Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

It's not more complicated here, in this story, where Reuters got confirmation from the Buddhist villagers who participated in the mass murder. So I'm not sure why it's important that we take into account the fact that hungry people displaced into refugee camps to escape a genocide might lie to get better rations --- which is the "other side of the story" your link reveals. The people Reuters is writing about in this story didn't make it that far, did they?

Unfortunately more important than the victims themselves in this story is the confirmation Reuters has now provided to so much of the rest of the narrative about Rakhine. Soldiers disguised themselves while committing atrocities. We know this now because Reuters found paramilitaries and police officers to confirm it. Orders were specifically given to "clear" Rohingya villages. Same. Buddhist neighbors torched the village itself. We know this because Buddhists have now admitted to it, to Reuters. The government fabricated a terrorist attack. We know because the victims of the supposed attack deny it occurred.

What happened in Inn Dinn was too systematized to have happened only in Inn Dinn. It happened, in general, throughout Rakhine, the way the Rohingya displaced said it did.

I think the point was that "Buddhist" is probably not the most apt word to describe the people who did these things. Buddhist may well be part of their cultural or personal identities, but to most Americans and Europeans at least, I suspect that labeling these people primarily as "Buddhist" is not actually useful, and in fact in the minds of an audience mostly unfamiliar with Buddhism, much less with the society where this happened in Myanmar, such a style tends to associate Buddhism with the activities described, when there's no link. Ultimately, using "Buddhists" and "Muslims" to distinguish the two groups is just sloppy reporting.

Again, this may be an important difference between members of the two groups, but like any conflict between groups, the differences in identity are what get played up and pointed out, when the differences are rarely the _reason_ for the conflict. They're a way to manipulate people into joining a side, or to cultivate political resentment, or to explain a complex situation in a simple way for a mass audience. But such reporting only buys into and amplifies the artificial distinctions that feed the conflict. The reporters do no favors to these people by oversimplifying the situation.

What other word would be more appropriate?

The GO suggested "Arakan people", but that would imply that Rohingya are not inhabitants of Arakan, which would be plainly wrong and politically biased. For the same reason "Arakanese villagers" is not possible. "Non-Rohingya" is unambiguous, but not suitable for many reasons.

Moreover, some Buddhist monks had public preaches violently against Muslims, so the religion played a role in this conflict.

Lastly, if you open any history book about the last world war, you'll read about "German" soldiers committing crimes against Jews. They did not commit these because they were Germans, nor did every German from these years bear responsibility for these, but the word is still appropriate.

> where Reuters got confirmation from the Buddhist villagers who participated in the mass murder

What do you propose we do? There is "mass murder" all over the world, and as the major faiths go, Christianity globally is much more zealously persecuted than Islam. Why is this particular flash point of religious strife being given such a disproportionate amount of attention by Reuters and other major western media outlets?

Because it's currently a genocide. Genocides should get media attention.

Are you suggesting that there is a bias in Western media against Christians and in favour of Muslims? That would be the first time I've heard such an accusation.

Note, that you are not beeing downvoted because of the issue you are trying to focus on (religious persecution is a topic worth its own consideration no matter what flavour of religion or lack thereof), but because you are trying to relativize genocide with whataboutism.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact