Ok fair enough, that supports your argument.
Yes but fuck preferences for government that does not count as part of culture. Otherwise what the U.S. did to Japan by forcing them to stop having a god emperor is "genocide". No change in political policies is not by itself genocide.
One does not elect an emperor according to own preferences.
If you check out this poll, you will also see differences in attitudes to all sorts of institutions and trust towards them.
Stop when you say genocide with Chinese characteristics are you talking about the modern day CCP, or are you talking about a hypotetical normal China?
CCP. I was alluding to the fact that by legal definition of genocide, the line between "hard" Nazi style genocide and "cultural genocide" is of questionable relevancy, according to said definition, in either case its still genocide.
en.wikipedia.org
In 1948, the
United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.
Just plain slaughter of said group is 1 of 5 specified acts that constitute genocide.
There is a differance communism is an anti life ideology. If in Poland the PZPR in Warsaw decided to do what you said to the people of Torun city of Poland that would be genocide. Because the people that would be killed would be Poles, and the children would be raised to be communists which are a diffrent group of people. But if the same should happen and a democratic, fascist, or monarchy Poland decided to do the same thing to the people of Torun Poland then it would not be genocide since even if the King of Poland is a tyrant everyone involved both the killers and victims are Poles.
I guess if a case can be considered a "self-genocide" then it may or may not become merely "boring" mass murder. But in more realistic setting, generally if someone goes out of their way to commit murder on the scale of national population, chances are that some major ethno-cultural difference is probably there.
In an example of China I need to know if it's a regular China or if it's CCP, and second who they are oppressing. If it is Han Chinese or sinicied people like them no not genocide. But if it's a diffrent group that has completely alien customs but is merely under Chinese political hegemony like the Uigers then it would be genocide.
So if Warsaw orders the destruction of Torun. That can be a genocide? Are the Torun completely diffrent than other Poles?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Torun, no. Some Silesian city like Katowice, possibly, because that's a little bit different culture. But still much less different than Russians and Ukrainians.
What are the differances between modern Austria and Germany? I know historical differances Austria was Catholic and was ruled by Hapsburgs. But neither nation is a monarchy and both are secular and do not have religious law.
Jeeez...
Just because you personally don't know shit about some cultures doesn't make them one culture, it just means you are stubbornly ignorant.
Fortunately for us, we can consult people with a better idea through the magic of internet:
Austria and Germany are neighbouring countries that share many likes and dislikes, but there are also subtle differences in everyday life that can certainly lead to minor misunderstandings.
www.alphatrad.co.uk
Answer (1 of 27): First of all, i am Austrian and i am proud to say, that I have lived many different parts of Austria and they are very different. But Germany has a completely different culture and the people‘s mindset is not at all to be compared. To generalize Austrians is difficult but i will...
www.quora.com
As for your last argument that I bolded you must not have thought ahead as to why they are seperate. It's not because of massive differance. In the past it was with religion and dynastic politics. But now I see three main reasons. Inertia, second is other powers preventing it in the modern day because they don't want a stronger central Germany in the middle of Europe. Germany was split after ww2 after all, and third is bad publicity if Germany and Austria pursue it. Again world war 2, Germany wants to avoid doing things that make the world associate them with the nazis.
So at least i see the problem, you love overly simplistic approximations of grand ethno-political questions.
No, pre-modern people very much had cultural differences, though cultures were far more fragmented even within one country (the common example is that you could often travel 50-100km in one country and not be able to understand the language anymore), but still, especially in case of smaller, less culturally fragmented countries, those differences would often be cause of dynastic and religious splits even. After the printing press facilitated widespread literacy, most modern style nations with country spanning unified national cultures started forming, which got us where we are now (but most of third world isn't on the same schedule, hence many of its problems).
Ok, I acknowledge I don't know so I will take your word for it.
All borderlands eventually have less autonomy as empires grow and technology advanced. The U.S. states used to have much more power vis a vis the Federal Government.
Which is yet another example of separate line of history between the Russian and Ukrainian Cossacks - the former were more restricted by the empire and so ended up less distinct, while the history of Ukraine and its denizens was much more tumultous of the same time, so it was much more of a borderland (ironically that's what the name means in slavic languages).
This is a fair argument, so it is possible. However regions have rebelled against the Russians or other empires and not been genocided historically. Even in the modern day we can point to Checnya. They haven't been genocided and turned into Muscovites.
Not in the "killing" understanding of the term, but they are being culturally assimilated aggressively. Much like Ukrainians and Poles were when ruled by Moscow.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
By legal definition, Chechnya is a poor example.
en.wikipedia.org
Note the legal definition. Destruction "in part" still counts.
And then there are the less well known aspects of Russian Empire:
en.wikipedia.org
Curious that you subscribe to such self-hating history of some western empires, even giving leftists a run for their money in that, but are so ignorant of Russian Empire's history.
Like every tribe would want a seperate nation? I guess I can understand not all of them fitting into one. But there aren't any greater "tribe alliances?"
Yes, the best analogy for "Native Americans" is "Asians" or "Hispanics". Groups of loosely similar people who don't necessarily like each other nor are necessarily very similar in culture but leftists love to throw them into the same bag for political convenience.