Instead I would prefer to characterize such act of preventing certain group of people from preserving their cultural heritage or continuing their cultural practices "structural violence". I don't think we can legitimately say something genocide. Nevertheless, we need to know what forces are being imposed on a particular people to give up their cultural heritage. Is that cultural heritage something that can cause or promote suffering for the people? Does that cultural practice can be something that violates human rights (e.g. human sacrifice for the sake of God's satisfaction, female genital cutting, coerced marriage, honour killings, dowry, bride during for failing to pay dowry such as in India, etc.,) ? Or what are those people purposefully forcing a group of people not to continue traditional cultural practices?

Dear Daniel Goldman,

Thank you very much for the good question. I totally agree that forcing a group of people to give up their cultural heritage is akin to genocide, because according to the definition of the term “genocide”, it is the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group and implies the existence of a coordinated plan, aimed at total extermination, to be put into effect against individuals chosen as victims purely, simply and exclusively because they are members of the targeted group (Destexhe, 1995, p. 3; Totten & Bartrop, 2009, pp. 3–9). In addition, it is calculated to bring about the extermination of a race, politics, and cultural group or to destroy a language or religious group (Luck et al., 1999, p. 280). However, the fact is that no genocide in recent times has ever brought the complete extermination of a group of people and their cultural heritage, but the intention is called genocide.

Jean d'Amour Banyanga and H M Ashraf Ali, thank you for your replies. Hopefully more people will join in on this discussion.

Of course, convincing is better than forcing.

However, since committed upon children, circumcision (and excision) is the worst of all crimes against humanity.

Besides, ethnicity may not assault the human species; since circumcision (and excision) is discriminatory against the human species, it is a racist crime, allegedly conferring a moral superiority due to a physical difference.

Therefore, sexual mutilation (female and male) must repressed by laws against rape and racism.

The real catastrophe (Shoah) is circumcision that is responsible for all genocides: https://www.academia.edu/3086810/Genocide_and_circumcision_causality_and_near_absolute_correlation_psychoanalytical_theory_of_genocide_updated_05.13.2018_

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau, your comment is fairly off topic. Moreover, it ignores the anthropological theory on the origin and perpetuation of the practice, as well as medical science on the topic.

To come back to the topic, if really "off", which I do not think, I forgot and included this:

Therefore, sexual mutilation (female and male) must repressed by laws against rape and racism.

Now, first, there is a whole trend in anthropology in that matter that systematically ignores elementary ethics.

Second, as you know, medical science in the USA is at odds with medical science not only in the whole Europe but also inside the USA itself.

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau, your comments, while perhaps interesting on another question, are only incidentally related to the question at hand.

Either you do not understand my English, or I do not understand yours?

My belief is that I answered your question in its full extent, including unconscious factors that the psychologist may ignore.

According to the UN's definition, it is cultural genocide. But, I expect you know that!

Actually, I was not familiar with that, Janet Hudgins.

The UN and a great quantity of African countries now punish the multimillenary female genital mutilation as crime.

The same should be done for MGM.

"Girls have a right to bodily integrity, including intact genitals, regardless of the culture or religion of their parents. " Boys too!

https://theconversation.com/unconstitutional-us-anti-fgm-law-exposes-hypocrisy-in-child-protection-109305?fbclid=IwAR2syW9RM__wHprRjYbLvyFFG2Poo1Oc-eLOB8yV-wUn-T0kIQr6O2PePmM

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau, perhaps your English needs work, but this discussion is about whether forcing a group to give up their culture is akin to genocide. Your comments are at best incidental to the question, and really add nothing to it. They also take up the bulk of this thread. I would ask that you give others time to add their viewpoints on the matter of cultural suppression.

I am not responsible for the time of others.

All I'm saying is that, from the point of view of the unconscious, cultural sexual mutilation is as akin to genocide, either you want it or not.

in terms of language as a part of cultural heritage then it has been used to attempt to wipe out a people which would fit the UN definition of cultural genocide. The example that I'm particularly thinking of was the infamous 'Welsh Not'. This was an English attempt to render the Welsh people more tractable by discouraging children from using their mother tongue. The first child heard speaking Welsh was made to carry a symbol that could only be disposed of by passing it on to another child speaking Welsh, whoever had it at the end of the school day was beaten. Since in Wales, as expressed by Saunders Lewis, we regard the Old Language as the cornerstone of ou cultural identity then had it have succeeded it would have been genocide. So in that instance it depends on how critical the people regard their cultural heritage to their identity.

Thank you, Timothy and sorry, Daniel; I ignored the notion of cultural genocide.

The misunderstanding between Daniel an I comes from his definition: genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

Timothy, interesting example. Thank you for providing it. The prohibition that originally spurred my thought on the matter is a bit more politically charged. I know it sounds odd to say that something can be more politically charged than simply dealing with cultural genocide, but consider the following: the swastika.

Now, the swastika is a symbol that has been used for thousands of years, by cultures all over the world. It is often a very sacred symbol. The west has been trying to suppress the usage of the symbol, all together, because of the actions of Germany during WWII. But this is nothing more than enforcing western culture onto the rest of the world, and trying to force the rest of the world to give up a chunk of its own cultural heritage.

I saw that problem when studying at Bradford University UK. The chap in the next room always wore a swastika in public, because as a Hindu it was a part of his culture. He did get a lot of flack from other students although they did back off when he explained that this was part of the culture of his homeland, due to his very light skin colour they'd assumed that he was a British neo Nazi.

wrt 'a bit more politically charged' that depends on where you are in the world. Here in Wales we've had people on hunger strike and others planting bombs in order to protect the Old Language so I suspect some of my combrogi would disagree as to how politically charged the language issue is. I suspect that we are not the only minority ethnicity that would take this view. I believe there have been similar tensions over Kurdish.

Fair. It does indeed depend on location. I happen to have a rather nice t-shirt with some swastika designs on it, which should be clearly identifiable as not being Nazi related, and yet I still cannot trust the population enough to wear it without fear of being at least verbally attacked, if not physically attacked. Oh well.

I suppose a secondary question is "how can we reduce the risk of cultural genocide?"

the usual answer is education but I'm afraid that is a pat answer since its based on the idea that extremists of either side are uneducated low brow thugs, regrettably that isn't true so merely relying on education is insufficient. The big problem is that cultural genocide has always been a technique used by campaigners to promote their cause and further their own career. Whatever the issue there will always be someone who will try to convince others to support them by arguing that either x is unacceptable or that its trivial. The pessimist in me doubts that this will be solved anytime soon, look at the items in the news whether its the argument between President Trump and Congress, the problems we are having here in the UK with pro and anti Brexit, the various populist political movements and their anti fa opponents. Someone somewhere will always use a cultural feature as a weapon

It is possible to speak of cultural genocide under the condition that the cultural items in question do not oppose human rights, like excision and circumcision.

don't you mean, oppose instead of "do not oppose"

more to the issues. cultural genocide is still discussed as to a specific definiton, but what it is NOT is any one single item, wheter is it a swastika or genital cutting. here's a recent article on the issue that was intoduced back in 1944

Chapter The Concept of Cultural Genocide: An International Law Perspective

do not

surely Mary-Helen Castanuela that depends on how important that single item is to a cultural identity?

Mary-Helen, in case a cultural item opposes human rights, the group must be forced to give it up, which will be a cultural achievement for the sake of humanity.

Crime against humanity must be forbidden, repressed and punished, from any group.

Culture may not oppose human identity without being not identity but peculiarity.

Cultural genocide can have far-reaching negative consequences that go way beyond whether or not a single symbol is repressed. It is, as many have noted, a tool of oppression that has been used far too often across history. I'm thinking now of the residential schools for First Nations and Inuit people in Canada. The intent of the government's policy was literally to "kill the Indian in the child"--to force an assimilation into (white) Canadian culture. Children were forcibly removed from their parents and sent to the schools. The schools treated the children horrendously: physical and sexual abuse were widespread; it was common to punish students for speaking their mother tongue. Entire generations of native Canadians lost their language, their customs, their way of life. The government at one point conducted an actual genocide on the sled dogs in the far North, to prevent the Inuit from being able to hunt (their major system of transportation was via dog sled. This occurred in the 1960s.). The last residential school did not close until the 1990s, and although there is now, as a result of the Truth & Reconciliation hearings, an attempt to recover lost languages, lost customs, and educate the general Canadian public about First Nations and Inuit culture, the damage done continues to wreak havoc on those populations, who experience extremely high rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and other markers of the psychological damage done to the collective identities of these people.

I suppose there is a second question here, Deborah: can restricting a single cultural element constitute cultural genocide?

Let's consider two examples: the suppression of the use of the cross and the suppression of a language. Now, I think both are suppression of a "single" cultural element, but I think they are both rather repressive and harmful to the population being suppressed. Think of everything that is associated with the symbol of the cross, how spiritually important it is to certain people. Now imagine that they are forced to give it up. First off, would they? If not, if they are met with violence, I think that's pretty harmful.

In the case of language, so much of our own thought processes are driven by language. One's language in many ways mirrors the entirely of the culture's identity, what it considers important or insignificant, and so on.

That is an interesting question, Danielle. Given that the cross is a symbol used globally across multiple cultures, ethnicities, and languages, it would be hard to say that repression of the cross represents genocide of a single culture, although an argument could be made that the "religious culture" was being repressed or oppressed. Of course, this act, when confined to a single region or nation, might represent one form of cultural genocide and often associated with racial or ethnic bias. I think of attempts to ban the ceremonial sword in public places for practicing Sikhs, or banning the hijab for Muslim women (both of which came up as court cases in Canada, with the end result being to allow both in most places, although the ceremonial sword does have some exclusions (such as airport security, etc.).

Regarding your comment about language, I agree. Language carries so much more for humans than just serving as a means of communication. I think of the fall of colonialism on the African continent in the 1950s and 60s. Many civil wars were fought, resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands, in struggles over what the "official language" of that new nation should be. In many case, the language of the colonizers won the policy battle, but failed to eradicate the native language or its associated culture (which was often the fear voiced by those rejecting the language of the colonizer, and in some cases was the end goal of the originally colonizing country.) Language is culture in many respects. To suppress a language is to strike at the very heart of how that language group identifies themselves.

So, no one considers suppressing the crimes against humanity of excision and circumcision by the force of law as cultural genocide?

GREAT NATIONAL DEBATE IN FRANCE AFTER THE YELLOW JACKET CRISIS:

MY PROPOSAL FOR THE INTEGRATION OF CULTURES PRACTISING SEXUAL MUTILATION

With their nauseating stench of moral superiority, excision and circumcision are not only discrimination (of the child, the group and the whole of humanity) as Christine Lazerges, President of the National consultative commission of human rights, reminded us opening the constitutive meeting of "Excision, let's talk about it" on June 14, 2013 at the Sorbonne.

It is the worst of all racisms since surgically imposed at the price of traumatic amnesia for life. In the most affected, that fanatical exclusion is accompanied by megalomaniac terrorism and is the breeding ground of radicalization.

We do not do anything with the human body. One does not practise one's religion on the body of another. Physical integrity is the basis of democracy, it is the fundamental right of the child.

Eugenics negationist of the most elementary right of the person - in their young age when they are unable to defend themselves - is inadmissible. Only can prevent it, accompanied by a massive use of the media and school education:

- its screening until the end of studies,

- its ban on non-doctors,

- the prohibition to doctors, under penalty of imprisonment (it requires a new criminal law and not only Article 16-3 of the Civil Code: "The integrity of the human body may only be undermined in case of medical necessity for the person or exceptionally in the therapeutic interest of others. "), to mutilate anyone, man or woman, without "very serious medical reason" as prescribed by the code of medical ethics, and including under the guise of aesthetic.

National identity is not at stake, human identity is.

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau, I have tried to ignore you, but you continue to spam this question. Your comments are not only in direct violation of anthropological and medical theory, but they border on fanaticism. Science is not on your side here. Systematic review of male circumcision indicates that the benefits outweigh the risks. Other systematic review indicates little to no reduction in pleasure. Yes, circumcision should be performed in a proper medical environment, but the science is on the side of its use as a prophylactic, and even have a benefit beyond the individual, and wrt female health. Article Association between male circumcision and women's biomedical...

First, you ignore medical research, mainly from US specialists:

1/ "A lip, erogenous, protective of erogeneity, and the tool of autosexuality, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is a mutilation"

https://www.academia.edu/2274700/A_lip_erogenous_protective_of_erogeneity_and_the_tool_of_autosexuality_the_foreskin_is_a_sexual_organ_its_ablation_is_a_mutilation_updated_08.25.2018_

2/ "A preliminary poll: 82% of circumcised men ignore the serial anejaculatory mini-orgasms, 91% of intacts enjoy them "

https://www.academia.edu/5812258/A_preliminary_poll_82_of_circumcised_men_ignore_the_serial_anejaculatory_mini-orgasms_91_of_intacts_enjoy_them_updated_03.29.2018_

3/ "The drawbacks of circumcision for women "

https://www.academia.edu/2098250/The_drawbacks_of_circumcision_for_women_the_foreskin_a_red_carpet_updated_11.23.2017_

Second, anthropology may not ignore the elementary right of both sex children to the integrity of their body.

Anthropology may not ignore articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 17 of the Universal declaration of human ritghts.

Third, sexual mutilation discriminates the child, the group, and the rest of humanity. The Rabbi and Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote: "This commandment has not been prescribed in order to correct a physical deficiency but a moral one." Since it is accompanied by a pretence of moral superiority, it is a surgically imposed racism that anthropology may not condone (some Gobineau enacted by Mengele).

Announcement: Medical ethicist Brian Earp will be speaking at the National Secular Society's Secularism 2019 conference in London on May 18th. He'll be discussing how genital cutting of male, female and intersex children should be framed as a children's rights issue rather than a religious freedom issue. You can find out more and book your ticket here: https://www.secularism.org.uk/secularism-2019.html

We can call this genocide, because genocide is linked to physical annihilation

Ihsan Jasim, when you say "this" what do you mean?

I am sorry Daniel Goldman , forgive my bad language < I mean just " genocide".

There is no cultural genocide when only one cultural item (a bad one) is undermined.

Dear Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau When I answered the question, I did not know that the term "cultural genocide" existed, but when the research appeared to exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide

Thanks Daniel Goldman for posting such an imporatant question. I believe the scenario you mentioned fits with the definition of cultural genocide.

Raphael Lemkin, who offered one of the early definitions for the term genocide identified two types of mass atrocities: "barbarism", which he later called genocide, and "vandalism", which he labled cultural genocide. He defined barbarism as "Whosoever, out of hatred towards a racial, religious or social collectivity, or with the view of the extermination thereof, undertakes a punishable action against the life, bodily integrity, liberty, dignity or economic existence of a person belonging to that collectivity, is liable, for the crime of barbarity.” Lemkin defined vandalism as "Whosoever, either out of hatred towards a racial, religious or social collectivity, or with a view to the extermination thereof, destroys its cultural or artistic works will be liable for the crime of vandalism.”

Source: Naimark, Norman M. Genocide (New Oxford World History) . Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. "

A very insightful answer, Eliot, and I will be adding that book to my library.

Thank you, Ihsan. Wikipedia confirms that the UN has not adopted the term cultural genocide that can only be an element of genocide.

Now, of course, to answer Daniel's question, forcing a group of people to forgo anthropophagia, excision, circumcision, and all kind of criminality has nothing to do with cultural genocide.

So, for instance, Kenya and Spain adopted screening to make sure that excision will disappear. I hope it'll soon be the same for circumcision.

However, excision and circumcision, though criminal from a Western point of view, must not by punished by criminal law since the latter excludes acts committed without the intention of harming or inescapably compelled (madness - excision and circumcision are acted out of collective madness: "Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision), a dangerous collective and transgenerational alienation: a Münchhausen syndrome by proxy and an aggravated collective Stockholm syndrome "

Preprint Sexual mutilation, a dangerous collective madness: a Münchha...

Absolutely, yes. If you consider the critical and decolonial thinking of Taiaiake Alfred (Mohawk), he will tell us that one of the many ways to annihilate an identity existence occurs when, for example, white colonial society asks indigenous people to sacrifice their inheritance, their past, their culture, their language and their identity in the name of peace or 'reconciliation'.

This is a very sophisticated and current form of genocide, or ethnocide, whatever.

This discussion needs an international conference. In most cases the west forces their opinion and term it civilization

Is this not already an international conference or sorts, Kwabena? Although it's pretty small. More "recommending" would help.

The Decolonizing Conference, that happens every year at CIARS/OISE/UTo always embraces and discusses this topic.

Of course, Larry; cultural genocide is a metaphore.

the adoption of that definition Larry is very convenient for those who have perpetuated cultural genocide and may be one of those examples of forcing opinions on weaker cultural groups that Kwabena mentions. Certainly many within minority cultural groups would regard themselves as being destroyed if they were forced to abandon their ancient languages. This was traditionally the focus of Welsh nationalism, the language first political independence second since so long as we have the first we exist as a people even if we are ruled from abroad, something that would not be true if the opposite applied.

> Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.

I cannot agree with that statement, Larry. To say that destroying one's culture is not one of those is incorrect. It ignores the cultural nature of race and ethnicity, as an eidos. Preprint From Gender and Race to Eidos: A broader term for culturally...

All that separates one group from another is their culture. So if you destroy it, you destroy the group.

Cultural genocide is the annialation of a culture

it means in its simplist term a peticular culture no longer exists due to stripping a group of people of the right to speak their language practice their culturally significant. ceremonies

the right to gather homeland foods and hunt homeland game and to raise their children

Eradicating one's cultural traditions and replacing them by new alien ones is, indubitably, parallel to a cultural genocidal act. It is a kind of cultural cleansing of a whole nation.

No doubt in this issue, because it is more painful form the physical excruciating of taken someone away his/her traditions and heritages. It is death in life. It is burial in spite of existing of breath. Such people will always feel themselves living in alien culture and the new life imposed on them will be no more than acting and performance as they are sentenced to death of their own original culture and heritage too.

In February 2019, Israel has destroyed 383 Palestinian villages.

Isn't that cultural genocide?

Oh FFS, Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau

Palestine is a terrorist organization that has as its primary goal the destruction of Israel. If Mexico had as its primary goal the elimination of the US, and the US fought back, people wouldn't be reacting this way.

Israel seems to be uniquely treated in the world. Why is that? Why is Israel attacked for doing something that other nations do, including existing on land that was once a prior nation? What makes Israel unique that it draws such criticism?

Israel is the last racist colonialism in the world. The whole state is terrorist, typical of the cultural genocide you pretend to denounce. Its primary goal is to expel all Palestinians from their native country. Sigmund Freud condemned that fanatic colonialism:

Preprint Freud and Einstein against Zionism (updated 01.16.2023)

But Freud didn't know that the Hebrews originate from Egypt, not Palestine:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/179441794X

Israel is not a colony. It's a country. Understand basic terminology, please. A colony is a region under the control of another country. If Israel is the colony, then what's the country by which it is being controlled, Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau?

And as for the "Hebrews", the majority of the population living in Israel trace their ancestry to the Levant, and many don't consider themselves Jewish, Hebrew, etc.

The level of science denialism that you're expressing is really disturbing. And no; I'm not going to spend money on your book.

As the number of cultures lost in time must be in the thousands, is this, Daniel an issue. Sorry, but it may alone be a consequence of globalisation. I understand for those whose culture may be threatened or they feel is under threat it seems a painful business, but Wales has not lost its culture as the tales of King Arthur are an example of cultural assertiveness over colonising stronger polities. There are in fact remnants of extinquished cultures in every modern country.

Egypt lost its ancient culture to Christian and then Islamic forces. The original Egyptian culture was brilliant in its ideas and level of understanding. Assyria no longer exists. The Hittite culture is scarcely remembered. For most people, the Luwains, possibly the ancient Trojans, are mostly forgotten. Cultures in sub/saharan Africa have fallen and been frazzled into ashes by Islam, Christianity and colonisation. Ancient cultures in central Asia, once powerful, are now no more. The old cultures of the Near East have become homogenised and disappeared into Islam as a dominant set of behaviour traits.

Homogenisation may be the fate of all cultures, submerged within a single language, single ways of thinking, single ways of behaving.

Israel is funded by the Diaspora and thus its colony, the colony of a people, if not of a nation. Now, my little book, and a few others, show that the Jews have a right to return to Egypt, not Palestine that was an Egyptian colony.

I have never heard of a country known as "the Diaspora." Where is it located? Moreover, if you want to profess a position that totally violates the majority of scientific theory and evidence on the topic, then you need more than a book. Where are your scholarly papers on the issue? What genetic evidence do you use? What linguistic evidence do you use?

Moreover, Israel isn't a Jewish state. There are plenty of atheists and non-Jews in the country, and Jews and Palestinians share a common ancestry. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Moreover, Palestine was a name given to the region, by the Romans, as an insult, so if you want to talk about colonization, you're demanding the use of a name that was meant to be offensive and oppressive. Think about that for a minute.

My guess is that you just have an obsession with Jews. I quite frankly sense a hint of antisemitism in a lot of your commentary, Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau

Following Freud, Einstein answered your question about the location of Israel: the whole earth:

"In my opinion, it would be more reasonable to reach an agreement with the Arabs on the basis of a peaceful common life than to create a Jewish state... My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism runs up against the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a project of temporal power, no matter how modest. I fear the internal damage that Judaism will suffer because of the development of our ranks, of a narrow nationalism... We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabean period. Becoming a nation in the political sense of the word would amount to turn away from the spiritualization of our community that we owe to the genius of our prophets." quoted by Moshe Menuhin, The Decadence of Judaism In Our Time, 1969, p. 324.

The Bible speaks of the land of the Philistine.

Your obsession is for the Jews to have a precise land instead of being migrants.

In modern English translations, sure. But there's a bigger issue; you're trying to use biblical narrative to justify your position, even when scientific theory and evidence rejects it. That's no better than young Earth creationism.

Your obsession is for the Jews to have a precise land instead of being migrants.

No. You've wholly taken this discussion off track. What you are discussing, and what you continue to discuss in reply after reply, is very much unrelated to the topic that I mentioned. But my greater concern is your science denial. You reject science, in order to promote your ideas. And you rely on the bible to do it. That puts you in the same camp as Ken Ham.

Genetic evidence contradicts your biblical narrative: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Oh, Sir,

My little book does not use Biblical narrative to justify anything. According to modern exegesis (Thomas Römer, not Ken Ham), I use the Torah as a history book that must be faced with Egyptian history. Therefore, my position is the outcome of mere historical research. Your accusation is inaccurate, it is also unjustified by arguments; it is mere affirmations, and therefore defamatory. You think a son of Justs an antiJew. That is highly offensive, unfriendly, totally antiscientific, merely political.

in my knowledge, 90% of the Jews in Israel are Ashkenazis and therefore do not belong to the Middle East.

My question: "Is the destruction of 383 Palestinian villages (February 2019) by Israel cultural genocide?" remains well grounded:

https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2019/02/21/lantisionisme-et-lantisemitisme/

Using the Torah as a history book is no more valid than using the Simlarillion as one. Whether the Torah or the Bible, you cannot use it, because it's contradicted by scientific theory and evidence. And on that note, I think that this is going to be my last reply to you, ever.

The Torah is and will always be the history book of the Hebrew people, just as Homer's "Iliad" and Odyssey are those of the Greek people. Indeed, the ruins of Troy were discovered from those books. You abuse of the word science about history that is not an exact science but a human one.

Thank you very much indeed for everything, Hervé

I disagree with this presentation of culture as unchangeable. and of one singular source. All cultures change all the time, and cultures influence each other. Some traditions disappear, especially when they are found to be harmful. It is the aspect of power and coercion here that is the problem, not the cultural change per se. It is depending also on the nature of the custom which is to be eradicated. If this custom is causing damage, or if the custom is threatening the lives of individuals, one may think of persuation or even law making to prohibit it. Some cultural habits include harming people, or harming animals, or creating environmental damage. Of course if the cultural habit is expressed by members of cultural minorities we can expect power dynamics to come into play. The tendency to rename laws against cultural customs as 'genocide' can be seen as part of propaganda, just as much as the dominant culture will present it as preventing human rights violations. There is no easy way to say that in general all abolishment of cultural habits is genocide. We must use the word with caution, to enable us to use it when really necessary. I would for example strongly support the laws agains the live burning of widows in India, even if they were created under British colonial power. Similarly, one could debate if ritual circumcision of girls - which clearly has several traumatic and dangerous aspects for children, and has been studied from a medical perspective as unnecessary, and harmful- should not be made forbidden because it would amount to 'genocide'. In some cultures, fire works are part of festivities but they create air pollution and massive bird killing. I would not suggest that a ban on fireworks would be equal to cultural genocide. Traditions change through improved insights, but if humans fail to learn from their mistakes because they simply want to do just as grandpa did, they will suffer. So I am more curious, what customs and which cultural setting are you referring to exactly?

As for me, not only female circumcision must be eradicated from the planet, but also male circumcision denounced by Spinoza and Freud as the great source of judeophobia, and all the more since it is a very discriminative custom the sole source of all genocides: https://www.academia.edu/3086810/Genocide_and_circumcision_correlation_causality_and_theory_updated_02.20.2019_

Michel, I totally agree with your view on circumcision as something we humans must get rid of as soon as possible. However, I believe that your view of circumcision as the sole source of genocide, is a severe threat to your academic credibility and sadly makes your point seem less valid. Genocide has been thoroughly examined and social psychological processes such as stereotypes, propaganda, socio-economic all account for it, although I am sure that possible traumata such as circumcision, as well as increased ingroup-outgroup processes resulting from it can play a minor role.

Inge Versteegt the opposition to male circumcision, at the very least, is no more justified scientifically than is anti-vax sentiment.

Well, Inge, only psychoanalysis can explain both the madness of genocide and the nature of circumcision. It seems you didn't read my article that shows that all genocides are committed in the presence of circumcision, on one side or the other, and sometimes both. None of the sociological or psychological explanations can explain that; only psychoanalysis tells that a threat of castration and death is a source of racism and of slaughtering madness.

It seems our poor circumcised friend Goldman knows little about the functions and interest of the foreskin:

1/ Circumcision is not a vax against AIDS, quite the contrary it is a dangerous illusion of security that cannot substitue condoms.

2/"A lip, erogenous, protective of erogeneity, and the tool of autosexuality, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is mutilation"

https://www.academia.edu/2274700/A_lip_erogenous_protective_of_erogeneity_and_the_tool_of_autosexuality_the_foreskin_is_a_sexual_organ_its_ablation_is_mutilation_updated_02.17.2019_

3/ "A preliminary poll: 82% of circumcised men ignore the serial anejaculatory mini-orgasms, 91% of intacts enjoy them "

https://www.academia.edu/5812258/A_preliminary_poll_82_of_circumcised_men_ignore_the_serial_anejaculatory_mini-orgasms_91_of_intacts_enjoy_them_updated_03.29.2018_

nI

I've cited numerous studies which reject your pseudo-scientific position on this topic and other topics, but what can I expect from someone who treats the Torah has history? Anyway, you've commandeered this thread enough.

I treat the Torah as history like all contemporary exegetes, notably Thomas Römer (tenant of the chair Biblical circles in the Collège de France), also see the article Bible of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Your quotes are outdated, so is your pretense to rule this thread.

In my opinion, forcing a people to change his culture or cultural values is intrinsecly a genocide because culture is the core of the identity of a people. The colonial wars in Africa, Asia, in the Americas, in Australia, etc. in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were genocides committed by the invading Europe. Part the cultural diversity of the world has disappeared through these wars. One can remember as example the traumatizing history the American Indians… But most of the time, the forcing, if it is not by war or invasion as it was the case in colonial wars, is mainly insidious, without being noticed because of the economic advantages that are subsequent. In contrary to a previous post, the problem is not about the inchangeability of culture because cultures always evolve. But cultures also evolve because the way we live, consume commodities that only benefit the producers.

This discussion is... interesting, to say at least. However, questions offered in the discussion are quite important and I would like to offer my opinion on them.

Firstly, let me do a little nitpicking. I have to say that many answers are not really answering the original question. The most important word in the question is not genocide itself, but the word akin. So, is forcing a group of people to give up their cultural heritage similar to genocide? Yes, it is, because it lead to the same result (annihilation of the nation) through different way. Although I would not use the word genocide in this context, because genocide is strong word and it subconsciously evoke killing people. I think that semantic research would be in order in this case. Also, from answers above I learned, that the term cultural genocide can be controversial. I would suggest to think up another, more neutral term; something like cultural removal or forced cultural shift.

But terminology aside, I agree with point of Inge Versteegt. „All cultures change all the time, and cultures influence each other.“ In fact conflict of cultures and its differences are possibly the biggest reasons of cultural progress. However, enforcement of culture via force or violence (or even politic in my opinion) is harmful. Communism and social realism of USSR or liberal democracy of USA is proof of that in many regions of the world. Of course that does not mean, that society should not get rid of harmful aspects of cultures. We can see that even in culture monument care; first is health and safety, culture is second concern.

Second question, can restricting a single cultural element constitute cultural genocide? I do not think that restricting only one element of culture would result in annihilation of a whole culture. It will surely have great impact, especially if you remove some significant element like language. But culture is so complex, that it would hardly destroy it. Complexity of culture is its health and endurance. If someone want to eradicate someones culture, firstly he has to break spirit of the nation, secondly he needs to remove language, history, monuments, symbols etc. Therefore, destroying culture is nearly impossible. At least in euro-atlantic society, that is.

Just to change a tad from history to the present. What about modern traffic around the world? Not genocide, just respect or disrespect for another's values as per their upbringing, their country's and family's isms, brought from or taken to another country and imposed there. Empire's did that on a major scale all during history—before they all fell—and today most of us have a good deal of respect for others. We go to some trouble to find out what the social mores are before we take a short trip and behave accordingly while there, for the short term. But, the empires and the wannabes are still here, still forcing their culture on 'the other' at home, and abroad.

Re David's response above: I say it depends on the element that is being restricted. For example, in Canada in the 1960s, in order to dissuade the Inuit from their life as hunters and travelers, the government sent in forces to kill all the sled dogs (which of course provided the major means of transportation over the ice and snow). The result of restricting or eliminating this one element was beyond devastating. In one action, the people were forced not only to give up their way of life as hunters (of seals, caribou, and other Arctic wildlife) around which their culture had developed, it forced them into squalid reserves. Of course, that was not the only attempt at cultural genocide; the government forced children into residential schools to "kill the Indian in the child" (including loss of language), which also damaged them as human beings--they were abused in the schools, and separated sometimes by great distance from their friends and family. Either one of these acts alone likely would have severely damaged the culture, but in combination, it represented an attempt at cultural genocide that nearly succeeded. The culture has survived but is still in recovery mode--the damage done was extensive, and the effects are still felt in those communities.

David that is not the view that other cultures take. As I've mentioned previously the leader of our nationalist movement considered that the Welsh language was so fundamental to Welsh cultural identity that he considered the sacrifice of anything else within the culture to be fair game to protect it and increase its usage. In his view so long as we have the old tongue then we are Welsh and other things become possible in the future, without it then we are no longer the Welsh and are merely dictated to by others, we would therefore have our culture destroyed by the removal of a single aspect of it.

As to it being nearly impossible in the Euro Atlantic society, the various 'Celtic' peoples have come close to being culturally destroyed in this manner, and some of our cousins may have been e.g. the Cornish.

This is another contribution that exemplifies the core position of the language in a given culture. This entails that the fact that African people have been forced to abandon their languages along the time is an insidious genocide. Many African scholars have urged governments since the independences to promote African languages beside colonial languages that have become ours. Decolonizing the mind, The politics of language in African literature authored by Ngugi wa Thiongo (1986) is a vibrant example. But significant steps still needed to be taken in that direction almost sixties years after countries have got their sovereignty. In some countries, we still have children punished for speaking their mother tongue though UNESCO has set a date in February to celebrate mother tongue. But in those cases, it is no longer the colonial power at. It is now a culture suicide performed by the people of the same countries. What love for one’s culture can we have if we keep implementing a colonial-like education? But this is a question for Africans and their governments.

Deborah Gail Bradley and Timothy Edward Jones, I agree with you and I guess I was little bit off topic myself. I was talking about total annihilation of a culture and not about attempted annihilation. But the truth is that even attempt should be perceived as genocide.

I was also talking about core aspects of culture. Now I would like to make this statement more detailed. There surely are core aspects, which are very important, but their removal may not necessarily cause genocide. However, your examples (sled dog and language) are not core aspects of culture, in my opinion. They are something more. They are essential, because they are not only part of the culture, but they are also part of communication, economics, social infrastructure etc. Language is one of the primary reasons why we identify as a part of specific culture and sled dogs, as Deborah Gail Bradley said, are cultural phenomenon, but also a way of communication, social interaction, trade etc. To paraphrase Marcel Mauss, these phenomena are total cultural facts and removal of such total fact could actually constitute cultural genocide.

In conclusion, removal of one aspect of culture can constitute cultural genocide, if the aspekt is total cultural fact. Removing of core aspect of culture will most certainly negatively alter the culture, but it may not have such critical impact to cause cultural genocide.

I will give one example from my country, Czech republic. There is a sentence in movie I Served the King of England: „We Czechs don't fight wars.“ While not 100% accurate, this statement have its meaning. One of the main form of resistance of Czechs again oppressive force (like was Austria-Hungary, Nazi Germany or rule of communist party) is via humor. Reinhard Heydrich allegedly called Czechs laughing beasts. Humor, as not only a way of resistance, is for Czechs so important, that it can be perceived as core aspect of Czech culture. It would have negative impact on Czech culture and we would surely missed many very good jokes, but could it potentially have such impact, that it could lead to cultural genocide?

Cultural destruction is more appropriate.

War rape is a kind of cultural genocide.

You could make a very strong argument for forcing people to give up their cultural identity being Genocide. The Rome Statute of the ICC described Genocide as: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Given that culture is one of the underpinning aspects of ethnicity, in forcibly removing culture you could well argue that this was genocide.

However, in the legal prosecution of that act as a genocide you would need to prove that: (a) removing a group's cultural identity was akin to destroying their ethnicity, and (b) that the act was deliberate and with that destructive intent.As far as a I know, there haven't been any successful prosecutions for genocide on this bass to date, certainly none in the ICC, and I don't think at a national level. Of course, lack of prosecution does not mean lack of the crime.

(I'm sure you have seen it, but for those who may find it useful, you can find the Rome Statute of the ICC here: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf )

Although the Canadian government was not tried for cultural genocide, it did apologize for its treatment of indigenous peoples. The apology draws upon language that suggests cultural genocide was one of the goals of residential schools:

"For more than a century, Indian Residential Schools separated over 150,000 Aboriginal children from their families and communities. In the 1870's, the federal government, partly in order to meet its obligation to educate Aboriginal children, began to play a role in the development and administration of these schools. Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, "to kill the Indian in the child". Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country." (June 11, 2008, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada).

Thanks Deborah Gail Bradley , that's a useful bit of text. I agree, it certainly suggests that assimilation in this context means destruction of what came before .

Exactly! It was more evident in the case of Native Americans including Canadians because they were stripped from their language, and traditional hair style (had haircuts), their regalia or common dress wore as natives, as well as religious practices and cultural traditions. Approximately, 60 Puerto Ricans were enrolled in the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania, and their experience was different because they were already assimilated to the European style, except the language and some native traditions that still remain to this day. "Porto Ricans", were also subjected to the disciplinary measures at military style, suffered illnesses similar to the Native students, and some of them ran away, but their motive was to learn the English as seen beneficial under the occupation of the United States regime from 1868; shortly after the students were sent to the school until 1918.

Even with the apology, however, the Canadian government has not changed its practices. The goal remains dispossessing Indigenous peoples of their lands and resources and assimilating them as workers into the capitalist economy. They are welcome to practice their cultural traditions (today) but the government continues to ride over their land rights by sending in the military whenever they resist exploitation of their lands. Deliberately dreadful conditions on reserves is also part of the strategy to weaken Indigenous peoples so that they give up their land rights.

I agree with the statement from Lise Vaugeois. My quotation from the apology was not intended to suggest that all is well now with respect to Indigenous cultural genocide in Canada--it was offered in the spirit of showing how the language of the 2008 apology provided some acknowledgment of past attempts to destroy Indigenous culture and language (even if the acknowledgment of cultural genocide was not explicit). Indeed, the attempts to weaken Indigenous peoples in Canada are ongoing and continue to take on new forms in a way similar to how systemic racism morphs to find new ways to uphold white supremacist systems.

There ought to be a mechanism to bring politicians to account, even posthumously, for a litany of misguided, mishandled misdeeds, wherever the buck stops, and coming from any ideology.