleansing

AviFS

Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers and expel Native Americans: yes ethnic cleansing

Europeans in America that want a nation state without Native Americans and expel Native Americans: yes ethnic cleansing

It takes the action & intent. Neither alone is sufficient.

I Support The Boycott

06:06

@AviFS That's not what you're agreeing too though.

You just said to both cases above that they're both ethnic cleansing: "with only European settlers" & "without Native Americans" is not relevant in this context. The reason why that's relevant is because "with only European settlers" does not connote intent to expel a single people. This is the point you keep falling back too, and I would like to put it behind us.

For the purposes of this discussion if we analyze,

> Europeans in America that want a nation state with only European settlers and expel Native Americans: yes ethnic cleansing

You've concluded explicitly it's ethnic cleansing: is it correct to say that **regardless** of the intent of the Europeans the expulsion of the Native Americans is ethnic cleansing? Or is the intent still an element in your definition of "ethnic cleansing", and if so how? I don't see how you can agree with that statement which removes intent and still conclude: _"It takes the action & intent. Neither alone is suffic…

Transcript for

The Nineteenth House