When school started this year for Mikalay in Belarus, the 15-year-old discovered that his teachers and administrators no longer called him by that name. Instead, they referred to him as Nikolai, its Russian equivalent.

What’s more, classes at his school — one of the country’s best — are now taught in Russian, not Belarusian, which he has spoken for most of his life.

Belarusians like Mikalay are experiencing a new wave of Russification as Moscow expands its economic, political and cultural dominance to overtake the identity of its neighbor.

It’s not the first time. Russia under the czars and in the era of the Soviet Union imposed its language, symbols and cultural institutions on Belarus. But with the demise of the USSR in 1991, the country began to assert its identity, and Belarusian briefly became the official language, with the white-red-white national flag replacing a version of the red hammer and sickle.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Oof, France has been committing genocide for hundreds of years then lol.

      It has been trying to eradicate all regional languages outside of Parisian France for a long time now and still refuses to sign the European Charter for Minority and Regional Languages. Only recently did they start recognizing them and not banning the use of them.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France

      https://guides.loc.gov/french-literature-and-language-learning/regional-minority-languages-france

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          I mean China definitely does it.

          Tibeten “re-education” anyone? They stole the playbook for Tibet right from america dealing with native Americans, but with a little less outright killing. Uyghurs is less language genocide and more actual genocide and concentration/slave camps.

          America did it and does it with native americans. Americans did it with literally every single group that came into the country with their whole “English isn’t our official language but you better speak English or be ostracized” through its history.

          Literally every nation has tried at one point.

          I am pretty sure language erasure is not “a form of genocide”, but “a component of recognizing genocide” or something that states thag commit genocide commonly do. I have looked at a bunch of definitions and genocide definition seems to always involve actually killing people:

          any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

          (a) Killing members of the group;
          (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
          (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
          (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[3]
          

          My point was that every nation does it simply because of nationalism and ease of administration. Governments already run bad enough without having to keep 25 running translations of every document.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        France’s historic language policy is certainly highly problematic yes. Although the point is not genocide but class warfare and/or colonialism, not that it’s much of an improvement.

        And now do Belgium. French is the language of the elites (the monarchy and, historically, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie) but also a minority regional language. Is Flanders banning French on public signage a form of oppression? I personally think it’s stupid Flemish nationalism but I wouldn’t call it oppression.

        So how about we stop making blanket statements. Moscow’s erasure of Belarusian identity is at least oppressive and imperialistic and follows a long history of oppression. IDK if that qualifies as genocide (IMHO that undermines the gravity of something like the Holodomor), but something not strictly being genocide doesn’t make it unimportant.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 days ago

        First of all, great job whatabouting. Second of all, yes, that is a form of genocide.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      An interesting definition you propose. I’ll need a bit more convincing, but I’m open to updating my terminology

      For example (and I’m analyzing from the worst case here, not actually arguing for the following) I wouldn’t say removing confederate statues is an attempted genocide in the South.

      I would say there are plenty of people who would love to call it such by your definition of the term.

      • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        25 days ago

        Genocide Convention

        Participation in the Genocide Convention

        Signed and ratified

        Acceded or succeeded

        Only signed

        On 9 December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG);[19] it came into effect on 12 January 1951 after 20 countries ratified it without reservations.[20] The convention’s definition of genocide was adopted verbatim by the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and by the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).[21]Genocide is defined as:

        … any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a nationalethnicalracial or religious group, as such:

        • (a) Killing members of the group;
        • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        • © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
        • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
        • (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[3]

        Definitions

        Main article: Genocide definitions

        The definition of genocide generates controversy whenever a new case arises and debate erupts as to whether or not it qualifies as a genocide. Sociologist Martin Shaw writes, “Few ideas are as important in public debate, but in few cases are the meaning and scope of a key idea less clearly agreed.”[41][42] Some scholars and activists use the Genocide Convention definition.[14] Others prefer narrower definitions that indicate genocide is rare in human history, reducing genocide to mass killing[43] or distinguishing it from other types of violence by the innocence,[44] helplessness, or defencelessness of its victims.[45] Most genocides occur during wartime, and distinguishing genocide or genocidal war from non-genocidal warfare can be difficult.[46] Likewise, genocide is distinguished from violent and coercive forms of rule that aim to change behavior rather than destroy groups.[47][48] Some definitions include political or social groups as potential victims of genocide.[49] Many of the more sociologically oriented definitions of genocide overlap that of the crime against humanity of extermination, which refers to large-scale killing or induced death as part of a systematic attack on a civilian population.[50] Isolated or short-lived phenomena that resemble genocide can be termed genocidal violence.[51]

        Cultural genocide or ethnocide—actions targeted at the reproduction of a group’s language, culture, or way of life[52]—was part of Raphael Lemkin’s original concept, and its proponents in the 1940s argued that it, along with physical genocide, were two mechanisms aiming at the same goal: destruction of the targeted group. Because cultural genocide clearly applied to some colonial and assimilationist policies, several states with overseas colonies threatened to refuse to ratify the convention unless it was excluded.[53] Most genocide scholars believe that both cultural genocide and structural violence should be included in the definition of genocide, if committed with intent to destroy the targeted group.[54]Although included in Lemkin’s original concept and by some scholars, political groups were also excluded from the Genocide Convention. The result of this exclusion was that perpetrators of genocide could redefine their targets as being a political or military enemy, thus excluding them from consideration.[55]

      • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        There’s ratified UN conventions on what is legally considered genocide…

        I would suggest that instead of sourcing your understanding of genocide from Lemmy comments, you go read it, or at least it’s Wikipedia entry.

        Also yes, cultural erasure can be an act of genocide, but I doubt the Belarus situation would quality at the moment. Given their governments participation in the assimilation, it probably requires some additional actions, or metrics. But, it’s not like I’m a human rights lawyer, so maybe I’m wrong.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        25 days ago

        It’s not my definition.

        You could compare with schools for the indigenous people of the US and Canada. They forced the kids into them, cut their hair, gave them new names, made them speak only English… That’s also a form of genocide. It’s not just directly killing people.

      • zabadoh@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        25 days ago

        Language is much more than words in a dictionary.

        Each language carries its original cultural concepts and ways of thinking.

        • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          Kicked up your comment, but can’t tell if sarcasm or missing my stating that I’m steel manning.

          The amount of drops I’m getting leads me to believe most people don’t care that I was steel manning for the sake of argument. But people are agreeing that taking down the confederate monuments would be akin to genocide, so maybe this community is very different from what I expected.

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        I wouldn’t say removing confederate statues is an attempted genocide in the South.

        You wouldn’t say removing statues erected as part of a massive centuries long campaign of terrorism and genocide isn’t genocide?

        How enlightened of you.

  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    Lukashenko sold his country and nation to the horror and suffering that is Russia.

    I doubt everyone will be on board with this.

  • P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    25 days ago

    Don’t you like when some big country forces their language in your region?

    (I despise the English language by the way)