Talk:Ethnic cleansing/Archive 1

message: Maybe we should mention the ethnic cleansing of the Acadians and of the Kalmucks.
I think the Deportation of the Acadians would most definitely be considered ethnic cleansing. Qaaa 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acadians and Kalmucks

message: There are very few instances of actual ethnic cleansing done to Serbs in Croatia (for example the Medak pocket massacre), and even so, those are rather meager compared to the acts of ethnic cleansing over Croats in Croatia done by the Serbs (for example the destruction of Vukovar).
The majority of the Serb population in Krajina fled after the Croats won the war. This is the majority but not nearly the whole of the Serb population of Croatia. Only a part of those people were actually in danger at the time; most of them emigrated in an organized manner. All of them have been called upon to return, and were physically able to return after the end of hostilities, but two thirds did not. The reasons vary: for non-civilians, it's fear of prosecution for war crimes and fear of retaliation; for civilians, it's unfavourable property laws, ethnic discrimination by local authorities, and last but not the least, appalling economic conditions in the rural areas they inhabited. The property laws, in particular, favor Croats who immigrated into the previously predominantly Serb-inhabited areas after having been forced out of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Serbs.
The map is basically construed mainly to draw attention to, and maliciously misrepresent, the organized exodus of rebel Serbs from Croatia, at the same time entirely ignoring the true nature of the problem, not to mention neatly ignoring the actual ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs over others.
>>>>
: Oh, I'd love to be able to add such a paragraph to Kosovo War...
: 
: The majority of the Albanian population in Kosovo fled after the Serbs won over KLA. This is the majority but not nearly the whole of the Albanian population of Serbia. Only a part of those people were actually in danger at the time; most of them emigrated in an organized manner. All of them have been called upon to return, and were physically able to return after the end of hostilities, but two thirds did not.
: 
: Nikola 08:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbia and Croatia

message: The article was somewhat lacking in detail and historical range, so I've rewritten and expanded it to address those problems. See what you think... -- ChrisO 22:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Detail and historical range

message: Can someone put in a pronounciation guide for foreign words where they appear? Thank you! Mark Richards 17:40, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation guide

message: Can anyone give some evidences about ethnic cleansing of East Timor and West Papua (to other areas of Indonesia)? This doesn't sounds as NPOV. Meursault2004 11:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote here ethnic cleansing of East Timor and West Papua (to other areas of Indonesia. Sure there were immigrants from other parts of Indonesia, but these areas weren't completely resettled by other ethnical groups unlike for example East Prussia, Silesia or some parts of the Middle-East. Sure there were some atrocities and crimes against humanity, I don't deny that. But I don't think there were mass expulsions. There seems to be some confusion here. So I don't think my question is silly. Meursault2004 09:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: East Timor and West Papua

message: I reverted the reintroduction of the paragraph, which was a POV accusation including allegation of war crimes. How is everyone's assumption that Jewish communities cannot remain in a Palestinian state not ethnic cleansing? -- Cecropia | Talk 02:02, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel IDF paragraph 

message: Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?  If you know of a problem, would you please highlight it here for discussion and possible resolution?   -- Ke4roh 14:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have your concerns been resolved satisfactorally?  -- ke4roh 02:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please feel free to put it back and remark here as needed. -- ke4roh 17:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV dispute 

message: I respectfully suggest that the slavery of Africans does not in any way represent ethnic cleansing. As abominable, unconscionable, and criminal on a breathtaking scale as it was, it's absurd to call it "cleansing". Mass kidnapping and forcible servitude, yes; removal of an undesired population, no. In fact, one could argue it's the reverse of ethnic cleansing — it actually mixed multiple ethnic populations together. (Movements to encourage former slaves to move to Nigeria, or even deport them, on the other hand, could be considered ethnic cleansing, even when supported by candidates for such "cleansing".) This doesn't make that slavery right, but it certainly doesn't make it ethnic cleansing, either. I propose removing the whole section on the slave trade from this article. (I should hope there's plenty of detail on it in appropriate articles.) -- Jeff Q 12:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  African slavery 

message: "A euphemism is a word (or phrase) which people use in place of terms which are more disagreeable or offensive to themselves and/or to their audience."
Surely Ethnic Cleansing meets this criteria? I assert that there is no doubt that this is a euphamism, replacing genocide or mass murder with something todo with cleaning. Mark Richards 06:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the terms. Though each genocide or mass murder is an ethnic cleansing, each ethnic cleansing is not a genocide or a mass murder. See previous discussion about #Definition of the term above. Perhaps a section on use of the term should be written. Nikola 07:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The term could be used as euphemism for genocide, but from what I see that occurs fairly rarely. It is always used for something more offensive than cleaning, but as I said, not as euphemism. As I said, there are no more offensive terms of which this could be an euphemism. It doesn't infer that the cleansed group is unclean; rather the opposite (terirorry of the group which is cleansing is unclean and had to be cleansed of another). As I said on your Talk page, compare it to Great Purge or "Iron broom": both refer to cleaning; neither is euphemism. Nikola 21:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Euphamism

message: Quote: At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.
To my understanding this definition means that group that is being ethnically cleansed has committed  religious or ethnic discrimination or other things listed above. Although it may be argued as semantics it implies a justification for comitting and act of ethnic cleansing. Following may clarify this ambiguity.
At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory by religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.
Comments?  --Dado 01:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition clarification

message: For labour camps non ethnic reason surface, at tibet any political reasons? Please writing about labour camps in tibet? Johncapistrano 20:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Labour camps in Tibet are mentioned in the article Tibet. Between the 1960s and 1980s, many prisoners (over 1 million, according to Harry Wu) were sent to laogai camps in Amdo (Qinghai), where they were then employed locally after release.  -- ran (talk) 20:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
While the issues that Johncapistrano has raised are very worthy of discussion, none of them, even true, fit the definition of ethnic cleansing: the removal or murder of one ethnic group from one region.
Let's go down the list:
*Slaughter and exile in the ground of Tibet invaded by the People's Republic of China in 1950 and after.
**Slaughter: the 1.2 million figure often quoted is summed from the following:
**#The uprising and suppression thereof: there is no difference between this and, say, the Tiananmen Protests. The PLA was attempting to uphold the continued rule of the Communist Party. There was and is no specific policy to target Tibetans.
**#The Great Leap Forward: provides vast majority of the casualties. This was a tragic mistake in policy that killed Han Chinese and Tibetans alike.
**#Political oppression. Again, this policy does not distinguish between Han Chinese and Tibetans who threaten the rule of the CPC.
**Exile: There is no policy to exile Tibetans as an ethnic group. Those who do flee do so due to fear of political oppression, which is applied to anyone who is perceived as a threat. There are Han Chinese and Tibetan exiles alike in foreign countries.
*Compulsory internment to a labor remodeling place: See above: this policy does not distinguish between Han Chinese and Tibetans who threaten the rule of the CPC. Tibet was usually the destination, in any case, of Han Chinese political prisoners during the Maoist Era.
*sterilization forcing, a contraception operation: While not official policy, this is indeed performed by some unscrupulous local cadres. And this occurs all across China, not distinguishing between Han Chinese and Tibetans. Indeed, Tibetans are legally entitled to more children (2 in the cities, I believe) than Han Chinese.
*cultural assimilation policy to Han race by school education, compulsion of marriage with Han race: I've never heard of the latter. But even if we assume that both of these exist, then what we have is an assimilationist policy, which is outside the definition of ethnic cleansing.
In conclusion, except for the last point (assimilationist policy), there is no policy that targets Tibetans specifically. We might as well say that ethnic cleansing was conducted against Uyghurs, Manchus, Mongols, Zhuang, Hui Chinese, or even Han Chinese, since all are affected indiscriminately. The last point, which is arguably specifically against ethnic minorities, does not fit the definition of ethnic cleansing.
In other words, even if all of the allegations are true, there still is no ethnic cleansing to speak of. -- ran (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you mind telling us what does the section you keep deleting have to do with Tibet?--Doron 18:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No worries :)--Doron 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  about tibet 

message: I don't know much about this instance in history - as it is phrased right now it doesn't sound like ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing has to include an element of force, if it is voluntary then it's just migration. All instances in the alleged instances list have some historians claiming they were forced migration. Does anyone claim the Finnish of Finnish Karelia were expelled?--Doron 14:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were forced to migrate, because they did not want to live in Soviet Union. One reason was that they knew those earlier Stalin's expulsions of Karelians and Finns. No one really did not wanted to leave their homes, but there was not a change. Kahkonen 18:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Winter War provides some context to this claim. I don't know about assertions made by historians, but I do know that many of the Finns who fled did so because of the likelihood of persecution under Stalin. --Scimitar 18:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Russians also migrated because they didn't want to live under Stalin, this doesn't mean they were ethnically cleansed. I reckon that in order for this to account as an alleged ethnic cleansing, there should have been a Soviet intention of removing the Finnish population from Finnish Karelia and that the Soviets pressured the Finnish population to migrate, either directly or indirectly. Please refer us to a notable author that claims this.--Doron 06:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Finns were deported several times en masse in the Soviet Union, see Population transfer in the Soviet Union. So Karelian Finns had all reasons to believe their fate will be the same. mikka (t) 07:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks mikka. As I stated earlier, I don't know about connected statements by historians, as this is most certainly not my area of expertise.--Scimitar parley 17:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish evacuation from Finnish Karelia 

message: By the way, there are  a number of other examples (in addition to the case from "AA Fananic" section) I would consider strange. For example, the Warsaw case. Cleansing a single city amid the whole Poland IMO does not look like "ethnic cleansing". We have plenty of examples in the history of total demolition of setlements. 
IMO the only criterion (a usual one) would be someone in a notable source called the case "ethnic cleansing" or something similar in terms of the purpose (with a reasonable discussion, not just a catch phrase), with source provided. The rest would be original research, even if it looks like and smells like, etc. 
Also, when discussing ancient times or "less civilized" cases, IMO this term would be an anachronism in many cases. All the time ancient tribes have been cutting throats each other, but IMO it would be strange (although reasonable) to call "ethnic cleansing" the case when the totem of "Bald Hawk" rounds up all of "Quick Brown Fox". mikka (t) 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote the article to address your concerns: The term "ethnic cleansing" has come to mean the displacement or expulsion from a territory of one ethnic group by another. Is this correct or not in your opinion ? Ktoto 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious examples

message: I believe that the Plantation of Ulster in the 17th century by the British in the North of Ireland should be included as an example of ethnic cleansing. Tens of thousands of Irish Catholics were forced out of most of the East and much of the rest of the Irish province of Ulster, to be replaced with Scottish and English colonists. This is the reason why the Northern Ireland state exists today, because most of the Unionist community in NI, who demanded and got partition in 1920, are descended from them. 
(Edward from Ireland)
If you can find a reputable source that agrees with oyu, then by all means feel free to add it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plantation of Ulster

message: The following item removed.
* Forced assimilation and expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey between 1984 and 1989 under Todor Jivkov's assimilation policy. Later, the victims were allowed to return their homeland by Bulgaria, and many did so.
The whole phrasing is infortunate. What actually happened was that the official state policy was that there were no Turks in Bulgaria, but rather Bulgarians forcibly converted to Islam under the Ottoman Empire, i.e., there is a single nation in Bulgaria. Those who did not like this were not "expulsed" by state; they run away themselves when they could. This is hardly fits the definition of ethnic cleansing. 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Turks from Bulgaria