So saying “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth” followed by almost continuous bombardment isn’t in your eyes evidence of specific intent and action, because they haven’t wiped them out yet? Therefore, by your own definition, the colonizing Europeans never commited genocide against the indigenous American population, because there’s still native Americans left and they have their own nature reserves to reside in?
He’s not defending/minimizing doing something by pointing out the others have also done it… he’s comparing 2 situations, and saying that the definition of genocide is not limited to extinction.
But what about this other thingggggg it’s completely relevanttt what about this thing tho it’s just like this what about that thing remember that thing? Oh my I know it doesn’t really have to do anything to do with this but what about that
He said “by your definition this <other genocide> would not be considered one” (which it is).
He’s not doing anything related to whataboutism, you clearly don’t know what it means. He’s presenting an argument for the definition and common usage of the word genocide. Try to follow
I’m not in agreement with that either. I don’t agree that native Americans were involved in a genocide. I would imagine most people would agree with that. It’s a whatabout to me because it’s not even in a similar circumstance. If you look at actual examples of genocide it doesn’t look like native America or Gaza.
But sure, call it “ethnical cleansing” if pedantry helps you sleep better at night…
And I’ll still continue using the UN recognized definition of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” which by my understanding fits both the American and Palestinian atrocities.
So saying “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth” followed by almost continuous bombardment isn’t in your eyes evidence of specific intent and action, because they haven’t wiped them out yet? Therefore, by your own definition, the colonizing Europeans never commited genocide against the indigenous American population, because there’s still native Americans left and they have their own nature reserves to reside in?
It was literally like 1 day after an invasion. You need to recognize that emotions came to play.
As for your genocide of indigenous Americans, it’s a completely different topic. Don’t whatabout here please.
That’s not whataboutism is lol.
He’s not defending/minimizing doing something by pointing out the others have also done it… he’s comparing 2 situations, and saying that the definition of genocide is not limited to extinction.
But what about this other thingggggg it’s completely relevanttt what about this thing tho it’s just like this what about that thing remember that thing? Oh my I know it doesn’t really have to do anything to do with this but what about that
He said “by your definition this <other genocide> would not be considered one” (which it is).
He’s not doing anything related to whataboutism, you clearly don’t know what it means. He’s presenting an argument for the definition and common usage of the word genocide. Try to follow
if i had a genie my one wish would be to have the word whataboutism stricken from the minds of every single redditor
I’m not in agreement with that either. I don’t agree that native Americans were involved in a genocide. I would imagine most people would agree with that. It’s a whatabout to me because it’s not even in a similar circumstance. If you look at actual examples of genocide it doesn’t look like native America or Gaza.
I mean the person who coined the term “genocide” considers the atrocities against the native Americans a genocide…
But sure, call it “ethnical cleansing” if pedantry helps you sleep better at night…
And I’ll still continue using the UN recognized definition of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” which by my understanding fits both the American and Palestinian atrocities.