I’ll confess I had never come across the word ‘ethnocide’, until I read a post by commenter Pierre at Morgoth’s blog.
You might think that the word ‘ethnocide’ would mean the same thing as the ubiquitous term ‘genocide’, but apparently it means, according to the man who coined it, destruction of a people’s distinct culture and way of life. Right, as in what we are seeing with the destruction of historic statues and monuments in this country.
By the way did you know that the word ‘Genocide’ was coined by (((Raphael Lemkin))), in 1943? No surprise, then, that it seems to have been coined to create a word that might be indelibly associated with Jewish history, that is, until it became used for just about anything deemed detrimental towards a member of a protected ‘victim’ group, as categorized at any given moment.
But as to what constitutes ”ethnocide”, we get an inkling of it in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, from a 1994 document:
“Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.”
The ethnocide passage was ultimately not included in the official declaration.
So if (((Lemkin)) came up with the weapon-word ‘genocide’, which is applied very loosely and readily on behalf of designated ‘victim groups’, coined the word ‘ethnocide’? It was Robert Jaulin, a ‘social scientist’, and like most people in that kind of career, he was/is a leftist and xenophile. So he likely meant for his word to be used to accuse Whites of destroying the cultures of the noble savage ‘indigenous’, rather than the indigenous peoples of, say, Europe.
Of course Americans, that is, non-“vibrant” Americans, are not counted as indigenous, no matter how many generations we’ve been here, because only the
American Indians Amerindians Native Americans are indigenous to North America. White Americans don’t count as indigenous; we’re invaders, though somehow the many nonwhite interlopers in Europe or Australia or Canada don’t count as invaders.
But as to what amounts to ”ethnocide”, it’s elaborated further here:
“Collective and arbitrary murder, systematic abduction of children to raise them away from their parent’s culture, active and degrading religious propaganda, forced work, expulsion from the homeland or compulsory abandonment of cultural habits and social structure, all these practices, described by Robert Jaulin, have in common a deep despise [sic] for the other man and woman as representatives of a different cultural world.”
But if we look at the above descriptions, it all sounds familiar from recent history in our country, since, say, the 1960s and the Civil Rights coup. The first item, collective and arbitrary murder — well, the powers-that-be haven’t got quite to that stage yet, but give them time. “Active and degrading religious propaganda“? How about the teaching of evolution in schools? That’s a religious belief for atheists, I would say. And then there’s the constant, implicit or explicit, anti-Christian atmosphere. And what about teaching our children about sexual deviancies, promoting the idea that it’s perfectly normal and healthy, even cause for ‘pride’?
“Systematic abduction of children to raise them away from their parent’s culture” — well, wasn’t that the idea behind compulsory state-run education? It seemed more benign in a majority-White, majority Christian America, but as ‘our’ government moved further to the left and more overbearing, then compulsory education was used to program our children in another direction, and this led to the famed ‘generation gap’ of the 60s and 70s. “Compulsory abandonment of cultural habits“? Think busing, and forced school integration — this broke down the social practice of the races keeping to themselves, and compelled the students of all races to mix together, while they were being taught that any separation or distinction was morally wrong. White children were forcibly bused to schools in nonwhite neighborhoods in some cases and black children brought to White neighborhoods.
People were also forbidden by law to exercise freedom of association: landlords and those selling their homes were not allowed to exclude anyone based on race, religion, etc., thus compelling certain White neighborhoods to open themselves to others, with the result being the decline of many once-safe and pleasant neighborhoods. Many Whites felt compelled, then, to uproot themselves and to try to find a more suitable and safe neighborhood or town — until the same process repeated itself in their new home.
The ‘breaking up’ of our neighborhoods via enforced diversity has weakened our cultural and social cohesion, causing more anomie and isolation amongst our folk. We have lost a sense of who we are as a distinct people.
Does this not fit the description of ethnocide?
And it surely would include the constant heavy-handed propaganda meant to instill ‘White guilt”, resulting in White self-hatred which we see in the greatest proportion amongst the young. Now there is a frenzied destruction of physical symbols of our history, our past, our heroes, our symbols, all of which have been attacked verbally and called evil for decades now. If all this was happening to some sacred ‘victim’ group, it would be called ethnocide, genocide, and any other kind of ‘-cide’ they can think of. But when it’s happening to us? It’s just deserts. It’s our “karma” for past evil acts. It’s deserved. Pull them all down; efface every memory of White culture and history.
“Some critiques of the term ethnocide state that it is an unclear term. In addition, when people use the term ethnocide they are unsure of what they are condemning (Mair, 1975: 4). Furthermore, the idea that victims of ethnocide are individuals considered as primitive and indigenous and who are invaded by technologically advanced individuals considered as civilized poses some problems. This is especially problematic when ethnocide is used to describe the abandonment of cultural practices by a group for the practices of others (Mair, 1975: 4). This can be described as a question of cultural change instead of ethnocide (Mair, 1975: 4). Writers such as Jaulin considered civilization as an infectious disease (Mair, 1975: 4). For many, this argument often does not hold ground (Mair, 1975: 4).”
The above quote is from this source.
At least the writer of the above quote acknowledges that sometimes their precious indigenous peoples were not ‘robbed‘ of their unique and vibrant heritage, but willingly gave it up for a few trinkets, much like the Indians who sold Manhattan Island to the Dutch for a handful of beads. Today, however, they sell their culture out for smartphones and ghetto culture, usually.
And sad to say, many White people have not had to have their culture stolen from them; they are happy to jettison it for multicultural trinkets, ethnic restaurants, cheap labor, and the social advantages of being a self-hating ‘world citizen.’
What do we call self-ethnocide?