Oh, that’s rubbish (to put it mildly).

I had assumed Ramaphosa (thanks for correct spelling) was akin to Starmer or Nick Clegg in British terms - didn’t realise he was such a traitor and as well as scab. Thanks for the insights in to the South African situation.

Not even finally having to maybe give something back? Wow… Even more of a nothingburger than I’d thought. I am quite ignorant of the reality of South Africa, and the whole southern hemisphere I think. (I can however imagine Trump claiming, if it had passed, that the Australian Aboriginal Rights law was an act of genocide on European Australians.)

Did hear that the ANC is continuing to have a lot of internal strife with Rhamposa and the previous leader who was removed for corruption. Is Rhamposa any better? And does the nation as a whole feel like it’s able to try to move to better things? (Can’t imagine it does from you saying it doesn’t look like white land owners will have to pay out any more than poverty wages on the near future.)

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.

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?

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.

“They’re a Turkic ethnicity.”

Does that phrasing pass muster?

Tankies are very good at ignoring anything even possibly non-ideal in the PRC and USSR (and sometimes even Russia too!).

I’ll try to remember to link it in a new reply to you next time I stumble across it being used in order to deflect from the US or draw criticism to China over the topic at hand.

You certainly picked a doozy of an example, as I think I only ever see it mentioned by people trying to drum up China hate - who usually go on to ignore Palestine, India, Brazil, and I’m sure many ethnic cleansing cases I’m forgetting.

Hitler was very popular in the US and UK until about 1938…

All that resisting and fighting took place once War had started. We left the Jews, LGBT, Socialists, disabled people, Roma, Poland and Checkoslovakia, and dissenting Germans to be rolled over and ground up first because potential woke-socialist mind virus was scarier than literal fascism.

Once white people are getting vanned for lack of patriotic fevour I’m sure Trumps ratings will increase, too.

Ironically it has a meaning, and Cuba, Jamaica, Bolivia, and Venuzeula (just sticking to a handful of American examples) are not third world countries… Or weren’t anyhow, the term no longer really has meaning post cold war.

Yes, obviously is it. The PRC has done, and continues to do, bad things. The racist imperialism in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, as well as Guizhou, Yunnan, and Guangxi is bad and should be denounced.

Now, what’s your actual point?

The actions of the PRC do not excuse, and are less genocidal than what is Israel is doing with US support in Palestine, or the attacks on indigenous people in South America and India, taking place due to capitalist expansion (Or indeed the killings and destruction brought about by capitalist expansion of the PRC in Myanmar and Laos).
Hell, if the state of the US keeps up the way LGBT people are treated in the US will become more genocidal than the PRC’s treatment of ethnic minorities. The way the US has treated American Indians may not be quite as culturally corrosive right now, but that’s because the destroy their culture and get rid of the intellectual who speak out part has thankfully, grown less severe over the last 80 years (in part because it had been felt a success by those who wanted to force Indians to integrate and assimilate (read: sinicise (read: be culturally destroyed)).

999 was the realisation it was a thing for me, and then found a diagnostic questionnaire online and got the “mild aphantastia” result.

Mildly aphantastic.

Love reading, don’t know or have any different experience to compare it to.

I don’t visualise, but feel words and concepts as worda/concepts. I like descriptions as I can build up a concept with the words.

Vegetarian maybe? I used to do that at the burger van outside my university.

They’d even let me trade out the burger for extra cheese. Bet the Brazilian ones would smash it out the park, though.

[+2], I just turned it on since I only learnt about it from this post.

Thanks for causing me to learn something.

I prefer the term “got Ceresed”, but yes. That’s happened.

I read and continue to interpret the definition as “discrimination of someone as a Jew for being of the quality Jewish” regardless of how Jewish they actually are.

The “Jews as Jews” to put the focus on the perceived identity in the eye of the discriminator.

To link back to your examples, people persecuted, murdered, by the Nazis and their allies for being perceived as Jews fits the definition as the motive for persecution was “Jews as Jews”, not for (pardon the stereotypes coming but examples of not Nazi enough viewpoints coming) “Jews as having curly hair” or “Jews as being Communists/traitors”, but the perceived Jewishness itself. Regardless of reality.

It was once, but got kicked out due to new discoveries and equations I’m not smart/mathematically trained enough to understand.