I'll say here what I said the last time this got posted: By this definition, the Dalai Lama supports the ethnic cleansing of Tibet, the Dominican Republic is ethnically cleansing Haitians [1], Ghana ethnically cleansed over 3 million people [2], Uganda ethnically cleansed Indians [3], and Iran ethnically cleansed over 1 million Afghans [4]. Amazingly, none of the articles refer to any of this as "ethnic cleansing".
Expelling people who have no particular attachment or roots to a given land is not ethnic cleansing. Otherwise people could just move to a random country as a group and refuse to get deported.
The online left, as usual, is being ridiculous.
(There is however a concept of "genocide by substitution", a term coined by Martiniquan poet Aimé Césaire, where you massively import foreign populations into a land in order to dilute and eventually replace the native population.)
DHH is definitely a polarizing figure, but this kind of hyperbole (Ethnic Cleansing) definitely harms progressive causes.
I get that some people feel strongly about fairness and justice, but I would like them to care just as much about efficacy and being effective instead of just histrionics.
Looking at the linked DHH posts, which part(s) do you think make "ethnic cleansing" hyperbole? It seems like a pretty fair reading of his wishes to me.
He's written in favour of deporting non-white Londoners, including many of my friends and family - despite them having been born and brought up in the UK and being full UK citizens.
Is "Ethnic Cleansing" really such a hyperbolic term for a policy of enforced expulsion based on skin colour? What would you call it instead?
DHHs take is definitely not 'sane' and quite extreme. However Ethnic Cleansing has a particular connotation that's more severe than forced deportations. That's what I mean by histrionics.
I believe it's a virtue, both in engineering and in politics, to stick to the facts without drama or exaggeration.
As I understand it, ethnic cleansing refers to the forcible removal of a population, where population means a broad group defined by shared race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
Would you rather it was instead referred to as a wide-scale pogrom? Or some form of genocide? I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want - it doesn't really affect the extreme nature of what he's proposing.
I think you should familiarize yourself with the wikipedia definition of the phrase[1]. It may be helpful to read some examples[2], many of which involve exclusively forced removal.
Is it ethnic cleansing when Zimbabwe or South Africa essentially kick out white farmers? And if so, why the histrionics when they were welcomed as refugees in the United States?
I'm arguing against TrnsltLife's (now flagged and disappeared) comment. They said it was conspicuous that people are opposing refugee status for white South Africans, but not opposing refugee status for other groups. The point I'm making is that the opposition is about only giving such status to white South Africans, to the exclusion of everyone else.
He called Romani people slurs and compared them to wolves that should be shot for the survival of the human population, which of course, exclusively refers to white people. How much more explicit would he have to get for you to allow us to condemn his actions for what they are? He could start shooting people and you would still be lecturing us about how it doesn't fit the definition of a hate crime.
Also "efficacy"? What on earth are you talking about? Is this about right wing "meritocracy," the argument that excluding people of color will somehow lead to a better society?
I'm so tired of the US trying to fight a proxy political turf war by fitting their simplistic maga/democrat viewpoints over everything.
The truth, it's pretty complicated. But since all things US blow over, the biggest help would be fix your own backyard, and then perhaps moderate discussions can again prevail.
As a European and Londoner we absolutely have to speak up and be upset if companies support someone who’s said a whole load of awful shit and got away with it.
23 comments
[ 1.2 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] thread[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic#Haitian_imm...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_Ghana#G...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Afghan_deportation_from_I...
Expelling people who have no particular attachment or roots to a given land is not ethnic cleansing. Otherwise people could just move to a random country as a group and refuse to get deported.
The online left, as usual, is being ridiculous.
(There is however a concept of "genocide by substitution", a term coined by Martiniquan poet Aimé Césaire, where you massively import foreign populations into a land in order to dilute and eventually replace the native population.)
If you are going to expel people you need more than hand wavy definitions like this. Or does it just come down to "people who are not like us"?
And, pray tell, who decides if a person has "particular attachment or roots"? For example, would you be fine with me deciding if you do?
I get that some people feel strongly about fairness and justice, but I would like them to care just as much about efficacy and being effective instead of just histrionics.
Looking at the linked DHH posts, which part(s) do you think make "ethnic cleansing" hyperbole? It seems like a pretty fair reading of his wishes to me.
Is "Ethnic Cleansing" really such a hyperbolic term for a policy of enforced expulsion based on skin colour? What would you call it instead?
I believe it's a virtue, both in engineering and in politics, to stick to the facts without drama or exaggeration.
Would you rather it was instead referred to as a wide-scale pogrom? Or some form of genocide? I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want - it doesn't really affect the extreme nature of what he's proposing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campa...
Or is this just a clumsy attempt at whataboutery?
Because white South Africans were the only refugees welcomed this year. [1]. Calling that out is not "histrionics".
1. https://www.rpc.state.gov/documents/Refugee%20Arrivals%20by%...
I don't really understand what you're arguing against here.
Also "efficacy"? What on earth are you talking about? Is this about right wing "meritocracy," the argument that excluding people of color will somehow lead to a better society?
DHH has already written a bunch of pretty horrific stuff and this post was kind of the icing on the cake.
Yes, as is common for anyone with a shred of decency.
> just as much about efficacy and being effective
And spoken like a god damn sociopath.
I'm so tired of the US trying to fight a proxy political turf war by fitting their simplistic maga/democrat viewpoints over everything.
The truth, it's pretty complicated. But since all things US blow over, the biggest help would be fix your own backyard, and then perhaps moderate discussions can again prevail.
It’s not particularly complicated, actually.