One example of ethnocide presented in the text occurred in the Balkans. The Serbians were demolishing the Bosnian Muslim’s cultural symbols, such as a library and their mosques. This is ethnocide because the Serbians are destroying the Bosnian Muslim’s places of worship and knowledge in an attempt to wipe out their beliefs. Moreover, another example of ethnocide is in Canada, when the Parti Québécois (PQ) came to power in 1976 and required the language of French to be taught in schools and be on public signage. This was Bill 101 and the Anglo community did not approve of it. This is an instance of ethnocide because the PQ is forcing the Anglo civilizations to speak a certain language, thus keeping them from speaking their native, preferred
…show more content…
In my opinion, genocide can most certainly occur without individuals being murdered. For instance, one aspect of ethnocide that is still considered genocide is in the U.N. Genocide Convention. Under Article 2(e), “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group,” would be an act of genocide. Although these children are not being killed, their culture is being taken from them, without their consent. If removing the ideas of the culture from a child’s mind is genocide, then why is destroying the cultural ideas from the entire group, or ethnocide, still not considered an act of genocide? Moreover, the U.N. Genocide Convention should be revised to include more information on ethnocide because many are going unpunished for their acts of genocide. For example, many people were too focused on the current definition of genocide, that the people in the Balkans were suffering without actually being killed. The Bosnian Muslims were victims of ethnocide because the Serbians were destroying their “cultural symbols.” As John Quigley points out, “the destruction of cultural objects may provide evidence that such acts were done with intent to destroy the group.” The Serbians are trying to get rid of the Bosnian Muslim’s culture by demolishing the homes of their linguistic ideas and religious faith. Therefore, ethnocide should be added to the U.N.’s definition because leaving it out is the same as allowing someone to annihilate a culture without ever executing a single
In my opinion, genocide can most certainly occur without individuals being murdered. For instance, one aspect of ethnocide that is still considered genocide is in the U.N. Genocide Convention. Under Article 2(e), “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group,” would be an act of genocide. Although these children are not being killed, their culture is being taken from them, without their consent. If removing the ideas of the culture from a child’s mind is genocide, then why is destroying the cultural ideas from the entire group, or ethnocide, still not considered an act of genocide? Moreover, the U.N. Genocide Convention should be revised to include more information on ethnocide because many are going unpunished for their acts of genocide. For example, many people were too focused on the current definition of genocide, that the people in the Balkans were suffering without actually being killed. The Bosnian Muslims were victims of ethnocide because the Serbians were destroying their “cultural symbols.” As John Quigley points out, “the destruction of cultural objects may provide evidence that such acts were done with intent to destroy the group.” The Serbians are trying to get rid of the Bosnian Muslim’s culture by demolishing the homes of their linguistic ideas and religious faith. Therefore, ethnocide should be added to the U.N.’s definition because leaving it out is the same as allowing someone to annihilate a culture without ever executing a single