He said “by your definition this <other genocide> would not be considered one” (which it is).
He’s not doing anything related to whataboutism, you clearly don’t know what it means. He’s presenting an argument for the definition and common usage of the word genocide. Try to follow
I’m not in agreement with that either. I don’t agree that native Americans were involved in a genocide. I would imagine most people would agree with that. It’s a whatabout to me because it’s not even in a similar circumstance. If you look at actual examples of genocide it doesn’t look like native America or Gaza.
But sure, call it “ethnical cleansing” if pedantry helps you sleep better at night…
And I’ll still continue using the UN recognized definition of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” which by my understanding fits both the American and Palestinian atrocities.
He said “by your definition this <other genocide> would not be considered one” (which it is).
He’s not doing anything related to whataboutism, you clearly don’t know what it means. He’s presenting an argument for the definition and common usage of the word genocide. Try to follow
I’m not in agreement with that either. I don’t agree that native Americans were involved in a genocide. I would imagine most people would agree with that. It’s a whatabout to me because it’s not even in a similar circumstance. If you look at actual examples of genocide it doesn’t look like native America or Gaza.
I mean the person who coined the term “genocide” considers the atrocities against the native Americans a genocide…
But sure, call it “ethnical cleansing” if pedantry helps you sleep better at night…
And I’ll still continue using the UN recognized definition of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” which by my understanding fits both the American and Palestinian atrocities.