?>
Search for all polls, all stream feature posts, all deathmatch postsFind People featurePersonal Wikis Feature v0Site forums integrated better with the site + other upgradesDraft Saving feature"My Active" Forum Feed type and Newest Posts linkHUGE POSSIBLY CONFUSING CHANGE: All forum indexes switched to hottest (with indicators); a setting to revert this or make it replies
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Creative Forum


Moderated By: KM8
Ending Genocide by Ending Race
Posted: Posted September 8th, 2018 by chiarizio

On Facebook today a schoolteacher posted that she had asked her class to figure out how genocide could be eliminated. They decided (after a lot of work, I imagine) the issue was very complex, and there probably was no way to end it. She then asked us if we could think of a way.

I replied that I had thought of a way, but I don’t think it will ever be tried.

Remember in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, that there was an effort to end school segregation, by bussing children from one school-district to another? And school-segregation did “end”, though maybe not because of bussing, and there are continuing attempts to evade integration.

I suggested a global, worldwide analog to bussing, governing residence, workplace, and mate-selection.

—————

ObConWorld:

What kind of specifics would something like that have?

I suggest something like the following.

A young adult must settle a minimum distance of 1,000 nautical miles from his/her own birthplace, and the birthplace(s), residence(s), and graves of either of their parents, any of their siblings, any of their grandparents, and any of their aunts and/or uncles: UNLESS they have at least two siblings or first cousins —— at least one of each sex —— who has so settled. And they must reside within such an area for at least 18 (20? 35?) years, not traveling more than 250 (125? 500?) nautical miles from their new home. (333 nautical miles might be as good or better or even best. Also, maybe there would merely be a limit to the durations and/or frequencies of trips further than the limit.)

Also: a young adult must marry a mate of the opposite sex who likewise was born and raised at least 1000 nautical miles from the first-mentioned young adult’s birthplace and residence, and from the birthplaces and residences and graves of that first-mentioned young adult’s parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles; and, the mate’s parents’ and siblings’ and grandparents’ birthplaces, residences, and graves, must be at least 1000 nautical miles distant from the first-mentioned young adult’s places of birth and of upbringing; UNLESS the said young adult has at least two (four?) siblings or first-cousins —— at least one (two?) of each sex —— who is currently in such a marriage.

After five or six generations, there’d have been so much “race-mixing” or “miscegenation”, and so large a majority of the population would be a mixture of at least 4 races, that it would be obvious, to even the most obtuse, that the idea that humanity is divided into “races”, is purest fiction. Or that’s what I guess.

If “genocide” means “the murder of a race”, and everyone agrees there aren’t any races, there can’t be any more genocide.

————

Why? I basically pulled all of the numbers out of a hat.
I have some rationale for the 1000 nautical miles.
First I thought 1000 kilometers is too small; so is 1000 statute miles.
1000 nautical miles is 16 and 2/3 degrees.
That’s a bit more than half the north-south width of Australia.
It’s more than 2/3 the north-south width of the contiguous continental mainland U.S.A.
And it’s a bit less than half of the north-south width of mainland Europe.

So anyone born in the center of any of those places, would have to either relocate to, or seek a spouse from, a different continent (or whatever the USA is), or the extreme edges of their home continent/union.

The required exogamy would accomplish the elimination of racial distinctions within five or six generations, I think.

It might be also good to require ethnic exogamy, for ethnicities that somehow transcend race. Required religious exogamy, for instance; and/or required linguistic exogamy; and/or required occupational exogamy.

———

First question:
Would such policies actually produce the desired results?

Second question:
Should some of the details be tweaked, or even twonked?
(I.e. minor adjustments or major adjustments)

Third question:
How much resistance would there be to such a policy or policies?

Fourth:
How would that resistance be overcome?

Fifth:
Would that resistance change as time went on?

Sixth:
What would life be like after these policies have taken effect?

Seventh:
How would it come about that these policies might be implemented or imposed or decided on in the first place?

————

I welcome comment.

I’d like to tell a collaborative story set during this multigenerational event.

settingsOptions
There are 3 Replies

I think, maybe, a requirement that, to get a high-school diploma, or a bachelor’s degree, or an associate’s degree, or something, a person should be required to go to school and/or work for at least one full year, in a place at least 10,000 kilometers from their place of upbringing, or maybe at least 6,667 km.

Maybe, they can’t inherit anything from a parent or grandparent or uncle or aunt, until they’ve spent such a year.

Maybe they have to do it to get a high school diploma; do it again to get a baccalaureate; and do it a third time to get a doctorate or MD or LLD or J.D.

If they have to do it more than once, maybe the places have to be at least 2500 km or at least 2000 km from each other.

Maybe to finish middle school (8th grade) they have to know at least two languages; to finish high school they have to know at least three languages; and to finish college they have to know at least four languages.

Perhaps there might be some requirements that, to get certain certifications or licenses or jobs, a person must:
1) master at least one language with at least 1,000,000,000 speakers (including L2 speakers);
2) master at least two (including the above one) languages with at least 125,000,000 speakers (including non-native speakers) each;
3) master at least three (including the above two) languages with at least 15,625,000 (L1+L2) speakers each;
4) master at least four (including the above three) languages with at least 1,953,125 speakers (native and L2) each.

I suggest the first requirement might cover the most people; the second might cover more than half; the third requirement might cover almost half; and the fourth requirement might cover a large minority.

—————

This would guarantee that most people would have some exposure to other places, other peoples, and other languages. And the more influential they can become, the more cosmopolitan exposure they’d be guaranteed to have.

Nativism and ethnocentrism and ignorance-based bigotry might be much inhibited that way. I don’t know that it would be eliminated.

Posted September 9th, 2018 by chiarizio

I imagine people actually in “the language business” might also be required to learn and know a fifth language, with at least 244,140 speakers (native and non-).

Maybe people “in the language biz” should also be required to master some rarer languages, or moribund languages?
Maybe:
  • a language with only 50 or fewer surviving native speakers;
  • another with only 2,500 or fewer surviving native speakers:
  • another with only 125,000 or fewer surviving native speakers; (not the worst degree of danger)
  • another with only 6,250,000 or fewer surviving native speakers; (safe-ish, maybe?)
  • and finally another with only 312,500,000 or fewer surviving native speakers. (Likely not considered endangered, I guess.)

    That might slow down language extinction, and the decline of linguistic diversity.

    Some of the above are likelier considered rare, rather than moribund.

  • Posted September 9th, 2018 by chiarizio

    Any attempt to end race-based hate-crimes by blurring or eliminating the (imaginary, I must insist) “distinction” between races, would be considered “genocide” by some vocal people in the modern context. So such a solution would never be implemented without criticism and resistance; and, therefore, probably, never without force. Too bad!

    —————

    OTOH ensuring that many people travel and/or otherwise become acquainted with and/or familiar to people different from those they grew up around, would probably be the target of (maybe just as much, but) a gentler quality of criticism, and less resistance. It might therefore be cheaper.

    Posted September 25th, 2018 by chiarizio
    Reply to: Ending Genocide by Ending Race
    Enter your message here

    Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
    GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on