None of the above? Are you getting confused between comment threads?
You said:
I’m saying that when your country is invaded, worrying about respecting the people who’s culture is the same as the invader’s is a great way to get a bunch of fifth columnists. And I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that. Similarly, despite the many British people of German heritage, in 1939, their “unique British-German culture” was not relevant and was not respected and should not have been.
Which I pointed out was the same logic behind Japanese internment camps.
Everything else had been about the article, including speaking Russian in Odessa. I think you’re arguing genocide on another thread?
This was the rationale behind America’s Japanese internment camps, which in my opinion, weren’t great.
I mean there’s a happy medium between not allowing things like allowing them to openly celebrate Russian stuff and putting them in internment camps…
To be clear, you think Japanese Americans shouldn’t have been allowed to speak Japanese anymore?
How long should this have persisted?
I never even came close to suggesting any such thing.
That’s a chunk of what the article is about. That’s one of the main things…
What do you think the article is about?
I thought we were trying to define what counts as genocide, not what this article is about. Which are we doing?
None of the above? Are you getting confused between comment threads?
You said:
Which I pointed out was the same logic behind Japanese internment camps.
Everything else had been about the article, including speaking Russian in Odessa. I think you’re arguing genocide on another thread?
Okay, so if we’re neither talking about what counts as genocide or the article then this part makes no sense:
Which is it?
Are you high?
Just read the comment thread, pay attention to usernames.
No idea where you’re getting genocide from my comments.