Maybe, I think it’s an older carry-over from days when people would say the admittedly yikes sounding “German race” or “Anglo-Saxon race” or “Gaelic race”. (“Hhmong race”, “Han race”, “Amazigh race”, “Mexica race” all sound less yikes.) I think that makes it clear enough to understand, and according to the OED it can mean a whole raft of genetically linked people, from the clear genetics and culture of direct family upto fictional and orientalistly imposed ideas of unity of people who live in other parts of the world.
Possibly it comes from translating, especially East Asian languages, into English. Maybe just from being less immersed in precise Anglophone Leftist thought? I’m figuring you’re university educated European.
May I circle back to asking you (this and) the reworded question?
Do you accept/believe that ethnic cleansing of the Uyghur ethnicity is taking place in Xinjiang?
Yes, I’m perfectly aware of how Anglophones have used the term “race” in the past - the concept of “race” just had to be conflated with nearly everything, including, but not limited to, nationality, ethnicity, religion and even geography. It is quite strange to see people still using it in that way, though - even from Anglophones.
I’m figuring you’re university educated European.
Lol! Nope.
Do you accept/believe that ethnic cleansing
No, I don’t. There does seem to be a lot of forced cultural assimilation going on, which is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing. According to the original meaning of the term “genocide,” enforced cultural assimilation most definitely does count as genocidal, though. What the scale of China’s actions against the Uygher people are, though, I can’t say. Right-wingers don’t do themselves any favour by calling this or that a genocide - just look at the (supposed) “genocide” they invented out of whole cloth (supposedly) occuring in South Africa.
No, I don’t. There does seem to be a lot of forced cultural assimilation going on, which is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing. According to the original meaning of the term “genocide,” enforced cultural assimilation most definitely does count as genocidal, though.
You’re right, I should’ve gone with genocide here, I’ve been to used to swapping it for ethnic cleansing when talking about Israel and wasn’t switched on enough to properly look at the differences.
just look at the (supposed) “genocide” they invented out of whole cloth (supposedly) occuring in South Africa.
Fully agree. White farmers having to finally pay recompense for decades of oppression and undo the dark deal where the ANC gave up it’s economic policies in return for a peaceful handover of power is not a genocide, ethnic cleansing, or even cultural oppression.
how Anglophones have used the term “race” in the past - the concept of “race” just had to be conflated with nearly everything, including, but not limited to, nationality, ethnicity, religion and even geography.
Scientific racism has a lot to answer for. I get that the word “race” has a lot of baggage these days, and do try not to use it myself, but I also recognise that there are plenty of not necessarily problematic uses of it, especially amongst the wide range of dialects and variants English comes in. So if it’s clear it’s just being used as it often has been and still is as a synonym for ethnicity, I don’t think it’s a huge problem. On the other hand, if someone brings up race as linked to skin tone or some other racist rubbish, I’m very quick to point out the lack of science and falsitity of it.
What is your mother tongue, if I may ask? I’m intrigued to how it differs across the words used for the topic.
“They’re a Turkic ethnicity.”
Does that phrasing pass muster?
Sure.
I guess it must be hard for people who were raised from birth to only view the world through the lens of race to distinguish between the two, eh?
Seeing as "race" is a social construct, and the word is generally synonymous with "ethnicity" in common parlance...
Congrats for coming up with a purity test, I guess?
Sorry… what?
I’m starting to think you have reading comprehension issues. Have you gotten checked for dyslexia?
Oh look… the liberal who can’t win an argument is resorting to ableism.
Have you learned to stand for anything yet?
“acts like a duck quacks like a duck” your words.
So that’s a no, then?
Edited for clarity.
Race is a social construct.
The word “race (n.)” is used as a synonym of "ethnicity (n.) in many people’s everyday speech.
Thanks.
Is this a US thing? That would explain a lot.
Maybe, I think it’s an older carry-over from days when people would say the admittedly yikes sounding “German race” or “Anglo-Saxon race” or “Gaelic race”. (“Hhmong race”, “Han race”, “Amazigh race”, “Mexica race” all sound less yikes.) I think that makes it clear enough to understand, and according to the OED it can mean a whole raft of genetically linked people, from the clear genetics and culture of direct family upto fictional and orientalistly imposed ideas of unity of people who live in other parts of the world.
Possibly it comes from translating, especially East Asian languages, into English. Maybe just from being less immersed in precise Anglophone Leftist thought? I’m figuring you’re university educated European.
May I circle back to asking you (this and) the reworded question? Do you accept/believe that ethnic cleansing of the Uyghur ethnicity is taking place in Xinjiang?
Yes, I’m perfectly aware of how Anglophones have used the term “race” in the past - the concept of “race” just had to be conflated with nearly everything, including, but not limited to, nationality, ethnicity, religion and even geography. It is quite strange to see people still using it in that way, though - even from Anglophones.
Lol! Nope.
No, I don’t. There does seem to be a lot of forced cultural assimilation going on, which is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing. According to the original meaning of the term “genocide,” enforced cultural assimilation most definitely does count as genocidal, though. What the scale of China’s actions against the Uygher people are, though, I can’t say. Right-wingers don’t do themselves any favour by calling this or that a genocide - just look at the (supposed) “genocide” they invented out of whole cloth (supposedly) occuring in South Africa.
You’re right, I should’ve gone with genocide here, I’ve been to used to swapping it for ethnic cleansing when talking about Israel and wasn’t switched on enough to properly look at the differences.
Fully agree. White farmers having to finally pay recompense for decades of oppression and undo the dark deal where the ANC gave up it’s economic policies in return for a peaceful handover of power is not a genocide, ethnic cleansing, or even cultural oppression.
Scientific racism has a lot to answer for. I get that the word “race” has a lot of baggage these days, and do try not to use it myself, but I also recognise that there are plenty of not necessarily problematic uses of it, especially amongst the wide range of dialects and variants English comes in. So if it’s clear it’s just being used as it often has been and still is as a synonym for ethnicity, I don’t think it’s a huge problem. On the other hand, if someone brings up race as linked to skin tone or some other racist rubbish, I’m very quick to point out the lack of science and falsitity of it.
What is your mother tongue, if I may ask? I’m intrigued to how it differs across the words used for the topic.