Yea unfortunately if America’s enemies can’t use the genocide to split the american population, it’s not getting shared on Facebook. It takes a lot of paid posting to get people worked up about genocide. Why these rabid leftists can’t get excited about an African genocide idk, but mostly because no jews or America I think! harder to blame America for desertification and European colonialism.
The Sudanese are killing themselves
We’re ALL humans
I remember people trying to bring awareness about Darfur 20 years ago.
Not much has changed…
Since the word genocide is used to describe pretty much every conflict now, the word has lost all meaning now. When people hear the word genocide, how can they know if it’s actual genocide or a “genocide”?
When you accuse everyone of genocide constantly, the perpetrators of actual genocide can get away with it.
War is a horrible thing, it should be enough to use the word war when expressing anger over a conflict. But propagandists have weaponized the word genocide thinking that will add a sense of urgency and trigger action. Or maybe create more violence. Of course those that enjoy repeating propaganda love the opportunity to be holier than thou because only they are against genocide, everyone else is a genocide denier, genocide enabler, etc.
But we can see when an actual genocide occurs, there is no urgency since the power the word genocide used to have is gone now. The real genocide enablers are those that weaponized the word genocide for the sake of their propaganda. All of social media is constantly flooded with the word with outrage over “genocide”, so there’s isn’t any space left on our screens left for when an actual genocide happens.
The problem isn’t that genocide is thrown around everywhere. The problem is that it happens everywhere. They’re all real actual genocides. They are all terrible.
But normal people have never cared about it as long as it doesn’t happen in their proximity. If even then… as long as it doesn’t happen to them.
After WW2 the UN was formed and they swore they would make sure genocide never happened again. And then they just stood by and watched as Rwanda happened. They literally stood on the ground, inside Rwanda. And didn’t do anything.
The UN defined genocide back in 1946 and was codified in 1948. It’s very clearly laid out.
#Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
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:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I had this discussion on here the other day. Think about the UN in 1948, and who was responsible then. We had Stalin still in power and if you take a closer look at this genocide definition, you will notice that it’s carefully crafted to exclude all the Soviet crimes. Killing “political groups” or “kulaks” or “counterrevolutionaries” is excluded.
And then we have people here on Lemmy going around and telling other people that Lenin and Stalin didn’t commit a genocide because Stalin has meddled with the definition.
This definition means every war is genocide; 1, 2, and 3 are all a given in any war
So, anyone can use the term accurately when describing war (according to UN)
it may be defined but applying all the elements to real situations is not at all trivial and I don’t think most people are painstakingly going through all the elements of the legal definition when they decide to use the word.
Can you give examples of things that were called genocide but actually weren’t and just watered the word down?
He is talking about Gaza. Spacecowboy has colorful views that were probably instilled into him at a young age.
When people hear the word genocide, how can they know if it’s actual genocide or a “genocide”?
You could never know since there isn’t an agreed upon or clear definition of genocide.
Americans have no power we can’t even get healthcare, family leave, affordable college, food assistance or affordable housing and they’re literally building for profit concentration camps everywhere. Our future is medical bankruptcy, homelessness, mass surveillance, “terrorist watch lists” and a core civic slave labor camps
okay so let me get this straight. it’s up to me to sort out the fascism in my home country, stop the genocide in sudan, stop the genocide in gaza, stop the genocide in ukraine, stop the genocide in china, would you also like a pony sir? what ever happened to a people’s responsibility of self determination that y’all keep throwing in my face whenever i mention that the orange fuckface has become an international problem and it’s time to start employing economic sanctions to try reining in the united states? y’all stop your own genocides.
70% of the world pisses and moans when america plays world police. 70% of the world pisses and moans when america doesn’t play world police.
Thank you
What are you doing about the homeless crisis?
I have built 3 homeless shelters. You?
“3 homeless shelters”
that could be a tent you put up every summer at camp. We now need a more definitive definition of “homeless shelter” and “genocide”.
The cheapest one cost 1.5 million dollars and was a 5 year project. Go bother someone else, poser
Why are you bothered by my post, and why don’t you use the word “poseur” instead? “Poser” is a poser term
You shouldn’t let responses bother you, it’s kinda sad
okay so let me get this straight. it’s up to me to sort out the fascism in my home country, stop the genocide in sudan, stop the genocide in gaza, stop the genocide in ukraine, stop the genocide in china,
Not only you but the rest of the population as well. And really, if we all cooperated together on this, these issues could be solved easily in a few years, if not months.
Not only you but the rest of the population as well. And really, if we all cooperated together on this, these issues could be solved easily in a few years, if not months.
If we really cooperated and agreed on the goals (that’s the hard one) we could fucking rebuild our society into a just and benevolent one practically overnight. I don’t want to go through eugenics wars to get there or whatever other horror science fiction says we need in order to do what we can intellectually conceptualize. The short version of that is “it works cause everyone who didn’t get it is dead!” and that’s one hell of a failure
Is there anything the rest of the world can do to help you with your orange fascist problem?
Because it seems to be in the way of solving a lot of the other issues.
stop the genocide in sudan, stop the genocide in gaza, stop the genocide in ukraine, stop the genocide in china
Is there anything the rest of the world can do to help you with your orange fascist problem? Because it seems to be in the way of solving a lot of the other issues
But Trump isn’t in Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, or China; he’s not the cause of any of this.
he’s not a God, he’s just an old moron. when he dies, none of those issues will be solved or even improve in any way
Definitely. They just don’t have the balls to do it.
I have a list, ranging from targeted economic sanctions to explicit military actions though discussing the latter probably doesn’t just put me on a list, it probably puts me in a hole.
Targeted economic sanctions, specifically on US [-based multinational] corporations, specifically on Krasnov donors and investment vehicles Krasnov is known to have invested in: this is probably the strongest tool in y’alls arsenal without declaring war. Example: There was an oil embargo placed on Japan in/prior to ww2 and there’s good evidence to support that without said embargo, Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. Basically, if you can’t target specific industries, cut the united states off from the world the way the world has cut off Cuba.
Edit: [added a couple woids for clarity]
A genocide anywhere is a huge problem. The US is playing a major role in the genocide in Palestine, so yes it makes sense that Americans are more concerned about that one than the one in Sudan.
What!? Do you not even care about climate change? Why do you hate nature?
A duck bit me once and now the world must burn
It’s up to you to bite the duck
I’m concerned if I bite it back I’ll get the runs out something. I hear they have worms
I think you should undergo duck conversion therapy so you can understand your enemy better
Noooooo I don’t want a ducking down
It’s so frustrating that we are living through an active genocide (again) and doing absolutely nothing (again). In my youth, when there wasn’t yet a 24 hour news cycle and I learned about the genocide in Rwanda as a teenager, it was my naive belief at the time that a lack of knowledge was the main reason for the general indifference in “the West”. A year later the genocide in Bosnia, especially the massacre at Srebrenica, was headline news in my home country of the Netherlands and yet people seemed to collectively just shrug that off just as quickly as it happened. Now, many years later, I’ve become much more cynical. If you want people to care about unjustified murder you should either make sure to have your country located really really close to “the West”, but even that is just of limited use to Ukraine, or make sure that the killing happens to take place at the hands of mostly Jewish people, although most Palestinians can attest to the fact that while media attention is good, action is still lacking.
Keep in mind you’re on a site where a solid number of users might downplay or relativise Srebrenica.
That’s a very sad point, if true. I’m old enough to remember coverage of that event on the evening news. How can a clear and obvious case of ethnic cleansing be downplayed?
How willing have you been to go and put your life on the line to stop these atrocities? If you’re not willing to, why should others?
If none of the individuals in a democratic country are eager to go die to prevent the atrocities, then why would you think a democratic country would take action to force individuals to go die to try and prevent a genocide?
And in this particular case, international trade with Sudan is at like 3% of their GDP – they don’t really trade with anyone, so its not like democratic countries can be all “smarten up, or else no more [x]!”
The UN at one point in the past had a decent peace keeping force function, that’d go and assist such regions. But the UN has basically been kneecapped by both authoritarian non-democratic countries having veto powers, and by the USA overtly defunding all its programs as of late.
And the US is now participating eagerly in war crimes / crimes against humanity – they’re the ‘supposed’ leader of the democratic west, but they actively encourage genocides like in Israel. The people of the USA voted for it. They’re ‘democratically’ in favour of encouraging genocides. Your opinion in the broader democratic environment, if you’re American, is in the minority. And part of living in a democracy is accepting the will of the majority, which happens to be in favour of genocides.
I was in Afghanistan, first serving with the Dutch armed forces and later working for a company that built clinics and schools. After that I worked in eastern Africa for a rural electrification programme. While parts of these efforts may have been fruitless in hindsight, I still stand by these choices.
What have you done? I feel like I was (and am) willing to work towards putting an end to atrocities, at least within my limited influence. I am willing. Therefore I expect a similar level of caring for the lives of others from others.
Congrats. It seems the rhetorical device is lost on you, and you’re not inclined to view the statement more broadly from the perspective of the majority. The rhetorical device isn’t meant to be applied to a single individual case, but rather interpreted as a broad concept highlighting the situation of what people would envision for a ‘regular’ citizen. From that vantage, you’d be looking at a majority who simply try to make ends meet and who’s focus is largely on treading water in a system increasingly aimed at crushing the agency/freedom of its people. Most can’t afford to be altruistic, and there isn’t enough revenue to support larger volumes of people working in organisations aimed at helping impoverished areas.
But further, to put your situation slightly differently: it sounds like you were provided with an opportunity to work for the armed forces and for a company that built clinics and schools, because others in dutch society produced what was needed to maintain dutch lifestyles, and the excess of their labour allowed you to pursue more altruistic goals. It’s the same general concept as the rich being able to give to charities / social causes because they’ve fucked the poor and created social issues to become rich, but abstracted a bit to social values. And the practical reality that there are some people working in those countries towards worthwhile ends, isn’t really material to the broader situation: just like the fact that some rich people are philanthropists, doesn’t realistically change the amount of damage done by the wealthiest demographic collecting/hoarding the wealth that some of them trickle back via charity.
Oh Boy. A keyboard warrior who tries to compensate for a lack of courage with a wall of text. Have a great life. I hope you come up with something good to do during the rest of it.
But the UN has basically been kneecapped by both authoritarian non-democratic countries having veto powers, and by the USA overtly defunding all its programs as of late.
Lately the US has been an authoritarian non-democratic country.
I understand your complain to a state level but not to individual level ,like even if I hate genocide and that make me sick I can t do anything again it , unfortunately
Yeah like im sorry but im not as brave as Alex Pretti and Renee Good and my plan is to flee the country when the civil war breaks out. I’m not fighting to save it. Good luck to the rest of you.
One of the countries on the list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KkNAQIuGZY
There’s much less direct military funding and support fueling Sudan so most people have no real outlet or mechanism for addressing it beyond support for humanitarian aid efforts and the UN.
There’s not an easily identified or direct policy that can be pointed at, as if an actor were receiving billions direct military aid and support. Like, even Israel is split on which side they’re supporting. Ukraine and Russia alike have supported opposition to the RSF.
It’s the UAE
What is the world supposed to do? Invade?
I would even take the issue getting equal time with gaza amoung internet slacktivists. Unfortunately the propaganda value for US politics is low, so it is what it is, I guess.
Uhh, yes, actually.
Oh yes, because that worked so great in Somalia.
What exactly are you referring to?
Are you suggesting world nations intervened in Somalia to satisfy their obligations under the genocide conventions? Because that didn’t happen.
So you’re suggesting that invasions in order to prevent genocide work differently than all other interventions? You invade, say “Hello, we’re here to prevent genocide”, everyone makes peace, situation stabilizes and you can leave? Because ‘normal’ invasions (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti…) tend to result in a shitshow and don’t improve the situation much. Even UN’s own research say that those only ‘sometimes’ work and domestic cooperation and consent is the most important factor in success [1]. So basically if you have a recognized government that asks for help intervention may be effective. Throwing more troops in the middle of an ongoing civil war most likely won’t.
- Donine, T., Khan, M., Landau, A., Solomon, D., & Woocher, L. (2025). Using peace operations to help prevent mass atrocities: Results from interviews with experienced practitioners.
You’re just mixing two different topics and trying to make them fit your argument.
You name examples of them never doing what they agreed they would do as a reason to not do it…
You’re just mixing two different topics and trying to make them fit your argument.
I’m citing report about prevention of mass atrocities in a topic about preventing genocide. What do you think doesn’t fit here?
You name examples of them never doing what they agreed they would do
What is that supposed to mean?
Iraq invasion was about regime change and did exactly that. Then it gave us ISIS.
Haiti was about stabilization and tried doing exactly that but turned out locals got angry about losing sovereignty, having their kids sexually exploited by peacekeepers and catching cholera from them.
Afghanistan was about removing the Taliban and tried doing this for 20 years without success.
Somalia was mostly stabilized but country is still one of the least developed in the world and in danger of massive famine.
The article is not wrong. But the reality is, we’ve tried to help places like a Sudan a lot over the decades. I’d say we helped TOO MUCH.
We sent food aid which made them dependent on us. It didn’t incentivise them to fix their issues, it just made them reliant on outside help. Meanwhile, the population skyrocketed. There’s more mouths to feed, more famine, more conflict.
At some point, a country needs to fix whatever’s broken. And it won’t be pretty; it never is. But I don’t think interfering in an internal conflict like this will do any good to anyone. Can we as the west even reasonably figure out who the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ are in this conflict? Is there even a good or bad side to begin with?
We sent food aid which made them dependent on us. It didn’t incentivise them to fix their issues, it just made them reliant on outside help.
Just fyi, this is the same argument that conservatives use when trying to gut welfare programs
Well, I do imagine there’s some caveats as to the efficacy of welfare programs, but we’ll stick to this topic :D
There’s been hundreds of food programs over the decades, but there really isn’t a good way to do it. If you just sent aid to a government or group, it tends to either destabilise the local economy or empowers people you don’t want to empower, like armed groups who can just take that aid for themselves.
But if you send individual aid, there’s issues too. For example, let’s say you set up a ‘work for food’ program. Sounds great, right? But what that ends up doing is that the WFF option is more attractive than tending your own farm or doing work with future benefits. Basically, WFF pays now - a farm doesn’t.
The best way to help is to give people tools and knowledge. Teach a man to fish and all that. But when faced with kids starving now, that’s obviously a hard sell.
I work for a newspaper and actually spoke to a gentleman a couple days ago whose student group helped set up a school in Ghana 30 years ago. Kids who grew up in the literal gutter got free schooling there. And it works! The reason we spoke was because the school is now setting up a music program and they’re collecting used musical instruments. He told me that during his last visit, he met a girl who went to that school and was now graduating from university. Isn’t that amazing?
Problem is, that takes 20 years to do. And that’s a mighty difficult thing to accomplish in places that are actively in conflict like Sudan.
Food aid was never meant to develop amy country. It’s meant to reduce starvation in the near term. But that school in Ghana couldn’t be successful if their students were starving. Im just guessing but that school probably received a lot of food aid so that their students could learn without hunger.
The fighting drew in foreign weapons and money. Outside powers jockeyed to back a victor, secure a foothold in Sudan, and profit from its natural wealth. The country matters globally not just because of its size but because it sits on the Red Sea, a major trade route, and holds immense reserves of gold, oil, and agricultural land.
Youre definition of help needs work
I mostly agree. I think people got put off when it turns out most donations to African countries in turmoil are embezzled.
However, there is a selective activism and double standard when Palestine gets more attention than Sudan, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict had been going on for as long as the conflict in Sudan and its neighbouring countries.
TBF, seeing as Israel is basically an appendix of the US, it could in theory be controlled via the US. As others here pointed out, no such mechanism in Sudan.
You have it backwards, US is a mecha that Israel pilots.
Well, you see, you can’t talk to Israel. But you can talk to the US, who could stop funding Israel at any time.
What are other African nations doing about it?
Not sending weapons to the RSF
When has the human race ever cared about a genocide, absent some material reason to do so?
deleted by creator
How can you talk about this, when there’s an ongoing genocide in Gaza? /s
It’s actually very sad, that a lot of harm could be prevented here, if it got even a tenth of the Gaza media coverage. But here it’s not Jews killing Arabs, but Arabs killing Africans. For some reason the left often turns a blind eye to Arab violence. And the right doesn’t care because they are killing Africans.
At least that’s my theory. It certainly also has something to do with Cameras and free press being a lot less common in Sudan. That leads to less pictures and videos, which leads to less social media engagement.
Maybe someone should tell trump that there is gold in Sudan. Maybe that’ll get some intervention. He seems to be very trigger happy as of late.
It’s talked about because Israel’s genocide is being done with our support and our weapons, and that support is clearly because of bribes and blackmail.
People protest about the genocide in Palestine because there is a demand for the imperialists to leave, meanwhile protesting about the genocide in Sudan would do nothing but convince the imperialists to come in thus making it worse.
Countries don’t really care about Gaza either, they care about Israel and because they care about Israel there is a counter-movement to care about Gaza, some of it financed by geopolitics, which makes it into the news cycle.
Imperialism, or a sternly worded letter? Choose your preference. The UN is present and has condemned what is happening in Sudan, and this article literally cites them as a source. Presumably they are no one, so no one cares.
Bro, I’m Palestinian and I can say the Sudanese people are as arab as anyone in the peninsula. When it comes to the Gaza genocide, sudanese people try more than any Arab nationality to aid, whether it be boycotting or donating.
If they could currently be doing anything about the massacre in their country, they would be. Most are going back and getting their family out of there, if they hadn’t already don’t that.
So, because governments aren’t listening to protesters about an unrelated genocide, this genocide is somehow protesters fault? Feels like you’re just reaching for a way to be racist towards Arabs.
Removed by mod
Jews are not being hunted in Europe or America.
