Other Sunni families have been ethnically cleansed and forced to take refuge in Dhuluiyyah.
Now as we all know, the phrase "ethnic cleansing" came into wide usage in the 90's during the Yugoslav war(s) to describe the forcible removal of various populations from certain areas. "Ethnic" and "areas" seem to be the key concepts here and that is why I find the above statement rather odd.
First of all, the incident described involves people of same ethnic origin, but different religious persuasions. The atrocities comitted by Sunnis on Shiites and vice-versa would therefore be most fittingly referred to as confessional cleansing (and believe it or not, I got 105 Google hits).
And secondly, ethnic cleansing or indeed any kind of cleansing and cleaning requires an object, something the dirt or filth is removed from. Tools can be cleansed, houses can be cleansed, files can be cleansed (either of incriminating data or formatting). But families? What can they be cleansed of? Could it be that the object of this verb phrase is not something the dirt is removed from, but rather something to be removed as dirt?
Apparently so. And it's not the first time these words are used in this manner, as evidenced by this 1999 Time article on the forgotten victims of the Yugoslav war(s):
The ethnic cleansing of Kosovo’s estimated 100,000 Gypsies began only after the Serbs withdrew...
Here (and in many other similar contexts) we have a group of people who have been removed from a territory. And while the act of such removal can be described as "ethnic cleansing" of the said territory, the phrase "ethnic cleansing of people X" clearly means "the removal of people X", without any indication as to where from, i.e. without any indication as to what is being cleaned. Similarly, the verb "to ethnically cleanse" (as in the example by Juan Cole above) can only mean "to drive out, to expel, to remove, to displace" (of a group of people). I suspect that once the original term gained wide circulation, the emergence of the verb "to ethnically cleanse" was only inevitable. But still, it is a rather interesting shift. Any other thoughts?
P.S.: I wish this phrase and this post had never existed. I really do.
5 comments:
“Sectarian cleansing” is the more common term. I don’t think it’s descriptively legitimate to say that religion cant’t be an ethnic differentiator; it’s exactly the difference between Serbs and Croats, Poles and Belarussians, and many Urdu-speaking Pakistanis and Hindi-speaking Indians, for example.
"Sectarian cleansing" makes sense, thanks Aidan.
As for religion as an ethnic differentiator, it certainly applies to Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks and people in Pakistan and India. But still, there are linguistic, historic and cultural differences between Serbs and Croats and Urdu and Hindi speakers, respectively. This does not apply to Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.
I'm not so sure about Poles and Belarussians, though. After all, Poles are Western Slavs while Belarus is an Eastern Slavic nation.
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton pas cher
omega watches
rolex uk
iphone case uk
nike air max uk
lululemon pants
toms shoes
longchamp
michael kors outlet
mulberry outlet,mulberry handbags outlet
michael kors outlet store
tory burch outlet online
ugg uk outlet
true religion jeans
michael kors factory outlet
cazal outlet
michael kors handbags
ray-ban sunglasses
canada goose outlet store
nike air max 90
rolex watches outlet
michael kors canada
montblanc pens
ugg boots clearance
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
gucci outlet online
iphone case
cheap mlb jerseys
swarovski jewelry
fitflops sale clearance
coach factory outlet
longchamp pliage
ugg outlet
20160804caihuali
hermes birkin
pandora outlet
christian louboutin outlet
birkenstock sandals
fit flops
ray ban sunglasses outlet
louboutin chaussures
longchamp outlet
christian louboutin
tommy hilfiger shoes
2017042caiyan
q8l29k1h91 g5z69f6p88 g3t97w8b94 p0v43u5d52 f3p56c8z23 l6d33e4e08
Post a Comment