On the banning of the Cham language during the Cambodian genocide. 1/n
Krauchhmar. 1975. "...many local Chams... rebelled when they learned of the DK plan to ban their religion and language, to make them eat pork, and to break up Cham communities." 2/n
Tbaung Khmum. 1975. "It was also expressly forbidden to speak Cham: 'We were not allowed to use the [Cham] words yas [mother] or chik [father] to address our parents. We had to use the [Khmer] words me and pak.'" 3/n
Peareang. 1976. "...in 1976 Khmer Rouge pressure on ordinary Chams began. Religion was banned, as was the Cham language. 'They said to us: Chams who eat pork, and are prepared to raise and slaughter pigs, will be spared.'" 4/n
Koh Thom. 1976. "The Khmer Rouge closed the mosques, banned Islam, and prohibited Cham as a 'foreign language.'" 5/n
Takeo. "In 1977, the Cham language was banned. Nao Gha recalls that Khmer Rouge cadres said that now only the Khmer language was allowed: 'There are no Vietnamese, Chinese, Javanese—only the Khmer race. Everyone is the same.' Nao Gha claims that the Khmer Rouge 'hated' Chams" 6/n
Pursat & Battambang. 1976. "...the Khmer /rouge called a meeting and the cooperative chief Hâm announced that only the Khmer language would be tolerated from then on. Hosan adds: 'Not only Cham but any language, e.g. Chinese or Lao, was forbidden.'" 7/n
"You could not speak Cham secretly at home, either. If they heard you, you would disappear. Even at night militia would come by the houses and listen... Some Chams were killed for speaking Cham." 8/n
To this, @AlexLHinton adds in his book 'Why Did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide'... 10/n
@AlexLHinton "All Chams were expected to stop using their 'foreign' language and renounce their religion." The effort to destroy Cham identity was based on the idea that they could not develop a "proper revolutionary consciousness" due to their identity attachment. 11/n
@AlexLHinton Therefore, the regime "responded with a policy of forced assimilation and outright murder... Overall, approximately 90,000 of Cambodia's 250,000 Chams—over a third of the Cham population... perished." /fin
like, i don't know how i am but i do know if i've eaten
lol i remember reading an argument that 'the Chinese' greet each other with 'have you eaten yet' because of the frequent famines in China, and asking if you've eaten was supposed to be a sign of concern in the context of persistent scarcity...
...which is more or less like saying that 'how are you?' emerged as a greeting under modernity, where depression and anxiety are widespread and we have thus developed a lingua-culture of concern...
"How could it be possible to know a person's identity with certainty enough to kill?" asked Liisa Malkii when she interviewed Hutu refugees who had fled slaughter in Burundi. "There are symbols for recognizing a Hutu," one man replied 1/n
One - the hands. Two - ankle bones. Three - the calves. Four - gums. And "the fifth symbol was the language spoken - since the Tutsi do not speak like the Hutu." 2/n
"Their voice, their language... They have a haughtiness in their language... Example: For 'you!'—do you understand? You! ... So for 'you!' the Hutu says 'sha!' The Tutsi says 'hya!'..." 3/n
For NAIDOC, Channel 10 did the weather using Indigenous place names. Let’s have a look at some of the reactions. (CW - racism). 1/n
Some bloke I’ve never heard of and won’t link to decided to write a blog post about the use of Indigenous place names on the weather map. Here’s the post in full. Snide, condescending, ignorant and hateful. 2/n
The rest of the reactions here are from a Twitter thread sharing the original blog post. The point of sharing them is to demonstrate the pushback that exists to the use of Indigenous languages in public in Australia. 3/n
So @shaunrein is a full-blown denialist. Let’s use the five features of denialism from Diethelm & McKee to examine what he’s doing and why it is denialism.
Sean thinks the western media is a conspiracy to deceive ppl about Tibet. (I think the media is biased and often reports half truths-but it’s not a conspiracy).
2) the use of fake experts.
Sean is himself the fake expert. He knows nothing about language politics and policy, but he thinks his status as eye witness enables him to debunk the ‘myths’ about Tibet. It doesn’t.