NationStates Jolt Archive

Ethnic cleansing, homocide bombers...I'm sure there are many more terms that I'm unfamiliar with that exist within the media, in various places around the world. What I want to know is why the common man tends to use these media terms. All these terms happen to be are clean versions of what they really mean. Ethnic cleansing, for instance, is genocide. It doesn't make it any prettier or cleaner to use a term like ethnic cleansing. It's genocide no matter what you call it.

Quite frankly, to be honest, I'm actually disgusted with these terms. They both insult my intelligence and attempt to pass off something horrifying and unacceptable--such as genocide--as something that is neat and clean and whatnot. So, why do people use them, anyway?

homocide bombers?
Those are people who kill gay people.

And rightly so.

Ive never heard theword ethnic cleansing used positively. It always had a slightly more malicious ring to it than "genocide".

The maliciousness of "ethnic cleansing" comes from is detachment to the reality of the problem. It is a barbaric concept covered up with neutral terminology.

I happen to think that Ethnic Cleansing is an effective term, since, unless I'm sadly mistaken, coined by that bastard Milosevic himself!


EDIT: I think Ethnic Cleansing sounds more evil than Genocide!

Those are people who kill gay people.

And rightly so.
Um...no. As I recall, it is a term created by Fox News to replace the term "suicide bombers."

"ethnic cleansing" has always seem a pretty twisted term to me... it sounds just as horrible, the sickening idea of "cleansing" a population of a ethnic group by killing them... *shudders*

Ethnic cleansing has a more subtle meaning - it is the forced redistribution of populations within a geographic area, rather than outright extermination.

Ethnic cleansing has a more subtle meaning - it is the forced redistribution of populations within a geographic area, rather than outright extermination.

Ive never heard it used that way either, Only in the context of outright extermination

Ethnic cleansing has a more subtle meaning - it is the forced redistribution of populations within a geographic area, rather than outright extermination.
Ah, indeed. Though I thought it could be either?

American Heritage® Dictionary: Description of ethnic cleansing
NOUN: The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

Ive never heard it used that way either, Only in the context of outright extermination

Only once have I heard it used another way. That was the sending of Asians from Eastern africa out of Africa. They used Ethnic cleansing as a term. Every other time though, from Bosnia, to Kosovo, to Macedonia, Serbia, Rwanda, etc, all have Genocidial connotations.

Ethnic cleansing has a more subtle meaning - it is the forced redistribution of populations within a geographic area, rather than outright extermination.

Ethnic Cleansing: The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

Thanks though.

Ive never heard it used that way either, Only in the context of outright extermination
http://www.answers.com/ethnic+cleansing?nafid=3

edit: darnit.... bit slow with the definiton, wasn't i?

Um...no. As I recall, it is a term created by Fox News to replace the term "suicide bombers."
I believe you have a common condition known as "can't-take-a-lame-joke-at-face-value-itis"

Ive never heard it used that way either, Only in the context of outright extermination
The term is frequently misused.

Although when ethnic cleansing takes place, hundreds or even thousands of people may be killed in a given area, the real goal is to get the far larger population of which they are a part, to leave the area.

Bosnia is the original example - hundreds of people were killed in individual massacres, but the goal was to evict communities numbering in the tens of thousands, effectively filtering entire neighbourhoods and setting up opposing ghettos and ethnically partitioned regions within the country.

Wholesale extermination of a whole people, was not seriously on the agenda. Despite the rhetoric, the actual goals were more modest.

Ethnic Cleansing: The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

Thanks though.
That definition clouds the issue and is not particularly helpful. I am not too concerned with definitions which reflect common usage. The politics behind this are more subtle.

i must say my understanding of the phrase is the same as tactical graces. its the forced movement of an entire group of people, but does not necessarily mean their genocide.

why have two words if they are the same thing?

I believe you have a common condition known as "can't-take-a-lame-joke-at-face-value-itis"
Currently, I am in a mode where I take everything I hear seriously(currently, this is due to waiting for a call back from the bank about a loan application.) Please forgive me.

As for this new information on the term ethnic cleansing, I find it confusing then why so many people use it interchangeably with genocide. If it's really more about driving a certain populace out of an area, then why not only use it for such situations and apply genocide to all others?

Well, although it doesn't always involve genocide (i.e., you make them run away by threatening to kill them), it still involves death and violence on a massive scale towards a civilian population.

In fact, it's more important in an ethnic cleansing campaign to frighten the civilians into leaving than it is to defeat any real military they might have.

Shelling a city for days by missile - makes people run away. Yes, the military is still defending the area, but no one lives there anymore.

Anyway, as to the OP, they call it "ethnic cleansing" because "large scale assfuck" doesn't sound so nice in speeches.

Currently, I am in a mode where I take everything I hear seriously(currently, this is due to waiting for a call back from the bank about a loan application.) Please forgive me.

Hey, no problem. :)

Ethnic cleansing, homocide bombers...I'm sure there are many more terms that I'm unfamiliar with that exist within the media, in various places around the world. What I want to know is why the common man tends to use these media terms. All these terms happen to be are clean versions of what they really mean. Ethnic cleansing, for instance, is genocide. It doesn't make it any prettier or cleaner to use a term like ethnic cleansing. It's genocide no matter what you call it.

Quite frankly, to be honest, I'm actually disgusted with these terms. They both insult my intelligence and attempt to pass off something horrifying and unacceptable--such as genocide--as something that is neat and clean and whatnot. So, why do people use them, anyway?

A. They respect the authority of a news anchor's use of a word. Moreso if all the news anchors use the word.

B. After seeing disturbing moving or frightening newsstories people are going to talk about them. When describing their views of the news story people are likely to use many of the same words used in the original story.


In my mind the term "Ethnic Cleansing" is more chilling and real than the term "Genocide" because it has spin that can be thought of as positive in some quarters.
Anyway Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing are two seperate and in one way opposite things. Genocide is killing all the people of a certain ethnicity in a given area. Ethnic cleansing is leaving only one certain ethnicity of people alive in a given area.

Um...no. As I recall, it is a term created by Fox News to replace the term "suicide bombers."
Because as we all know, how can a non-person commit suicide? :rolleyes:

Irony is dead.

homocide bombers.

I'm unfamiliar with that one too....

I imagine you mean suicide bombers?

Any bomber that kills someone is a "homocide" bomber.

A bomber that kills themselves is a suicide bomber.

The term is frequently misused.

Although when ethnic cleansing takes place, hundreds or even thousands of people may be killed in a given area, the real goal is to get the far larger population of which they are a part, to leave the area.

Bosnia is the original example - hundreds of people were killed in individual massacres, but the goal was to evict communities numbering in the tens of thousands, effectively filtering entire neighbourhoods and setting up opposing ghettos and ethnically partitioned regions within the country.

Wholesale extermination of a whole people, was not seriously on the agenda. Despite the rhetoric, the actual goals were more modest.

You could also add that a large part of ethnic cleansing was state sponsored sociopathy or psychopathy writ large. THe whole of Yugoslavia had been repressed under Tito to the point that nationalism was not even talked about so that when the lid did come off, it came off explosively.

I would agree with the majority of what you said as whilst in Bosnia myself I witnessed the aftermath of ethnic cleansing first hand and saw the effect it had on society. It fractured the nation into mutually distrusting ghettos where the natural order was antipathy.

Ethnic cleansing, homocide bombers...I'm sure there are many more terms that I'm unfamiliar with that exist within the media, in various places around the world. What I want to know is why the common man tends to use these media terms. All these terms happen to be are clean versions of what they really mean. Ethnic cleansing, for instance, is genocide. It doesn't make it any prettier or cleaner to use a term like ethnic cleansing. It's genocide no matter what you call it.
Don't forget the ultimate in euphemisms, "collateral damage". :mad:

I'm unfamiliar with that one too....

I imagine you mean suicide bombers?

Any bomber that kills someone is a "homocide" bomber.

A bomber that kills themselves is a suicide bomber.
It's not one I hear often, but supposedly, Fox News refuses to call suicide bombers what they are. They, instead, call them homicide bombers.

It is quite simply a way to give the terrible a bearable face. For example at the "Wansee Konferenz" the terminology the nazis used for their actions was "evacuation." Sometimes it is too much already to have to carry out such brutal and inhumane actions, to not blanket them and portray them in their full horror makes it even tougher to bear.

I'm unfamiliar with that one too....

I imagine you mean suicide bombers?

Any bomber that kills someone is a "homocide" bomber.

A bomber that kills themselves is a suicide bomber.

Actually, it's "homicide" bomber...:)

In response to peoples arguing about the Ethnic Cleansing term. It was coined to be used interchangibly with Genocide, though it doesn't always have to imply violent means, it just tends to. Many world leaders, Milosevic, Hitler, etc, have found it much easier to just kill their "problems" rather than take the time to move them.

Ethnic cleansing, homocide bombers...I'm sure there are many more terms that I'm unfamiliar with that exist within the media, in various places around the world. What I want to know is why the common man tends to use these media terms. All these terms happen to be are clean versions of what they really mean. Ethnic cleansing, for instance, is genocide. It doesn't make it any prettier or cleaner to use a term like ethnic cleansing. It's genocide no matter what you call it.

Quite frankly, to be honest, I'm actually disgusted with these terms. They both insult my intelligence and attempt to pass off something horrifying and unacceptable--such as genocide--as something that is neat and clean and whatnot. So, why do people use them, anyway?
Because they mistakenly feel it is gentler than "fucking murder" and "get the hell out of my nation, you animal!"