• @can
    link
    English
    718 days ago

    When it’s targeted at a specific group of people and there’s such a dramatic power imbalance, yes. Whether modern definitions agree or not.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -3
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.

      So if your definition amounts to a highly favorable balance of power, then all countries at war would aspire to make it a “genocide”.

      • @can
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.

        Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.

        And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.

        Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          017 days ago

          Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?

          • @can
            link
            English
            117 days ago

            It wouldn’t be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I’m not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won’t readily denounce it.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              017 days ago

              Fair enough, but if an invasion of Canada is not necessarily genocide then there must be more to it than attacking a less powerful neighbor.