General Question

walterallenhaxton's avatar

What do you think of the ethnic cleansing now going on in Alabama USA?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

benseven's avatar

Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory.

While I think what is happening to these folks is terrible, I think calling it ‘ethnic cleansing’ is going a little far.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

I’m going to second @benseven‘s assertion that this isn’t quite ethnic cleansing, meaning the systematic removal of an entire race. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it unjust? Yes. Is it racially motivated? Yes. Is it biased? Yes. Is it, above all, wrong? Quite. Is it comparable to the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide? Not quite.

bythebay's avatar

If you took the term cleansing and attempted to narrow it down further to the term expulsion, it would still be a stretch. Nonetheless, it is a terribly sad situation. Additionally, I don’t think the motive appears to be rooted in a desire for ethnic homogeneity, but rather commercial development.

David Beito is a very well respected author & historian. It is commendable that he is shining a light onto the corruption.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

Do you really think that they will stop with blacks and not go on to others who look different. There is no such thing as a viable community without it’s poor population. There are many jobs that they do that would be too expensive to do with highly payed middle class workers and such people would be soon bored with those jobs.
They are removing racial groups. If blacks can not be considered an ethnicity they can still be considered to be a group that is being removed because they are different from the removers..

Darwin's avatar

It is a sad situation, but the article to which you refer does not restrict the victims to any particular ethnic group, unless you consider poor landowners an ethnicity. While the majority of the folks mentioned in the article are black, not all are of that race or ancestry (note Kim Rafferty is included). There is no information as to the race or ethnicity of the ones practicing eminent domain, either.

It would appear that it is the rich against the poor, the haves versus the have nots, the politically connected opposed to the politically naive, and dirty city politics as usual, not ethnic cleansing.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

@walterallenhaxton, I don’t know where you get the statement that “There is no such thing as a viable community with its poor population.” It seems to me that such a thing does exist, although very rarely in the USA not commonly elsewhere. Admittedly, this is terrible, and yes, it does reek of racism. I doubt this would be happening if those affected were white or even middle-class. But that doesn’t mean it’s happening because they’re black. It looks to me as if the state wants this land for economic growth and is relying on racism to accomplish its goals. But I don’t think the original intent is to remove the blacks from their land. Certainly, it may happen again and probably will, but it looks as if racism is not the original intent but rather a depressing facet of the reasoning behind the action.

justwannaknow's avatar

I believe in ethnic cleansing, house cleansing and even car cleansing. I HATE DIRTY PEOPLE AND THINGS! ( yes, I know what you are really talking about and it is as ridiculous as my answer.)

squirbel's avatar

Living in this backasswards state of Alabama [I’m originally from Michigan], I am not surprised in the least.

Here in my town, Huntsville, people are up in arms because the city is moving semi-self-sufficient [poor working people] housing down into the south end; basically the wealthy side of town. One person is quoted as saying “You mean my children will have to go to school with poor people and minorities?”

It’s downright disgusting.

Not only that, but the city manages its responsibilities with discretion. I’ve been to the North [poor] side of town, and there are potholes in the roads. If you come down south, the roads are just as old but they are pristine and in good repair.

I can’t wait until we move out of here.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

For me it is the information conveyed in a question that is important not the question it’s self. That is just the truck doing the hauling. I hope that something is done about these evil government people. It is not the business of government to tear down a persons house. The government is supposed to protect people from such things.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

I don’t agree with eminent domain and don’t think it should exist, but it does in fact exist for a reason, not just because of the “evil government people.”

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@quarkquarkquark These people do not even bother with eminent domain. The problem with government is that it licences the use of force by some people on others that are not using force on anybody.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Actually, they are bothering with eminent domain. That’s what the article you posted says.

And yeah, it sucks. But this isn’t a response to anything. Like I said before, the government wants the land and is taking the land. It’s bad. But it’s not about the people. It’s about the land.

And, I’m sorry—“The problem with government?” Government in general? The U.S. government? Alabama State government? City government? This particular action of government?

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@quarkquarkquark It is hard to find a government that is not taking. If you know of one let me know. I don’t think this is about land. I think it is about other peoples property what ever it is. Those who take it by force are not a legitimate force in society whether you call them a government or Sam the pickpocket and they need to be fought.
They are still individual people who steal using force or fraud.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

Okay, @walterallenhaxton, that is a legitimate viewpoint. I tend to shy away from referring to the government as criminal, simply because criminal is a term relative to the law of the land. I would prefer to refer to a specific action as “immoral,” for example.

What I’m saying is that this is not going on as an attempt at “ethnic cleansing.” This is not inherently an evil action. I’m not arguing that this is somehow legitimate. I’m saying that the idea behind the action is not to deprive black people of their land, it is to take the land from the black people. This is a fine distinction, but ethically an important one to make.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@quarkquarkquark I can’t see the distinction. Taking toys from the other kids is punished. Nothing changes about that when you grow up. If you are a government you just wave a gun in their faces and get away with it most of the time.
I do not know why you shy away from calling that a crime and the organization that does it a criminal organization. If ownership exists then a crime is committed when force is used to change owners.
To have any kind of society at all you must recognize ownership. If you don’t then production is almost impossible and those who do produce must produce weapons to defend themselves and be ready to use them. If they do then property has been established again until they are defeated. Specialization rapidly follows.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

I shy away from it because it’s rhetoric. It is an inherently extreme statement that is unnecessary to make the point or promote change. I agree with everything that you’ve stated as to why this is bad. But you keep suggesting that the intent is racist. I disagree. The method by which the intent is accomplished is racist. Like I said before, that is a very important distinction.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@quarkquarkquark Maybe not racist but it is attacking a group. The poor. I can’t know from the article that they are all black but the poor deserve equal protection under the law and the courts decisions enforce as does anybody else.
I know that the poor are not organized but neither are the races. They are just identifiable as having certain characteristics.
Since when were so called developers entitled to use eminent domain. I hate the whole concept of some group having the right to take someones property just because they outnumber him.

quarkquarkquark's avatar

You are really ignoring what I’ve been saying and I can’t make it any clearer.

benseven's avatar

Before this turns into a fight, Walter you really need to re-read what quark has been saying. He’s not justifying the actions of the government, but he’s right about your assessment of the racial intent – it’s incorrect.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther