Talk:Cultural genocide

Destruction of ethnicities

I want to call attention upon the vandalism of those who don't want the reality of the cultural genocide in the Islamic countries during the last two or three decades to be posted.

Much of Saudi Arabia's aid has gone to poorer islamic countries or Islamic communities in non-Islamic countries. This "aid" has contributed to the spreading of a uniform and puritanical form of Islam, disregarding the needs and traditions of the different ethnic groups. Therefore Saudi Arabia has spearheaded the destruction of formerly mellow and colorful Islamic cultures. This form of silent cultural genocide has been going on since the late 1970's and has so far been largely unopposed.Mohonu (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you were to provide proper references then it could be included - but you are not giving any proper references. And remember, any reference you use must actually have used the phrase "cultural genocide" and used it in a legitimate way. For example, in my opinion, what Wahhabi fundamentalists amongst the Saudi Arabian forces in Kossovo did to Kossovo's Ottoman architectural heritage should be classed as cultural genocide - but I cannot place any of that on this page because I have no sources to hand which describe the destruction there as "cultural genocide". Meowy 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources you have cited actually use the phrase "cultural genocide" - the way you have written the section that I have (again) removed sounds like it is just your opinion that what has happened is cultural genocide? If the sources do actually say it, then I would be happy for the removed information to return, but only if it were worded so that it clearly indicates that the sources do use the phrase "cultural genocide". I think it should also be shortened. Meowy 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I used the readers response because it was put in a succint manner. But no, I have to acknowledge that none of the authors (and there are many more) mentioned uses the term "cultural genocide". They use terms like "acculturation" or "destruction of cultural values" in Sumatra, Java, Maldives or Mindanao. Also there is a definite emphasis in the fact that those traditionally syncretistic Muslim cultures (Minangkabau, Acehnese, Maldivians, Southern Filipinos) don't have the resources to stand against the formidable "global" Saudi educational, religious and political influence.

At any rate time will tell whether these are ethnocides or cultural genocides.Mohonu (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, even if it does amount to cultural genocide, if none of the cited authors actually describe it as a "cultural genocide" then it can't be mentioned in the article. Meowy 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the second section of the article (Relevance to International Law) specifies that: Despite its lack of legal currency, the term has acquired rhetorical value as a phrase that is used to protest against the destruction of cultural heritage. The destruction of "weaker" localized Muslim cultures by the formidable machinery of petrodollar wealth and influence can be included even if the authors specified don't specifically mention it. Therefore Mohonu's point (shortened to make space) is definitely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.48.17 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical or not, none of the cited sources actually use the phrase "cultural genocide" - so it is just your personal POV opinion that it is "cultural genocide". That is why it is not a valid addition. Meowy 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed material relating to Poland and South Africa from the article for the same reason. However, maybe there is need to expand the article to include references to incidents or policies that a reasonable person would say amounted to cultural genocide, even though the actual phrase "cultural genocide" has not been used to describe those incidents or policies. Meowy 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indian Muslims

NPOV violations in the section about Indian treatment of muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakashrajq (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD - SYN?

Maybe this is just a poorly written article but it seems like a big SYN violation to me to just list a bunch of instances where a term is used that is never actually defined in any of the sources used. Can someone show that this term is actually defined in any of these sources and that they are all talking about the same thing, and that it is somehow different from genocide? The word "genocide" literally means destruction of a "race" or a "people" -- terms that are coterminous with "culture" if not identical to it. I'm not sure how "cultural genocide" differs from "genocide." csloat (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! For me ( a "real" NPOV! ) there could be this difference: only if genocide can refer not to extermination but to a simple race destruction, as for Cree and Uyghur people, that is cultural genocide, but only if "genocide" is not linked to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.53.169 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of the recent AfD for the phrase "enemy of humanity", which similarly, has a bunch of people who utter the same combination of words but don't use it in the same way, I have removed that list. Its ambiguous use in a draft UN convention is kept for editors to evaluate in the future. Quigley (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Right?

I think you could add also Pol Pot and his policy ( Red Khmers ). I read about the fact that people couldn't wear glasses or other "western" objects.

Now I think: ... but this was not against the local culture, even if against the culture.

Now I think again: it was against the present local culture for the past local culture.

So, it is genocide. But is it "cultural" or "anti-cultural" ( neologism ( my-logism ))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.53.169 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Article on Cultural Genocide

The article on "Genocide" is getting too big, and this article needs an independent entry. It's standard policy to develop sub-articles. A quick search reveals a significant amount of sources dealing specifically with this topic.Maziotis (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS notice: Edit war

OTRS has received notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. I would suggest editors involved in the disagreement consult Wikipedia:Edit war.

Rather than engage in a war of reversals, editors should discuss the entry in question and try to reach consensus. If they find they are unable to do so, Wikipedia has mechanisms for arbitration.

Please consult the following page:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you do not feel that any of the suggestions offered there will be constructive, you can ask for arbitration, but please be aware that this is considered a last step within dispute resolution. Please consult this page:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.

I ask the involved parties to try and find consensus within Wikipedia guidelines, i.e. agree to disagree and place only well-sourced and referenced material on the page, even if it reflects different points of view. The key to resolving this dispute is to stick to the principleWikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and accept that there may be differing opinions regarding this subject. You may also want to consult the pages Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

• I have added this page to my watchlist and will report any and all further disruptive behaviour to the administrators.

• For the record: I have no opinion(s) as to the subject matter of the entry.

Principles

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) The use of Wikipedia for ethnic or political propaganda is prohibited byWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Disruptive editing

3) Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site.

Assume good faith

4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Courtesy

5) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Neutral point of view

6) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Good faith acceptance of references

7) References may be used which are not available online. It is sufficient that that they may be found and verified using the facilities of an academic library or a service such as Lexis-Nexis. In the absence of demonstrated failure, a user is presumed to be able to adequately cite such references.

Reconciliation

8) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Asav (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE and its consequences being the most OBVIOUS CASE of Cultural cleansing

Consequences of the first owful crime against humanity in XX century:

1. About (or more than) 2,000.000 lives lost in the Armenian homeland.
2. 67 Armenian cities, 3,000 villages and big part of Armenian homeland once occupying over 400, 000 square kilometres lost its true owners’.
3. As a result, the major part of Armenian cultural heritage has been stripped of its true owners’ care and protection for almost a century now. Moreover, it has continually been suffering premeditated destruction and obliteration. Masterpieces of Armenian architecture like 3,368 monasteries and churches now we have lost forever.
4. Most harmful cultural loss was a destruction of a thousands of medieval handwritten illuminated manuscripts and science books collected during the centuries.
5. Another constituent of the Cultural Genocide is a process of Turkification of thousands Armenian toponyms in Western Armenia.
6. Numerous Armenian churches converted into mosques, and massive falsifications of Armenian graveyards remakeed to Seljuk tombstones.
7. So-called "restorations" of Armenian monuments in Turkey, in fact remouving Armenian inscriptions and crosses from them.

Unseen scale of destructions and falsifications against Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey must be qualified as the most OBVIOUS CASE of Cultural genocide inside the humans conscience first, and then it can find place in Wikipedia's pages... Event.Horizon.000 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

on the Bahá'í Faith

previous entry

In light of concerns raised in a number of circles I propose making an entry here or somewhere along these lines:

See also: Religion in Iran § Bahá'í Faith

The Bahá'í Faith, Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority, is not officially recognized, and has been persecuted during its existence in Iran. Since the 1979 revolution the persecution of Bahá'ís has increased with oppression, the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education and employment. There were an estimated 350,000 Bahá'ís in Iran in 1986. Bahá'ís are neither recognized nor protected by the Iranian constitution. During the drafting of the new constitution the wording intentionally excluded the Bahá'ís from protection as a religious minority.

The Shia clergy, as well as many Iranians, have continued to regard Bahá'ís as heretics, and consequently Bahá'ís have encountered much prejudice and have sometimes been the objects of persecution. The situation of the Bahá'ís improved under the Pahlavi shahs when the government actively sought to secularize public life however there were still organizations actively persecuting the Bahá'ís in addition to there being curses children would learn decrying the Báb and Bahá'ís. See Hojjatieh. Founder of SAVAK, Teymur Bakhtiar, took a pick-ax to a Bahá'í building himself at the time.

Bahá'ís have been officially persecuted, "some 200 of whom have been executed and the rest forced to convert or subjected to the most horrendous disabilities." Systematic targeting of the leadership of the Bahá'í community by killing or disappearing was focused on the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) and Local Spiritual Assemblies (LSAs). Like most conservative Muslims, Khomeini believed Bahá'ís to be apostates, for example issuing a fatwa stating:

It is not acceptable that a tributary [non-Muslim who pays tribute] changes his religion to another religion not recognized by the followers of the previous religion. For example, from the Jews who become Bahai's nothing is accepted except Islam or execution.

and emphasized that the Bahá'ís would not receive any religious rights, since he believed that the Bahá'ís were a political rather than religious movement. Allegations of Bahá'í involvement with other powers have long been repeated in many venues including denunciations from the president. This is all despite the fact that conversion from Judaism and Zoroastrianism is well documented since the 1850s - indeed such a change of status removing legal and social protections.

More recently, documentation has been provided that shows governmental intent to destroy the Bahá'í community. The government has intensified propaganda and hate speech against Bahá'ís through the Iranian media; Bahá'ís are often attacked and dehumanized on political, religious, and social grounds to separate Bahá'ís from the rest of society. According to Eliz Sanasarian "Of all non-Muslim religious minorities the persecution of the Bahais has been the most widespread, systematic, and uninterrupted.… In contrast to other non-Muslim minorities, the Bahais have been spread throughout the country in villages, small towns, and various cities, fueling the paranoia of the prejudiced."

Since the 1979 revolution, the authorities have destroyed most or all of the Baha'i holy places in Iran, including the House of the Bab in Shiraz, a house in Tehran where Bahá'u'lláh was brought up, and other sites connected to aspects of Babi and Baha'i history. These demolitions have sometimes been followed by the construction of mosques in a deliberate act of triumphalism. In addition the Bahá'í Institute for Higher Education, developed in response to some of these persecutions, has been systematically raided. Between 1987 and 2005 the Iranian authorities closed down the university several times as part of the pattern of suppressing the Bahá'í community. Between September 30 and October 3 1998 and most recently on 22 May 2011 officials from the Ministry of Intelligence entered the homes of academic staff of the BIHE, seizing books, computers and personal effects and shutting down buildings used for the school.

Indeed several agencies and experts and journals have published concerns about viewing the developments as a case of genocide: Roméo Dallaire, Genocide Watch, Sentinel Project for Genocide Prevention, War Crimes, Genocide, & Crimes against Humanity and the Journal of Genocide Research.

Smkolins (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - going live with this and see where it goes.... Smkolins (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

going live

Sorry I deleted the content first. If it is not too much of trouble, please do the followings:

1. please provide quotes here (in the talk page) from the sources on which you base your contribution, that specifically mention the phrase "cultural genocide"
2. please then proceed to use these materials (not off-topic content) to demonstrate how this can be used "to explain cultural genocide as an illustrative case", using one to three paragraphs (usually one).
3. please use template {{main}} to provide internal links to the main article.

Thank you.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So after a year and some 20 editors changing content on the page the section is deleted and "moved to talk"? I think this is a highly irregular action unless I'm missing a thrust of editing though I don't see any discussion to speak of. We could as easily begin by leaving the content and discussing it's placement or position in things separately. Deleting it like this seems highly irregular. In return to your questions I have questions -

1. ) I'm confused by a suggestion of main-linking "to the main article" - are you suggesting the content be moved to it's own article?
2. ) The question of citation is weird because there were many references included. It is a religion in Iran (and beyond) and in Iran there are numerous examples of evidence and concern over the approach of the government being one of genocide. So - is this cultural genocide or just an example of genocide? Does a religion being treated this way constitute cultural genocide or other forms of genocide? That's the question I originally asked. I don't see an answer but it doesn't seem to me the right answer is to delete the content. Smkolins (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, please note that I only moved the content to talk page and alerted you immediately on your user page, which does not constitute a bad-faith deletion. Thank you again for laying out your rationales in contributing. I have preliminarily addressed the issues of WP:summary,WP:detail and WP:due in another heading below. Here I focus on the topic, relevance and sources:

summary policy in a nutshell

I quote it here for your reference:

guideline in a nutshell

Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place.

— Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{Main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template., To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original.

--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 04:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

topic, relevance and sources

Per WP:TOPIC policy, Wikipedians are encouraged to examine whether some texts stay on topic. Note also that Wikipedia has a WP:NOR policy that discourages Wikipedians to make their own assessment and conclusions. Please read carefully especially here: WP:SYN, Wikipedians cannot even make synthesis on two ore more reliable sources, unless the very synthesis is also supported by reliable sources.

Hence, since this article is on the topic of "cultural genocide", not "genocide" in general, the texts contributed here should at very least mention the term "cultural genocide" in a substantial way (usually at least a few sentences or better a paragraph or two). Otherwise, it might be a better idea to move the contributed text to other articles "genocide" (if these sources address this topic with the perspective of genocide).

Please also consider how your contributed text is included in articles such as religious persecution, and compare those cases with the cases in genocide. It is much less controversial to include your contributed texts there as they are more on-topic. For entries such as genocide or even cultural genocide, because they have specific legal and academic implications. Again, as Wikipedians we cannot do original research, we have to find some reliable sources to support the statements that "XXX is or can be seen as a case of cultural genocide" or that "AAA considers XXX an act of cultural genocide", etc.

This is what I wanted you to share with me (and other Wikipedians) here on the talk page, so as to establish the relevance to prove that is on topic and relevant. By doing so (leaving records here), it is less likely to be challenged by other Wikipedians in the future. If you cannot find one, I can try my best to find them for you here. Please assume good faith and do ask for help if you need it. However, as I have said, if we cannot find any related references, then we cannot make new synthesis per WP:SYN policy to say something counts as a case of cultural genocide.

--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 04:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I percieve a process of narrowing content about examples of genocide to brief entries that then are linked out to their own articles or mentions in other articles? Is there some declaration somewhere that is what is to be done that I missed? Smkolins (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor, but does have some "editing guidelines" regarding summary style

Let me first assure you that I like expansion of articles and that Wikipedia does not censor. Then we can proceed to the editing guidelines about summary style WP:SUMMARY. Note that

Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts.

In the same guideline, various examples are given, with the World War II article forking into several main articles using the main template. Also note that in the same guideline, some instructions are given on "Levels of desired details" WP:detail.

So according to these specific guidelines, the aim is to give enough details in different contexts with due weight. Other examples that may be related to your contribution here would be Religious persecution and persecution. Please see how a topic goes from general (say persecution) to a more specific topic (say Religious_persecution), then to the specific case (say Persecution of Bahá'ís). They are all linked with main templates with a summary each. Note also that, in order to give due weight to each of the articles, editors do not simply copy the whole content from Persecution of Bahá'ís to Religious persecution or even persecution, which will cause a series of editorial issues:

1. synchronization of content (what if the main, more specific articles are updated?)
2. lengthy general articles WP:SIZE

So please follow the editorial guidelines to maintain due weight for each articles. I will address the content side of the issue under another heading regarding references and relevance. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 03:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In particular the issue of undue weight - I was familiar with this. Previously the article had more content related to Native Americans and Armenians in one way or another. It was in that context I supplied what as present. I can easily see moving the majority of the content to another article and linking into this one. Smkolins (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Some reliable sources found

For the records, I am no expert on the topic of Bahá'í's faith, but I only document what I have found to be reliable as a researcher and Wikipedian to establish the relevance of Bahá'í's faith to the topic of cultural genocide.

1. A peer-reviewed [1] journal article "Review of secondary literature in English on recent persecutions of Bahá'ís in Iran" mentioned the term "cultural genocide" once in its concluding paragraph: "The case of the Bahá'ís of Iran is distinct enough not only to continue to gain government and academic support world-wide, but also to help clarify and advance international human rights law for minorities, to confirm the illegality of cultural genocide, to confirm the right to freedom of religion and to curtail governmental abuses of human rights. "

1. A book published by a Canadian institution also mentioned the term "cultural genocide" once, but only barely in the note on page 377. Gate of the Heart

The above literature findings may not be enough for the following reasons: (1) the question of non-third party and (2) only passing references of the term "cultural genocide". However, the first one is more substantial than the second one since it is included clearly in the conclusion, giving a clear statement that "The case of the Bahá'ís of Iran is distinct enough... to confirm the illegality of cultural genocide". So base on the first source, I think it is okay to write a sentence as below:

The illegality of cultural genocide in the case of the Bahá'ís of Iran is confirmed by a review of secondary literature in English-language literature --add citation ref tag here--.

From this very sentence as the major third-party secondary source, other claims and sources, preferably supplied in the endnote section by the review article, can be included to support the sentence above, there by developing a paragraph or two to be included in this article on "cultural genocide".

I hope it helps. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 04:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. Thanks. I and whomever should look at writing a sufficient summary and relating it to a larger article or section in another article. I'm thankful for your suggestions.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Note no previous consensus exist on merging cultural genocide and Ethnocide

Please note that no previous consensus exist on merging cultural genocide and Ethnocide. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 08:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The proposal is to merge Ethnocide with Cultural genocide, for the reason that these terms are currently used – notwithstanding whatever the original intentions of Lemkin may have been – indistinguishably. Both are admittedly somewhat fuzzy notions and different authors use somewhat different definitions, but as far as I see from the uses there is no systematic difference between the two.  --Lambiam 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Comment" - As a merge proposal, which of the two WP:TITLEs would be the preferred one, and why? I'm assuming you mean "Cultural genocide" as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is there academic evidence to suggest that the terms truly are interchangeable? Having taken a quick look around at the usage in various spheres (outside of the Wikipedia articles), they may be a bit fuzzy as to overlapping in certain senses, but ethnocide has a closer correlation to genocide in discourses pertaining to indigenous populations. Cultural genocide is used more specifically in the context of obfuscation of prior cultural identification/self-identification in order to create homogeneous concepts of a nation-state (i.e., Russification or Anglicisation): in other words, an aggressive form of elitism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Irnya Harpy; not appropriate to merge the terms [Ethnocide] with [Cultural Genocide]. 'Ethnic' is not the same as 'culture.' Ethnocide is more closely related to eradication for reasons of race, in the traditional sense of genocide - targeting ancestry. Cultural genocide concerns creative manifestations of culture that issue from a particular people and the will to destroy it (such as and wrote about) - the destructive actions is not necessarily to create a different form, but simply to destroy positive culture, they are always consciously intended and planned; common ancestry is not relevant, but often a myth). On the other hand, Hannah Arendt argued racial genocide may have automated aspects, it may be easily carried out under instructions without specific intention 'no special animus, intent merely on carrying out his duties'

- this makes it easier to accomplish, while it appears a more clearcut equation, due to the association of common ancestors. It is theoretically possible for cultural genocide to be perpetrated against members of the same race, who have differentiated culture, for reasons of the difference, rather than genocide, where one turns upon ones own people not for a particular cultural difference but perhaps other social or national reason. Thus, ethnocide is broader but more likely related to race. Although the terms are fuzzy, this problem may be more due to lack of application and clarity from scholars individually, who have chosen to employ the terms. The concepts are clearly different: race alone (genocide) or national/ancestral/social/cultural (ethnocide) vs culture (cultural genocide). If Lemkin did not mean to use the term, he would not have used it. Cultural genocide is also different because it is a more subtle and indirect program to carry out compared to ethnocide, making it easier for perpetrators to get away with - culture can be targeted and attacked in so many more, different, 'soft' ways than simply a racial approach: See . Susan Kennedy 14 August 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFKennedy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Give me one reason why not. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please qualify what you agree with, Jackninja5. Your observation doesn't make sense as it stands. Do you agree with the proposal, or do you agree with the above evaluations that there is a distinction, therefore a merger is not appropriate? If you're asking for a reason as to why they shouldn't be merged, try reading the comment by both SFKennedy and myself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It was kind of a rhetorical question but I agree with the merger. Jackninja5 (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Er... Well, as this is a discussion, it would be useful to understand your rationale. Which WP:TOPIC should it be merged to (Lambiam hasn't specified), and why? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

May I add that I have since studied Lemkin's original text and the relevant and current academic literature in detail. Lemkin introduced the term 'genocide' and worked for decades to help the United Nations establish the text on the Genocide Convention. Lemkin made explicit reference to cultural genocide in his original text. The justification for Lemkin's inclusion of cultural genocide can be found in 'Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach' by Damien Short, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol 14, No.6, Nov 2010, p.833-848 and 'Cultural Genocide, the Universal Declaration, and Minority Rights' by Johannes Morsink, Human Rights Quarterly, 1999, Vol. 21, p.1009-1060. From Short (2010): quoting Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (the seminal work on genocide, per se), Lemkin described the deliberate destruction of a nation or ethnic group in one of two ways: 1) by killing its individual members - physical genocide (Lemkin used the term 'barbarity') 2) by undermining its way of life - cultural genocide (Lemkin used the term 'vandalism'). Lemkin wrote (Short, 2010, p.837): 'Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group: the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.' This did not refer only to ethnocide; it referred to destruction of national sentiment and culture. In Lemkin's formulation, Short (2010, p.837) cites, culture is the unit of collective memory, whereby the legacies of the dead can be kept alive and each cultural group has its own unique distinctive genius deserving of protection. I hope this information helps establish justification for the use of the term 'cultural genocide' as certainly it is well established as part of the original conception of the term and as a field of academic record and inquiry in its own right. I also agree the Armenian case is well and truly established, as is Tibet and others; perhaps the Armenian case should have a page linked. Certainly there is no Islamic claim to cultural genocide; rather, it tends to be a European phenomena and spread through colonialism and colonial transfer of states, leaving minority cultures vulnerable to nation-building processes of the dominant culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFKennedy (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I believe I can offer some clarification here. Referring to the 1981 UNESCO Declaration: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000499/049951eo.pdf -- which declares the two to be synonymous and equivalent to genocide. However, contemporary and historical usage of ethnocide and cultural genocide have not been equivalent. Ethnocide and genocide typically occur in tandem, yet ethnocide is much more specific a term. Ethnocide may occur in absence of genocide and, importantly, ethnocide may refer to mass death that could not qualify as genocidal (i.e., with intent, or even with a perpetrator). Usage of ethnocide has generally be confused and inconsistent. To quote Martin Shaw, respected genocide scholar, in his book "What is Genocide?": "we should question the utility of 'ethnocide' [...] its close affinity with the concept genocide, and the somewhat varied and confused amplification of its meaning without adequate reference to the derivative attributions of the Genocide Convention 1948 [1951], or [Raphael] Lemkin's work, tends to render it superfluous for both analytic and descriptive purposes." --in short, it is my opinion that 1) the term is useless, 2) that this fact should be highlighted, 3) that this ethnocide article should be merged with the genocide article separate to cultural genocide, and 4) that the cultural genocide article should also merged with the generic genocide article. Aleksandraws (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is indisputably true that Cultural Genocide is used as an equivalent to Ethnocide although the term Ethnocide is actually more specific as Cultural genocide does not have to be a component of eradicating a culture, which ethnocide can pertain to, even when no killings are taking place. I understand term geno-cide implies eradication of the gene which is only biological in existence, so if not meant literally it would only be describing ethniocide as a politically loaded spin term. I hope I am being lucid enough.

Ethnocide is wrong but not a crime under internaitonal law as Ethnocides are taking place all around the world at present and can not be stopped nor penalized. The Han culture in China is absorbing minority ethnicities through Hanification. The Russian culture is absorbing minority ethnicities through Russificaiton. Hindi culture is absorbing minority cultures in India. Anglo-saxon culture is absorbing minority ethnicities in many places around the world. State Jewishness is absorbing minority forms of Hebraic culture and religion (e.g. Subbotniks now almost completely extinct) in Israel. When the minority ethnicities have been completely assimilated, they will have adopted the trappings of the religion, dress, music, eating habits, etc., of the dominant culture. It happens a lot but it is not an international crime even though it is heart-breakingly tragic. All of these are ethnocides, definitely. Cultural genocide might describe it to a layman's mind, but scientifically the term does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, it might be better to absorb Cultural genocide into Ethnocide than vice-versa, as all Cultural genocide is ethnocide, but not all ethnocide is cultural genocide. Chrislamic.State (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage

I propose moving the article List of destroyed heritage to Destruction of cultural heritage (currently a redirect to Cultural genocide), adding much more content, and splitting the by country lists into separate articles. If anyone can help out, please join the discussion at Talk:List of destroyed heritage#Destruction of cultural heritage. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)