Is it? Genocide doesn't necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we're allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I'm not sure it's obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don't meet your definition.

The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture.

"Forced," but not through killing.

There's often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn't it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?

It's absurd. What a coincidence that the first "nonviolent genocide" in history happens to come from the US's chief geopolitical rival. It's a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.

The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing

No, they did not. The emperor's divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.

[–] killingspark -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.

I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, ...? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.

Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn't genocide. Which should answer the other "questions" you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren't any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn't a problem there.

The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing

No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. They didn't have the option? They didn't do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn't the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.

Are there explicit actions/sanctions against Uighurs practicing Islam, or other aspects of their culture?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it?

I'm saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don't consider the emperor divine.

And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?

What an interesting perspective. So what you're saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn't be genocide.

[–] killingspark -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.

So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything? Great, then thats not genocide.

What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.

The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say "I am not divine". Let's say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words. Yes that would shatter the faith of a lot of people and how they deal with that is pretty much no-ones business. And it wouldn't be genocide if they all turned away from their faith after that.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything?

Well, that depends on your interpretation. If you were a Shintoist who did consider the emperor's divinity to be a central tenant, then no, from that perspective, your culture has been eradicated and the current form is a deviation. You're playing fast and loose here with your standards, in any religion, there are various sects which consider themselves to be the true, correct interpretation, and certain others to be false. You yourself thought Shintoists would have to ignore the emperor's renunciation to continue practicing their beliefs. There were Japanese people who saw it that way. And I'm not sure about this but I'm pretty sure you couldn't go around postwar Japan proclaiming the imperialist interpretation of Shinto with the implication of returning to the imperialistic ways, in the same way you couldn't go around waving swastikas in postwar Germany.

The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say “I am not divine”. Let’s say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words.

Well, that's interesting, because surely the intent in that case would be to get people to stop practicing Islam. I thought intent was the crucial defining aspect that made mass incarceration not genocide when the US does it but be genocide when China does it.

These standards seem completely incoherent to me. It seems like you're just adopting whatever stance allows you to thread the needle to include the things you want to include and exclude the things you want to exclude.

(Btw, small correction here, but I don't think Muslims consider Mohammad to be personally divine.)