France’s historic language policy is certainly highly problematic yes. Although the point is not genocide but class warfare and/or colonialism, not that it’s much of an improvement.

And now do Belgium. French is the language of the elites (the monarchy and, historically, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie) but also a minority regional language. Is Flanders banning French on public signage a form of oppression? I personally think it’s stupid Flemish nationalism but I wouldn’t call it oppression.

So how about we stop making blanket statements. Moscow’s erasure of Belarusian identity is at least oppressive and imperialistic and follows a long history of oppression. IDK if that qualifies as genocide (IMHO that undermines the gravity of something like the Holodomor), but something not strictly being genocide doesn’t make it unimportant.

OK, now do China.

I kid, I kid.

They remove the people: no people, no language.

First of all, great job whatabouting. Second of all, yes, that is a form of genocide.

There’s ratified UN conventions on what is legally considered genocide…

I would suggest that instead of sourcing your understanding of genocide from Lemmy comments, you go read it, or at least it’s Wikipedia entry.

Also yes, cultural erasure can be an act of genocide, but I doubt the Belarus situation would quality at the moment. Given their governments participation in the assimilation, it probably requires some additional actions, or metrics. But, it’s not like I’m a human rights lawyer, so maybe I’m wrong.

It’s not my definition.

You could compare with schools for the indigenous people of the US and Canada. They forced the kids into them, cut their hair, gave them new names, made them speak only English… That’s also a form of genocide. It’s not just directly killing people.

Genocide Convention

Participation in the Genocide Convention

Signed and ratified

Acceded or succeeded

Only signed

On 9 December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG);[19] it came into effect on 12 January 1951 after 20 countries ratified it without reservations.[20] The convention’s definition of genocide was adopted verbatim by the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and by the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).[21]Genocide is defined as:

… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) 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;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[3]

Definitions

Main article: Genocide definitions

The definition of genocide generates controversy whenever a new case arises and debate erupts as to whether or not it qualifies as a genocide. Sociologist Martin Shaw writes, “Few ideas are as important in public debate, but in few cases are the meaning and scope of a key idea less clearly agreed.”[41][42] Some scholars and activists use the Genocide Convention definition.[14] Others prefer narrower definitions that indicate genocide is rare in human history, reducing genocide to mass killing[43] or distinguishing it from other types of violence by the innocence,[44] helplessness, or defencelessness of its victims.[45] Most genocides occur during wartime, and distinguishing genocide or genocidal war from non-genocidal warfare can be difficult.[46] Likewise, genocide is distinguished from violent and coercive forms of rule that aim to change behavior rather than destroy groups.[47][48] Some definitions include political or social groups as potential victims of genocide.[49] Many of the more sociologically oriented definitions of genocide overlap that of the crime against humanity of extermination, which refers to large-scale killing or induced death as part of a systematic attack on a civilian population.[50] Isolated or short-lived phenomena that resemble genocide can be termed genocidal violence.[51]

Cultural genocide or ethnocide—actions targeted at the reproduction of a group’s language, culture, or way of life[52]—was part of Raphael Lemkin’s original concept, and its proponents in the 1940s argued that it, along with physical genocide, were two mechanisms aiming at the same goal: destruction of the targeted group. Because cultural genocide clearly applied to some colonial and assimilationist policies, several states with overseas colonies threatened to refuse to ratify the convention unless it was excluded.[53] Most genocide scholars believe that both cultural genocide and structural violence should be included in the definition of genocide, if committed with intent to destroy the targeted group.[54]Although included in Lemkin’s original concept and by some scholars, political groups were also excluded from the Genocide Convention. The result of this exclusion was that perpetrators of genocide could redefine their targets as being a political or military enemy, thus excluding them from consideration.[55]

This motherfucker just compared removing Confederate statues to genocide.

Language is much more than words in a dictionary.

Each language carries its original cultural concepts and ways of thinking.

I wouldn’t say removing confederate statues is an attempted genocide in the South.

You wouldn’t say removing statues erected as part of a massive centuries long campaign of terrorism and genocide isn’t genocide?

How enlightened of you.

Unfortunately, I don’t speak much other than Portuguese and English. I’m trying to learn Latin, though.

German, of course!