Genocide of Indigenous Peoples

[Beijingwalker]

Hutu and Tutsi that was involved in the genocide are not both Rwandan....

They were different peoples, it's like Germans killing German Jews, they were different peoples. But Jews killing Jew in a civil war, it's not a genocide based on the meaning of the word genocide.

 

[passer-by]

If they involved on local tribe killing off another tribe entirely, they were also genocides, perfect fit the bill.

How exactly is that different between Rwandan Hutu killing Rwandan Tutsi and Communist Chinese killing Nationalist Chinese??

You are looking at thing selectively to suit your point, the difference does not need to be ethnic, but it can be based on gender, religious belief and political belief.

 

[Beijingwalker]

How exactly is that different between Rwandan Hutu killing Rwandan Tutsi and Communist Chinese killing Nationalist Chinese??

What? if democratic Americans kill Republican Americans, do you call it genocide? Do I ever call the killing during the American civil war genocide? like ablitionists killing slave owners?

 

[passer-by]

They were different peoples, it's like Germans killing German Jews, they were different peoples. But Jews killing Jew in a civil war, it's not a genocide based on the meaning of the word genocide.

So you are saying German and German Jew are different people?

And no genocide does not base on that, it can be the same people that were being killed, or different people that were being killed. It does not even differentiate whether or not they are of the same group of people.

This is the ICJ definition of Genocide

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Universal-Genocide-Q-A-FINAL-Advocacy-analysis-brief-2018-ENG.pdf#:~:text=%E2%80%9CGenocide%20is%20a%20denial%20of%20the%20right%20of,the%20spirit%20and%20aims%20of%20the%20United%20Nations.%E2%80%9D1

“Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations.

 

[passer-by]

What? if democratic Americans kill Republican Americans, do you call it genocide? Do I ever call the killing during the American civil war genocide? like ablitionists killing slave owners?

War are not genocide, that is the main point, and there were no time in place where either Abolitionist or Slave owner intend to kill off the other side, in fact, there are many compromise made between the two group, I will say even more so than Communist and Nationalist Chinese during Chinese civil war.

The issue here is not if they are the same people, it wasn't specified in UN definition of "Genocide" if and when there exist a US president that actively prosecute another group of American and to eradicate them from their country, be it because of political or religious difference, that would have been a genocide if that is the case, that is why Hitler committed Genocide to the Jews, not because Jews are different than German, it can be German Jew, it can be Polish Jew, it can be Dutch Jew, it wouldn't matter.

 

[Beijingwalker]

So you are saying German and German Jew are different people?

Of course they are different people, if a country kills off a minority group, it's genocide. why do I have to explain it to you. I call US killing native people genocide, I don't call thousands of millions deaths during the US civil war genocide, I guess it's common sense and don't know why you just can't get it.

 

[passer-by]

Of course they are different people, if a country kills off a minority group, it's genocide. why do I have to explain it to you. I call US killing native people genocide, I don't call thousands of millions deaths during the US civil war genocide, I guess it's common sense and don't know why you just can't get it.

So are you saying Chinese with ethic Uighur and ethic Korean background are different people than Chinese of Han background?? And they don't considered Chinese?

 

[Beijingwalker]

So are you saying Chinese with ethic Uighur and ethic Korean background are different people than Chinese of Han background?? And they don't considered Chinese?

They belong to different ethnicities and are all Chinese citizens. I really don't know why I have to explain so much common sense to someone today.

 

[passer-by]

They belong to different ethnicities and are all Chinese citizens. I really don't know why I have to explain so much common sense to someone today.

Are they different as you claim akin to White/Aryan German and German Jew tho?

So in this case if Han Chinese rounds up all the Chinese Korean or Chinese Muslim and kill them you don't consider that genocide?

 

[Beijingwalker]

Are they different as you claim akin to White/Aryan German and German Jew tho?

Different ethnic groups, in China we have Han Chinese, Mongol Chinese, Uyghur Chinese...56 of them all together.

 

[UndercoverJIX]

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

www.un.org

Genocide​

Background​

Secretary-General visits Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland. UN Photo/Evan Schneider
The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime.

Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.

The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.

Definition​

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

Article II
In the present Convention, 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:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Elements of the crime​

The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
   • Killing members of the group
   • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
   • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
   • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
   • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

 

[passer-by]

Different ethnic groups, in China we have Han Chinese, Mongol Chinese, Uyghur Chinese...56 of them all together.

I asked a very simple question, are you consider that different or the same as per your definition of German Jew and Aryan German? In this case, aren't German Jew another ethic group of German? Like the Romani or German Swiss?

Or would you consider this question instead?

If Han Chinese government round up all the Chinese Korean and Chinese Muslim Chinese citizen and kill them, would you consider that genocide?

 

[Beijingwalker]

I asked a very simple question, are you consider that different or the same as per your definition of German Jew and Aryan German?

What I think doesn't matter, what they think? do they think they are the same people?

 

[Beijingwalker]

If Han Chinese government round up all the Chinese Korean and Chinese Muslim Chinese citizen and kill them, would you consider that genocide?

Yes, if that happened, it's genocide. actually during Qing dynasty, the Qing government did commit some genocides targetting certain ethnic groups.

Dzungar genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[passer-by]

What I think doesn't matter, what they think? do they think they are the same people?

It matters, because that's the entire block you build on, because you said if they are the same person, there will not be considered Genocide......

I am not the one that raise that point, you are, so what you think do matter, what I think do not, because I don't even believe in that point at the beginning.

Again, would you consider Han Chinese rounding up and killing Korean Chinese Citizen and Muslim Chinese Citizen genocide?