Maybe to simple minded uneducated people. Others take the time to learn the actual definition.
> cidium "act of killing," from caedere "to kill, to cut down" (from PIE root *kae-id- "to strike"). https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=homocide https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fratricide https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=suicide
lots of others
""" Article II In the present Convention, genocide means 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; (c) 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. """
I wouldn't recognize this as a dictionary definition but rather a legal document outlaying its premises and defining its terms. All but item b I'd argue are a form of killing, the ending of the demographic line either immediately or incrementally. You have to look at all these definitions in terms of the ultimate end being sought after by the perpetrators and these five categories are all means of doing so. The only stretch definition is b which I imagine is a much slower form of destruction. It's still a necessary clause though because imagine a dictator amputating the hands of all members of some group and claiming they didn't kill them therefore they didn't commit genocide. That would be a fraudulent claim because they effectively severely debilitated their ability to provide for themselves and function, they severely wounded that group so that one wouldn't be surprised if they did wind up dying and not thriving some time later on account of that action through indirect causes directly tied to that original offense.
It's not an ancient word however, apparently it's a 20th century construction coined by Raphael Lemkin. """ He decided to create a name for the crime without a name. He came up with genocide, which he defined as the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. He said he created the word by combining the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing). """ https://www.facinghistory.org/ideas-week/where-did-word-geno....
The book he coined the word was authored in 1944, the UN convention was signed in 1948 https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention..., very close in time and I'd say complimentary but still a legal document meant to get in writing specific means of destruction for that genos. So it's a emphasis on the means, not the end, and I'd say an equivalent definition is intentionally causing the end of a collective bloodline however that end may be accomplished.
- 'nice' means 'ignorant', - 'to travel' means 'to suffer torture',
and a lot of other interesting (but incorrect) ideas about what words mean.
So do I.
Nice comes from nescius 'ignorant'.
Travel according to the most common version comes from tripalium, a torture device.
If you assume that genocide must be about killing because it comes from a Latin word for killing, then being nice should be about being ignorant because it comes from a Latin word for ignorant.
Those examples I’m guessing have no record of those who coined them, genocide however appears to have such a record.
for example, a cultural genocide refers to destroying culture, e.g. Uighur or Muslim culture
Or is it chosen for rhetorical/propaganda effect without too much concern for accuracy?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
What the Chinese are doing there is covered under Article II, c.
If you are being pedantic by holding fast to the literal Greek translation of "geno" and "cide" then, well, this is simply not the complete modern meaning of the term.
Look, internment isnt good either, why dig in your heels on the most loaded possible word?
why not focus on that, rather than your personal, individual dislike of a term?
why dig your heels in on the semantics of the thing, rather than the substance?
false: there are a few. They aren't always correct, but they're more correct than you personally
> More generally, if genocide can mean...
there is no question what it means, you simply personally disagree with it
and since you definitely aren't an authoritative body on the definition of words, your personal pedantic insistence that the word mean only what the strict etymological roots imply, rather than how people actually use it, is irrelevant
> a negatively-loaded bomb to be lobbed in partisan debates
it's quite telling that you seem to view usage of the term "cultural genocide" to refer to cultural genocide as a bigger issue than actual cultural genocide
don't like people using the correct term to refer to the action? maybe get those perpetrating the action to stop, instead of telling everyone we're using the wrong words to describe it.
Modern definition of genocide at UN explicitly wouldn't categorize what PRC is doing in XJ - cultural genocide - because members, especially west went out of their way to ensure cultural genocide would have little legal ramifications, otherwise Canada would have been sanctioned to death for self professed cultural genocide a few years ago. Incidentally the entire reason Pompeo tried to propagandize genocide label was because it would trigger diplomatic ramifications at UN. What the PRC is doing in XJ is cultural genocide, and bluntly that’s permissible thanks to lobbying from the west.
The entire manufactured genocide narrative is so retarded because if PRC wanted to, they could just... commit genocide. At PRC scale they can wipe out the 12M Uyghurs in a few weekends on the cheap instead of wasting trillions of RMB trying to sinicize them.
* suicide
* regicide
* fratricide
* insecticide
* pesticide
Using the word "genocide" to refer to something other than mass murder - and then falling back to the claim that "genocide" doesn't mean mass murder - is just playing rhetorical games.