Skip to main content

View Diary: Genocide of the Poor (11 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes that's the conclusion I've arrived at (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue91, grumpelstillchen

    As a former history student, I want to emphasize the horror of past atrocities, not diminish them. It always seems lame to compare your own situation to situations that were of historical importance.

    However, by the criteria you give, this situation can be classified as genocide. I think we should start using that word: the power of it may make Republicans think twice before engaging in genocidal plans. Unfortunately, "please don't hurt me" is wimpy, and the Republican version of freedom is to not stop until someone stands up and stops you.

    Le nirvane n'existe pas. - Etienne Lamotte

    by breakingranks on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 08:52:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not saying you shouldn't (0+ / 0-)

      use the term. I'm saying you shouldn't use it "loosely" and without defining it.

      Note that I clarified, in my comment, that the above quote was from a lecture on present day genocide in the US--not the past.

      The danger with using the term loosely....well, Jared Loughner is a good example--remember the guy who shot Gabby Giffords? Yeah, he blathered on (in a video) about his "genocide school", and Herman Cain used the term to rail against Planned Parenthood (and abortion in general)....

      So, unless you want to place yourself in that camp of nutjobs, you're best advised to very specific in your use of the term genocide: it doesn't "scare" the Republicans--they're way ahead of you, and they're already using it as a sensationalist strategy to advance their own agenda. And the only reason it "works" for them is that so many people are unaware of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, unaware of the 5 categories of action that constitute works as a sensationalist instrument precisely because they use it in the "everybody knows" sense of the term. The fact is, very few people are aware of what the term really means.

      As I said

      If you were to examine Romney's "final solution" to the poverty problem according to the LEGAL definition of genocide established by the UN Convention, you could probably make a convincing case.
      Unless you actually take that step of doing the research and demonstrating--with stats and pesky facts--the way that government policies participate in one or more of the five categories of action that constitute genocide according to the standards of international law, you merely contribute to stripping the term of its legal and analytical power.

      Personally, from what I've seen of the situation for "the poor" in the US, we don't need to wait around for Romney's policies to begin speaking in terms of genocidal conditions existing for the poor in this country--Reagan set that ball in motion, and a couple of intermittent Democratic WH-terms isn't going to stop it. So I'm basically agreeing with you, just wanting to see a more solid use of the term backed up by more solid research to justify its use.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site