Ethnic cleansing has often been used by nationalists from all over the world as a solution to most of the problems plauging their societies, particularly economic and cultural ones. But is there any historical proof it ever worked? Forced expulsions or genocides usually brought more harm than gains to the society which was supposed to benefit from that, yet people still fall for this bait.
Turkey peacefully ethnically cleansed itself of its Greek population and shipped them to Greece and in exchange Greece did the same thing with its Turks.
if it's peaceful and regulated then it's hard to call it ethnic cleansing, that's just emigration
I mean it is, ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily have to be violent, that's what distinguishes it from genocide.
If the Nazis just put all the israelites in a boat and shipped them to Madgascar we'd probably still call it ethnic cleansing.
serbs were ethnicaly cleansed from most of kosovo, yet they were not genocided.
Yeah bro, the Greek genocide definitely didn't happen. Neither did the Armenian nor the Assyrian genocide. All is Western propoganda.
Correct
Real ethnic cleansing has never been carried out successfully. It's hard to say if the world would have been better or worse if hitler had killed every israelite on earth. But genocide is wrong, so I hope no one does it to anyone. The ends don't justify the means.
>It's hard to say if the world would have been better or worse if hitler had killed every israelite on earth.
Considering that they went to commit genocide of Palestinians and control 90% of entertainment companies in america along with the global market, it's not that hard to tell.
the real answer is that ethnic cleansing has the dual benefits of 1) clearing out people who have a common background to stand against you, and 2) freeing up their previous land and property for use amongst the favored ethnicity
we have seen successfully completed ethnic cleansings like the circassians by russians.
is it successful in the long term? can't say, but the short term benefits have certainly kept it as an available option
Ethnic cleansing and massacres aren't usually done for economic and cultural reasons, they're more often done for security reasons, because the responsible group feels that the receiving group is a threat to their continued existence.
1:16:00
times when ethnic cleansing has benefited the perpetrating group :
-multiple times in north america's history
-Israel intimidating most palestinians to leave their homes under the belief they would be slaughtered if they stayed so israel had far fewer arabs to be responsible for in their new nation which helped them form a much more cohesive and viable nation than if they hadn't ethnically cleansed most of the palestinians from their territory
-rome's complete destruction of carthage
-the reconquista
>expulsions of muslims from balkan states regaining their independence after hundreds of years of ottoman colonialism in the 19th century
tonnes of examples here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns
Sometimes the perpetrating party gets away with ethnic cleansing or an ethnic massacre, sometimes they don't.
Arguing against ethnic cleansing on the basis that it isn't effective or isn't in the perpetrating group's interests and doesn't benefit the perpetrating group isn't a very good argument against ethnic cleansing and ethnic massacres because often is in that group's interests and does benefit them and it would imply that if you can get away with ethnic cleansing or massacres and it would benefit your group then you should do it.
the effectiveness and viability of ethnic cleansing and ethnic massacres is probably reducing as wider news coverage requires people to be a bit more restrained and use different methods.
But ethnic conflict will likely continue for a long time and there will be winners and losers to those conflicts.
Do you think ethnic cleansing is moral or "a necessary evil"?
It can be. Self defence is morally justified and good and so if an enemy nation attacks your nation and tries to destroy your nation then it's perfectly justified for you to defend yourself and take away their ability to destroy your nation in the future by driving them out of their territory aka ethnic cleansing so that they won't be able to gather much military force in the future.
So if Russia invades the US, the US has the moral right to ethnically cleanse every Russian on the planet, to prevent a further invasion?
so long as certain conditions are met, yes.
Basically if you're in a situation where you have to defend your group against an enemy, you should rank all your possible methods of defending yourself from most likely to succeed (i.e. prevent your group's destruction) to least likely to succeed and discard those below a certain threshold that represents your personal risk tolerance.
Then out of those remaining you choose the one with the best expected outcome, where you evaluate how favourable an expected outcome is according things like deaths on your side and deaths on their side (also your future strength afterwards, likelihood of being able to defend yourself in the future, etc.).
Obviously any good leader , along with nearly all human beings on the planet, considers the lives of their side much more valuable than the lives of the enemy side that is trying to conquer and destroy them, as is natural and healthy and good.
So if after doing that calculation , driving the enemy group out of their territory to permanently reduce their military force is the best strategy to defend yourself in response to the enemy trying to destroy you, then you should do it and you are justified in doing it.
It's not really any different from if a guy in the wilderness attacks you with a knife, you're definitely justified in taking away his knife so he doesn't have the ability to take your life with it in the future.
and if you believe that he'll follow you and try to kill you when you fall asleep even without a knife then you're justified in breaking his legs so that he can't catch up to you.
if an agent or group tries to destroy you or your group you're always justified in taking away their ability to destroy you in the future. Driving them out of their territory is one viable way to achieve this.
It's really sad that when americans learn about politics, all they seem to learn about is domestic american politics. If they equally learned about international relations and geopolitics then it would cure them of a lot of their naive liberal dogmas.
every nation is like that, just American worldview dominates the global media since other nations learn this American perspective whether they like it or not. But obviously people raised in Europe, don't understand American problems either and think simple solutions like 'banning guns' or 'introducing free healthcare' would solve all the problems America has
>their naive liberal dogmas.
As opposed to genocide supporters? I know you support genocide and mass slaughter.
You support white genocide though whether physical like Haiti or genetic like multiculturalism
naive liberal dogmas like believing that how humans behave in a safe secure environment under the rule of law like america is reflective of how humans behave in an anarchic environment like the world stage.
American liberals and leftoids seem to think that the way humans behave when they're in complete safety like they are living in their country is the default and natural state of human behaviour in all circumstances.
They seem totally ignorant of the fact that the only reason they can behave that way is because they have a state enforcing the rule of law , and that when there is anarchy, like exists between states on the world stage, an agent has to behave differently because only they can provide for their own safety because there are no police they can call.
basically americans seem totally fricking ignorant of geopolitical realism, which is how international relations actually works.
So for example, if americans actually learnt about international relations they'd realise that utopian fairytales like believing that humans aren't naturally selfish and tribal but rather naturally peaceful are bullshit. They'd also realise the myth that nationalism is ineffective is complete rubbish, and that nationalism is actually a very effective strategy as shown by ubiquitousness and success throughout human history. They'd also realise that the self-hating leftoid idea that western civilization is uniquely evil because of its conquests over the last 500 years is completely bullshit since all regions of the world have similarly been exploiting other nations when they had the opportunity, only limited by their inferior technology compared with modern-era europe.
So you're argument is because there are laws that curtail human savegry within the boundaries of the US, and there aren't similar (enforceable) international laws, therefore we should "do what we have to do" and pillage, rape, murder any and every society/nation we come across because it's in our own self interest. Dumb leftists want us to abide by international law (that we wrote) because we abide by laws we wrote within our own borders.
>muh Western Civilization is Evil
Literally no leftist ever said that. It was Western Civilization that produced the Enlightenment and all liberal ideas that form the basis of our modern society. The reason I, or any other leftist don't take conservatives very seriously is because they have a particular conception of what leftism/liberalism is, that is completely disconnected from reality. You probably think liberals/leftists hold some or all of these views (which they don't):
>wants reverse racism/sexism against Whites/men to compensate for centuries of white/men racism/sexism
>"worships" minorities especially blacks and elevates them in the media/academia
>claims to oppose religion/extremism yet tolerates radical Muslims because they're brown, aka "the reegressive left"
>wants to take all the money from hard working, productive people and give to the poor as some form of twist Robin hood fiction because "equality"
>leftist/liberals support free speech yet cancel anyone who shares a different opinion
>wants reverse racism/sexism against Whites/men to compensate for centuries of white/men racism/sexism
>"worships" minorities especially blacks and elevates them in the media/academia
>claims to oppose religion/extremism yet tolerates radical Muslims because they're brown, aka "the reegressive left"
>wants to take all the money from hard working, productive people and give to the poor as some form of twist Robin hood fiction because "equality"
>leftist/liberals support free speech yet cancel anyone who shares a different opinion
This is literally what leftists and liberals say though. Observe how they act when it comes to Muslims in Europe. Read Sakai and understand how they see even the poorest of whites. Read the messages of the New York Times and see how they worship Blacks and disdain whites. See how socialists want a redistribution of wealth. None of this is hidden, this is the left telling us what they want.
>"do what we have to do" and pillage, rape, murder any and every society/nation we come across
No that isn't my argument. I didn't ever say that securing your group's security and prosperity meant "pillaging, raping and murdering any and every society nation you come across"
> Dumb leftists want us to abide by international law (that we wrote) because we abide by laws we wrote within our own borders.
No, more like dumb leftists think "hurr why don't states who have nobody but themselves they can count on for their security just behave like we american liberals who have always lived in complete safety under the rule of law do???"
>Literally no leftist ever said that.
wrong, that's literally the the central belief of postcolonial studies , a field of leftist so-called "academia" which is actually just a secular religion or ideology, and more broadly critical theory (which postcolonial studies takes inspiration from). many prominent leftist "academics" think that western civilization is uniquely evil. Basically all socialist leftists think that the west is uniquely evil because they started capitalism. Susan Sontag for example said that "the white race is that cancer of human history" , Noel Ignatiev said that "treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity" . It isn't hard to find others saying similar sentiments.
> It was Western Civilization that produced the Enlightenment and all liberal ideas that form the basis of our modern society.
the leftoids who hate western civilization either deny this or consider it irrelevant.
>hurr why don't states who have nobody but themselves they can count on for their security
The UN exists. You can defend your country within the confines of international law. This is all what leftists want. International. Law.
>wrong, that's literally the the central belief of postcolonial studies , a field of leftist so-called "academia" which is actually just a secular religion or ideology, and more broadly critical theory
So you're making assertion after assertion, without citing any evidence.
>quotes from Susan Sontag and Noel Ignatiev
Not enough to convince me (or any sane person) an entire field of study is a anti-western death cult. Can you recommend me a few books on this topic which lead to the conclusions you made?
[cont]
reverse racism/sexism against Whites/men to compensate for centuries of white/men racism/sexism
First of all, "reverse racism" is an invalid term, what you're talking about is simply racism against white men. Racism is racism regardless of which race your racial bias or animosity is directed to. Secondly, yes the left absolutely does want that because that is exactly what affirmative action and Diversity equity and inclusion initiatives and diversity quotas are. By giving non-white people an advantage to get hired or get admitted to university just because they are white you are by definition racially discriminating against white people and the motivation given for affirmative action is to compensate for western countries being racist in the past. It's so blatantly dishonest that you'd deny that most leftists support this.
>Secondly, yes the left absolutely does want that because that is exactly what affirmative action and Diversity equity and inclusion initiatives and diversity quotas are
You're mixing federal policy (affirmative action, which is a bad policy) with diversity initiatives (mostly done by the private sector). The logic behind these initiatives isn't prohibiting White men from getting jobs, but eliminating racial bais against minorities. It maybe an imperfect, or even an ineffective plan that yeilds no results because of how arbitrary "racial bias" is, but what it isn't, is a dedicated and concerted effort to disenfranchise white men. White men aren't the main focus of these initiatives.
[cont]
>>"worships" minorities especially blacks and elevates them in the media/academia
Lmao the dishonesty continues. the left literally does this. you're clearly not being honest and just trolling at this point but I'll say why you;'re wrong anyway. the defining characteristic of the woke/sjw mindset is sacralising historically disadvantaged groups like black people , transgenders, homosexuals and women. They're elevated and fetishised as being more moral and worthy and knowledgable. Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives use principles from critical race theory to suggest that such historically disadvantaged groups have special ways or knowing unique to them that supercede empirical evidence called "lived experience" and that people not from these historically disadvantaged groups should automatically accept their anecdotes as true, essentially elevating historicallly disadvantaged groups to a priestly or shamanic caste with their own special ways of knowing the truth which the lower majority castes have to accept. Basically every US university especially all the ivy leagues and other highly ranked ones demands departments fast track black grad students or lecturers for promotion to senior professor positions. Some even have a hiring freeze on white or east asian males.
>Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives use principles from critical race theory to suggest that such historically disadvantaged groups have special ways or knowing unique to them that supercede empirical evidence called "lived experience" and that people not from these historically disadvantaged groups should automatically accept their anecdotes as true, essentially elevating historicallly disadvantaged groups to a priestly or shamanic caste with their own special ways of knowing the truth which the lower majority castes have to accept
I've responded to this claim.
>Basically every US university especially all the ivy leagues and other highly ranked ones demands departments fast track black grad students or lecturers for promotion to senior professor positions. Some even have a hiring freeze on white or east asian males.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to provide SUBSTANTIAL evidence on that. No, anecdotes aren't enough.
[cont]
to oppose religion/extremism yet tolerates radical Muslims because they're brown, aka "the reegressive left"
yes this is obviously true for example omar suleiman and yasir qadi are two of the most high profile american muslims who are lauded by leftwing publications like the washington post as respectable and authoritative voices of islam that should be listened to and yet both of them have said things just as extreme as the westboro baptist church. Omar Suleiman delivered lectures saying that israelites are the reason why meat rots and yasir qadi said that the life and property of a nonmuslim living in a country that the muslims do not have a treaty with are of no concern to a muslim , so a muslim is allowed to kill a non-muslim and take his property.
Obviously if a high profile christian preacher like say Joel Osteen said anything like this he'd be scorned and reviled by the leftoid media but because omar suleiman and yasir qadi are muslims, the left doesn't care.
to take all the money from hard working, productive people and give to the poor as some form of twist Robin hood fiction because "equality"
the whole of the left believes in a welfare state where people who make enough money to support themselves are taxed in order to spend that money helping people who can't make enough money to support themselves. So obviously the left believes in this . literally no one on the left believes there should be no social welfare programs.
>omar suleiman and yasir qadi are two of the most high profile american muslims who are lauded by leftwing publications like the washington post as respectable and authoritative voices of islam
Honestly I'm not aware of who these people are and can't verify if they're really "high profile Muslims" or not, and you're going to have to provide sources on these statements.
>the whole of the left believes in a welfare state where people who make enough money to support themselves are taxed in order to spend that money helping people who can't make enough money to support themselves. So obviously the left believes in this . literally no one on the left believes there should be no social welfare programs.
This is not how welfare states work. You know nothing about economics, hence my point.
[cont]
support free speech yet cancel anyone who shares a different opinion
the only reason why this statement is inaccurate, unlike all the other ones, is because among everyone left of centre, there's an increasingly dwindling and irrelevant minority of centre-left liberals who do believe in free speech, while the majority of millennial and gen-x leftists don't believe in freedom of speech and believe that saying things that offend the historically disadvantaged groups that they sacralise e.g. trannies , is literally committing violence against them and so has to be stopped so they do not believe in free speech, they believe in blasphemy laws whereby statements offending the sacred historically disadvantaged minorities must be outlawed and legally punishing those who say such things in order to prevent it from happening.
so yeah every one of those greentext statements is either true or something even worse is true and you're obviously trolling and being dishonest to deny that this is the case.
Part of that is just how fricking big our country is. 330 million people, more than half of whom live in states with populations above 10 million. That's comparable to Europe before the First World War.
Gypsies in Sweden were sterilized and the Gypsies in Switzerland were sent to Germany to be gassed.
Ethnic cleansing is the reason Asia is dominated by homosexual sapiens you moron. Also its logical the best way to solve a problem is to no longer make it exist.
The partition (and mutual cleansing) of India and Pakistan probably prevented more issues than it caused. Her pods got cleansed from Eastern Europe after WW2 including their ancestral Prussian lands and basically nobody is ever gonna do anything about it
Germany being partitioned and occupied in the immediate aftermath of WW2 did more to stop that than any resettlement of eastern/central European ethnic Gemans
>any historical proof it ever worked
r/oddlysatisfying
>Forced expulsions or genocides usually brought more harm than gains to the society which was supposed to benefit from tha
Do you have evidence for this or is it your gut feeling?
Like pic rel Indonesia has done that and somewhat successfully worked.