- Reaction score
- 22,049
- Points
- 1,360
Which litmus test?… Not saying it wasn't wrong to do so, just that it does pass the litmus test for cultural genocide.
Which litmus test?… Not saying it wasn't wrong to do so, just that it does pass the litmus test for cultural genocide.
And I would counter that ideology has been responsible for many, many past wrongs. Some ideology needs to be eradicated, culture be damned.You could easily argue Nazism was one of Germanies ideologies that was sought to be removed. Placing people in a school to 'reeducate' them, followed by tests and questionnaires to ensure they don't possess certain thoughts and beliefs, jailing those they felt did or ostracizing them to prevent them from advancing in life, etc.. certainly fits well within a cultural genocide perspective, reminescent of residental schools, soviet/chinese 're-education' camps, etc.
Ideology is part of culture, trying to remove ideology from a group is trying to destroy part of it. Not saying it wasn't wrong to do so, just that it does pass the litmus test for cultural genocide.
The families of 6,000,000 victims might argue that point. Agreed on what the Soviets did, and the various Arab factions are still, as you suggested, employing that concept. British culpability pales, especially in the 19th century, in the face of 20th and 21st century acts and ideology.Cultural genocide was the least thing the Nazi's did. The Soviets practised cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Arabs were masters at cultural genocide and the fundamentalist Sunnis still promote that as an ideal. Britain used cultural genocide as a tool in particular cases. Generally if they were having major issues with a particular group. Their preferred method was to engage with the leadership or a minority, empower them and let them run the show.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself. Cultural genocide is leaving the majority of the people alive while erasing their history, something the Muslims, Soviets and the Chinese Communist excel at. The Nazis preferred to skip that bit and go straight to genocide as you noted.The families of 6,000,000 victims might argue that point. Agreed on what the Soviets did, and the various Arab factions are still, as you suggested, employing that concept. British culpability pales, especially in the 19th century, in the face of 20th and 21st century acts and ideology.
Apparently so.My German culture is still alive and well.
$.02
Top 10 most loved countries in the world:
Much like Rome did to the Gauls, Vandals, Franks etcCultural genocide was the least thing the Nazi's did. The Soviets practised cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Arabs were masters at cultural genocide and the fundamentalist Sunnis still promote that as an ideal. Britain used cultural genocide as a tool in particular cases. Generally if they were having major issues with a particular group. Their preferred method was to engage with the leadership or a minority, empower them and let them run the show.
The National American Woman Suffrage Association of the early 20th century adopted her as a symbol of women's worth and independence, erecting several statues and plaques in her memory, and doing much to recount her accomplishments.
Neither had I.I had no idea who Sacagawea was until I saw this story and did a search.
"It depicts our ancestor as if she was a dog going along on the trip,"
"It depicts our ancestor as if she was a dog going along on the trip," Abrahamson said at the time.
I'm not going there, Jarnhamar.Or, you know, depicting a culture based on slavery who sold children.
Good, because selling children is terribleI'm not going there, Jarnhamar.
Also no worris I was commenting on a quote from the story, not directed at you.
That's really too bad because their accomplishments and Sacagawea's story are quite inspirational even though there is an overtone of its being a precursor to the whole Manifest Destiny thing and, of course, the usual attitudes engrained in American society at the time. I can see where the statue was not particulalry flattering of her while on the other hand that she was included on the piece at all would have been a very progressive thing back in 1919 when it was put up.Neither had I.
Descendants of Sacagawea say the statue is offensive
After Removing Two Statues, Charlottesville Officials Vote To Take Down A Third
First, the city took down statues of confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Then its council voted to remove a statue featuring Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and Sacagawea.www.npr.org
That's really too bad because their accomplishments and Sacagawea's story are quite inspirational even though there is an overtone of its being a precursor to the whole Manifest Destiny thing and, of course, the usual attitudes engrained in American society at the time. I can see where the statue was not particulalry flattering of her while on the other hand that she was included on the piece at all would have been a very progressive thing back in 1919 when it was put up.
Being an immigrant to North America, I have no dog in the hunt of preserving historic icons but on the other hand I feel a sense of loss that we are taking down statues of people, who made a mark on history, just because they were people of their time and had beliefs some now find offensive. Strangely as we tear down statues of John A Macdonald, we're putting up statues of Louis Riel - I fail to see the logic in that.