They still refuse to get rid of the name "Uyghur genocide" despite basically acknowledging that it is in no way a genocide and zero people have been killed.
You don't need to kill people to do genocide, but yes correct
in support of your comment
Settlers always know what they are doing, of course; it was why they worked so hard to slaughter the buffalo: they wanted to kill indigeneity, not just individual indigenous people. A people who marked time and history by the buffalo could not survive in their collectivity without it. And so, as “Plenty Coups” of the Crow nation put it,
“When the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not lift them up again. After this nothing happened.”
His point was that without the buffalo—the object on and through which his people existed and made collective meaning—their history could not continue. Individuals could survive, as he had, but the people had (arguably) come to an end.
from https://thenewinquiry.com/blog/buffalo-skulls/
Yeah, but that is also not really the allegation being made. The allegation against the CPC is that it's suppressing religious expression and doing so in a way that specifically seeks to eradicate the "traditional" culture of this specific ethnic minority. Most of the bluechecks who write about this "cultural erasure / genocide" also point to stuff like the lack of minarets on mosques, which technically means that Denmark is also doing genocide, since we have a strict ban on minarets specifically, which also includes the broadcasting of the Adhan/call to prayer.
Question: Regarding the buffalo issue on the Native Americans
You know, I always thought that disease spread to the Americas through battles and forced labor upon Indigenous people, instead of it being tragic and inevitable effect of contact between the colonists and them...
Do you suppose there's something more than just "Americapox killed most of the Indigenous, and the contact between the old and new worlds made it inevitable"?
That’s not even true, North Korea has a couple minority parties with a bit of representation in the parliament.
Including famously a bunch of SocDems, who have like a handful of seats. I've always wanted to talk to someone from that specific party about their ideology. since Social Democrats in my country are just right wingers with slightly less aggressive marketing around their racism.
Completely spitballing here, but if I would hazard a guess they push for a more open trade and foreign diplomacy policy. I am pulling this completely from my ass so don’t quote me on it.
It's not surprising that an encyclopedia maintained by volunteers is heavily biased when the only people with sufficient time and money to volunteer are terminally-online basement-dwellers.
I need to stress that the "reliable sources" used for citations in Wikipedia are billionaire owned rags. In the case of articles about the DPRK, they're mostly State Department publications.
Ok but youre not taking into account the considerable restraint it took to not put “monarchy”
Neutral point of view, determined by the CIA and congressional staffers who spend all day on Wikipedia
Incredible, they managed to be wrong three words in! The DPRK is not a one party state
And while partying, the men are required to have one of three approved haircuts that Kim likes
But never the one he has right now, they have to cycle around him to complement his style
going back in time and killing A.H. and H.A.
Adolf Hitler
and
Hannah Arendt
That's when you know that's some good propaganda, when the targeted don't even know about it. Wikipedia is state sponsored itself and unreliable as fuck.
