Demographic Warfare

[eye_of_the_storm]

“…the unabated influx of Chinese immigrants to Tibet, which has the effect of overwhelming Tibet’s distinct cultural and religious identity and reducing the Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country, amount to a policy of cultural genocide.Today, in most of the major towns and cities Tibetans are already marginalised. If this population transfer is allowed to continue, Tibetan civilization will cease to exist in a few decades.” - His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama

[Brian]

It is not just happening on Tibet.

[gendao]

“…the unabated influx of Chinese immigrants to Tibet, which has the effect of overwhelming Tibet’s distinct cultural and religious identity and reducing the Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country, amount to a policy of cultural genocide.Today, in most of the major towns and cities Tibetans are already marginalised. If this population transfer is allowed to continue, Tibetan civilization will cease to exist in a few decades.” - His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama

Funny, if a European/East Asian/etc. leader said the equivalent of this, he'd be demonized as a far-right Hitler..

 

But, if an Israeli or (subtly anti-China) Tibetan says it...then they need more aid to fight the oppression!

Nearly half of the Jewish population of Israel supports a policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and major portions of the population support complete annexation of the occupied territories and the establishment of an apartheid state, according to a 2012 poll.

Tibetan population in 2009:

Tibetan 92.8%

Han 6.1%

Census Bureau reported that minorities made up 50.4% of the children born in the U.S. between July 2010 and July 2011

Maybe DL needs to be lectured by the Native Americans on how multicult diversity became their greatest strength and only backwater racists would resist it?

[thelerner]

Funny, if a European/East Asian/etc. leader said the equivalent of this, he'd be demonized as a far-right Hitler..

 

But, if an Israeli or (subtly anti-China) Tibetan says it...then they need more aid to fight the oppression!

No, I don't think so. They'd probably doubt and question your statistics of 92.8% in 2009, a 'wikipedia fact' or maybe its accurate for something called Tibet Autonomous Region and not Tibet itself. Matter of fact with statistics like that it'd be hard to see what the fuss is about. Due to Chinese intervention its hard to get firm numbers. I suspect they're much closer to-

Amdo (Qinghai)

In 1953, there were estimated to be 100,000 Chinese in the province of Qinghai, most of which is made up of the Tibetan province of Amdo. In 1985, there were 2 5 million Chinese and 0 75 million Tibetans in Qinghai (Chinese Statistical Yearbook 1985). The resettlement process is evident to any visitor. For example, in 1985, out of 40 families in Takster, the Dalai Lama's home town, only eight were Tibetan. There were no Chinese households during his childhood (1930s).

 

While not totally accurate this is probably a bit closer to the mark- Population of Tibet Tibetan exiles claim 7 5 million Chinese now live in Tibet alongside six million Tibetans. These figures are unconfirmed, but recent Chinese figures confirm the trend (from http://tibet.dharmakara.net/TibetFacts2.html)

 

I suspect you know this too, and have to bring in Hitler, Native American, Israel because you've got a weak case.

[gendao]

No, I don't think so. They'd probably doubt and question your statistics of 92.8% in 2009, a 'wikipedia fact' or maybe its accurate for something called Tibet Autonomous Region and not Tibet itself. Matter of fact with statistics like that it'd be hard to see what the fuss is about. Due to Chinese intervention its hard to get firm numbers. I suspect they're much closer to-

Amdo (Qinghai)

In 1953, there were estimated to be 100,000 Chinese in the province of Qinghai, most of which is made up of the Tibetan province of Amdo. In 1985, there were 2 5 million Chinese and 0 75 million Tibetans in Qinghai (Chinese Statistical Yearbook 1985). The resettlement process is evident to any visitor. For example, in 1985, out of 40 families in Takster, the Dalai Lama's home town, only eight were Tibetan. There were no Chinese households during his childhood (1930s).

 

While not totally accurate this is probably a bit closer to the mark- Population of Tibet Tibetan exiles claim 7 5 million Chinese now live in Tibet alongside six million Tibetans. These figures are unconfirmed, but recent Chinese figures confirm the trend (from http://tibet.dharmakara.net/TibetFacts2.html)

 

I suspect you know this too, and have to bring in Hitler, Native American, Israel because you've got a weak case.

Well, I'm not sure the exiled Tibetan numbers are more accurate, either? Obviously, both sides have motivation to stretch their numbers... But after a quick search, I couldn't really find independent verification or hard evidence backing either claims...

 

This fact cannot be denied, though:

China's one child policy does not apply to Tibetans, and farming and herding Tibetan families often have two children or more.

So, on the whole, the Han Chinese government is only trying to restrain its own majority growth, while allowing all native minorities unbridled growth.

 

But regardless, my point is how DIFFERENTLY the VERY same CONCERNS are popularly SPUN with a consistent DOUBLE-STANDARD, depending upon WHO's doing it.

The exact same action is either condemned as "cultural genocide by invasion/colonization" or glorified as "beneficial enrichment and strength through multicultural diversity" and commentary deemed "racist xenophobic hate speech" or "progressive humanitarian concern against minority oppression," depending on the specific parties/underlying agenda involved...

On an ideological level, it's also interesting then how Tibetan Buddhists still ultimately relied upon force (through military alliance with Mongolian and now American bullies)...NOT non-violent peace, to survive. So, psychologically, they don't seem to have been able to transcend that "might is right" dilemma yet. And in addition, there is the possibility that mistaking Buddhist emptiness with self-denial...could ultimately leave to self-denial on a national sovereignty level.

Edited December 17, 2014 by gendao

[Jetsun]

134 people in Tibet have self immolated in protest of Chinese rule , the latest one was last Tuesday. 134!!!! yet you don't hear much about it in the press. But now the Chinese Han are a majority in Tibet there is no way it can go back to being a separate country, so it is now an issue that most governments are trying to ignore. While in the past governments welcomed the Dalai Lama recently South Africa refused to give him a visa and the Pope refused to meet him to avoid antagonising the Chinese, so politically he has become a nuisance as they all scrabble for Chinese investment and most leaders will probably be relived when he dies. Basically the world has turned its back on the Tibetan people and extermination of its culture is now pretty much inevitable

[gendao]

134 people in Tibet have self immolated in protest of Chinese rule , the latest one was last Tuesday. 134!!!! yet you don't hear much about it in the press. But now the Chinese Han are a majority in Tibet there is no way it can go back to being a separate country, so it is now an issue that most governments are trying to ignore. While in the past governments welcomed the Dalai Lama recently South Africa refused to give him a visa and the Pope refused to meet him to avoid antagonising the Chinese, so politically he has become a nuisance as they all scrabble for Chinese investment and most leaders will probably be relived when he dies. Basically the world has turned its back on the Tibetan people and extermination of its culture is now pretty much inevitable

How many Palestinians have died in protest of Israeli apartheid rule?

How many Muslim "terrrorists" and "suicide bonnbers " have died fighting imperialistic US invasions in their lands under false pretenses?

Are you even more outraged by that?

 

And do you also believe that illegal Latin American immigration into the US is also "demographic warfare," since they will become the new majority in the US within a few decades??

Edited December 17, 2014 by gendao

[Jetsun]

How many Palestinians have died in protest of Israeli apartheid rule?

How many Muslim "terrrorists" and "suicide bonnbers " have died fighting imperialistic US invasions in their lands under false pretenses?

Are you even more outraged by that?

 

And do you also believe that illegal Latin American immigration into the US is also "demographic warfare," since they will become the new majority in the US within a few decades??

 

Sure there are other issues in the world, nobody is doubting that, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be outraged at the Tibetan one.

 

But 134 people all committing suicide in such a way in protest is pretty much unheard of, it only took one person to self immolate to spark off the Arab spring, yet it is barely even reported in the news.

 

There has always been migration of people throughout the whole of history, but it usually happens in a natural gradual way, whereas in Tibet it was a calculated intended policy to rapidly force migrate people, which is a policy against the rules laid out by the United Nations. The immigration into the US isn't such a policy so no I wouldn't say it is comparable.

[gendao]

There has always been migration of people throughout the whole of history, but it usually happens in a natural gradual way, whereas in Tibet it was a calculated intended policy to rapidly force migrate people, which is a policy against the rules laid out by the United Nations. The immigration into the US isn't such a policy so no I wouldn't say it is comparable.

So, it is proven that China is forcing Han people to move into Tibet to outnumber them...and not just pumping money into it, like other SEZ's, because it is a far-flung, underdeveloped destitute area? And migrant workers then simply follow wherever the money & jobs are?

 

Meanwhile, all Mexican immigrants are merely migrant workers following wherever the money & jobs are, and absolutely none also believe in any larger political agenda of reconquista to "reclaim" the SW?

And Zionist Jews did not purposely migrate and land squat into Palestine with the intent of eventually supplanting them and taking over their land as their future homeland of Israel???

But, you're not mad about that?

[Jetsun]

But, you're not mad about that?

 

I don't particularly like the Israeli policies either to be honest, but in Israel the Palestinian birth rate is higher than the Jewish Israeli so eventually it may even become an Arab majority state one day if things continue, so I would say the comparison to Tibet isn't very accurate.

 

Proof in Tibet is hard to find because not many people are allowed to go there to check, certainly you will come up against the Chinese propaganda machine if you start trying to get to the facts.

[thelerner]

Gendai, you're not including the million plus Moslems living inside Israel now in your chart, or the 7 to 800,000 Jews forced out of Arab countries at about the same time your chart is talking about.

Wait a second. You're arguing China is to Tibet as Israel is to Palestine? That the way you defend it? If so, you must think China sux. (Not a good comparison because 100,000's of Jews fled the Arab countries but you didn't have millions of Tibetan invading/going to China.

 

Your sympathy for suicide bombers is telling. They mostly killed Moslems. They mostly blew up government offices and mosques; they did good business with shoppers and mourners at funerals too. When you look closely at the millions who died, look into those suicide bomber you feel sorry for. I think you'll find the answers to who killed who there.

 

History is complicated. To understand you need more then a chart. Its rarely clear cut. Yet when we're on one subject and when challenged you throw out 4 or 5 other subjects it means your not interested in any depth on any subject. Just out for a rant. When challenged about your 92.8% statistic, you fall back on "I'm not sure the exiled Tibetan numbers are more accurate, either" but the numbers do matter.

 

You can't get an exact number due to Chinese regulations, but looking at the evidence, its probably closer to 50% then 92.8 that you quote. That a huge difference, and thats the reason for the protests that you don't understand. That and the destruction of Tibetan culture, monasteries, schools, prison camps for disenters. You seem like an Chinese apologist because you change the subject instead of discussing the OP.

Edited December 18, 2014 by thelerner

[dust]

To offer another perspective,

 

When the Chinese took over Tibet (again) in 1950, they were under the leadership of one of the extreme power-hungry, murderous leaders in world history. Mao wasn't giving it up.

 

Now, they're under the leadership of a bunch of power-mad bureaucrats who will still do anything to see China become the dominant world power, and will not back down from any fight they know they can win. They can win this one.

 

Do we really think that complaining about "cultural genocide" is going to stop them?

 

As much as I love China, I've no love for the CCP. And the Dalai Lama is a cool guy.

 

But honestly.. his empire is lost.

[Cookie Monster]

.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Ocean Form

[gendao]

You're arguing China is to Tibet as Israel is to Palestine?

 

History is complicated. To understand you need more then a chart. Its rarely clear cut. Yet when we're on one subject and when challenged you throw out 4 or 5 other subjects it means your not interested in any depth on any subject. Just out for a rant. When challenged about your 92.8% statistic, you fall back on "I'm not sure the exiled Tibetan numbers are more accurate, either" but the numbers do matter.

 

You can't get an exact number due to Chinese regulations, but looking at the evidence, its probably closer to 50% then 92.8 that you quote.

While not totally accurate this is probably a bit closer to the mark- Population of Tibet Tibetan exiles claim 7 5 million Chinese now live in Tibet alongside six million Tibetans. These figures are unconfirmed, but recent Chinese figures confirm the trend (from http://tibet.dharmakara.net/TibetFacts2.html)

I'm basically just agreeing with the disclaimers in your own quote?

 

And yes. Although I'd say China has relatively cleaned up its act a lot since Mao...while Israel has arguably continued to worsen. China certainly has no wall, cut off resources and apartheid policies segregating the Tibetans. In fact, they even enjoy some special privileges, like no one child policy...

Anyways, the point is the philosophical question of...is, when and how much immigration/emigration is beneficial or detrimental - and to whom?

 

Is inevitable cultural loss through foreign immigration (intentionally or not) "bad," according to both Hitler and the Dalai Lama? Tribalism concerns the preservation of one's cultural heritage and homeland. When is that considered important vs bigoted and isolationist? And who decides?

 

When is foreign multiculturalism "good" for expanding your world view, and/or "bad" for losing yours? If Tibet should be for Tibetans, should China be for Chinese and Sweden for Swedes?

Should all countries/regions have very open or very restrictive borders to encourage or discourage more cultural mixing? Is ALL cultural mixing "good," or does it depend on the culture?

 

Are there any real consistent principles here...or just flat-out double standards based on popularity contests??

Edited December 18, 2014 by gendao

[thelerner]

What.. that's your example of China's benevolence is- "they even enjoy some special privileges, like no one child policy... "!? They don't destroy the lives of people in Tibet who choose to have more then one kid. You set a pretty low bar for how well China treats Tibet.

 

I think if you lived in Tibet, you'd have much less .. cheerful spin over China's 'benevolent' control. And if I were living in the West Bank I'd be very angry and critical of Israel <as well as the 22 Arab countries that have done little to help me, especially neighbor Egypt which also built said wall>.

[gendao]

What.. that's your example of China's benevolence is- "they even enjoy some special privileges, like no one child policy... "!? They don't destroy the lives of people in Tibet who choose to have more then one kid. You set a pretty low bar for how well China treats Tibet.

 

I think if you lived in Tibet, you'd have much less .. cheerful spin over China's 'benevolent' control. And if I were living in the West Bank I'd be very angry and critical of Israel <as well as the 22 Arab countries that have done little to help me, especially neighbor Egypt which also built said wall>.

Well, for the record, I would agree that the Chinese Commies, and also many historical Chinese dynasties, have treated their own peoples and neighboring minorities very ruthlessly at times.

 

But my question here is more simply about whether China or Israel treats these 2 minorities worse now...vs their coverage and treatment by the US - in order to determine any double-standard bias in popular Western judgment?

 

For example, I would submit that Israel treats its Palestinians far worse...yet the US treats Israel far better, giving it the most foreign aid and labeling it as a top ally & friend. Whereas, they continually lambast China for human rights abuses, etc..

 

And, would anyone here ever label Israeli, Muslim or Mexican settlement as "demographic warfare" vs "multiculti diversity?"

 

Or is anyone else willing to address the deeper questions of PRINCIPLE I've posed here? Are all these mainstream attitudes consistent and based fairly upon principles...or inconsistent and on the lack thereof?

Edited December 18, 2014 by gendao

[ralis]

Well, for the record, I would agree that the Chinese Commies, and also many historical Chinese dynasties, have treated their own peoples and neighboring minorities very ruthlessly at times.

 

But my question here is more simply about whether China or Israel treats these 2 minorities worse now...vs their coverage and treatment by the US - in order to determine any double-standard bias in popular Western judgement?

 

For example, I would submit that Israel treats its Palestinians far worse...yet the US treats Israel far better, giving it the most foreign aid and labeling it as a top ally & friend. Whereas, they continually lambast China for human rights abuses, etc..

 

And, would anyone here ever label Israeli, Muslim or Mexican settlement as "demographic warfare" vs "multiculti diversity?"

 

Or is anyone else willing to address the deeper questions of PRINCIPLE I've posed here? Are all these mainstream attitudes consistent and based fairly upon principles...or inconsistent and on the lack of them?

 

The answers you seek are not simplistic in the least, but require a great deal of historical research/reading and questioning assumptions.

 

It was the Palestinian people who were displaced by the pressure from the Zionist movement that dates back to the late 1800's and the establishment of the state in 1948.

 

Why are you using the possessive pronoun i.e, its, as if Israel somehow owns the Palestinians?

 

Israel treats its Palestinians far worse

Edited December 18, 2014 by ralis

[gendao]

What.. that's your example of China's benevolence is- "they even enjoy some special privileges, like no one child policy... "!? They don't destroy the lives of people in Tibet who choose to have more then one kid. You set a pretty low bar for how well China treats Tibet.

Well, aren't they at least treating Tibetans BETTER than Han Chinese here?

 

And specific to this thread, given that birth rates determine a region's demographic future...how could China REALLY be waging "demographic warfare" on Tibet...if they restrict their own birth rate to 1 each...but allow their "opposition" UNLIMITED population growth???

 

FACTUALLY speaking, isn't the only proven "demographic warfare" that the Chinese government is waging...on its own Han majority???

 

IMAGINE if they had restricted only TIBETANS and other minorities to 1 child each, instead??? Certainly, you and the Americanized world would be OUTRAGED at this ETHNIC CLEANSING policy and without a doubt label it racist "demographic warfare," yes?

But when it exists ONLY against the Han Chinese, then instead you dismiss it as insignificant and irrelevant...and still accuse them of "demographic warfare" against another? When they are severely restricting their own growth, and not the other's?

There has always been migration of people throughout the whole of history, but it usually happens in a natural gradual way, whereas in Tibet it was a calculated intended policy to rapidly force migrate people, which is a policy against the rules laid out by the United Nations. The immigration into the US isn't such a policy so no I wouldn't say it is comparable.

Logic experiment: So, if the Chinese were (or are?) "migrating naturally & gradually" into Tibet...yet still inevitably causing Tibetan cultural loss in the process...would that OK, then?

 

IOW, do you have NO PROBLEM with cultural/ethnic loss through immigration...unless it's intentional?

 

Also, since Buddhism was imported into Tibet and replaced the more native Bon shamanism - aren't the Tibetan Buddhists themselves "foreign invaders?" So, should they all be repatriated back to India and Tibet returned to the older Bon adherents???

Edited December 18, 2014 by gendao

[Jetsun]

IOW, do you have NO PROBLEM with cultural/ethnic loss through immigration...unless it's intentional?

 

Also, since Buddhism was imported into Tibet and replaced the more native Bon shamanism - aren't the Tibetan Buddhists themselves "foreign invaders?" So, should they all be repatriated back to India and Tibet returned to the older Bon adherents???

 

I don't know why you are being so reductionistic, are you a mouthpiece for the Communist Party or something?

 

History and just basic life shows that everything changes and everything dies, including all cultures. How that change comes about determines to what degree there is great pain and suffering involved or whether it is a graceful death. Natural immigration is more on the graceful side of death, or more likely to result in something new being born, whereas forceful imposed immigration is more on the violent side and unlikely to result in anything except pain.

 

Natural immigration can even enhance cultures, where I live in the UK our culture has been enriched by immigration over the years, it actually can bring in a freshness and dynamism which keeps things from stagnating.

[dust]

I honestly don't understand the problem people have with cultural shifts.

 

It's not a "loss". One can't "kill" a culture, because a culture is nothing more than the people whose culture it is.

 

Lots of people are complaining about UK immigration these days, talking of a loss of values and culture, yet nobody seems able to tell me what "UK culture" actually consists of, or what exactly is being lost. Beer and football? Still got 'em. Musical and technological innovation? Still got 'em. Xenophobia and national superiority complex? Still got 'em. Any major changes I see being made are by the government and the majority of the population -- including many of the complainants. The way of life in almost every country in the world is drastically different to how it was even 50 years ago, and that is mostly down to the huge shifts in technology and ideology we've seen -- there's very little to "blame" on immigration.

 

And one day, people on this island won't be playing football or drinking beer anymore. One day it won't be the UK anymore. And so what? The people who are here will still be people.

 

So when I hear anyone complaining of losing their "national identity" and "culture", I often feel like telling them to suck it the fuck up.

 

Your culture is you. If you can only stomach being alive as long as your diet, environment, and daily routine never change... well.. it sucks to be you either way, doesn't it?

[eye_of_the_storm]

What is the UK... where to even begin?

//

Your understanding of culture is superficial/ shallow

"because a culture is nothing more than the people whose culture it is."

People are important... you are right... it is the people who create the culture, different groups of people create different cultures...as seen the world over... If say the Japanese were to no longer exist there would be no Japanese culture... which would be an exceptionally sad thing.

That is the beauty of life and true diversity.

"And one day, people on this island won't be playing football or drinking beer anymore. One day it won't be the UK anymore. And so what? The people who are here will still be people." As you say people create culture, if the UK is no longer the UK it would mean indigenous British no longer exist. That is called genocide, a criminal offense as per UN definitions and international laws.

Cultures do evolve/develop from within... there is no question that Stonehenge and say London bridge aren't British... both come from the British people. It is for the indigenous people to decide how their culture evolves rather than from forced foreign elements.

There can be external cultural exchanges if accepted by the people, rather than forced.

Like Amazonian tribes being hurdled into the 21st century... as the forests around them are being destroyed.

What if someone said who cares about Arabic people? who cares if they no longer exist? they don't have a culture anyway...

I think many would find such a statement highly offense, disrespectful etc...

Often it is other groups telling other people they don't exist and so their displacement is ok... devaluing their culture etc and their right to exist...

As with any type of war there is always propaganda at vast scales to convince people that X actions are in their best interest... people brainwashed into going to false wars, people brainwashed into committing suicide (as you are proposing)... people brainwashed into devaluing their culture... or that culture overtime being subverted/ undermined and replaced by some anti-culture so people forget who they are... a tree without roots falls.


Edited December 19, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[eye_of_the_storm]

Also if all cultures are equal why isn't immigration into all countries equal?

Why is it all so one way?

Why aren't 10 million Italians moving to India for example?

Why doesn't Israel need more "diversity"?

Why aren't 10 million British moving to Saudia Arabia? demanding cathedrals be built everywhere? and that bowler hats are mandatory religious/ cultural custom



Why aren't 10 million Africans moving to China? demanding Chinese culture conforms to their desires?

I believe all people should have a homeland solely their own... just as we work to insure the survival/ conservation of tigers for example

Edited December 19, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[eye_of_the_storm]

For example

It is only Irish people who were destined (the soul of the people) by the universe to create

Just as only the Mongolian people could have created this

Or the Russia people this

Only great evil would want to destroy this uniqueness, infinite expressions of the Divine



Edited December 19, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[eye_of_the_storm]

There is evolution within cultures... needless to say

The building on past explorations/ inventions... for example...

From this




To



If you find such boring that is from your own...

as they say Only boring people get bored

[dust]

What is the UK... where to even begin?

Your understanding of culture is superficial/ shallow

 

"the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society"

 

What some other people did centuries or millennia -- or even a few decades -- ago bears no direct relation to the people here now.

 

I can choose to accept Stonehenge as British, or as part of world history.

 

Your understanding of life is shallow.

 

 

People are important... you are right... it is the people who create the culture, different groups of people create different cultures...as seen the world over... If say the Japanese were to no longer exist there would be no Japanese culture... which would be an exceptionally sad thing.

 

Why would it be sad? As in the UK, Japanese culture is very different to how it was at the turn of last century. Feudal samurai culture died out a long time ago. The medieval age was a horrible time for most people in the world, and yet many lament it, regarding samurai as some noble warrior class. They were a bunch of thugs. Is the fact that Japan has a new culture, based largely on foreign influence, a sad thing? Or a good thing? Or just a fact of life?

 

 

As you say people create culture, if the UK is no longer the UK it would mean indigenous British no longer exist. That is called genocide, a criminal offense as per UN definitions and international laws.

 

Hah!

 

No, I didn't say people create culture. They do, but what I said was people ARE culture.

 

There is no such thing as "indigenous British", or indigenous anything for that matter.

 

Long before modern immigration, we were an amalgamation of Brits, Attacotti, Scotti, Atrebates, Picts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Romans....

 

I am almost equal parts Irish, Scottish, and English. Am I a purebred Brit? I have blonde hair... am I tainted with Norse blood?

 

When does foreign invasion and rape and murder become acceptable and just a part of a culture? The history of the UK is a history of war and settlement. The UK wouldn't be here without mixed cultural influences.

 

Your understanding of history is shallow.

 

 

Cultures do evolve/develop from within... there is no question that Stonehenge and say London bridge aren't British... both come from the British people.

 

"British people"... Again: ha!

 

 

There can be external cultural exchanges if accepted by the people, rather than forced.

 

Who's forcing?

 

Are the Polish people next door breaking your door down and forcing you to eat cabbage?

 

 

Like Amazonian tribes being hurdled into the 21st century... as the forests around them are being destroyed.

 

Do you not see the irony here? "Being destroyed" by the very nations you were just trying to defend the culture of...

 

 

What if someone said who cares about Arabic people? who cares if they no longer exist? they don't have a culture anyway...

 

I think many would find such a statement highly offense, disrespectful etc...

 

Erm.. yeah, I think some would find that disrespectful. In the first place, painting all "Arabic people" with the same brush, assuming that there's such a thing as a single "Arabic culture".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs

 

A multitude of nations, "ethnicities", languages, religions, and many other characteristics make up what we call the "Arabic people". Again, they are defined by an incredibly complex history and continually changing cultural and political landscape.

 

 

 

Often it is other groups telling other people they don't exist and so their displacement is ok... devaluing their culture etc and their right to exist...

 

As with any type of war there is always propaganda at vast scales to convince people that X actions are in their best interest... people brainwashed into going to false wars, people brainwashed into committing suicide (as you are proposing)... people brainwashed into devaluing their culture... or that culture overtime being subverted/ undermined and replaced by some anti-culture so people forget who they are... a tree without roots falls.

 

Wow. I don't even know where to start.

 

Propaganda, brainwashed, false war, suicide, subverted, anti-culture...